Jump to content

Reed says Canadians should support TFC


Recommended Posts

quote:Originally posted by El Hombre

Also, the thing with Sportsnet is that it isn't guaranteed in every basic cable package, like CBC and SRC are (not 100% sure on SRC, so please correct me if I'm wrong).

The 7 million number (and I think it's actually about 6.8 million to be precise) has been quoted by SN as the amount of homes they are in, not could be in.

TSN is in about 8 million.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 126
  • Created
  • Last Reply
quote:Originally posted by MediaGuy

Again you are making an individual anecdote. If I'm guilty of generalizing then so are you.

The ratings of French programming in English parts of the country suggest that most Canadians do not watch programming outside of their first language. Is that better?

If you disagree, then find me the facts to support your position. What are the Impact’s TV numbers?

frigg, man. You're not reading. I agree with you</u>. However, I can clearly see how it is easy for others to pick apart your arguments and get you into these 5 page wank fests.

Get rid of the assumptions and generalizations that run contrary to your target audience (soccer fans across the country, I'm assuming) and you'll have less problems.

As for your Moose Jaw question, if the 12 year-old was one of the 450 Moose Javians who spoke only French at home as per the 2006 census, then he might just like the Impact more than TFC. [:P]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by MediaGuy

The 7 million number (and I think it's actually about 6.8 million to be precise) has been quoted by SN as the amount of homes they are in, not could be in.

TSN is in about 8 million.

I don't doubt the number at all. I think the main point is that SRC and CBC are in all</u> the homes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by El Hombre

When I'm flipping through my cable channels, I check to see what on between channels 3 and 48 first. SRC is in that range, so if I see Impact vs. Rhinos de Rochester, I'll watch that and turn off the commentary (something that more and more people are doing these days). It happens with less frequency that I happen to come across channel 428 to see what GolTV is showing. So, in that instance, SRC actually is more available to me than GolTV. This same thing happens with hockey, champions league soccer, NFL football etc. And before you dismiss me as some sort of sports nutjob, most of my friends do the same thing. It all depends on who's showing what you want to see.

Amen. IF you REALLY want to check Impact games wherever you are in the country, you can. Everyone can. If I want to watch TFC games, I can watch CBC FOR "FREE" at home, but I can't watch them on SN & GolTV CAUSE I'M A STUDENT and Internet is about the only thing I can afford. So all in all, the number of TFC games available to me is no bigger than Impact's. I may be wrong but I assume there are many people in my situation ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

The point is, Impact games are available on Nat TV. Whether you watch french TV or not is not relevant here. When I'm flipping through channels, I don't skip CBC because it's in english. You could do the same.

Once you know we speak french in Québec, you can have a good idea about where Impact games can be seen. You got it, on french TV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by the biologist

If I want to watch TFC games, I can watch CBC FOR "FREE" at home, but I can't watch them on SN & GolTV CAUSE I'M A STUDENT and Internet is about the only thing I can afford. So all in all, the number of TFC games available to me is no bigger than Impact's.

I'm sorry, but that's wrong. Whether it's available to you personally is not what is being discussed.

You can't just discount the millions of people that have Sportsnet. They count too, and when you add in Sportsnet to CBC's coverage, there are more TFC games available than Impact games.

That's the reality, there is no right or wrong about it. When Vancouver and Montreal join MLS, their coverage will increase as well. It's the nature of the beast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by MediaGuy

As for TV, by my count there will be 22 Impact games available on French TV - so easily accessible to about 7 million Canadians, less so to the other 25 million. I'm happy those games are on TV, but when you are talking about having a truly national footprint you need to be broadcasting in the language of the majority (To be clear I'm not suggesting that the Impact should broadcast in English as Quebec is a French society. Obviously they need to be broadcasting in French in PQ. But what we are arguing here is NATIONAL exposure). NO ONE outside of the hardcore fan watches a sporting event broadcasted in a language they don’t speak. We aren’t talking about getting the games out so a Voyageur can watch. We are talking about getting them out so your typical EPL-mostly football fan can (or, better yet, a kid that has yet to be influenced by Eurosnob attitudes.

The Impact are on national English TV three times this year. TFC 37. Again, how is that even close to being the same?

And because you do everyone does [watch french TV]?

And I do watch French TV. I'm just not delusional enough to think that my habits reflect what less obsessed soccer fans do.

The ratings of French programming in English parts of the country suggest that most Canadians do not watch programming outside of their first language. Is that better?

If you disagree, then find me the facts to support your position. What are the Impact’s TV numbers?

