ToffeeWeb - Season 2007-08

The Mail Bag

Propaganda?

I've seen a great deal of criticism of the club for the voting materials strongly pushing the stadium and getting players to comment on how they support it. This is being portrayed as somehow unfair or unethical.

Now I haven't made a decision yet, because it's (to me anyway) a tough call. But as far as I'm concerned, the club are perfectly within their rights to try and sell the decision as much as possible. We are not voting on an abstract and completely objective issue. We are voting on the board's *strong* recommendation. i.e the club is saying that "we feel we absolutely need to do this" and trying to get people to agree with them. They are perfectly within their rights to do so.

To be honest, for all the talk of propaganda I think the club has actually done a really bad job of selling the decision. If they had sold it well, faced with no genuine details of possible alternatives, thrown together at the last minute by LCC, then it probably would have been more of a no-brainer decision for a lot of people. They've failed to do so. The promotional materials have no real details on the financial benefits, nor figures on the alternatives ? so that we can really see why Knowsley is so much the preferred option. Without such explanation then certainly I feel a lot less comfortable about a Yes vote.

I do think, with all the criticism, the actual fact that we're having a vote is being overlooked. The brochure does make a fair point there ? we're a rarity in that our club has allowed us a binding vote on the issue. I'm thankful for that, whatever my decision.

On a final, and somewhat unrelated note. I was under the impression that Liverpool's planning permission in Stanley Park was based on the fact that there were no other feasible sites for redevelopment within Liverpool. Now that LCC is falling over themselves (at the last minute I feel) to come up with feasible sites for redevelopment, what's the deal with that permission?
Robin Cannon, Manchester Posted 10/08/2007 at 08:55:44

back Return to the Mail Bag

Comments

Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer

Michael Kenrick

I think personally Lyndon has gone a little bit too far calling it propaganda.

Rob Vera
1 Posted 10/08/2007 at 11:35:23

Can we take a break from all the bitching and moaning about Kirkby (and YES, I do understand it is important) to focus on the new season and the possibility of new arrivals that we have been clamoring for all summer? By the way, the new stadium could be here in OKLAHOMA and I bet you'd still get a decent turnout so I think this "blasphemous" idea of moving into a stadium 25 feet outside of town isn't that huge of a deal. That may make me sound like a wank to you gents who are passionate about being passionate about something, but Kirkby is NOT the end of civilization. The most powerful professional sports franchise in America, the Dallas Cowboys, haven't played a home game IN Dallas since the late 1960s and SOMEHOW, they survive. Take a deep breath everyone. It WILL be alright.

Tony
2 Posted 10/08/2007 at 14:51:25

The way some people are whinging about propaganda if we beat Wigan tomorrow they’ll somehow twist that as the club trying to convince us to move.

The club has a right to try it’s best to sell the idea, it’s up to us to decide

Nick Entwistle
3 Posted 10/08/2007 at 12:47:20

I am amazed at the club for placing words into the players' mouths for stadium propaganda.

'Tim's' comments are also followed by a number of replies all, funnily enough, agreeing with him. And the article has been given a 'thumbs up' by 116 people. Why no 'thumb down' option?

Stating the club moving to a new stadium was key in his and Mikky's contract signing takes the biscuit! Even those who will vote / have voted Yes will surely agree?

Ciaran Duff
4 Posted 10/08/2007 at 14:23:23

So, the article on the club website on Tim Cahill is illegal propaganda but all the KEIOC articles are completely legit? Sorry but I just don't get that. Under the normal rules of elections, each side is allowed to put their point of view and let the voters decide.

Overall I think the club have done a good job of presenting the information (and of course their preference) as well as answering people's questions. That is their job and I believe that they are doing this with the best interests of the club in mind. The fact that they have given the fans a binding vote is a huge act of faith in the fans.

I really enjoy this (independent) web site and all the various views expressed ? I really don't know where you guys get the time to keep it all going. However, in this instance, I think you have let your underlying bias shine through.

Tom Hughes
5 Posted 10/08/2007 at 19:16:58

It’s the "hard sell" tactics of the double-glazing salesman! There is desperation sneaking into it. They know they are ckose to a sale, and they’re pulling out all the stops to get there. If this is the great option it is supposed to be, it shouldn’t need these tactics..... it shouldn’t need every form of influence and media fed propoganda..... it should just sell itself like the King’s Dock did. Without this pressurised hard sell, the fans would be able to have a more impartial view..... and the Kirkby option would receive a fraction of the support it has at present. However, too many in the club have invested too much of their reputations in this for it to be fair now!