The9

So not postponed at all then. Somehow didn't think they had enough internationals... funnily enough I'll be at Wales v England that day.

All things considered I still think his argument has more validity than the club's, so we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. But I assure you I'm not in Stuey's gang.

I'm pretty sure my "eight" was up to date at the time, so you only have to count the hate mail from there...

Two angles on this, either 1) He hasn't been banned because he's able to buy tickets on a match by match basis - which is hardly a concession... or 2) He HAS been banned from having a ST. Whichever angle you want to take, he's been restricted from doing something all the rest of us are able to do, and the club hasn't provided a reason.

Have Zimbabwe, DR Congo, Iceland and New Zealand all got matches then, cos we've only got Oxlade-Chamberlain, maybe Schneiderlin and Doble who'll be in U-21 action ? And as far as I can see that'll be on the Wednesday beforehand.

Why are you asking Danny why he's called Danny ? Wherefore means "for what reason or purpose", not "where".

Oops, in line with my newly inconvenienced status I thought I should add... "Rabble rabble rabble rabble".

I'm pretty sure most people know the words, it's not THAT difficult - but it's not so easy to decide whether you're on the singing verse or the lalalala verse when half the people around are singing one and half the other.

We're supposed to ignore Aldershot and Maidstone in the early 90s now then ? It has already happened many times.

I'm sure you'll all be delighted to know that when I tried to get on here about 5 minutes after the match last night I couldn't. So I withdraw my "I haven't had any problems" comment.

Oh I know. But you'd have thought Godwin would have mentioned it first.

Ah, make that eight.

Unfortunately the club's "reasons" for a lack of ST instalments also lacked any explanation for why they couldn't have announced the prices in March so that fans could have paid up by the start of the season, removing any worry about people defaulting, AND failed to indicate why they didn't offer credit agreements rather than the flawed DD approach necessitated by administration and time constraints in 2009. Which of course were just two of the approaches they could have followed without inconveniencing their most loyal customers, even without getting into the research StuRomseySaint did and whether that made the club's explanation even less convincing.

He's a bit damned if you do and damned if you don't on this one, the mere mention of being considered by some a spokesperson for the fans blah blah in the IFO Report (yes, it is in there) is probably not sitting well with the seven or so people who were "playing the man" from the start of this thread, but as it may well be the only thing causing this situation to have arisen it's valid for it to have been raised - and for as long as the club doesn't provide a reason, we're only able to speculate on what the specific reason might be, just as Nick Illingsworth is.

I'm not, I'm assuming that the club is happy to take his money because they've not stopped him being able to pay altogether. I get your point, but at the very least their policy is in line with the lack of ST instalments.

As far as an independent inquiry can ascertain, we do know that for a fact, yes.

On the contrary, I'm glad someone has had the balls to go through what is doubtless a tedious and unrewarding process just to try and get some answers. He has not even said it's to prevent others having to go through the same problems for (as the IFO has basically concluded) no good reason, but I don't doubt it's intended partially to hold the club accountable for their actions, as well as so that Illingsworth gets some answers personally. First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me. A bit over-emotive, but the principle is the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatham_House_Rule For those of you who had to Google it like me... it basically means sources of information will be kept confidential.

And if the club had come out and said that was the reason would that have been a problem for anyone ? I can almost accept that as a legitimate reason - my issue here is with the club not feeling they have to justify it to anyone, which as the IFO indicates is not entirely out of line with their policy on photographer accreditation and, as I might note, a similar response to their high-handed pronouncements on ST instalments.

I think part of the reason for trousers' head-banging there may have been that the club is clearly more than happy to take his money on a game by game basis, as stated numerous times in this thread and the judgement.

But the points here are that 1) The Ombudsman role exists in order to make clubs accountable in this way (and has failed because the club has basically decided its above the process) and 2) What possible LEGITIMATE reason could the club have that they're not prepared to share ?

Well no, in short, it's not OK, which is why the Ombudsman has said "it's not ok". Only people who want to assume the club has a valid reason but for some reason don't want to share it with the world are going to think otherwise. They have added the Fans' charter back to the website though, so they're not ignoring the ruling altogether.

The whole point of asking him is that they're trying to hang some additional weight to his comments over those of the man in the street, so NOT calling him that undermines the credibility they're trying to build for the quote.

Personally I think the fact that Illingsworth has the nous and persistence to actually bother to take this further in the first place shows he's got the kind of qualities that most fans don't have, and which makes him eminently qualified for the kind of tedious and potentially litigious cack that running something like a Saints Trust can entail (though not necessarily that specific organisation). He sounds like exactly the sort of person who should be in charge of that kind of thankless thing. When the Echo randomly (VERY randomly) rang ME up for a fan-style-rentaquote after Pardew's sacking I didn't bother to give them one. None of this has much bearing on why he's been treated differently to the rest of us, but the people slagging Illingsworth off for his perceived media-hogging are really missing the point, which is that if the club can do it to him, they can also do it to you. And they STILL haven't given a reason.

Because, as it says here : In this regard, it would appear that Southampton FC is in breach of Football League Regulation 18.2 which states that “a copy of the customer charter…shall be made available to the public through…their web site”. So the club were in breach of Football League's regulations in not having its Supporters' Charter on the OS. And now they're not - but the ruling refers to the promises broken from the 2009/10 charter in the absence of this new document at the time. As for the ruling : Given that the Club has chosen to confide neither in the League nor in the IFO, it is not possible to discern the real reason for the treatment of the complainant, which the Club admits is unique. Club officials stated that the Club had chosen to demonstrate its powers on this occasion and it would appear that a similar motive explained recent disputes over press accreditation and access for photographers. The IFO is left with no alternative other than to draw the inference that it can only be the complainant’s roles as chair of the Trust and prominent supporter activist which have caused him to be singled out for this special treatment. Perhaps this is to set an example and to deter other critics of the Club’s management. If that is not the motive then the Club has the opportunity to prove otherwise. In the absence of such proof, the IFO finds that on the balance of probability the Club has discriminated against and victimised the complainant. Which all sounds reasonable. Also, the allegations of breach of intellectual property by Nick Illingsworth (which I'm guessing are due to the word "Saints" appearing in the name of the Saints Trust - which is only relevant to this discussion as the IFO has decided that it was the reason the club discriminated against Illingsworth) sound like the kind of spurious bullying guff I've heard they've been sending the Echo regarding their desire to get a quote from MALI employees after Markus' death. Neither makes the club sound very good, and they're both massive PR gaffes. And I really do wish you lot would get over this idea that he passes himself off as the voice of the fans. Maybe 5 years ago it might have been an issue, but that was exactly when the Trust was trying to do something about the way the club was being run - it's not a concern that we're going to go into debt right now, but these kind of things don't exactly win goodwill for operating with the interests of the fans underpinning the business either.