Rudi, if you read carefully what MediaGuy said, you'd understand why I wrote my previous post. Nat TV games aren't 37 to 3 in favour of TO. It's about the same cause SRC is Nat TV. GolTV isn't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by MediaGuy

Yes and your individual anecdote clearly negates all that I'm saying.

Outside of the core audience, how many people to you really think watch programming in a different language than they speak?

I’m essentially arguing that the sky is blue, but whatever.

Does anyone really think that TFC doesn’t have the highest profile of any club in the country.

I’m NOT saying they are the best club, or the coolest club, or the only club worth supporting – it’s your own defensiveness that goes there. I’m just suggesting that they have the most exposure. Forget the 12-year-old kid. Walk down to the street corner in Moose Jaw and ask 100 12-year-old kids to name a professional soccer team in Canada. Do you think the Montreal Impact are going to be the first thing that comes off their lips?

Jesus, seriously, why is it so hard to admit that TFC has the highest profile? It doesn’t make you less of a person, or less of a supporter of the game. It’s bloody common sense. Arguing against the idea is INSANE (hell, blame the Toronto media is you want. It doesn’t make it less true). The only place is the world where you could find anyone that believes that TFC doesn’t have a higher profile than Montreal or Vancouver is here at the Voyageurs.

El Hombre gave you an extremely (overly) kind opportunity to STFU. Nobody disagrees with your assertions that TFC is, for now, the biggest club in Canada. But your so-called "facts" to back this up are dubious. I honestly thought you would have some evidence to support your claim that Anglophones "very, very rarely" watch French TV. No matter how anecdotal, most of us, the insane Voyageurs who just live to crap all over TFC and Toronto, seem to agree that we'll watch sports in another language. I don't think this gives Montreal equal exposure, but it's an interesting counterpoint that isn't INSANE.

Regardless, my advice, show some more respect for the poeple who post here and you'll find it returned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Media Guy much of your arguing here shows what is wrong with your journalism as a whole. First of all you are completely dismissing/misinterpreting the criticism of you and then are changing the subject to argue other points. No one is denying that TFC has the most media exposure in Canada. In fact, this will probably be the case even when the other teams are in MLS. What we are stating that your following paragraph is both wrong in content and that even those parts that are technically right are written in a tone that implies something incorrect:

quote:I’ve been called arrogant for pointing out what seems to me to be obvious – TFC has a national TV contract and plays in front of 20,000 people weekly. The USL clubs do not have those things. They do have, of course, dedicated fans that care very deeply for them. There just aren’t enough of them, nor will there ever be when they are at the USL level. We’ve had 10 plus years of evidence to back up my contention.

The first part about the national tv contract is patently false. There is no argument about language or viewership numbers or available cable sports channels the statement is 100% false. Anyone in Canada with a tv and an antennae or cable or satellite can receive SRC and thus it is a national tv contract. The second part is technically true yet written in such a way that it doesn't read like a responsible journalist would write. A responsible journalist would portray the situation accurately and write something like: TFC is the only team that averages 20 000 fans per game but the Impact also get a very good average of close to 12 000 while Vancouver averages above 5 000 in a small stadium in a far away suburb. Instead you write it in a way that implies the Impact and Caps are getting really crappy small attendances. If someone unfamiliar with the USL teams were to read that they would have the impression that the two teams are getting attendance of 2 or 3 thousand.

Now your following quote is simply untrue and shows why you are such a poor journalist:

quote:By the way having contacts and access to information is EXACTLY what makes a journalist. The old adage taught in j-school is that you are only as good as your sources.

Yes it is important to have sources and access to information but that is only the first step. It is even more important to be able to present this information in as non-biased a manner as possible and when drawing conclusions and making analysis of such information to do so in a fair and logical way. I do not see that at all in your posts on this forum, your blog entries or your podcasts. Instead we get someone who often has his facts wrong (and won't even admit it when this is pointed out), is extremely and I mean EXTREMELY Toronto centric and TFC/MLS biased and who comes off as pompous and arrogant. Yes there are sportscasters and journalists who have made a career out of this and if that is your intent go to it but don't wonder when a large number of posters here dislike you and your style of journalism. Honestly, is there any better summary of your style of posting here and journalistic writing than you starting off a post that is intended to reconcile with me by stating, "We have a mutual friend who tells me that this internet tough guy stuff you spout on here is really just an act". Yes insulting people is always the best way to reconcile with them.2006.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grizzly, what MG writes in here is NOT an example of his journalism.

He doesn't have to pander to or overly explain such trivial things as USL attendance here, as the overwhelming majority of people on this site already know that themselves.

