'Sidelining the paper'

12:38pm Friday 18th January 2008

Comments (94)   Have your say »

I WAS in Watford over Christmas and bumped into a former senior official at Vicarage Road - an ex-director who, as with many down the years, was out of pocket on the experience (something of a rarity these days).

He seemed pleased to see me and claimed my ears must have been burning recently. Apparently a group of mature fans were talking about the news on Watford FC as it appears in the Watford Observer.

They contended nowadays the lack of news and any real relationship between the two bodies "only serves to demonstrate what a good journalist Oliver Phillips was".

It was nice to hear but I felt a little uncomfortable.

More recently, a friend drew my attention to the Watford Observer website and some criticism directed at the current writers on the subject of Watford FC and reporting on rumours.

Apparently, the standards have dropped "since Oliver Phillips graced the pages".

All of which is very pleasant and well meant. Yes, I like to think I was a good journalist but the fact Watford and the Watford Observer do not have a good relationship is not a reflection on the journalists who followed me.

They may have approached certain issues from a different direction and may have opted not to go too hard on certain aspects in the early days after I left, but their intentions were good, being Watford fans by heritage who would have preferred to have maintained the coverage at the old levels - levels that were established more than 120 years ago.

They have been unable to do this, frustrated at every turn.

For years, certainly since 1928, representatives of this newspaper have talked exclusively to the manager after the match and then had at least one hour in a one-to-one with him during the week. I know that policy was applied inconsistently once I had left. Now the manager will not even give out his phone number.

Further, there was an increase in the tendency during my final years for the club to tell their minions to hold back certain stories before slipping them in on their website on a Thursday evening, after they knew the paper had gone to press.

So much for the family club One day a fuller reflection on this era in the history of Watford FC will perhaps provide a more revisionist view on the personalities, politics and progress, and I hope to be around to contribute my two-penneth.

Yet, I think the time has come to clear up any misconceptions.

To be frank, I would have had a hard time dealing with today's Watford FC and their attitudes.

I am quite sure that long before now I would have brought down the wrath of the extremely thin-skinned upon my head and been told about "the very personal criticism of our personnel and unsupportive and unfair comment in your writings", a phrase used last week when the club again refused to co-operate with this newspaper.

It is the latest in a succession of spats and frankly I cannot see much changing.

We only have to go back to the time when the Watford Observer was banned because we had the temerity to publish fans' criticism of the manner in which Watford sold the Elton John concert tickets.

Newspaper representatives were summoned to the club, were harangued and then ushered to a small room where they were left to contemplate their sins and given a few minutes in which to decide to meet the club's extravagant demands for an apology.

I doubt if the club officials, chairman Graham Simpson and chief executive Mark Ashton, would have treated officials of the club's sponsors, Loans.co.uk, or Watford Council in the same manner but it was indicative of the shape of things to come.

It appeared they aimed to control the press. With my departure imminent, the club's attitude was obvious - do as we say or we will withdraw co-operation.

This newspaper was banned from the ground - a particularly heavy-handed action consistent with what the chairman later admitted in private "was a case of me going right over the top".

Yet, two weeks later, Simpson apologised to the fans over the handling of the sale of those concert tickets. He admitted the club was wrong but, significantly, his apology did not stretch to include the Watford Observer.

As I wrote upon my retirement, it appeared to me the club was trying to bring the newspaper into line, seeking to make it an adjunct and organ of support, as I see it, reducing the paper to little more than an extension of the club programme and website.

Since then, they have been able to cast the newspaper in the role of party-poopers because the club has had success and, as that is what the supporters care about most, any criticism can be made to seem churlish.

There is a tendency when things are going well to think the club can do no wrong just as it can do no right when struggling, yet both attitudes are wide of the mark.

Watford have won promotion and have the strength to do so again enabling a further stint of "troughing it" in the Premiership.

These factors have helped the financial stability - they certainly haven't had a new share flotation for at least 22 months - and they have further boosted their coffers by the sale of Ashley Young, whose champion Chris Cummins battled to keep him at Watford when his two-year scholarship expired. Cummins should really be made an honorary vice-president of the club.

