I WAS somewhat surprised to see a journalist on the Watford Mailing List claiming Watford FC was telling The Watford Observer what to write. He found it all quite "shocking".

Well, with a little more experience, that journalist might be able to read the situation with greater perception than evidenced by his posting.

The subject, which also prompted the club's press office to make a statement on the list, was the likelihood of Richard Johnson needing a further operation.

The club had said nothing of this and neither had The Watford Observer.

The fact of the matter is, over the last six weeks, we have been told that Richard Johnson is "progressing" when we have inquired about the injured. Then it was revealed, months after the event, that a £3m bid had been received for the player, whereupon Luca Vialli stated how keen he was to see the player back in action.

I then inquired as to when this was likely to be , only to be told "off the record" that there was a problem with potential ethical and even legal complications.

The first operation was not successful and second and third opinions had been sought and, until such time as a decision had been reached, they were not saying anything. The thinking then was that he MIGHT need a further operation.

Having been tied to secrecy by being told something "off the record" I could not then go and print what I had been told. The confidence was honoured but I remained "on the case".

I asked again the following week, only to be informed no decision had been made.

On Saturday, September 22, I had "a go" at the press office for the Johnson story being leaked, only to discover they were just as annoyed and the leak had not come from them. I was told that Richard Johnson's website had revealed all. Of course, it is OK for a player to spill the beans on his website, for which he is also paid, but when it goes against the adopted policy, it is annoying.

As for The Watford Observer being told what to write, that is hysterical nonsense but when you are told something in confidence, you acknowledge the fact. Sometimes you are given an anonymous tip and follow it to the logical conclusion.

However, when a club official informs you that an item of news will break but puts an embargo on you using it, before telling you the nature of the story, you have to honour the agreement. Journalists would get nowhere fast, if they broke confidences.

Although, there accompanies this understanding, a tacit agreement that when the story can be released, you will be among the first to release it.

As the club's statement revealed, press questions on the subject of Johnson were still being sidestepped last Thursday (September 20) 24 hours before it appeared on the player's website.

To put it mildly, I was annoyed.

I'll take a further look at "off the record" situations another week.

The journalist in question, Andreas Martensson of Sweden, replied:

My intention was not to tell you how to do your job and I am sure you are very professional.

But in the mailing from Andrew French I got the impression that the club frequently ask the Watford Observer not to write stories that they don't want to see published: "we are often aware of information but are asked to keep it confidential (as are the Watford Observer)", and that they used the Johnson story as an example of this.

"Shocking" is rather a strong word, "surprised" is a more accurate description of my feelings.

I am surprised that club officials tell a journalist something "off the record" and they should know the risks involving such a statement.

In my opinion, "off the record" should not be seen as a guarantee that the journalist won't print it. I think that depends on the situation.

If it is a story with a high level of public interest, and something that the journalist really thinks that the public should know about, then I think it is OK in some circumstances to break that agreement.

I often hear the phrase "off the record" in my daily work as a journalist and most of the times it stays off the record. But I still think that my duty of informing my readers are stronger than keeping the "off the record"-person happy!

Again, it depends on the situation.

I have the utmost respect for your newspaper, and I hope you didn't take offence of my posting on the mailing list. After all, we all see things differently.

By the way, I am a journalist at a local paper in Sweden - but that's off the record!