John Edwards indicated on Radio Robins last night that there would be a full update on the injured and departed players in the coming days.
It shouldn't take this long, the lines of communication are terrible.
I agree. It was in response to my criticism of the lack of information from the club that John said an update was coming - I suspect in (slow) response to the many critical posts on here.
In the interests of clarity and fairness, I'd like to make one or two points, because a lot of the criticism on this thread has been unjust and, in some cases, downright inaccurate. To suggest news of injuries, fitness, suspensions, whatever, is deliberately withheld is just plain wrong. Going back to the days of Grahame Heathcote and then Ken McKenna, when I started as press officer, I've always interviewed the manager after a game, asked for team news as well as reaction to events on the pitch and then submitted the interview in full for use on the website. This season has been a little different, as other matters have overshadowed the usual everyday stuff, such as Neil Young making one signing after another then resigning. For each signing, I received a name and a one-sentence quote. It was up to me to research the player for background information and put together a reasonably detailed press release. Similarly, when Neil resigned, an appropriate statement had to be devised, followed by further information about the search for a new manager. That search ended 11 days ago, with the appointment of Jim Harvey. An initial same-day website article announcing Jim's arrival was followed within 24-48 hours by an in-depth interview with him. Since then, a week has elapsed. I agree supporters are fully entitled to expect news of injuries and availability, but what people don't seem to realise is I was working on it. You are out of order Laurence (Leon) in suggesting I'd only put together an injury update as a response to your criticism on Radio Robins. That was the inference in your post. Certainly, you went on to say you 'suspected it was a (slow) response to the many critical posts'. Again, absolutely wrong. I asked about injuries and availability last week, but the response, quite reasonably, was that we didn't want to alert the opposition to who might or might not be doubtful. That happens at all levels of football, week-in week-out. It was a response I became accustomed to from Premier League managers throughout my time as a sports writer. It's simply a case of timing, not deliberately keeping supporters in the dark, and the correct timing for releasing injury information was after the Nuneaton game, which was duly done. Also, for those wondering about social media, we do make use of it. Everything I send to John Laidlar for the website, I also send to Simon Brotherton, and he does a great job of posting on Facebook and Twitter. I'm not averse to criticism, if it is merited and informed. Additionally, a bit of realism wouldn't go amiss. If we could afford to employ a PR/press person, it would be reasonable to expect a daily flow of news and information. As it is, it's all done on a voluntary basis. Even so, I'd still hazard a guess our output of news and views at least matches other clubs of a similar standing.
