The Kraken

While Chorley is with SISA, it is Mike O'Callaghan who does all their public statements of late. Nick Illingsworth hides behind the equally defunct Saints Trust.

But the problem is Wes, what the Echo currently have is a list of phone numbers, people that they can rely upon for a quote at very short notice. And then attach them with a title which makes it appear as a well-reserched and validated view. With time constraints or whatever, they'll always continue to use this method rather than send out a reporter for a few hours, then correlate various quotes. If the Echo were simply to be honest and actually contain a rider at the bottom of the article such as "SISA is a supporters association with 12 active members" it would display a sense of honesty; but it's simply not in their interests to do this.

John, I think it's perhaps you that don't understand the concept of a supporters club. I'll explain why. A supporters club exists to reflect the views of its members, and then to publicise those views in an effort to exert change. In the instance of SISA, they are holding a meeting on Saturday to discuss the demand for a Liebherr public statement. However, SISA have already gone public with their views. Surely the meeting should be to canvass ALL their members, find from that what the consensus of opinion is, and then make public statements in line with those views. What has happened here is that one oerson (Mike O'Callaghan, I presume) has formed an opinion where he thinks the Liebherr's need to speak out. He has drafted a public statement, sent it to the Echo, and they have printed it. He has also invited people to come along and discuss it at a meeting tomorrow. Why? What is there to discuss? If I and many others were to turn up and voice my opinion that I think the public statement request is completely wrong, what good would it do? Would SISA offer a public retraction if enough people disagreed? No, they simply wouldn't. A supporters group exists to gauge and promote the collective views of a group of fans. SISA do not have a "collective view". They do not canvass their "members". They are simply not run as a group, they are a title for a bunch of individiuals to hang round their neck to promote personal views.

I'd suggest it would have to be a factual statement, just clarifying the poll numbers. If a generic "opinion" statement can be agreed upon, then great, but I think that might prove altogether more difficult. There's no reason though why we couldn't provide a balanced opinion piece, by providing a typical comment from either side of the argument.

Having had a discussion with Dan about it yesterday, both on here and by email, I accept that the Echo do try as provide balanced reporting of fans views. However, he and I will continue to differ on the fact that I believe they use SISA and Saints trust titles for interviewees as it gives them more gravitas. Dan would argue that, although they are a small group, they are a group nonetheless and warrant news space. I would argue that, were that the case, any collection of 5 or 10 people could club together, call themselves a group and bombard the sports desk with news. The solution is, as dune is organising on another thread, to organise other ways in which a "majority opinion" can be sourced and sent to the Echo more rgularly. The poll is a very, very good way to do this as it can be done so quickly. Then all it takes is a brief statement accompanying the poll. The Echo print SISA / Saints Trust stories because they need to fill space, and more than often the Echo are contacted by SISA rather than the other way round. If we want to see a change then its up to us to organise something better; otherwise we'll continue to get served up the usual mouthpieces.

Too much EMPHASIS though Richmond. It only works when you emphasis a maximum of one word per sentence; sometimes that's too much. When you do it empahising almost every other word it just reads as a complete jumbled mess. But I digress.....

Great idea, and one that I suggested to Dan yesterday. He didn't seem keen to run with it, though did add that if there was fan enthusiasm for it it was something they would consider. Given that SISA have produced an incendiary and controversial demand from the Liebherr family, I'd suggest the first poll (aside from the "Do SISA speak for you" mullering) could be: "Do you agree with SISA that the Liebherr family should provide a public statement to highlight their future intentions for SFC". This would need to be balanced by any previous public statements made on the subject, which would be easy to reproduce on here.

What's the point. Considering SISA are supposed to be a supporters' association, the meeting is happening 3 days too late. Surely the point of a meeting should be to correlate members opinions, and then construct a response from that? That hasn't happened. The official direction of SISA has been pre-determined already and a statement issued to that effect. Any discussions would only be as to the rights and wrongs of issuing that statement, so it would be like trying to lock the stable door after the horse has bolted. Seems a strange way to operate an "open" supporters association to me.

