um pahars

Maybe with the Club doing well and hopefully coming out from somevery dark times, life expectancy of Saints fans has risen!!!!!

As I said when some were incorrectly claiming the Ex Saints weren't a charity (and a whole host of other attacks on its credibility), I'm afraid mud sticks. We may have to start with "assuming the directly attributable quote from MLT is true", then I have to say I can't find the logic of banning use of the Club's logo by the Ex Saints. With the Club happy to state they have a strong relationship with them, I think that makes some of the excuses no longer valid, so why would you say it is justified?? I am genuinely interested. After all, I look up to the top of this board and see the crest fully on display. If a forum like this can use it, then why not a "connected" charity??

Good move IMHO if he does bring it back. I think it was mentioned that it would be linked in to a more robust system which would tackle the original reason given for pulling the scheme, namely the "fraud". Were swipe cards mentioned, or am I just getting old?????

I think I even mentioned in one of the posts on that thread that I was saddened to see this good little charity being used as a Political Football in a battle of larger egos (with people on here then happy to give it a kick). And as I also mentioned, both sides need to stop pouring fuel on the fire and someone needs to bash their heads together. I don't think anyone comes out of this very well, intentionally or unintentionally. The Ex Saints part of the Mail article (the bit about withdrawing use of logo) is a quote directly attributed to MLT. As he's on their "board", one would assume he's not lying over something that is so easy to substantiate.

Indeed it is very good news to hear that the Club and The Ex Saints have a "good and firm relationship" and on the other thread that is all that I wanted them both to have. Working together positively for the good of the Club. They are decent little charity, doing much good out in the Community and keeping the name of the Club and the its former heroes (and some not so "heroes") in the mind of many communities. If anyone was offended by that wish, then I'm more than happy to apologise on here. Similarly, if anyone felt any of the attacks were personal (I can assure you, they were not), then I'm more than happy to apologise. But I certainly won't be apologising for the majority of my posts on that thread that were countering claims it wasn't even a charity, along with other insinuations and underhand comments about the charity and its operations.

That he looked like Wayne Sleep.

Potentially have one spare ticket, up in the Gods (Plus side is it's not next to me). Was spare this morning, so hopefully it still is. Face value of course (PM if you want).

I would venture that you may well be right in that I would guess that it would be cheaper to outsource all your ticketing operations (and insist on a premium if bought in person at the ticket office!!!!!!). However, the downside could well be a fall off in numbers if people still demanded that personal service. But I think this point does highlight that I very much doubt that the transaction cost per ticket is any more expensive on the phone than it is in person (P&P excluded). I'm sure you could always just quote "supply and demand" and set any price you see fit, but as you say I think there has to be an element of fairness and equitability in our pricing structure and I'm just not convinced this booking fee is fair. As you quite rightly point out, there is a section of our fanbase who are adversely affected by this fee and they are probably the ones already laden with the highest transport costs (and also probably with the easiest excuse not to come - travelling time). Should we not be looking for every opportunity to encourage people to come as opposed to potentially hitting certain sub-sections with an additional cost? Or is this small fee just that, a small fee, that doesn't discourage people either way (of course, the counter argument to that would be to start throwing in a Ticket Office booking fee if prices are that inelastic). Finally, what is sad is that for some people an honest and upfront debate about issues that affect supporters is somehow seen as disloyal, offensive or counter productive. I would counter that by having such debates it may be possible to find a better solution, one from which we all benefit (the Club included). I would also suggest it is somewhat draconian to start suggesting that certain topics (or even individuals) are off limits.

There is a cost incurred allowing people to book tickets at the ticket office, but this cost is absorbed in the "normal" price. I don't think anyone would have a problem with any incremental costs (e.g. postage) being passed on, but £3 a pop, I'm not so sure. I'm sure that for some matches you can't avoid it, (particularly if you live a distance from SMS and buying on the day will see you charged an extra £2). Are ticket prices that inelastic??? Is £3 on top going to put people off??? Are certain sections of our fanbase adversely affected by this??? Are prices at the upper limit anyway???

Subtle digs....... My, you do live in a strange world where people aren't allowed to discuss issues. In the interests of fairness, feel free to stalk me on other threads where I have been supportive and understanding of the Club and its Officers (Staplewood, Cortese on Chamberlain, Bournemouth away etc).

But there is a service when people walk up to the window. As a cost per transaction, I would venture that is comparable (if not cheaper) to go via a call centre. I think it would be fair to charge P & P as that is an additional cost incurred, but the £3 is OTT. (PS I'm sure I've got through to the ticket office itself when I have used the ticket line on occasions).

But haven't there been occasions when tickets have not been sold on the day (meaning those living away have no alternative) and certainly for this Bournemouth game it would appear that some times there is no alternative. On a single adult Bournemouth ticket, this £3 charge equates to a 16% surcharge (30% for an U 16). Maybe some will say the sums involved aren't huge (maybe not, but over a seasonthey soon add up) others will say that the money is going back in to the Club (and tug on the heart strings the way some councils have done by suggesting services would have to be cut without these fees), others will say why not just raise the average ticket price (as with the heart strings argument above, if the money is going to the Club then why not ask us all to pay a bit more every time we attend as the Club will benefit even more) whilst others will say that selling tickets is a normal part of a "business" and why should certain parts of the fanbase be charged extra (is transaction per ticket that much more expensive over the phone/in writing Vs personal visits to the Ticket Office???). As far as I'm aware the Club don't charge for credit card/debit card transactions (I'm sure I didn't pay extra when I bought my ST by credit card did I???), but they certainly charge a booking fee, which I think is somewhat discriminatory and a tad OTT.

