How Not to Run a Football Club - Official Discussion Thread

BWseasider said:
The feedback Phil gave was fairly received by Foggy, and both were quite cordial to each other, but Phil then said to another poster that there were several inaccuracies. Foggy was then trying to get Phil to clarify this feedback. There was a big back and forth of Foggy trying to get Phil to say what the inaccuracies were, Phil then danced around the gardens not specifying any, he just said "things about Huds and Derby".

Also at one point, Phil also announced he had enough with the thread, and stopped posting, and the whole thread had moved on. Only for him to come in days later, not replying to anyone, and restart the whole argument again basically repeating his "this book was inaccurate" line. Then he finally did specify one 'inaccuracy' and it wasn't an inaccuracy at all.

I think the lesson is, if you're going to give feedback, be constructive and keep it within the realms of reality. Otherwise it's useless, and isn't feedback at all, just pointless nitpicking and sniping. Instead of saying "this book is inaccurate because the bits I think are important aren't in it", you could say "I wish the book contained more details on x,y,z". By just saying it's inaccurate and then being vague about what's inaccurate, you're not offering the author any useful feedback. Any author interested in useful feedback would press that person to actually specify what they're referring to. There's a difference between offering a counter argument, and asking someone to clarify their comments.

Also the "don't bother asking for feedback" line is a bit much. It was a thread started for discussion of the book. Whilst feedback can be part of that, it was never actually specified or asked for in the original post. My thoughts when opening the thread was it would revolve around stories raised in the book, rather than a thread of book reviews, good or bad. Also it suggests he can't handle feedback, which I think he clearly can, he wasn't just offering counter arguments, he's given his thoughts on why he's written his book this way, he's not saying it's the definitive best way, but why it made sense for him to do so.

I thought your discussion with Foggy was much more constructive and could see why he wrote about NAPM the way he did, but also why you take issue with it given your experience. I thought that was a pretty fair back and forth.
Click to expand...
The mistake Foggy made was beginning to engage in self justification, instead of simply allowing the feedback to flow. BST did exactly the same thing on a thread a few weeks ago and all it does is serve to wind people up.

If you ask for feedback it's going to come in a variety of forms...There's no need to argue with those who provide it or justify anything at all....

All you do is simply say..."Thanks for all that feedback I don't necessarily agree with all of it,but I really appreciate it and I'll take some of it on board" or words to that effect.

Phil didn't want or expect to get into a tit for tat debate about who's information was more credible than the other, but he was sucked into that as it slowly progressed into a dick waving contest.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
The mistake Foggy made was beginning to engage in self justification, instead of simply allowing the feedback to flow. BST did exactly the same thing on a thread a few weeks ago and all it does is serve to wind people up.

If you ask for feedback it's going to come in a variety of forms...There's no need to argue with those who provide it or justify anything at all....

All you do is simply say..."Thanks for all that feedback I don't necessarily agree with all of it,but I really appreciate it and I'll take some of it on board" or words to that effect.

Phil didn't want or expect to get into a tit for tat debate about who's information was more credible than the other, but he was sucked into that as it slowly progressed into a dick waving contest.
Click to expand...
If someone misquotes my book I will correct them. My mistake was believing the poster was feeding back in good faith, and would accept his own mistake. But apparently feedback only goes one way. Where both he and you have erred is thinking your right to criticism was protected, and that nobody else could possibly disagree with you, as many have. But that's the thing about opinions - everyone has one.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
I'd have though you above anyone else would understand a thing or two about bullying, but of course, perhaps it feels better when you're on a different side of the fence.

That said, I'm not suggesting Phil is a victim... He's played his part (like many of us do) in escalating the discussion. I'm simply saying that the folk who are revelling in their collective ability to stick the boot in (as per usual) should reflect on the fact that this hasn't been one way traffic. There's plenty of people willing to stir the pot from the sidelines and those who are happy to simply use the opportunity (as it presents itself) to further their personal gripes with him.

As I've said, Robbie, Phils initial comments were inoffensive and nothing at all to write home about.... The difficulty we have on this forum at this time is that a number of opinions are considered to be taboo (this book being the latest to add to a growing list). Interestingly, I'm glad the book actually highlighted a few home truths about VB and his finances, because I was getting it in the neck only a short while ago for daring to break the taboo of being slightly critical of VB..
Click to expand...