Just because he is a working journalist, that does not mean that all of his posts have to be held to some journalistic standard that no one else here is subject to. He's been a V's member for as long as I can remember, and as such has the right to post as casually as everyone else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Rudi

Grizzly, what MG writes in here is NOT an example of his journalism.

He doesn't have to pander to or overly explain such trivial things as USL attendance here, as the overwhelming majority of people on this site already know that themselves.

Just because he is a working journalist, that does not mean that all of his posts have to be held to some journalistic standard that no one else here is subject to. He's been a V's member for as long as I can remember, and as such has the right to post as casually as everyone else.

First of all, the quote that is at dispute right now is not from this forum but from his blog which appears to be his main journalistic outlet and should indeed be representative of his journalistic standard. Secondly, he promotes his blog and various journalistic activities here so I would not say that he comes on here as a mere casual poster. He could always post under an anonymous name if he wanted to avoid criticism. Thirdly about his right to post casually here in principle you are right but I doubt many journalists would agree with not maintaining a certain standard of professionalism. Every profession has a standard and those who practice it usually try to uphold it whatever the situation. As a professional musician I still try to play to a high level when I am playing casual, non-paid events even though it is not a concert with a paying public. Most of the people I respect of any profession have a similar outlook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Grizzly

Media Guy much of your arguing here shows what is wrong with your journalism as a whole. First of all you are completely dismissing/misinterpreting the criticism of you and then are changing the subject to argue other points. Noone is denying that TFC has the most media exposure in Canada. In fact, this will probably be the case even when the other teams are in MLS. What we are stating that your following paragraph is both wrong in content and that even those parts that are technically right are written in a tone that implies something incorrect:

The first part about the national tv contract is patently false. There is no argument about language or viewership numbers or available cable sports channels the statement is 100% false. Anyone in Canada with a tv and an antennae or cable or satellite can receive SRC and thus it is a national tv contract. The second part is technically true yet written in such a way that it doesn't read like a responsible journalist would write. A responsible journalist would portray the situation accurately and write something like: TFC is the only team that averages 20 000 fans per game but the Impact also get a very good average of close to 12 000 while Vancouver averages above 5 000 in a small stadium in a far away suburb. Instead you write it in a way that implies the Impact and Caps are getting really crappy small attendances. If someone unfamiliar with the USL teams were to read that they would have the impression that the two teams are getting attendance of 2 or 3 thousand.

Now your following quote is simply untrue and shows why you are such a poor journalist:

Yes it is important to have sources and access to information but that is only the first step. It is even more important to be able to present this information in as non-biased a manner as possible and when drawing conclusions and making analysis of such information to do so in a fair and logical way. I do not see that at all in your posts on this forum, your blog entries or your podcasts. Instead we get someone who often has his facts wrong (and won't even admit it when this is pointed out), is extremely and I mean EXTREMELY Toronto centric and TFC/MLS biased and who comes off as pompous and arrogant. Yes there are sportscasters and journalists who have made a career out of this and if that is your intent go to it but don't wonder when a large number of posters here dislike you and your style of journalism. Honestly, is there any better summary of your style of posting here and journalistic writing than you starting off a post that is intended to reconcile with me by stating, "We have a mutual friend who tells me that this internet tough guy stuff you spout on here is really just an act". Yes insulting people is always the best way to reconcile with them.2006.gif

No one is two words.

Have a nice day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Rudi

Grizzly, what MG writes in here is NOT an example of his journalism.

He doesn't have to pander to or overly explain such trivial things as USL attendance here, as the overwhelming majority of people on this site already know that themselves.

Just because he is a working journalist, that does not mean that all of his posts have to be held to some journalistic standard that no one else here is subject to. He's been a V's member for as long as I can remember, and as such has the right to post as casually as everyone else.

I disagree. The man shamelessly promotes his blog/website. Due to this shameless self advertisement he has made it such that "MediaGuy" and Duane (whatever his last name is) are synonomous. If Duane continues to make the choice of using the Voyageurs message board for shameless self promotion he should be held to the standard of the website he is from, and the profession he claims to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S.

Because the new mods, at what seems to be your pathetic after-the-fact prompting, started threatening us with a ban because we AGREED with each other rather amicably on a thread.

And of course no one in their right mind is going to agree to that, I am glad Grizzly felt the same way I did about it.

If we get out of line again in the same extreme way, fine, ban us, give us a week or two, we both have other things we can do. We can live with it. But if we are agreeing with each other, or just making observations about question not concerning us personally on the same thread, don't send us these pompous threats in the name of Cheeta.

