Lining his own pockets

[Walshy]

Something which is worth remembering is interviewees won't always tell the truth. How many times do politicians spin an elaborate version of the events and expect people to believe it - a classic case being Cummings and his trip to Durham last year?

[idler]

You have only to look at some of the conspiracy theories online to see how many people believe in really weird or impossible versions of events.
I mean there are some still doubting that man landed on the moon.

[DRNaith]

"that man" not being Weaver, I assume?

I'm not sure what his answer would be if he were asked though!

[idler]

I wouldn't even ask Weaver the time without checking elsewhere.
Compare him to the likes of Ray Gilbert, Chas Walker, Ken Avis,Ken Wilkinson,Andy Liney, Richard Haley, Miles and all of the others involved at the time.
I know whose version of events I would rather  believe.
I remember him mentioning the Rovers programme at the time and how it was losing money due to no advertising etc. Glen said that he made a small profit for charity on the fanzines so they must have made something with larger sales of a programme with fewer pages in comparison.

[Colin C No.3]

I've been reading these Weaver threads & have been really torn.

Do I in some way 'add' to his ego (I'm in no doubt that he'll have access to this forum) by adding to the number of posts, or do I confront (yet again) the darkest period in my beloved Rovers history which HE actively & purposely helped bring about as Richardson's stooge & sought to destroy our club for financial, vindictive, dictatorial, egotistical & malicious reasons.

Were I not a law abiding citizen, at that time I would have gladly paid to have had someone take a baseball bat to him for no doubt half the money Richardson paid his bungling arsonists.

This is like picking at an old scab because as has already been pointed out, the horse has not only already bolted, but it carries with it unsubstantiated claims that cannot (apparently) be addressed, refuted & ultimately shown to be nothing but one man's not seemingly discoloured version of events, but an orchestrated distorted & downright pack of lies.  Another 'ringer' straight out of the Richardson stables.

[DonnyBazR0ver]

I still do not understand the point of the exercise. Unless the interviewee and the interviewer enjoy the attention in the knowledge it will stir up bad feeling.

[Jonathan]

I still do not understand the point of the exercise. Unless the interviewee and the interviewer enjoy the attention in the knowledge it will stir up bad feeling.

I don’t think you’re far off there. Although I’d give the interviewer the benefit of the doubt and say that, in a quest for hits and attention, it’s a naive and misguided rather than malicious piece of work.

His writing has improved, and I won’t lie I found it a compelling read at times. But therein lies the problem. I’m old enough to know it’s a steaming pile of festering bullshit. As has been pointed out elsewhere, others won’t necessarily have that benefit and this is now a permanent record of unchallenged lies. Again I’d give the interviewer the benefit of the doubt and say he’s sought to paint himself as a Piers Morgan (pressing and probing sternly etc. etc.) but the end result is unaffected.

It’ll get the interviewer plenty of likes on his blog so it’s served it’s purpose for him. I’m not really fussed what it offers to Weaver, I think it’s best to just let it wash away now. There are people on here that can be truly proud of what they did to rid the club of that cancer. They’ve been paid back with some of the very best years in the club’s history. This misguided interview is just a dot on the landscape.

[idler]

The whole point is though that in the future, anyone with no affinity to the club might believe this crap and regard Weaver as a saviour of the club that he was a part of almost destroying.

[glosterred]

I wonder if the blogger would be interested in interviewing one, or more, of those positing from this thread that are in the know? Maybe that would give balance to the Weaver interview.


COYR

[BradwellRover]

Glosterred,

The problem is that the truth ‘may’ involve making claims about a lot of acts that could be viewed negatively from a legal point of view.  Further, most of it is hard to prove conclusively, even though pieces of evidence are in the public domain. 

If published that then potentially puts the person writing and making the claims at risk of libel.  I’ve always judged that to be too high a risk to take, and that’s why whenever I’ve been asked I’ve kept it factual and focussed on what I can definitely prove.

Plus, I wanted to leave it in the past, where it belongs.  Another reason I’m annoyed by this.