I'm sure Matty did like Spurs when he was growing up and I don't doubt that there was a bit of man love there for Glenn Hoddle, but I do also think it is safe to say that Matty is a huge Saints fan. Like many others (including myself who liked Man City in the early 70's when I was 4 or 5 - mainly because my brother liked Man Utd) he may have come to Saints via a roundabout way, but we are all ultimately fans of the Club. I just think in the current *****fest where a decent charity are seen as fair game to have a pop at, it doesn't help having a pop at MLT and slagging him as he is now deemed to be a Spurs fan. It's the type of sniping that the main egos have been playing out, just don't think it's necessary for us all to be dragged down.

:facepalm: And in a post that is criticising petty behaviour.

Absolutely, and it should be left up to the individual where they donate their time, services or money. That is their personal choice. But why are we now so concerned with the Ex Saints (it's mission statement, it's fund raising record, it's overhead costs, it's charity reg. no., it's website etc)? I never remember it causing so much uproar in the past, or being accused of being in competition with the Club or its charitable arm (in fact I would argue they should be complimentary). In the past it has gone about it's work without much fuss, working with the Club and various local communities, supporting worthy causes, spreading cheer and leaving a positive association with Saints and the Club's former players. The simple reason is that it has now become a political football being kicked about by people (on here and in the real world) in their attempt to justify someone's actions and to score some cheap points in an increasingly bitter personal struggle. Had the Club continued to allow them to use the Club badge and their association with the Club, then I doubt anyone would have raised an eyebrow. It would have just been happily accepted that the Club and the Ex Saints could work together in a positive manner for all concerned. Instead people seem to be looking to find a hole in their raison detre as a justification to back up what I can only describe as a sorry and petty decision, fuelled IMHO not by any commercial, moral or charitable reasoning, but instead another blow in an increasingly spiteful battle of egos.

Not sure if I'm allowed to post this on here as it involves a departed one (StuRomseySaint, not Markus), but Stu has raised an interesting point on the Ugly Inside. How about renaming the "new and improved" training centre after Markus??????

If you consider asking someone to correct themselves when they have made a completely untrue, potentially damaging and totally unnecessary allegation as head in sand, then I'm happy to be on the beach. First time around I stated I wasn't looking for an argument just pointing out that if you are going to posts such stuff then you need to make sure it is water tight (as it was stated as a fact not an opinion). You've been the one squirming, when you'd have been better off just apologising and leaving it as a ckco up on your part.

You do realise that this is the same type of commercial piracy that we're trying to stamp out ;)

I'm afraid I would have to say you're the one going off on a tangent. My main issue on this thread has been with regards the Ex Saints and the withdrawal of the use of the logo etc and that it is the issue I have been discussing (I'm not even bothered about the Mayflower and other gigs and the Club's refusal to let people attend, after all the punters have shown what they think of them by signing up in their thousands to attend). As per Daren W's thread last night, I find this the more petty of the actions by the Club in this sorry affair. Go and have a look at what the Ex-Saints do, how they have been linked in with the Club in the past, how they have used facilities, how the Club has helped them etc etc etc. All of this now has to stop. Why??? I'm guessing that Cortese has widened his net with regards MLT and Benali and is now punishing anything/anyone associated with them. QED The Ex Saints suffer.

It might get slightly more difficult when people who haven't got a clue start to state that it isn't even a charity on a public message board in order to discredit it and use it in some petty argument. Your initial claims were simply wrong. If you are going to make such a forceful allegation you have a duty to get it right, you didn't. You were right to remove the false claims (I removed your claim when they were quoted in my reply), but you're doing yourself a disservice here in trying to justify yourself. I'm not sure why you're trying to pick an argument and squirm on this one. You'd be better off just accepting you were out of order and move on.

One on each wrist, the wolly one around the neck. I even bought a pair of fingerless wollen Red n White gloves from the Saints Shop at some point (circa 1978) LOL.

The bit underneath shows that it hasn't been updated recently (as with the Charity Commission search, you only saw/found what fitted in with your agenda): The Ex Saints enjoy a close relationship with Southampton FC and have an affiliation agreement with the club. I think it would be fair to say that your posts have been distinctly unhelpful, unecessary and in rather poor taste. Trying to discredit a decent little charity in order to justify/demonstrate your support for the Club in this instance is rather distasteful IMHO.

I think that's what the Charity Commission is there for. If you think there is something that needs investigating, then I suggest you contact them direct, as opposed to joining in with the other insinuations, unsubstantiated claims, fallacies and underhand jibes on here. I do find it incredibly sad that people are prepared to step in to the gutter with insinuations and allegations against a registered charity that has done some great work over the years (probably a damn sight more than some of those having a pop on here). Throw in the fact that many of those involved are/were a part of the wider Saints community and I struggle to understand why people want to discredit such a decent little set up.

In the interests of fairness and balance, I presume you have posted something similar on the Saints Foundation Kenya fund raising trip.

But Ex Saints does. It's not actually that difficult. Before you Libelled a good cause, you should have gone out of your way to make sure what you were claiming was true. The onus is on you to get it right. Apart from the following on the Ex Saints (www.exsaints.co.uk ) homepage: Southampton FC Old Boys Association Welcome to the website of the Southampton FC Old Boys Association which is a registered charity.