Hmmm. I'm not sure that anything I have said on this thread constitutes bullying. Others will no doubt have a view. I think a lot of what both of you have posted is ill-informed, as well as being mean-spirited and churlish. And I think that is as critical as I have been.

You might think that Phil hasn't set out to offend, but I don't think many others would agree with you (especially if they have seen what he has had to say on Twitter). It's a fact of life that if you are very opinionated, people will try to use your own words against you. As you (rightly) say, I know a thing or two about that. You shouldn't bleat if it comes back to bite you.

I think you are perfectly entitled to express a contrary view. But when you do so off the back of incomplete knowledge, people will challenge you. When you have a bit of a track record for contrariness, that may also mean people push back on what you say. The pair of you made this bed for yourselves, but you don't appear very keen on lying in it.
 
basilrobbie3 said:
Hmmm. I'm not sure that anything I have said on this thread constitutes bullying. Others will no doubt have a view. I think a lot of what both of you have posted is ill-informed, as well as being mean-spirited and churlish. And I think that is as critical as I have been.

You might think that Phil hasn't set out to offend, but I don't think many others would agree with you (especially if they have seen what he has had to say on Twitter). It's a fact of life that if you are very opinionated, people will try to use your own words against you. As you (rightly) say, I know a thing or two about that. You shouldn't bleat if it comes back to bite you.

I think you are perfectly entitled to express a contrary view. But when you do so off the back of incomplete knowledge, people will challenge you. When you have a bit of a track record for contrariness, that may also mean people push back on what you say. The pair of you made this bed for yourselves, but you don't appear very keen on lying in it.
Click to expand...
He also became the first person ever to return a book for a refund after reading it not just once, but once and a bit.
That set the tone for me bister. That’s when a few of us saw fit to comment. That’s not constructive feedback, it’s throwing your toys out of the pram and sulking in a mean and spiteful way.
 
Toastrack said:
Just finished it. Wow.

There were so many WTF incidents during this period, some I’d forgotten, some I never knew, so this is a valuable keepsake to remind us (and following generations) of the Os’ spiralling madness, the appalling treatment of the likes of Parky and Steve Thompson, and the sacrifices we made for the love of BFC.

It’s not comprehensive, but the publisher didn’t want a 600 pager.
Each of us might have done it differently – but only Foggy had the dedication to put it together.

I hope this book is remembered at the end of the year when the awards for sporting books are dished out.
Because while the sector is awash with anodyne landfill - bland memoirs and fawning paeans to the uber-rich - this is dynamite stuff, written with the passion of a fan.

Thanks, Foggy.
Click to expand...
Thanks for reading. The Parky stuff is genuinely awful, and Karl's attempts at justification only make him look worse in my opinion. I just quoted him as much as possible in that section, because it was the most revealing part of it all.
 
basilrobbie3 said:
Hmmm. I'm not sure that anything I have said on this thread constitutes bullying. Others will no doubt have a view. I think a lot of what both of you have posted is ill-informed, as well as being mean-spirited and churlish. And I think that is as critical as I have been.

You might think that Phil hasn't set out to offend, but I don't think many others would agree with you (especially if they have seen what he has had to say on Twitter). It's a fact of life that if you are very opinionated, people will try to use your own words against you. As you (rightly) say, I know a thing or two about that. You shouldn't bleat if it comes back to bite you.

I think you are perfectly entitled to express a contrary view. But when you do so off the back of incomplete knowledge, people will challenge you. When you have a bit of a track record for contrariness, that may also mean people push back on what you say. The pair of you made this bed for yourselves, but you don't appear very keen on lying in it.
Click to expand...

You seem plenty happy enough to stir the pot as the opportunity presents itself....😉

I can't comment on what is being said on twitter, but the situation has already escalated now, which is precisely what I was talking about.

If you disagree with me about how Phil approached this subject at the outset, then feel free to enlighten yourself, rather than commenting in ignorance and assuming that you are right, based upon the weight of other people's supporting opinions.

As I said to you yesterday, I'd rather you respond to me directly about my own input, rather than lumping me in with someone else. If you wish to challenge my opinion, then be specific about it,rather than offering up broad generalisations. I'd be more than happy to discuss at length (and as ever) I'm happy to acknowledge if I've stepped over the mark. I'd prefer to speak plainly than dance around the houses.

