Matthew Le God

CB Fry, A Daily Echo subscription for a year costs £93.60 (alot more if brought each day). For that you get on most days 2/3 pages of Saints news (largely taken up by pictures). Most of this news is fed to them by the club and very little is exclusive. Ok, it is not just Saints news you are paying for but alot do buy it for this reason. Saints Player is £40(or less if in a deal) for an annual subscription For that you get... 1) Player/manager video interviews throughout the week(5 - 12 minutes in length) 2) Extended match highlights of games (around 12 minutes). 3) The occasional 90 minute game as a video eg the entire Wycombe Game 4) Access to an archive of previous seasons videos 5) Match commentary - useful for those out of BBC Solent area 6) Pre and post match interview in video 5 - 10 minutes in length 7) Feature videos When you add that to all the other sources of free content it makes what the Echo does obsolete and lacking in depth in comparison.

No, it would mean you use the 7 of the 11 regulars plus 4 other players. Not a problem it the slightest. The only grey area that I'm not sure about is when you have 6 players in the top 11 injured. I'd imagine that is highly unlikely though. In that case the Football League would probably check if the injuries are genuine and give you special dispensation to play with fewer than 6 regulars.

I'm not sure how this rule works with injuries, I'd guess injuries are ignored otherwise people could circumvent this rule by just saying the best players are all injured. In any case Kelvin is back in training.

I wouldn't be to sure 6 of these would be in the top 11 Bart Thomas Perry Trotman Mills Antonio Wotton Mellis Lallana Papa Lambert

That is not the rule for the JPT though. The rule is you get a list of all Southampton players and order them by how many 1st team games they have played this season. 6 of the team for a JPT game HAVE to be in the top 11 players. This rule is to stop teams playing very weakened sides.

Because their possibly aren't 6 of the 11 players with the most first team appearances in the lineup

I doubt the rules will allow that team.

Behind either goal or in the corners is a terrible view no matter which stadium you are in.

As I said earlier no matter what odds it is, gambling is never "like buying money" or "free money". What if Lambert injures his knee against Norwich and is out for the rest of the season?

Make of these what you will... 1) http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/n/norwich/8412866.stm 2) http://www.edp24.co.uk/content/edp24/sport/football/norwich-city/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=SportNorwich&tBrand=EDPOnline&tCategory=xDefault&itemid=NOED14%20Dec%202009%2011%3A37%3A42%3A943 3) Norwich have rested as many players as the rules allow in previous rounds

Nice insults Adds alot to the debate and very mature. It is not clear what happened and we only have a brief version from one side so far. You are yet another to jump in with both feet with a lack of evidence and only listening to one sides version of events. Again I hope you never get called for jury duty as the legal system needs people to look at both sides and all the evidence and not just one sides version of events.

Average ticket price paid for the 20k that have been turning up is probably alot lower than £20. All season ticket holders (Adult/kid/Young Adult/OAP's) price per game is much lower than £20 and then add all the matchday concessions(kids/young adults/OAP's) all have tickets below £20.

So you are saying it is drivel to wait to hear all the evidence before passing comment? I hope you never get asked to do jury duty! Ask yourself these questions... 1) What is the problem the club has with the Echo? 2) What punishment has the Echo got? 3) Is the punishment proportionate to the discretion? 4) Is it a discretion? 5) Is the Echo guilty or innocent? There is no way you can answer any of those questions fully with the amount of information available to you.

What evidence do you have Cortese "behaved inappropriately"? So far only a brief statement by the Echo = one side of the story and far from a full version at that You don't know what the sanctions are that the Echo has, nor do you know what the club are unhappy about.

Post 362

Are you not going to wait to hear both sides of the story before passing comment then?

Musings without paragraphs are hard to read and hurt my eyes

Or could be scouting for the match against Swindon in January.

All hypothetical of course

If hypothetically this is the reason... The club and Echo came to a verbal/written agreement that it would wait until after the press conference to run the story in the region with pictures. The Echo then decide to break the agreement and run the story early because other media did nationally. No other media entered or broke the agreement about pictures in the local media. All other media just ran a small story with few details. Breaking an agreement such as this is a betrayal of trust between parties in a working relationship. Without trust in each other I see no reason why it is wrong to stop behind scene press access to the Echo to goings on at St Mary's. If for example it was a case of the Echo running a story the club didn't like and the club banned them then I agree you would have a point and is wrong to stop the press. However if this whole argument came about because or a broken verbal/written agreement that both parties at the time were happy with only for on side to break it then I see nothing wrong with the club acting as it "supposedly" has. The club in that case cannot have an ongoing relationship with a newspaper it cannot trust to keep its word. So in that case why should it let them onto its private property at St Mary's or Staplewood or feed them stories?

??? I don't know what gave you that idea. I have a very high opinion of Cortese. From all the evidence so far, Cortese/Liebherr have been the best thing to ever happen to Saints. I do however feel this "incident" which none of us know much about is possibly the straw that broke the camels back and follows a number of disagreements. I doubt the decision to impose any sanctions would have been taken lightly and I very much doubt they will be lifted soon after they started unless something changes. Otherwise there is no point putting them in place.

You can only call it a dangerous precedent if you know the reason for the ban. You don't know the reason.

I say it is the Echo that will need to grovel in order to get this sorted quickly because it is the Echo and not the club that has had "sanctions" of sorts against it. The Echo hasn't made any sanctions against the club so why would the club need to bargain with the Echo? The club could let any sanction it has against the Echo run on indefinitely if it wished and cause no harm to it. The Echo on the other hand may not have the time and may need access to the club to keep afloat in a very competitive media jungle in the modern world. Compare the dominance the Echo had on Saints stories in the 1970's and 1980's to today and you will see the Echo is just one of many sources fans can get their fix of Saints content.

Again you don't know why the Echo was banned and why the BBC and Sky weren't. For all you know the Echo did something different or went against an agreement it agreed with the club. None of us know. None of us can pass valid comment or judgement until both sides "stories" are out in public.

I can't say I remember saying it was clear in my mind Cortese is right. What I will say is if I was "forced" to take the side of either party like many on here have I certainly would back Mr Cortese. He has been a key figure in saving the club we all support from going out of business, is well respected in the financial world, compared to the Echo which has the sole aim of getting a story and selling papers. However... I'm going to remain on the fence until we here hear both sides like any reasonable person should. My pity goes to the defendant if any posters on here get called for jury duty and don't listen to all the evidence.