Matthew Le God

He means this...

For him to score from his body position there, would actually be very tricky! The keeper was right on top of him and he was facing the wrong way and quickly turned and had to get his leg right up. A good chance but hardly a bad miss.

Any crawling will be by the Echo not the club. The Echo needs the club for sales of papers far more than the club need a local paper when football is covered by hundreds of media outlets. If the images of the development were protected then the Echo would have no right in doing what they did and printing them. No other media outlet(Sky, BBC etc) printed/showed images of the training ground before the press conference. In printing the images against the wishes of the club it took the thunder from the press conference. If protected by law the Echo could be in some serious trouble. The Echo has "possibly" done something it was asked not to do. If it agreed not to do it then why can't you see that the club would be upset about it "if" the Echo went against its word?

So because Cortese hasn't issued a statement that makes it ok to read an editorial in the Echo and decide it must be Cortese that is pompous? Maybe Cortese hasn't issued a statement yet because the Echo may be having legal proceedings for using copyrighted pictures of the development without permission(Sky and the BBC didn't use pictures) or maybe he doesn't think he needs to respond in public and this is being dealt with behind doors. There is much more to this I feel than the version of events given in the Echo which you seem to be basing your opinion soley on. If I took your route and were to choose the side to sit with without evidence, I'd with the saviours of the club that have in a short time already had results rather than media hacks with ulterior motives of selling copies of the paper at any cost.

Ok, own up! Who is the person in the poll that voted Antonio for man of the match? He was dreadful today.

You have not heard both sides of the story, yet accuse Cortese of being pompous! We have only heard what happened from the Echo.

Well I was 2 in 1984 so all of them are really before my time. These are all the years Saints have come 1st or 2nd in the League. I'm sure we must have put a great run together in some of those seasons.

You don't need steam to play FM09 or FM10. FM10 is perfectly playable with no patches.

At a guess... 1984? 1978? 1966? 1960? 1922? 1904? 1903? 1901? 1899? 1898? 1897?

Don't ask D McDermidd

No matter what odds it is, gambling is never "like buying money". What if he injures his knee against Norwich and is out for the rest of the season?

As Alpine said, this incident may be the straw that broke the camels back. We have only heard what happened from the Echo so far.

Only a small amount of text on Sky and the BBC. The Echo showed images of the development against the wishes of the club.

Well said Alpine

I'm sure a large number on here would agree sports reporting about Saints in the Echo is poorly researched, sensationalist and on many occasions has an ulterior motive. This of course is not confined to the Daily Echo by any means and is common in a large number of regional and national papers. Based on what Saints fans have seen so far from Mr Liebherr and Mr Cortese I'm sure they are more inclined to believe them than the Echo. The new regime has delivered for Saints, the Echo is purely in it to sell papers and will do everything to shift more copies. It just happens they have got too far this time and bitten the hand that feeds them.

The info so far has only come from the Echo so you are also speculating based on one side of the argument. 1) A local newspaper with some dubious past reporting. versus 2) The man who was a key figure in saving the club and bringing a billionaire investor to Saints and has a great track record so far turning the club around and delivering real results on and off the pitch. All speculation at the moment as we have only heard from the Echo on this. But I know which side I am more likely to trust! Especially after reading the shameful editorial today.

There is obviously more to it than just that. Cortese doesn't strike me as being the type of man that would do something like this unless the Echo crossed the line. There has been a serious breakdown in the relationship and unlikely the club would ban them on a whim.

Wouldn't really call it a Xmas do then. More just a mid season team bonding night.

Up until that point your theory works. However I very much doubt Nicola Cortese is taking this lightly and won't be removing the ban any time soon and if he does it will only be after some major groveling and apologies from the Echo(I doubt even that would be enough).

As I said before he has been told if he starts playing again it could mean he may never be able to walk on that ankle again for potentially the next 60 years! Are you telling me it is worth the risk of playing and then for him to screw his leg up for the the rest of his life? David Connolly had a bad injury but has recovered, there is NO chance Ashton can recover hence why professionals advised him to retire. I doubt Dean Ashton would have taken this decision on a whim and decide to jump back into playing for Saints just because a contract is waved before him. Some things are more important than football and your mobility for the next 60 years in my opinion is more important than a game of football. I hope you have a change of mind and decide that aswell.

Because Ashton has been told if he plays football he may never walk again. This really is a bizarre thread and has no similarity to David Connolly. Ashton will never play football again. He is very seriously injured!

A "Christmas do" in March?

Worth closing this thread as it is the smaller of the two? Both are basically discussing the same thing and two threads is diluting it.

Did the PA have permission to use the pictures before the press conference saint peach? Maybe the PA were happy to wait until after the press conference and didn't feel it didn't need to get in early. The Echo jumped in before it should have, printed the pictures, stole the thunder from the press conference and ****ed off Nicole Cortese and his big "reveal" to a wider national audience. Yes, anyone could look at the pictures on the New Forest website, but maybe no-one was allowed to publish on a wide scale them until the 8th December. Until that point only a few people on forums like this that knew about it would have checked on the NFDC website.

The Press Association may not have provided an image because it wasn't allowed to and stuck to this. The Echo clearly did not have the permission of the the club to use the images before the press conference. Maybe we will see legal action against the Echo for printing the pictures (if they were protected by law). My theory certainly explains why it is only the Echo with the ban.