So, when everything in the garden appears lovely perhaps the club feels able to flex muscles and pursue goals.

Of course, people will argue times have changed and I am an old buffer who knows little nowadays, stuck in rural France.

In fact, I know much about the goings-on behind the scenes and receive regular tut-tutting and head-shaking from the very numerous and credible disaffected, but I will keep my powder dry for the moment.

This article is not a criticism of Watford FC but a defence of the maligned journalists who are dealing with a Soviet-style regime that brooks no criticism and any defectors are sent to a legal Siberia, most of them signing confidentiality agreements on their departure from the club. For instance, Watford's longest-ever serving player, Nigel Gibbs, was unable to comment upon leaving the club.

The apparent policy of silencing the critics even saw Watford close down their own website forum for fans and, at one stage, trying to change the spokesman for the Supporters Trust because he (Pete Fincham) was critical of some club decisions.

Yes, times have changed. There used to be a couple of local newspapers and a brace of radio stations following the Hornets. Readers would make their views known, providing their names and addresses. Now it is websites, mailing lists and a scramble for morsels of news on all things football.

Agents plant stories, fans write strident criticisms protected by the anonymity of nom de plumes. Add to this a plethora of club press releases, some of which make you dizzy upon reading because they contain so much spin - "The Daily Goebbels" as one Watford press officer described it.

On reflection, I believe the seeds of an attempt to diminish the newspaper's ability to influence supporters were sown back in the Luca Vialli days when I was portrayed as a negative figure in the clamour that greeted the Italian's appointment.

Yes, it is a different world and, in common with many of my generation, I am not sure it is a better one.

Of course, we had spats before but in my day we knew the cause. I cannot really comment on Aidy Boothroyd's hot and cold treatment of the Watford Observer and my former colleagues are in the dark, because Watford have not specified the reasons for this latest posturing.

However, imagine this newspaper refusing to feature Watford FC and their matches because the club treats our personnel appallingly. I think the charge of us being unprofessional would be extremely valid. That works both ways.

Returning to Boothroyd, as the manager matures and progresses through the football world, he will need to develop a far less sensitive skin.

I know a source told Kevin he was viewed within the club as "the enemy" and I find that a touch unreal. Kevin and Anthony Matthews will be at Vicarage Road, cheering on the Horns as they have done since childhood, long after Boothroyd and the West Bromwich Albion, Arsenal, Queens Park Rangers and Ipswich supporters in the media department have moved on.

No, it is not easy covering Watford now as even The Daily Telegraph's Tony Francis discovered when writing a weekly article on them. He actually referred to "paranoia".

For instance, take Anthony Matthews, whose ambition was to cover Watford FC but, after only one season following my departure, opted to concentrate on the sports editor role because he could not stand "the politics". At one time he told me: "They almost cause you to lose the will to live."

On one other point, my former colleagues have been criticised for printing rumours. Well, I collected every printed item of gossip and every website rumour every week and put it before the manager and let him comment. And I printed the results and no one complained.

Yet, some 15 months back, there were rumours and website claims about Marlon King not being injured.

It was everywhere that week. I even read about it in France. Kevin duly asked for a club comment and was refused, so he printed the rumour and discussed and dismissed it himself.

The next thing he knew, he was being pilloried in a pathetic club email for daring to set the record straight. At the same time, I read one ludicrous letter contending the paper should only print official club statements.

What price a free press then?

The Watford Observer has been, and I am sure will continue to try to be a paper of record, despite the absence of help from the club. Upon my departure, I was not succeeded by a succession of horned individuals with forked tails but decent, qualified journalists with a love of the club.

They are doing a difficult job in the most difficult circumstances ever experienced by local journalists trying to cover Watford FC. They have my full and total sympathy.

As for me, thanks for the kind remarks but I am glad I am out of it.

However, I am grateful in a way for the present situation for it has made me appreciate all the more what pleasant people I had to deal with over 40 years.

Compared with the current administrative regime, I think upon reflection Luca Vialli may have been a truly open, consistent and communicative individual.