A plug for the Lion of Vienna Podcast tonight

Most? Show me something from the last week with swearing in it

Leeds_Trotter wrote:Usually is. Most the stuff on that site contains foul language.

You fuckwit. Do you go to the match and ask people to stop swearing?

Kane57 wrote:Most? Show me something from the last week with swearing in it

The last podcast

Fuck off cleanshirt. Thanks for listening anyway

Kane57 wrote:Fuck off cleanshirt. Thanks for listening anyway

I didn't listen in, I was discussing the site with someone. Wouldn't listen to you lot if ya paid me. The site is trash.

You have the worst comebacks. You don't read the site but you know it's trash, and you don't listen, but was talking to someone (about a podcast you've never listened to but still hate) and this person told you that Wednesday's podcast was an hour of swearing?

Fantastic

Sluffy wrote:As some may know I'm not the biggest fan of LoV and seldom read it so you may be somewhat surprised I'm highlighting it with this thread.

The reason I am is that they have Marc Iles on their podcast tonight.

Iles has been on before but this time the timing is different, Holdsworth has gone, Anderson has Eddie Davies like ownership of the club now and now the embargo has been lifted.

Both the LoV, and Iles plus the ST (mustn't forget them) have stood together (in my opinion as well as many others) as a rallying point for the pro-Holdsworth, anti-Anderson camp - so it will be interesting to hear what views they hold now.

Will they at last criticise St Dean for anything at all - I don't remember any of them doing so far even though he doesn't seem to have put anything into the club other than the BM loan (and even that was £1 million less than what he took out), the refusal (or probably inability) to pay half the clubs running costs along with Anderson paying the other half, and taking money out of the club being the highest paid 'employee' for nothing more than a notional job title.

Maybe even say some of the stuff they know and couldn't before for whatever reasons?

Will they give credit to Anderson for anything or do they still apparently want him out ASAP?

Can either of them find it within themselves to criticise the behaviour of the ST, in particular its chair Daniel Izza and his negative tweets and bizarre mini 'vlog' against the club and implied honesty of Andersons?

Obviously there are other issues for them to get their teeth into too such as our league position, the tenure of Parkinson as manager, will we be signing Spearing, O'Brien, Baptista or anyone else, should the ST backdown over the ACV and much else - but I'll be listening about their views on Anderson and Holdsworth.

Will they swerve the issue or deal with it head on?

When a link is available for the podcast we will post it up or alternatively Kane57 can post it up on here once he's done it.

It'll be up on iTunes shortly. Just went past 55,000 total downloads, quite happy with that.

Kane57 wrote:You have the worst comebacks. You don't read the site but you know it's trash, and you don't listen, but was talking to someone (about a podcast you've never listened to but still hate) and this person told you that Wednesday's podcast was an hour of swearing?

Fantastic

Comebacks? Are we in school or something? I heard it a few times when Lennon was in charge. Think it was around the time Madine offered you out. Got sick of the constant swearing, think I posted one here about it before. Yeah was telling a friend how I used to enjoy the men in white podcast, and he mentioned he listens to yours. Not that I have to explain myself to you mind. If you are happy doing what you are doing fair enough. Keep going.

Superb

Here you go [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Ok, I've listened to the first third of the podcast - which I can confirm doesn't have too much swearing in it - so far.

There are three speakers - The Chair Dan 'Murbroski, Chris and Marc Iles.

The first bit covered the removal of the embargo and the still lack of clarity on what it exactly means from the EFL.

The bit I was keen to listen to was their views on the ST. which started around 23 minutes in.

The question was put to Iles who basically said he was all for the ST because it may one day be need even if that was a long way down the line.

He says it is important that there is a body THAT SPEAKS FOR THE FANS.

(My issue is that THEY DON'T - at best they can only speak for their members (which total based on who are eligible to vote - to be around the 3,000 mark at best - [for comparison Wways have just short of 4,000 members] - and as they have no voted on elected mandate - they can't even do that!).

Iles then got cut off.

Chris Manning then gave reasonable fair comment on the ST.  He told us about how the ST trust 'sacked' their PR man (who does (or did?) articles for LoV) without reason and since then their image has significantly fallen.