Lala said:
He also became the first person ever to return a book for a refund after reading it not just once, but once and a bit.
That set the tone for me bister. That’s when a few of us saw fit to comment. That’s not constructive feedback, it’s throwing your toys out of the pram and sulking in a mean and spiteful way.
Click to expand...
The comment about returning the book came after tensions had already started to develop and I can't say I took that particularly seriously really. As I said, Phil's initial comments are nothing to write home about.... Yet Foggy opted to develop them into a pissing contest, instead of just dealing with them.... I think that was a 50/50, but for me, if you want to enjoy the book sales, have the privilege of a sticky feedback thread at the top of the forum, then you've probably got to be able to deal with criticism that comes your way.

I'm not trying to absolve anyone from blame, but simply trying to say that it's maybe not quite the one sided affair that many seem to be suggesting.
 
braymarina said:
Just read your book Foggy, it’s a compelling narrative which flows along from one jaw dropping moment to another. Thank you for filling in the gaps for this distant observer.

I see that the usual suspects are arguing over the spoils but, it was ever thus.
Click to expand...
Ha, thank you!
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
The mistake Foggy made was beginning to engage in self justification, instead of simply allowing the feedback to flow. BST did exactly the same thing on a thread a few weeks ago and all it does is serve to wind people up.

If you ask for feedback it's going to come in a variety of forms...There's no need to argue with those who provide it or justify anything at all....

All you do is simply say..."Thanks for all that feedback I don't necessarily agree with all of it,but I really appreciate it and I'll take some of it on board" or words to that effect.

Phil didn't want or expect to get into a tit for tat debate about who's information was more credible than the other, but he was sucked into that as it slowly progressed into a dick waving contest.
Click to expand...

Firstly he never asked for feedback in the OP, so I'm not sure why you keep saying that, he started the thread as a discussion thread, the distinction is important. Secondly I don't see what Foggy wrote as "self justification" rather than explanation. It's a thread on a book discusison with the author in it, it's completely appropriate for Foggy to share his thought process, and why he wrote certain things in certain ways, and allowed people to understand how he wrote the book or where he's coming from. He's done it with several other posters with no issue.

Also in your example what's there to take on board when someone tells you your book is inaccurate, but doesn't actually say what's inaccurate? Like I said before, an author actually interested in feedback is going to want to be able to understand it to improve their work. The thing is Phil's feedback didn't really make sense as it was "your book is inaccurate" and when he finally revealed what he thought was "inaccurate" it wasn't an inaccuracy. Maybe you're right and he could have brushed it off or ignored it, but why would we have a discussion thread with the author at all if all he is going to do is marketing lip service? Also it would mean he's not actually interested/engaging in the feedback.
 
SeasideKurt said:
The biggest take away for me, is don't read a book you hoped, prayed to be in and get upset when you're not.

I read 50 shades of grey on holiday once and was ** furious I wasn't mentioned.
Click to expand...
There were a few half-joking, probably half-real comments from members of my extended family about others being given thanks in the acknowledgements and not them. My brother said I should have written 'and thanks to everyone who I can't mention...you know who you are' as a sort of get out of jail free card. Perhaps I should have done this in the protests chapter too 😉
 
foggy said:
If someone misquotes my book I will correct them. My mistake was believing the poster was feeding back in good faith, and would accept his own mistake. But apparently feedback only goes one way. Where both he and you have erred is thinking your right to criticism was protected, and that nobody else could possibly disagree with you, as many have. But that's the thing about opinions - everyone has one.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure he misquoted your book (at least not in his initial comment), he just said something along the lines that "It was a great read, but it didn't happen exactly as you said"....

To me it then just gradually went a bit 'Dick Wavy' and has spiralled downwards from there...
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
I'm not sure he misquoted your book (at least not in his initial comment), he just said something along the lines that "It was a great read, but it didn't happen exactly as you said"....

To me it then just gradually went a bit 'Dick Wavy' and has spiralled downwards from there...
Click to expand...
He said I gave the Knights/BST credit for the protest on post 61. I didn't.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
I'm not sure he misquoted your book (at least not in his initial comment), he just said something along the lines that "It was a great read, but it didn't happen exactly as you said"....

To me it then just gradually went a bit 'Dick Wavy' and has spiralled downwards from there...
Click to expand...
Are you sure it wasn't when you got into a multi page argument about the dictionary definition of the word 'imply'?

