Jump to content

Times (Matt Dickinson) Confirms Chelsea Negativity Will Get Worse


Dorset

Recommended Posts

As a regular reader of the newspaper concerned I am able to say with authority that ever since the arrival of Roman Abramovich there has been a continual procession of Times journalists delivering articles on Chelsea with malice aforethought. However, it was not until last night, on Chelsea TV’s Paperview, that compelling reasons as to why this is happening were put before an interested and [up until now] completely flummoxed audience.

Whilst ‘compelling’ may not be quite the right word to use in this context, indeed ’contrived’ might be more realistic and to the point, it is relevant to this new topic because it is the type of descriptive word that the British Press use when they put their words together to create their own special lighting effect for the club and its owner. As we know, this is always shaded deep in a negativity that sees ‘compelling’ put with a word like evidence to provide ‘cause for concern’ that will, inevitably, be confirmed somewhere along the line by ’a source close to club, coach, player, or all three.

Clearly, this was a situation that brought presenter Gigi Salmon close to despair as she repeatedly asked Dickinson and his fellow hack on the show, Danny Fullbrook (Daily Star), for answers. By producing a bizarre Rob Shepherd (NOTW) report on Roman’s [alledged] speech to the troops and Michael Calvin’s recent vitriolic and abusive anti-Chelsea rant to back up her claim that we have had more than enough of this drivel to last us a lifetime, she at first received the typical fallback response from Fullbrook, that we are all paranoid and naïve, but in contrast Dickinson decided to have a go at justification from the journalistic viewpoint, based on body language that displayed a certain ’well, what do you expect’ attitude.

It was here that the show, at last, took on an informative look and the Times mouthpiece on this occasion launched into his far from compelling evidence with a haughtiness that bordered on disdain similar to that which Calvin believes we are held in as a club. Apparently, our parlous state at the hands of the scribes is due to Roman’s initial monetary ’splurge’, something that can never, ever, be forgotten or forgiven. This heinous crime has been compounded subsequently by the steady flow of sacked managers, all out the door during the Abramovich reign - a common occurrence at many a club, yet somehow a shameless level of action in our case and one that will, once again, be forever treated by paragons of football virtue [like Matt] as a reason to be perpetual killjoys of anything remotely praiseworthy to emanate from CFC.

Daily Star dubbed and thereby perhaps feeling somewhat out of the serious debate loop, Danny then chipped in with his own recollection of hating Liverpool in the past for winning too much, suggesting that everybody gets ‘hated’ at one time or another and we should get over it. Asked by Gigi if he hated us, the Fulham fancier declined to comment, although Dickinson, finding another negative with ease, could not miss the opportunity to ridicule the dropping of points that has led to us [maybe] throwing away a title we should have won by Christmas. The doubt then led him to qualify his bold statement thus…“You may still win it, but it [perception of Chelsea] wont get any better as a result’. The obvious reply came from Gigi with an astonished “You mean this [negativity] could get even worse?!!… amazingâ€, her voice tailing off in disbelief before she recovered to outline the remaining content in the show in its second half.

The Chelsea fan can only look upon these reasons for our continued pariah status in the positive world of football, as covered by a selective Fourth Estate, with parallel disbelief. This world is, of course, frequented periodically by others in the Premiership hierarchy and presided over constantly by the likes of ManU, but, if you buy into the Times philosophy as outlined by Matt Dickinson, the depressing signs are that, for Chelsea in every respect, winning or losing, buying or academy-building, it makes no difference. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t, was never so true a saying than when applied to Roman Abramovich’s tenure at Stamford Bridge.

Regular readers of the Times know this to be the case already, confronted as we are with Patrick Barclay, pompous and pontificating, and Matthew Syed being given free rein to glorify the Gunners at every turn. Add to them Matt Hughes, who is assigned to all matters Chelsea and always reports on our games as if he’s returned from a trip to the dentist, then you will see that it wont take much to push many, including me, over the edge before too long. Sadly, Gab Marcotti and Giles Smith appear muted, strangely sidelined online and on the sport pages respectively, so the latest news, that Times Online will have to be paid for (reportedly £1 a day or £2 a week), might well prove to be the actual tipping point for the wavering Chelsea fans still reading the newspaper.

