| |||
| Rob, Thanks for your e-mail. You're right, the whole issue has stirred up a bit of a hornet's nest. We both know what happened in the past re: Oatcake and I can understand why feelings are still running high. It has already been suggested by others that the manager may well have banked on stoking up this anti-Sentinel feeling to gather support behind himself and deflect attention from events on the field. I'll let you decide on his motives. All I can ask is that you consider the following: * The dispute is between the manager and the newspaper NOT the club and the newspaper. I would say relations in my three years covering City have always been pretty good between the club and the paper. * The manager had no problem with me personally and there was never a falling out - he even apologised - though I don't suppose he will have particularly liked what has been written since Tuesday. * The fact he had no problem with me and the fact I write about 99 per cent of the Stoke stuff for the paper suggests he had no qualm with content. * His grouse was more with presentation and space. But, like it or not Rob, there are two clubs in this city. And yet, having looked through the back pages since February 1, there have been 24 Stoke back-page leads and only 10 Vale. * His other grouse is against the letters' page. No-one, surely, suggests we drop this forum for fans to express their views? He has clearly been hurt by some of the criticism, but that criticism was nothing compared to that which has regularly appeared on the Oatcake MB. Does he want the Oatcake to drop the MB? Is he accusing Smudge of being anti-Icelandic? * Gudjon suggested there was an anti-Icelandic bias in the paper and virtually accused people here of being racist. Whatever you think of the paper, I defy anyone to find any evidence of that and we were right to defend our corner. * To answer some MB postings about the letters' page, please believe me, there is no sinister culling of correspondence to promote one opinion above another. As a rule, virtually all letters get published each week. Only those which are clearly abusive, libellous or do not carry a name and address are spiked. * As for the sports desk personnel being biased, I can only answer that one by saying the desk contains two Stoke fans, one Blackburn, one Brighton, one Grimsby, one Villa, one Derby, one Man City, one Everton and no Vale. * I can't answer any criticism about the web page because that is produced in Derby by another wing of Northcliffe. They clearly have access to our material, but publish what they see fit (including their polls!). * The Clive Clarke story came from his agent, not Clive, because I wouldn't embarrass any players right now by trying to contact them while this ridiculous ban is in force. * I'm told by the sports editor that his headline THORDARSON LASHES OUT AT THE HAND THAT FEEDS was a reference to both fans and the paper, not just the paper. * I can't speak for anyone else, but I can assure you the Stoke City reporter is a fan by adoption and, at the risk of appearing to try and curry favour, has admired the loyalty of the Stoke faithful throughout my 13 years working in the Potteries. I'm just sorry relations between the Oatcake and the paper are as they are. Rob, I hope this has cleared a few things up and sorry if I've gone on abit. Best wishes, Martin Spinks. | |||
