The Kraken

Christ. With no Saints games for the usual bed-wetters to get all hysterical about and distracted by, its clearly going to be one hell of a long summer. Roll on the "why haven't we signed anyone yet" thread.

I'm starting to think this whole thread is based on stuff in Dave's mind rather than actual reality. Still, to each their own.

I don't think so, but Swedish Dave has clearly got a bee in his bonnet about it.

I thought it was Lofty from EastEnders until I realised he (Tom Watt) is actually an Arsenal fan.

Yes, and that's kind of the point. Most of the Pompey fans I know (and plenty on their message boards) cringe at the amount TCWTB is on TV, as he is shown representing them as fans. They all respect that he's a dedicated supporter, and know that dressing up like a bell-end is his "thing", but it doesn't make it less cringeworthy that the cameras are magnetised to such an oaf all the time.

That wouldn't be a bad thing. At all.

Yes, you're right. Having an avatar on an internet mong board is exactly the same thing as wearing a similar costume to a football ground. My name is also T Kraken, hence my username being very similar. Forgive my mistake.

Erm, that's not a costume mate. Neither is it something I'd go dressed as to the football, silly.

Have you never worn a balloon? Pah. You clearly don't know how to have fun.

Well done for the assumption that you speak for the majority.

You can't traditionally cut and paste from the OS as the content is protected. You can always printscreen and crop if you're that keen.

For someone who tries so very hard to be funny, its a shame you fail so predictably often in your endeavours and come across as a completely ignorant bore.

Actually I think you're wrong, I've seen quite a bit of that. To be fair to DellDays he's been more than forward in reminding everyone about his pro-Mark Wotte comments. The only people who get upset about these threads being bumped are those who got it wrong and who have either a refusal or an inability to laugh at themselves. Who cares if you made a previous ridiculous prediction, if at least you can have a laugh at yourself for doing so.

That's all true. There were some problems with the Echo for a fair while after the Liebherr takeover had gone through. Former players and manager in the paper, usually with a fairly negative angle to portray, particularly around the Pardew sacking. This all seemed to have been put to bed until the training ground incident, and since then as I understand it the Echo have had their St Mary's credentials revoked. As a consquence, they still need to fill copy on Saints (as its clearly what their readership requires) so there is a reliance on a cut and paste from the OS plus editorials with former players and other staff. But otherwise no direct access to the club, which as I've said is I think a big shame, however its been arrived at. Where I've noticed a difference lately in the Echo is not in the previewing or reporting of games. As I've already said, these have been very positive reports (as you'd expect from 2 successive promotions), and certanly in the local paper the club has received extensive and positive reporting. But there are some minor areas where I think improvements could have been made, to the benfit of the paper and the club. Firstly: season tickets. In seasons past the paper would be awash with announcements on season tickets, pricing etc. There seems to be much, much less of that now (which is of course in line with what quite a few people deem to be a strange lack of direct promotion of ST sales by the club itself). Secondly: the promotion of club events other than league & cup matches. Point in case is the Markus Liebherr memorial game last summer; this was only promoted in the Echo one day before the game, the previous days editions carried no promotion of the event (and I noted at the time that this was strange to see such a lack of advertising outside of the OS). In the end I think only around 7,000 people attended, which is very poor especially when compared to previous Ted Bates trophy games. As there was an entire family day surrounding the game(s) that day, I think a big trick was missed by not garnering some free advertising and splashing the news all over the back of the local paper to attract a much bigger crowd. As I say, just minor issues when compared to the bigger picture. But being as its an entirely unnecessary spat in the first place its a shame that both club and newspaper are being disadvantaged because of it.

I'll respond to your point. No, I don't think there is an anti-SFC view from the media. That wasn't what i was sayign at all. My point (or the one which you quoted) was that it is totally unnecessary to have such friction between the football club and the local newspaper. There has been for many years, and still should be a close bond between the two, as it should be mutually beneficial arrangement. We know the reasons why the situation is as it is; and there will be arguments made for and against both sides. My point was that, despite where you sit on that divide, having an arrangement where the club and the paper can't work together benefits neither party in comparison to them working closely side by side.