The stark reality for the reader is that, when confronted with unconvincing arguments, such as those put forward by Dickinson last night, the ’why continue to read the stuff?’ response really does begin to convince the Chelsea supporter to look elsewhere for a morning newspaper. In the past I’ve always parried that question by pointing out that, contrary to popular belief, another part of the paper may prove to be the attraction, but these days there is no way other than keeping the money in your pocket to make feelings of discontent known, especially when buying is so obviously misleading the customer surveys. It’s a shame, but just why Dickinson and his fellow Times journalists should think their relentless onslaught of negativity makes for enjoyable reading at all or anymore is beyond me and for them to now think that we might even pay for the privilege online simply beggars belief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Good post Dorset.

I subscribe to Chelsea TV on and off (mainly for the friendlies before the season starts) and have always wondered why they have to get journo's on there. With the sh*t they write, why do we care what their opinion is.

As for The Times charging a gold one a day to look at news on the net, they are having a laugh! I reckon they are trying to set a trend for others to follow which hopefully will go wrong. Surely people will just use another news outlet that is free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dickinson and Fullbrook are two of the more likeable journo's from my experience(I never read the papers but watch paperview and sunday supplement every week)

I have to agree with the part about Patrick Barclay,he is the most detestable little man I have ever come across.

I think Dickinson is pretty straight-forward and Fullbrook is a cheeky-chappy type who sometimes gets carried away with himself but does so in good humor(he is a Fulham fan afterall)

Sadly,I have to say,as a weekly viewer of Paperview(it is one of the best shows on the channel),it is great to have the journo's in studio and to get their thoughts and reasonings on their writings as well that of others.One thing that would greatly improve the show would be to replace Gigi as presenter.I realise the majority of Chelsea fans seem to adore her(judging by matchday phone-ins) but I personally find her cringeworthy and cannot stand the factthat she refuses to hear anything remotely negative about the club from anybody.

Replacing Gigi with somebody like Jason Cundy or Scott Minto would greatly improve the show.They understand how the journalist-football relationship works as they have worked on both sides of the fence now and so would be in a much greater position to take the journalists to task when needs be,instead of the Gigi method of being totally naive(I've lost count of the amount of times she asked in disbelief why the press wouldn't let JT or Ashley get on with their lives in private and focus solely on the football,my god really Gigi????) and just making annoying facial expressions when someone dares take anything to do with the club to task.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw the show too and think it is a good to have the journos held to account...but we shouldn't be blinkered...chelsea is far from perfect, we all give forthright opinions on here, and much of what has been written in the press has also been repeated by us on these pages...fact is, it is better to be talked about than not...it is a sign we're a big club and rightly or wrongly it comes with the territory...when I grew up chelsea barely got on tv let alone in the papers...sure there are some writers who clearly have an agenda, but they can be easily ignored...gigi certainly can't complain about articles saying carlo is under pressure, when we have gone through the amount of managers we've had over the years and we get knocked out of champs league so early...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I subscribe to Chelsea TV on and off (mainly for the friendlies before the season starts) and have always wondered why they have to get journo's on there. With the sh*t they write, why do we care what their opinion is.

Quite. They have enough opportunity during the week (and they do their best bless 'em) to give their opinions, enough freebies when they come to the Bridge on match days, enough opportunities to put over whatever agenda they want to pursue every week on Sky Sports, only to be given a further opportunity on the official club channel to slag us off.

Every opportunity has been made by the club to appease them, whatever good is done is treated as a cynical marketing ploy, whatever bad is 'typical Chelski', I certainly don't buy into the "well you're a big club so expect the criticism" bollocks, it's going to always carry a negative slant whether we cured cancer or ate babies so the club should get on with it, stop trying to pander to them and instead f**k them off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Dorset,

I don't know who you are, or what your occupation is, but if you've ever had an interest ina writing career you should pursue that.

This is about the 4-5th post of yours Ive read, and their always lengthy(in a good way) but packed with good content.

IMO, you have a f**king massive talent.

Always a pleasure to read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dorset,

I don't know who you are, or what your occupation is, but if you've ever had an interest ina writing career you should pursue that.

This is about the 4-5th post of yours Ive read, and their always lengthy(in a good way) but packed with good content.

IMO, you have a f**king massive talent.

Always a pleasure to read.

He creates cartoons for the beano, political cartoons though..... :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Well, this is awkward!

awkward the office GIF

The Shed End Forum relies on revenue to pay for hosting and upgrades. While we try to keep adverts as unobtrusive as possible without pop ups, we need to run ad's to make sure we can stay online and continue to keep the forum up, as over the years costs have become very high.

Could you please allow adverts on this domain by switching it off. Some of the advert banners can actually be closed to avoid interferance of your experience on The Shed End.

Cheers now!

emma watson yes GIF

Alright already, It's off!