Look, I've enjoyed an interesting discussion with you about some details, and if you have more to discuss about the book I will continue. But more recently you've appointed yourself thread police, and we're going around in circles. I think it's clear you and I can spend all day on a thread getting bogged down in tangents. How about we start fresh, and let's knock all that on the head now and get back to talking about the book, if anyone so wishes.
 
foggy said:
He said I gave the Knights/BST credit for the protest on post 61. I didn't.
Click to expand...
No he didn't.... You've misread his response....

In post 61 he was responding to a general request for an example of a protest that the TK's weren't involved in from Tim. You've essentially conflated two separate discussions there and in doing so assumed Phil has suggested something that he didn't.

Unfortunately that's what can happen when you get into these message-board discussions and your heckles get up.... We can all start to read things into other peoples comments that were not intended.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
The mistake Foggy made was beginning to engage in self justification, instead of simply allowing the feedback to flow. BST did exactly the same thing on a thread a few weeks ago and all it does is serve to wind people up.

If you ask for feedback it's going to come in a variety of forms...There's no need to argue with those who provide it or justify anything at all....

All you do is simply say..."Thanks for all that feedback I don't necessarily agree with all of it,but I really appreciate it and I'll take some of it on board" or words to that effect.

Phil didn't want or expect to get into a tit for tat debate about who's information was more credible than the other, but he was sucked into that as it slowly progressed into a dick waving contest.
Click to expand...
Phil fed back before he had even read it.

Phil_bfc deux said:
I honestly think it will be shit
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
No he didn't.... You've misread his response....

In post 61 he was responding to a general request for an example of a protest that the TK's weren't involved in from Tim. You've essentially conflated two separate discussions there and in doing so assumed Phil has suggested something that he didn't.

Unfortunately that's what can happen when you get into these message-board discussions and your heckles get up.... We can all start to read things into other peoples comments.
Click to expand...
You've missed the entire context of the conversation. You need to go back one comment earlier, which is why Tim asked what he asked.

"As i said earlier the book makes out that the protests were planned by BST and the Knights. That simply isn't the case"

"Which protests didn’t one of them have a part in organising other than the more spontaneous acts of violence? I'm struggling to think of one"

"The Derby one at home for a start. Absolutely nothing to do with BST or the Knights and it was the first time fans actually mobilised in that way "

Very open and shut.
 
foggy said:
There were a few half-joking, probably half-real comments from members of my extended family about others being given thanks in the acknowledgements and not them. My brother said I should have written 'and thanks to everyone who I can't mention...you know who you are' as a sort of get out of jail free card. Perhaps I should have done this in the protests chapter too 😉
Click to expand...
Phil's a good guy mate, very easy to fall out over words on the internet and not understand fully the jist of what people are trying to say. I've done it daily for 15 years on AVFTT.
 
foggy said:
You've missed the entire context of the conversation.


"As i said earlier the book makes out that the protests were planned by BST and the Knights. That simply isn't the case"

"Which protests didn’t one of them have a part in organising other than the more spontaneous acts of violence? I'm struggling to think of one"

"The Derby one at home for a start. Absolutely nothing to do with BST or the Knights and it was the first time fans actually mobilised in that way "

Very open and shut.
Click to expand...
No, I haven't (or at least I genuinely don't think I have)... I think that you've assumed / drawn context, where it doesn't actually exist as I'm sure Phil would confirm.

I can see perfectly well how you've reached the conclusion you have there, but I think that's more about how you've internalised the conversation yourself. As I say, it's easy to read stuff into things on the internet, because you're reading how something feels to you, rather than trying to understand how it might have been for the writer.

As I see it, when Tim asks that question, Phil is just answering the immediately preceding question very straightforwardly.... He's not relating that back to the book.

As I've said, this can often be the problem with the written word..... It's never quite as open and shut or clear cut as you might think👍

Obviously it's not worth me and you getting into a tit-for-tat about.... I'm just trying to maybe help see that perhaps this might have been slightly different than you perceived.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
No, I haven't.... You've assumed / drawn context, where it doesn't actually exist as I'm sure Phil would confirm.

I can see perfectly well how you've reached the conclusion you have there, but I think that's more about how you've internalised the conversation yourself. As I say, it's easy to read stuff into things on the internet, because you're reading how something feels to you, rather than trying to understand how it might have been for the writer.

As I see it, when Tim asks that question, Phil is just answering the immediately preceding question very straightforwardly.... He's not relating that back to the book.