According to this assinine state of things Grizzly should not post on the Julian's Future threads I start, and I should not post about the Impact pretty well ever.

Instead of the new mods thinking for themselves, Cheeta is still moderating through them. Mods, think for yourselves and stop letting Cheeta in the same half-ass, partial way he did before.

What the new mods should do, instead of just blindly and irrationally following Cheeta's badly construed criteria, is just wipe the slate clean. They did it for his botched moderating jobs, they can do it for the botched attempts at forum discussion Grizzly and I fell into a few months ago.

Instead of sending us threat mail.

I already responded in private about this issue several weeks ago (to no effect apparently) so I will basically repeat what I wrote at that time. Jeffrey and I had some disputes some time ago which while I won't deny our own personal responsibility also occurred in large part because Cheetah was not properly moderating the forum. Cheetah then informed us that we were forbidden to respond to each other on any threads and would be banned if we did. I told him at the time that he should do a better job of moderating the forum and that as long as I was a member of this forum I would respond to whoever I wanted including Jeffrey and if he wanted to try banning me for this then go ahead. Subsequently, Jeffrey and I have at times responded to each other and nothing was mentioned about it until the new mods took over when it was pointed out that we were breaking the rules on a thread in which we were actually agreeing with each other.

So far I actually find the new mods a big improvement. I have indeed been asked twice whether I wanted the communication ban with Jeffrey lifted, once by Cheetah before the new mods took over and once by El Hombre. Both times I responded that since I regard the ban as illegitimate and have never respected it I am not going to request that it be lifted. If the mods want to lift it on their own or want to ban me for breaking it that is their own choice. As long as Jeffrey and I don't break the other legitimate rules of the forum that I do respect I don't see the purpose of the communications ban. I fully intend to respond to Jeffrey and any other poster here whenever I want to regardless of the official status of this ridiculous communications ban and judging from his responses above Jeffrey has the same intention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Grizzly

So far I actually find the new mods a big improvement. I have indeed been asked twice whether I wanted the communication ban with Jeffrey lifted, once by Cheetah before the new mods took over and once by El Hombre. Both times I responded that since I regard the ban as illegitimate and have never respected it I am not going to request that it be lifted.

Grizzly cannot be banned. That is too funny. :D

I am a little hurt that I wasn't even threatened. I guess I'm getting old. For future reference, if you've got a blacklist I want to be on it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by youllneverwalkalone

Grizzly cannot be banned. That is too funny. :D

I am a little hurt that I wasn't even threatened. I guess I'm getting old. For future reference, if you've got a blacklist I want to be on it!

Now had they banned me from communicating with you that I would have understood! Hey Jeffrey never threatened me with the ICF! (Hope that makes you feel better!):D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jeffery S.
quote:Originally posted by Grizzly

I already responded in private about this issue several weeks ago (to no effect apparently) so I will basically repeat what I wrote at that time. Jeffrey and I had some disputes some time ago which while I won't deny our own personal responsibility also occurred in large part because Cheetah was not properly moderating the forum. Cheetah then informed us that we were forbidden to respond to each other on any threads and would be banned if we did. I told him at the time that he should do a better job of moderating the forum and that as long as I was a member of this forum I would respond to whoever I wanted including Jeffrey and if he wanted to try banning me for this then go ahead. Subsequently, Jeffrey and I have at times responded to each other and nothing was mentioned about it until the new mods took over when it was pointed out that we were breaking the rules on a thread in which we were actually agreeing with each other.

So far I actually find the new mods a big improvement. I have indeed been asked twice whether I wanted the communication ban with Jeffrey lifted, once by Cheetah before the new mods took over and once by El Hombre. Both times I responded that since I regard the ban as illegitimate and have never respected it I am not going to request that it be lifted. If the mods want to lift it on their own or want to ban me for breaking it that is their own choice. As long as Jeffrey and I don't break the other legitimate rules of the forum that I do respect I don't see the purpose of the communications ban. I fully intend to respond to Jeffrey and any other poster here whenever I want to regardless of the official status of this ridiculous communications ban and judging from his responses above Jeffrey has the same intention.

First, Grizzly probably expresses this better than I, but here is my take on a new thread:

http://www.canadian-soccer.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=20068

Second, without consulting each other at all over the last few months we have come to the same conclusion, and independently refused to accept the terms for the ban threat to be lifted.

Finally, there is no doubt we went too far in posts on a specific topic, but that was months ago. We are not alone in such behaviour on board, though I would like to know how many other long-time posters have been under a 3 month ban threat.