[Walshy]

Glosterred,

The problem is that the truth ‘may’ involve making claims about a lot of acts that could be viewed negatively from a legal point of view.  Further, most of it is hard to prove conclusively, even though pieces of evidence are in the public domain. 

If published that then potentially puts the person writing and making the claims at risk of libel.  I’ve always judged that to be too high a risk to take, and that’s why whenever I’ve been asked I’ve kept it factual and focussed on what I can definitely prove.

Plus, I wanted to leave it in the past, where it belongs.  Another reason I’m annoyed by this.

Would you have been annoyed if the interview had been done by the fanzine as seems to have been a suggestion from reading some of the other posts?

[BradwellRover]

Glosterred,

The problem is that the truth ‘may’ involve making claims about a lot of acts that could be viewed negatively from a legal point of view.  Further, most of it is hard to prove conclusively, even though pieces of evidence are in the public domain. 

If published that then potentially puts the person writing and making the claims at risk of libel.  I’ve always judged that to be too high a risk to take, and that’s why whenever I’ve been asked I’ve kept it factual and focussed on what I can definitely prove.

Plus, I wanted to leave it in the past, where it belongs.  Another reason I’m annoyed by this.

Would you have been annoyed if the interview had been done by the fanzine as seems to have been a suggestion from reading some of the other posts?

Yes, and I’d have said that to Glen.

If you are attempting to suggest that this is anything against Rigo I covered this earlier in the thread.  But for the avoidance of doubt, I haven’t seen him for years and have no previous issues with him.

[VivaRovers]

Would you have been annoyed if the interview had been done by the fanzine as seems to have been a suggestion from reading some of the other posts?

I did say upthread Walshy that even if I had the time to do a proper interview with Weaver I didn't really think the fanzine would've been a suitable place for such a piece, so that's a fairly moot question.

Ironically, knowing BradwellRover well, then if the opportunity had come the fanzine's way, he'd probably have been the first person I'd have spoken to about it to weigh up whatever pros and cons there are. Him having been much much closer to the events of 1997-98 than me.

[DonnyBazR0ver]

A Pandoras box that may have had the key turned with this article but needs to remain firmly shut.

Meddling cannot serve any positive purpose. Let's hope this is the last we hear of that period.

[RobTheRover]

I've not read it. I never will.

I honestly don't see the point. My opinion on Weaver can neither be enhanced or worsened from where it is now.

[Walshy]

Would you have been annoyed if the interview had been done by the fanzine as seems to have been a suggestion from reading some of the other posts?

I did say upthread Walshy that even if I had the time to do a proper interview with Weaver I didn't really think the fanzine would've been a suitable place for such a piece, so that's a fairly moot question.

Ironically, knowing BradwellRover well, then if the opportunity had come the fanzine's way, he'd probably have been the first person I'd have spoken to about it to weigh up whatever pros and cons there are. Him having been much much closer to the events of 1997-98 than me.

It has been suggested the fanzine asked anyway so that would appear you were just as interested in interviewing Weaver. I suspect the reaction of some people would be very different if you had done.

As Selby has already pointed out it appears to me that some people's problem is with the author rather than the content.

[Jonathan]

Would you have been annoyed if the interview had been done by the fanzine as seems to have been a suggestion from reading some of the other posts?

I did say upthread Walshy that even if I had the time to do a proper interview with Weaver I didn't really think the fanzine would've been a suitable place for such a piece, so that's a fairly moot question.

Ironically, knowing BradwellRover well, then if the opportunity had come the fanzine's way, he'd probably have been the first person I'd have spoken to about it to weigh up whatever pros and cons there are. Him having been much much closer to the events of 1997-98 than me.

It has been suggested the fanzine asked anyway so that would appear you were just as interested in interviewing Weaver. I suspect the reaction of some people would be very different if you had done.

As Selby has already pointed out it appears to me that some people's problem is with the author rather than the content.

I’m not sure that’s true or fair, Rigo.