As I've said, this can often be the problem with the written word..... It's never quite as open and shut or clear cut as you might think👍

Obviously it's not worth me and you getting into a tit-for-tat about.... I'm just trying to maybe help see that perhaps this might have been slightly different than you perceived.
Click to expand...
That doesn't change his inaccurate statement that the book is somehow wrong for giving credit on the protests to the Knights and BST. I only did that for Burnley and Huddersfield, because they deserve it. If he was interested in a good faith discussion, maybe he would have changed his opinion once it was pointed out protests like Derby and the Cardiff walkout were mentioned without bringing up the Knights/BST. He decided not to, and I'm uninterested with speaking with his spokesperson any more on it.
 
TangerineBayern said:
Didn’t ruin mine and just finished it this morning great read, well written, well researched and full of jaw dropping / shocking details of the behaviour of the Scum!
Click to expand...
Thanks TB, glad you enjoyed it. My goal was for it to be packed with as many little jaw dropping stories as possible, so I'm glad it achieves that!
 
Magic147 said:
Logs on to see how the response to the book has been.

Ah, mostly good, how lovely.
Wait, hang on, who are these miserable bastards having a go at Foggy because he didn't mention them by name and admit that without them, personally, the Oystons would have won?
Oh FFS now they're defending the Oystons!

Logs off.

See you in a few months.
Click to expand...
While you're off can you shill for it on your discord. If I go on now they'll have me sussed.
 
foggy said:
Thanks TB, glad you enjoyed it. My goal was for it to be packed with as many little jaw dropping stories as possible, so I'm glad it achieves that!
Click to expand...
It certainly did and was a roller coaster of a journey through the most difficult period any football fan could ever imagine, never mind being a Blackpool fan. Coming out of the final two chapters in particular, makes you so proud of everyone involved in the struggle to get our club back. Trying to explain to like minded footy mad fans that l have including Nobbers and Dingles as to why l stopped attending for over 4 years was challenging, as they simply didn’t understand why anyone could suddenly stop and not support their boyhood team, they certainly get it now!😉
 
Amazon delivered mine this afternoon. I started reading it less than an hour and a half ago.
Reluctantly putting it down now because tea's ready. I've got to page 100, "The Fall"
It's an excellent read, and I reckon the best is yet to come
 
Dave62 said:
Amazon delivered mine this afternoon. I started reading it less than an hour and a half ago.
Reluctantly putting it down now because tea's ready. I've got to page 100, "The Fall"
It's an excellent read, and I reckon the best is yet to come
Click to expand...
Thanks Dave. Don't leave us hanging like that though, most importantly what's for tea?
 
My copy arrived today, buzzing! Just reading through the intro has alluded me to things I had absolutely no idea about! Very excited to continue with the rest!

Ps - I'm just gonna say all you nobs flinging shit at each other on this thread need to grow up 🤣🤣🤣 For everyone who likes the book there's gonna book someone else who doesn't like the book! Some people can't read and take in information properly (no need for names here 🙄)! Some people are even too hard headed to take information that is clearly explained to them, and even more people are too hard headed to admit when they're wrong! (*cough* Owen Dale's still a waste of space *cough*cough*)

That's life. Hard shit. 🤷‍♂️

Some of the stuff that's getting said is borderline embarrassing for all parties!... So let's just say thanks all, agree to disagree, and stop ruining such a great bit of literature and such a good time for our (now) lovely little club!

🟠🟠🟠🟠🟠
 
@BFC_BFC_BFC
"Interestingly, I'm glad the book actually highlighted a few home truths about VB and his finances, because I was getting it in the neck only a short while ago for daring to break the taboo of being slightly critical of VB."
This was another subject that I discussed and disagreed (although not entirely) with you pre-book and found very enlightening.
I will however still always be grateful to Valeri for playing a major part in ridding us of the Os but a lot less sure now where we would be if he was still around.
 
Insider said:
@BFC_BFC_BFC
"Interestingly, I'm glad the book actually highlighted a few home truths about VB and his finances, because I was getting it in the neck only a short while ago for daring to break the taboo of being slightly critical of VB."
This was another subject that I discussed and disagreed (although not entirely) with you pre-book and found very enlightening.
I will however still always be grateful to Valeri for playing a major part in ridding us of the Os but a lot less sure now where we would be if he was still around.
Click to expand...
As I said on the other discussion, I think people like to buy into the Myth and it's difficult when someone comes along a bursts the bubble to a certain extent. I always felt that we had put too many of our eggs into the VB basket, when I was never convinced at all about his genuine intentions or his finances (by that I mean the nature, rather than the quantity). Foggy had alluded to the fact that there would be an honest assessment in the book and I feel somewhat vindicated, considering the pelters I got on here.

