Derek Chapman has a swipe at DK

[hans kraay fan club]

I thought he was building the academy?

To quote DC:

I’m aware of course that some people believe that I made money out of the building of theAmex – so it’s time to dispel another myth!
Martin took care of planning, design (except when we were trying to reduce costs or make it more buildable when I got more involved), and relationships with the key stakeholders.
I helped with the tender and choosing the contractor.
I was then responsible for managing the contractor on behalf of the club to ensure that the stadium was delivered on time, on budget, and to a high quality.
I am fulfilling the same role at our newtraining ground. To be clear: I have never asked to be paid, and neither have I received or made any money, for carrying out these duties.

.....

 

[Brighton Breezy]

And you don't think Dick has written to sell the book, or that he would be happy that the local rag has picked some juicy extracts to publish from the book? Really!?

I wasn't passing comment on the nature of the extracts or their usefulness in selling copies of it. Just that I think once supporters read the entire book they will perhaps be less polarised than many appear from having just read the extracts.

 

[B.W.]

Dick was saying at the book signing on Saturday (City Books) that he couldn't believe the club had banned his banner in the North Stand as people "couldn't see". He intimated that the club had become petty, too corporate and lost touch with it's roots.

Lost touch with Dick's personal view of how to run a club more like. And rightly so.

 

[B.W.]

Which accusation was this? From whom?

LoL!

 

[sparkie]

Dick was saying at the book signing on Saturday (City Books) that he couldn't believe the club had banned his banner in the North Stand as people "couldn't see". He intimated that the club had become petty, too corporate and lost touch with it's roots.

Have they really? I assume people couldn't see and had complained ?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Lost touch with Dick's personal view of how to run a club more like. And rightly so.

You think it's right to tell fans to remove a banner from the North stand wall because people couldn't see? Who was behind this banner?

 

[symyjym]

To quote DC:

.....

Fair enough.

 

[B.W.]

Not naughty. Fair dealing in legal terms. And also likely to boost book sales rather than harm them, as I'm sure Dick knows very well.

Happy to stand corrected. But I would have thought a rag would have to get permission to publish extracts from a book?

 

[B.W.]

You're right, but does Dick agree? "The ad man who saved Brighton" is a fairly bold cover line!

He was always a bit of a glory hunter, but fair play to him; he did lead the fight to save the club.

 

[Twinkle Toes]

On the contrary, I would say some matters should stay in the boardroom. Gus' misdemeanour's for example.

Why? As a supporter, wouldn't you like to know what actually happened to bring about his ignominious exit?? Call me old fashioned, but I certainly would.

 

[B.W.]

I wasn't passing comment on the nature of the extracts or their usefulness in selling copies of it. Just that I think once supporters read the entire book they will perhaps be less polarised than many appear from having just read the extracts.

Fair enough. When I have read the book, let's see if I'm still so 'polarised', although not sure which pole I'm representing, since I have gratitude for Dick and those responding to him (RB and DC)!

 

[Monkey Man]

Happy to stand corrected. But I would have thought a rag would have to get permission to publish extracts from a book?

Copyright law is not my speciality but you are certainly allowed by law to reproduce a section of someone else's work for the purposes of a review or other journalistic pieces. You just need to be careful about how much you reproduce, otherwise it's not fair dealing. So for example quoting 1,000 words from a 30,000 word book is likely to be fine but 1,000 words from a 2,000 word essay is almost certainly not.

The law is clearly rather more nuanced than that but that's the general gist of it. The Argus would have been very confident in the legalities of its article and, whatever Dick may say, I'm pretty sure he'd have no objections either. Though he'd probably have wanted to make the selection himself rather than let the Argus decide which bit(s) to use.

 

[The Large One]

Your seemingly compulsive need to back up DK, whatever, is quite tiresome.

This issue has nothing to do with Dick, so there is nothing to 'back up'. It's about Derek's statement regarding suggestions which you're saying - and I too have seen - have been on here.

The suggestion (not accusation - I don't think anything illegal has been suggested) that Derek Chapman profited nicely from his involvement with the club, has been floated on here plenty of times.

I KNOW some people have made that suggestion.

But this is supposed to be a statement from Derek on his take on extracts of Dick's book. Stuff posted on NSC is a separate issue.

 

[B.W.]

You think it's right to tell fans to remove a banner from the North stand wall because people couldn't see? Who was behind this banner?

As you well know, I was responding to Dick's snide comments re the club now being too petty, corporate, and having lost touch with its roots. We are now a big business in football terms, so we have to be 'corporate'. The club can no longer be run like Dick's amateur hour, effective tho' that was at the time. Lost touch with its roots? more like, Dick has lost his chance to show-boat in the centre of the pitch. For 'petty' read professional.

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

DC says they have not been asked!

I'm told the publishers contacted the shop manager. I may have been misinformed.

 

[Monkey Man]

Do you really feel NSC is that important that he needs to put it into a statement in the Argus a justification of a totally separate issue, in what is supposed to be about a response to Dick Knight's book?

It's hardly the main thrust of what Chapman has written. And as has already been observed, if he hadn't have said it, someone else on here would have accused him of it. Seems fair enough to gently set the record straight, in one of his very few public pronouncements.

 

[B.W.]

Why? As a supporter, wouldn't you like to know what actually happened to bring about his ignominious exit?? Call me old fashioned, but I certainly would.

I do know! ;-)

 

[Thunder Bolt]

This issue has nothing to do with Dick, so there is nothing to 'back up'. It's about Derek's statement regarding suggestions which you're saying - and I too have seen - have been on here.



I KNOW some people have made that suggestion.

But this is supposed to be a statement from Derek on his take on extracts of Dick's book. Stuff posted on NSC is a separate issue.

That is a point I have tried to make. DK hasn't made any such accusation or suggestion. The Argus has been naughty.

 

[B.W.]

Copyright law is not my speciality but you are certainly allowed by law to reproduce a section of someone else's work for the purposes of a review or other journalistic pieces. You just need to be careful about how much you reproduce, otherwise it's not fair dealing. So for example quoting 1,000 words from a 30,000 word book is likely to be fine but 1,000 words from a 2,000 word essay is almost certainly not.

The law is clearly rather more nuanced than that but that's the general gist of it. The Argus would have been very confident in the legalities of its article and, whatever Dick may say, I'm pretty sure he'd have no objections either. Though he'd probably have wanted to make the selection himself rather than let the Argus decide which bit(s) to use.

Got it! Thanks for the clarification.

 

[The Large One]

On the contrary, I would say some matters should stay in the boardroom. Gus' misdemeanour's for example.

I do know! ;-)

Hmmm...