[Walshy]

Would you have been annoyed if the interview had been done by the fanzine as seems to have been a suggestion from reading some of the other posts?

I did say upthread Walshy that even if I had the time to do a proper interview with Weaver I didn't really think the fanzine would've been a suitable place for such a piece, so that's a fairly moot question.

Ironically, knowing BradwellRover well, then if the opportunity had come the fanzine's way, he'd probably have been the first person I'd have spoken to about it to weigh up whatever pros and cons there are. Him having been much much closer to the events of 1997-98 than me.

It has been suggested the fanzine asked anyway so that would appear you were just as interested in interviewing Weaver. I suspect the reaction of some people would be very different if you had done.

As Selby has already pointed out it appears to me that some people's problem is with the author rather than the content.

I’m not sure that’s true or fair, Rigo.

If you think I'm Andy then you're mistaken. I had never met him until around a year ago and that was through my nephew playing football.

[idler]

I misread Jonathan's text and thought that the final two words were "to Rigo". 
I would agree with this view if it had. How many posters on here actually remember Rogo posting regularly? I don't know how many other posters actually engaged in a war of words with him but I don't remember droves of them. Anybody posting sensitive or controversial views should expect a response and even think beforehand how to defend or explain your view.
The issue of Richardson and Weaver was always likely to inflame some supporters that almost lost their club. I don't feel that Mark Weaver would have lost any sleep unless it was because of a lost pay off.
My view and I think the view of most older fans that were that these opinions would remain the same unless the interviewer was the Robin Day type who would have hung Weaver out to dry.

[Filo]

After the extensive amount of work the admin had to do to delete all posts by him from multiple user names from the the forum, if Walshy is that said person it is well out of order to then re register. It is strange that his very first post has a link to the said persons blog

[silent majority]

I've not read it. I never will.

I honestly don't see the point. My opinion on Weaver can neither be enhanced or worsened from where it is now.

Same here Rob, not interested in the slightest, it has no value whatsoever.

[VivaRovers]

It has been suggested the fanzine asked anyway so that would appear you were just as interested in interviewing Weaver. I suspect the reaction of some people would be very different if you had done.

As Selby has already pointed out it appears to me that some people's problem is with the author rather than the content.

As editor of the fanzine, I can assure you that we didn't ask to interview him, aside from a jokey tweet that said "So Mark, fancy a chat?" when he first surfaced on Twitter. I didn't ask him, and none of our regular contributors have mentioned asking him to me.

To reiterate again what I've said twice on this thread, I don't think the fanzine would've been the right place for an interview with him. I don't begrudge anyone choosing to do so, people are open to do as they please, and contrary to many I do think there is a time and a situation for getting Weaver's take on events at the club at the time. But I don't think a one person interview shorn from the wider context of all that was going on at the club at that time is the right way to do it, because, as I and others have said on this thread, it leaves it too open for those who don't know about the details of 1997-98 to interpret Weaver's version as fact.

I've no problem with the interviewer, I just think the resulting interview is disappointing for the points made in my earlier post.

It's really not helpful you and Selby trying to twist people's words and diminish their views by suggesting that a dislike of the work is the result of a dislike of its architect. 

[BradwellRover]

Would you have been annoyed if the interview had been done by the fanzine as seems to have been a suggestion from reading some of the other posts?

I did say upthread Walshy that even if I had the time to do a proper interview with Weaver I didn't really think the fanzine would've been a suitable place for such a piece, so that's a fairly moot question.

Ironically, knowing BradwellRover well, then if the opportunity had come the fanzine's way, he'd probably have been the first person I'd have spoken to about it to weigh up whatever pros and cons there are. Him having been much much closer to the events of 1997-98 than me.

It has been suggested the fanzine asked anyway so that would appear you were just as interested in interviewing Weaver. I suspect the reaction of some people would be very different if you had done.

As Selby has already pointed out it appears to me that some people's problem is with the author rather than the content.

It appears to me that you are unable to process information which has been provided to you very clearly.