There's no question that his action to recover his money ended up being the main reason we eventually got the Club back, but as the book clarified, that was mostly down to Owen's failure to either settle or eventually pay up his debt as opposed to any intent on the part of VB. I mentioned in the other discussion about him not giving anything back to the fans as a lasting legacy, I nearly added 'perhaps it wasn't necessarily his to give'.

Anyway, It's all turned out for the best and personally, I'm glad VB is also a part of our history, rather than our future.
 
Not quite finished the book yet I’m enjoying lingering slowly over each page, but got me thinking wouldn’t it be interesting to find out if any attendees (being polite there) during the boycott years have purchased the book. Hmmm🤔
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
As I said on the other discussion, I think people like to buy into the Myth and it's difficult when someone comes along a bursts the bubble to a certain extent. I always felt that we had put too many of our eggs into the VB basket, when I was never convinced at all about his genuine intentions or his finances (by that I mean the nature, rather than the quantity). Foggy had alluded to the fact that there would be an honest assessment in the book and I feel somewhat vindicated, considering the pelters I got on here.

There's no question that his action to recover his money ended up being the main reason we eventually got the Club back, but as the book clarified, that was mostly down to Owen's failure to either settle or eventually pay up his debt as opposed to any intent on the part of VB. I mentioned in the other discussion about him not giving anything back to the fans as a lasting legacy, I nearly added 'perhaps it wasn't necessarily his to give'.

Anyway, It's all turned out for the best and personally, I'm glad VB is also a part of our history, rather than our future.
Click to expand...
Amen to your last line BFC.
 
************SPOILER ALERT ******** SPOILER ALERT ****** SPOILER ALERT*************




Just finished "the best trip". I'm sat on my own in my living room reading this and actually laughed out loud repeatedly for a good minute at the comment Ollie made before the playoff final about having the best nights sleep ever because he'd been sleeping in Billy Davis' bed 🤣🤣🤣

Loved Ollie whilst he was with us!




************SPOILER ALERT ******** SPOILER ALERT ****** SPOILER ALERT*************
 
Phil_bfc deux said:
Keep up old boy that was after the continuous abuse I've had on social media, including a threat from who i believe is the authors brother

It does appear that book feedback is welcome as long as its something like "its a great book"
Click to expand...

As calmly mentioned in my Twitter reply to you calling my brother a 'bell end' on there yesterday: Criticism/opinion is absolutely fine, but was interested to know why you'd called him that and said for you to feel free to DM me, before you locked your account.

I have only taken umbrage at you saying 'I think it will be shit' before you'd read a word, or that you were telling a fellow 'Pool fan and first-time author you'd be refunding his book (which, even if you dislike, is pretty petty to publicly say IMO). I still maintain that actual criticism is totally fine, and I believe all discussion is healthy.

Maybe I overstepped the mark in the way I said it would be good to have a chat; I can hold my hands up there - it's my brother and I obviously have bias towards the publication, so got pissed off at the aforementioned.

As you've mentioned several times - you have a disdain for 'keyboard warriors' and as this is pulling away from healthy chat on the book, and because things get misconstrued over the internet, I'm going to bow out of the thread and will do any further speaking on it in person.

Finally - thanks to everyone who has bought or engaged with the book; it wasn't an easy process for it to all come together and to see how many it has sold and all of the discussion (praise and criticism) has been amazing. I have a couple of signed author friends whose firsts didn't sell as much and for this to have done so is because of everyone in this thread and the BFC community - what a club.
 
Last edited:
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
The mistake Foggy made was beginning to engage in self justification, instead of simply allowing the feedback to flow. BST did exactly the same thing on a thread a few weeks ago and all it does is serve to wind people up.

If you ask for feedback it's going to come in a variety of forms...There's no need to argue with those who provide it or justify anything at all....

All you do is simply say..."Thanks for all that feedback I don't necessarily agree with all of it,but I really appreciate it and I'll take some of it on board" or words to that effect.

Phil didn't want or expect to get into a tit for tat debate about who's information was more credible than the other, but he was sucked into that as it slowly progressed into a dick waving contest.
Click to expand...
Phil would lose that, he’s Welsh Bifster 🍤
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top