Let me try to clear a couple of things up here...
1) The programmes were the ones from the original game as for financial reasons the club couldn't afford to have new ones printed. However, you should have received a sleeve with the programme with the correct and up to the date information which was new. This isn't a situation that I'm happy with, but conversely I can understand why the club would be unprepared to spend thousands on new programmes and chuck old ones away. I did suggest that in this circumstance a new programme should be printed, but it isn't my place to spend Accrington Stanley's money. Oldgobbin, if you didn't get the sleeve with your programme, let me know where you bought it and I'll find out why they weren't being distributed.
2) Smudgie (and I'm almost certainly going to get in trouble for saying this) I agree that the programme is overpriced. However, it's a chicken and egg situation - in order to bring down the cost per unit the club needs to order more units and therefore sell more. So more need to be sold before economically the price can come down. Hope that makes sense.
3) I've been knocking about for too long to be offended by "I havent bought a programme in ages they are very poor and overpriced compared to some of the others.
The club need to look at Torquay's and Port Vale's to see what should be achieved" but I'd like to say that there's been a lot of effort by a lot of people in the last month or so to improve the quality of the content within the programme. Hopefully the improvement will continue and I'd urge you to have a read of the Rochdale programme and compare to one from several months ago. I hope everyone will be able to see that improvement. It may still be "poor" compared to Port Vale's (which is compiled by a large, full-time team) but I hope that it is going in the right direction.
No offence meant by any of this, just hoping to clear up some myths and get some facts out there. Any questions email
[email protected]
Ta
Dan