You seem quite entrenched in your view, so as you say, better to agree to disagree. For what its worth, I don't think you portray an accurate picture of the Echo. Even in spite of being shut out of the ground the Echo has almost always strived to frame the football club in a positive light. Despite getting no accreditation they have reported favourably on the games and provided some very welcome exposure. I don't deny that the training ground episode was handled badly; but it was handled badly by both sides. And, once the news was out in the public domain, I consider it was more than fair game for the paper to report on it. Many Saints fans were aware of the plans and had seen them online before the Echo went to print, so it wasn't as if they gazumped the club in a massive pre-reveal. And continuing to ban the paper over that issue is a small minded approach, and creates completely unnecessary friction between two parties who should be able to work very close together. Its arguable how much effect it has on the club with the setup as it is now; but one thing is definite: no-one benefits from the current arrangement as it is.

Sure; but what are you proud of the club for in shutting out the local paper?

OK, firstly it was a rhetorical analogy to some of the comments on this thread rather than a direct quote attributed to you. But I obviously stand by the sentiment, there are plenty defending the decision and claiming that we control the media while neglecting to notice that we really haven't done that. As for being proud of the stand against the Echo; why are you proud? What did the Echo do so badly wrong? They printed information that was already in the public domain; they reported the news!! And they did it in an medium that gave positive attention and exposure to the club. Shutting them out and continuing to do so for that is massively petty IMO; you may be proud of it, I find it petty and a little bit shameful behaviour.

Reflecting an image of trying to maximise revenue streams doesn't in itself reflect an image of professionalism. QPR gaines a lot of negative press for their massively extreme hiking of ticket prices (an issue which their new owners gained some positive PR for when they came in and instantly reduced prices). I honestly can't for one second agree with your assertion that the South Coast club thing reflected well on us as a club. It just didn't, it made the chairman (and the club by association) look petty, greedy and naive. It wasn't a bold step, it was an ill-advised and poorly thought out move. Which is why it was no surprise when NC realised what a significant mistake it was and took the necessary steps to rectify his error.

Turkish actually makes a very good point here. You can't in one breath say that the club's approach is spot on as we control the media without recognising that that very approach saw our chairman having to publically apologise and backtrack on a completely flawed media strategy. And, even if there are disagreements on how much negative effect there has been through our whole "closed-shop" approach, its surely irrefutable that the club have made a fair few media blunders that both reflected poorly on the club and were wholly unnecessary.

Yes it would get us recognition as a tinpot unprofessional outfit. It seems a few people here think that's an image we should aspire to.

That issue was just one of a few media-handling mistakes we've seen though. And it is massively important to protect and project a positive club image, especially so in the Premier League (the world's most watched football league). We had the whole South Coast Club incident, and yes this was resolved by the chairman admitting he made a big mistake by apologising in person to the nation's best selling newspaper. We also have the issue of the local paper being banned from the ground, a ridiculous scenario which should never have happened. People can argue all they like that "the Echo needs SFC more than SFC needs the Echo", but the fact that the club and local paper can't find a way to properly work together is a worrying trait. We have the imbecile Jordan Sibley spouting off on twitter and denigrating other clubs, thus gaining negative national attention. Yes, its was Pompey, and yes is was perhaps a valid point, but it showed complete ignorance and unprofessionalism for a club spokesman to become embroiled in such an unnecessary public spat. A strict media policy is not a bad thing. A reluctance or unwillingness to play the media to your own benefit is a bad thing. I don't know why so many people think that p*ssing off journalists is a good thing. Its not a terrible thing either, but it reflects an unprofessional side on the club, and that in itself can cause problems in terms of maximising revenues and exposure. And its just so unnecesaary. Almost all other clubs have a competent enough spokesman or press officer who can work with local and national media to serve the ebenefit of all parties. We, on the other hand, have a chairman who claims he can't stand working with the press, and employees under him that act with that approach seemingly as a guide to their jobs.