Or alternatively, that you are trying to stir up bad feeling between individuals where none exists.

Like most right minded people I am able to disagree with an action or view, without that becoming a personal vendetta.

I hope that helps.

[BVB]

If there is an understandable burning desire to counter-balance Weaver’s comments, don’t need to interview him to do that - just take his comments from the interview and do a fact check against each one and publish those in the fanzine.
You might even want to invite Weaver to respond to the fact checks.....
..then again, probably better to bite lips/ignore/ laugh off and deny yesterday’s man the oxygen he clearly craves?

[EasyforDennis]

For those who think this has opened a can of worms and should never have seenn the light of day (and I am one of them) have a read here. https://www.facebook.com/groups/499991353505572/permalink/1774762332695128/

[VivaRovers]

I just went to have a second read of the piece in case I'd been harsh on my first read through, but Rigo's now inexplicably blocked me and the fanzine on twitter, presumably for having the temerity for saying I was disappointed with the interview.

Contrary to what he thinks – or what others have suggested on this thread – I have absolutely no issue or agenda with him or what he chooses to write about. I find him a bit odd (chiefly down to things like the blocking, unblocking on twitter) but I've absolutely no reason to have any sort of 'vendetta' against him. Christ there are enough things to truly hate in this world without having to lump in a bloke I vaguely know who writes a football blog into it.

I didn't happen to think the piece was as well done as it could and perhaps should've been, but that's just my opinion.

Rigo, if you're scanning over this forum, I'm not sure why you think I've any beef with you. I absolutely haven't and have no reason to. If you're going to write a piece like this then you're gonna get folk who disagree with how you've done it... that's the nature of it, and I'm sure you knew that before taking the interview on. I got dogs abuse for what I was writing online and in the fanzine during O'Driscoll's sacking and the subsequent 'experiment' – there are people who I considered good friends up to that point who haven't spoken to me since – but I stuck to my guns. So rather than block out any criticism you may get, especially reasoned criticism which I tried to give, take it for what it is, feedback on a piece, not feedback on a person, and build on it.

[TheDonnyPop]

For those who think this has opened a can of worms and should never have seenn the light of day (and I am one of them) have a read here. https://www.facebook.com/groups/499991353505572/permalink/1774762332695128/

I am not a member of facebook so cannot see. What is being said?

[Jonathan]

I just went to have a second read of the piece in case I'd been harsh on my first read through, but Rigo's now inexplicably blocked me and the fanzine on twitter, presumably for having the temerity for saying I was disappointed with the interview.

Contrary to what he thinks – or what others have suggested on this thread – I have absolutely no issue or agenda with him or what he chooses to write about. I find him a bit odd (chiefly down to things like the blocking, unblocking on twitter) but I've absolutely no reason to have any sort of 'vendetta' against him. Christ there are enough things to truly hate in this world without having to lump in a bloke I vaguely know who writes a football blog into it.

I didn't happen to think the piece was as well done as it could and perhaps should've been, but that's just my opinion.

Rigo, if you're scanning over this forum, I'm not sure why you think I've any beef with you. I absolutely haven't and have no reason to. If you're going to write a piece like this then you're gonna get folk who disagree with how you've done it... that's the nature of it, and I'm sure you knew that before taking the interview on. I got dogs abuse for what I was writing online and in the fanzine during O'Driscoll's sacking and the subsequent 'experiment' – there are people who I considered good friends up to that point who haven't spoken to me since – but I stuck to my guns. So rather than block out any criticism you may get, especially reasoned criticism which I tried to give, take it for what it is, feedback on a piece, not feedback on a person, and build on it.

Having read this I thought I’d have a check too... but Walshy has only gone and blocked me on Twitter as well! Fantastic stuff!

Perhaps I was wrong to say the piece was nothing other than naive and misguided.

[idler]

Amazing how people sometimes think that free speech only works one way.

[BobG]

Jonathan: do I read you to be implying that 'Walshy' is Rigo in disguise? Or am I misreading you?

Cheers

Bob