He acknowledged that Izza's personal tweets and blocking of those who disagree with him was inappropriate in his position of the Chair.

That the ST is not engaging on any fans issues which is what they should be doing - the example given being the cost of away tickets.

Unfortunately then Chris inadvertently moved the spotlight away from the ST per se to more concentrating on how powerful Anderson is as owner of the club and that there was no point the ST starting and fighting battles they can't win (and pissing Anderson off against them even more).

Iles returned just before the break but did not contribute anything new to what had been said.


I believe there is further conversation to be heard on the ST later on - so will comment on that once I've heard it.


Chris - hope you consider what I've put as a fair and reasonable summary of what was said?

Hope so anyway.

Having skipped my way through an Ipswich fan guest speaker (Dan's swearing was now becoming very noticeable and starting to jar on me) then team issues with the Ipswich fan gone - they got on to questions I guess around the 90 minute mark, the first relating to the ST again being Carlos one, around 96mins 30secs. -  which basically asks is the ST now just a joke. Note the swearing had stopped by then.

Basically Iles said more people should put themselves forward for election and thus the ST would be able to offer a broader and more representative view.

[My thoughts on this is why and how?

Let's take myself as an example - WHY would I put myself up for election to a body that still will have at least THREE of the current Board (who are widely seen as having personal issues with Anderson) AFTER the next elections (they are serving for TWO years) and clearly who have hardly at all, if ever, agreed with anything they've done?

Out of a Board of SIX, with three people already against my view of what an ST should be about - how could I possibly change a thing?  The very best I could do is to force a draw at best - no doubt with the Chaiman - Izza - having the casting vote - and we all know that would not be for me.

It's just pointless and a complete waste of my time and efforts even contemplating standing - and that would go for anyone else with a broadly similar view to me about the ST.

As for the HOW, how would I ever be elected to the board in the first place unless a majority of the membership have taken against their own current board, which haven't already fucked them off so much already, as not be interested to participate in voting in their next elections - or have a massive influx of new members with similar views to mine, sweeping me to power?

It's simply not attainable.

The current ST Board simply retains its 'agenda' even after the elections because it simply has three of the current Board returning to serve their final year, one of which will no doubt be the Chairman and who will hold the casting vote.

It would take a minimum of TWO consecutive YEARS of elections to change things and whose going to put themselves up for that?

I certainly wouldn't want to wish to be involved with the ST at my time in life.]

Iles was asked for his view of the Izza 'nose' vlog - he deliberately swerved the question - even though the vlog was clearly hinting of dodgy dealings within the club - which if true Izza should have reported - and if he hasn't he should apologise for as malicious gossip from him at best.

The rest of the podcast was again just general football questions.

In summary Iles comes across to me as a massive fan of the ST and unable or unwilling to understand the criticism of them, whilst Chris seems to gives the impression that it is not the 'substance' of what the ST is doing that is wrong but how they are unable to get their message across through poor PR and communication.

Unfortunately IT IS the problem to me and many others, what the ST are doing and better communications simply won't change that.

On the whole a 110 minute pod cast is far too long for people to listen too - unless they are stuck on a train or something similar perhaps - but fair play indeed for raising issues that many of us were interested in - although not much hope of anything changing including Marc Iles mind set on the ST.

Great effort to all concerned and thank you very much.

Been listening whilst working. Wasn't too bad to be honest. The microphone is too close to Murbroski. Could hear him breathing, tapping away on his keyboard, drinking his drink which was irritating

Overall a good chat, although agree with Sluffy that it was too long.

Funnily enough the longer ones are the more successful editions in terms of downloads

Kane57 wrote:Funnily enough the longer ones are the more successful editions in terms of downloads

I would imagine the longer ones are at a time when there is something of interest happening at the club either on or off the field and/or you have a guest they want to hear (or as in this case both!) and there is more to talk about and more people who are keen to listen to it.

As I said well done to all concerned, you aren't media professionals (as per part of what Marc Iles said about moving from writing for a living to more doing his weekly vlogs because the market is changing) and you've done a decent attempt at providing something to us all for free and in your own personal time.

Fair play to you all and thank you.

Ta. I'll write a reply to your other points later