We agree on a lot and disagree strongly as well, but I don't think we should be singled out. And I don't think, as I say on the other thread, that the new mods should be sharing personal private messages related to their work as mods to third parties who have nothing to do with what is being discussed (passing on private messages sent by mods to Jeffrey S. and Grizzly to Cheeta).

That is a serious error and you better damn well address it as it is totally unacceptable. Because if you don't as far as I am concerned you might as well resign and we can start again.

PS. Technically you should ban me for posting a reply on Grizzly's post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm hereby banning myself from this website for a week. I like to use this website to help alleviate the burden that every team that I support, be it country or club, pretty much sucks. It's a nice break from reality, where I can chat about crap with other soccer nerds. I like it. I also like freedom of speech, but there's a difference between solid discussion and flinging ****.

One other thing, I really haven't read too much by Mediaguy, but if you don't like the self promotion being done on this site (which is also done by others, and is in every way related to Canadian soccer), respond to it when it happens, don't fling **** just because others are doing it. Grow some balls.

I also maintain the right to unban myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<mod>

Alright, a couple things:

1) Jeffrey and Grizzly: you've both now had your grievances made public. As I said earlier, I hope that this will suffice and that we can put this issue to rest, in public, at least. I believe that this all should've been kept private, but you've both now had your say. If you wish to continue this, we can do it somewhere else more appropriate.

2) Jeffrey (and anyone else curious): The content of personal private messages are kept private. However, rarely do mods act alone and most of the time, come to an agreement on the best way forward before acting. Any action taken is usually a group effort decided between mods</u> (ie. not at the request of former mods). Therefore, if follow-up action is required, a mod will ask the advice of other mods on how to proceed or give an update. This is so that there is some consistency in the board moderation. But, any private messages sent to me remain private and are not posted for all to see or forwarded to anyone else. I'd like to think that any action we've taken so far has been respectful and would hope that we would receive the same in turn.

3) Earlimus: You are not alone in being fed up with the mudslinging. I hope that you've noticed that we've tried to step in on certain threads before things got out of control. One of the things we all agreed on was that that crap was making this board a pain to read. We are doing our best but we're also learning.

4) With any changeover, there's going to be some growing pains. I'm hoping that this is what we are going through now. It's good that it's coming at a time where there is relatively little to discuss. Please bear with us. Once again, if you want to discuss a point, feel free to message me.

Now, I'd really like to get back to talking about something at least tangentially related to soccer.

</mod>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by the biologist

Hey, during my childhood I watched so many games in english because I wanted to watch hockey. I understood sweet f*ck all but a goal is a goal. And you know what, I watched so many things in english, now I can express myself in Shakespeare's language. Maybe if you do the same with SRC...

I hear you, TLN is one of my favourite channels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by dsqpr

Would you like the salt and pepper? [}:)]

Ha ha, I like the devil face, as if it's my fault. I didn't put the baking soda and vinegar together, I just said the volcano was probably about to erupt.

Maybe Toronto's elimination will put this particular brand of inanity to bed for a while? Maybe?

(boy, my words sure are delicious, I think I'll eat some more...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by youllneverwalkalone

Grizzly cannot be banned. That is too funny. :D

I am a little hurt that I wasn't even threatened. I guess I'm getting old. For future reference, if you've got a blacklist I want to be on it!

Get your own material.

But if it makes you feel better, The Voyageur Gestapo already has a file on you. Big Brother is watching.

(I kid, I kid. Or do I?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and as much as this topic should die after tonight it has up to this point shown a mutating survival instinct which is quite surprising so Grizzly, Jeffrey S let us not bore those who are interested in other topics and move the now public conversation concerning your forum restrictions to Jeffrey S' topic below*.

Seems a more appropriate place.

*http://www.canadian-soccer.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=20068

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:Originally posted by Rudi

I know you're piling on to the anti-MG bandwagon here (because, of course, he supports TFC), but please don't be intentionally dense in doing so.

I have to call bull**** on this claim. I suspect that more than half of the posters on this board admit to some affinity for TFC. Not all of them attract the same disdain as MediaGuy. If people are mounting a coordinated, unjustified campaign against Duane Rollins solely because of his open support for TFC, why isn't BrennanFan (random TFC supporting Voyageur) being chased by an unruly mob of torch-wielding thugs? It may just be that between the two posters, one came out all arrogant and condescending and the other is just a regular guy who loves football. Perhaps making bold claims to being the most knowledgeable guy in the country on MLS expansion, ridiculing other posters who disagreed with him, and ultimately getting it all horribly wrong is not a better way to make friends than being respectful and getting us all a very nice scarf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...