Appreciate it. I think it fair to say we probably won't ever agree on the SISA promotion/clarification, but hats off to you for taking the time to come on here and explain your point of view.

Just send an email. Dan put his address up on here; dan.kerins@dailyecho.co.uk. Also the general address for comment is echosport@dailyecho.co.uk.

I completely agree with you. And I'd urge people to write to the Echo. If there is a significant reaction to this article, and indeed SISA's general f*ckwittery in future, they will be inclined to print those comments as a reaction piece. Which might have the ultimate goal of showing SISA up for the self-publicising minority they clearly are. I've sent an email to Dan Kerins, which he has responded to me by stating I'm the only one to formally respond so far! However, my email will be forwarded to the Sports Editor. As will anyone else who takes the short time to write just a few lines condemning SISA's actions. So help me out, don't let me be seen as the sole nutter complaining to the press! There's a chance to put SISA back in their box here, let's take it.

Danny, as you requested I just emailed a response to you on SISA's article. I think its fair to say we will continue to disagree with each other relating to the standing I believe the Echo encourages with SISA and Saints Trust. Yes, I accept that you do some of the things that I referred to. And I very much welcome those. The fans' piece today is a point in case; it gives a substantial amount of space to one person's opinion, and I think it is a good thing. But I think it almost reinforces my point; alot of what you print from SISA are not shown for the individual opinions that they are; they are labelled under the SISA banner and therefore appear as the common thinking of a supporter association. As you yourself point out, they are "relatively small organisations", so does the Echo not have a duty to outline just how significant or otherwise these supporters groups are? You're right that when people see Fans Chief they assume all fans, so with that in mind surely there's a duty to correct that? You mention polls and that you use them, but then say that they are seldom used as a story in their own right. But I'd question that, and say that the results of a poll are much, much more important than a written opinion piece by any one person. The poll indicates the overall thinking of a cross section of the fanbase. I don't understand why it would be so seldom used.

Not necessarily the mods responsibility though; perhaps there could be an arrangement whereby Echo reporters can engage with the fans through here. For example, for todays piece. Fine, SISA have made their statement and the Echo deems that newsworthy. But make it a feature piece. Have a poll, either on here or on the Echo's site, asking if people agree with SISA's stance or not. And provide some quotes that adequately sum up the balance of resulting opinion. That would provide some genuine balanced reporting and a forum for those people who don't want to be pigeon holed into the collective thinking of a minority of vocal protesters.

Dan, a couple of points. Your statement “I'm not aware of the Echo ever referring to SISA as the voice of the fans (or the Trust for that matter)” is not true. On a number of occasions the Echo have referred in the headline to SISA or Saints Trust representatives as “Fans’ Chief”. It may be by implication only but by that you are suggesting they are a true voice of the fans. And yes, Steve Grant is regularly quoted too; however, the difference here is that he is listed usually as “Saints Web Forum owner”, which while giving him a title does not infer that he is speaking on behalf of the organisation he is associated with. Secondly, as the starter of this thread, my points was not for it to be solely designed for SISA bashing. What I would truly like to happen is for the Echo to be able to report the views of a cross section of fans in the best manner possible. I simply don’t think you do that when giving such prominence to the likes of SISA and Saints trust. I would suggest there are a large number of ways in which you could provide good, balanced reporting: 1) per today’s edition, have a “fan’s view”, where a different fan is invited to pen his own opinions. 2) Use this site or the Daily Echo site to run a poll on certain issues and report from them. 3) Have a “for and against” debate; you give space to SISA, why not find a way to offer others a chance to counter the demands made by SISA? I think my main point is that you often rely on the opinion of just one person, then attempt to inject gravitas by including their title. I’d like to see the Echo find much more creative ways of gauging fans opinions rather than simply giving Nick Illingsworth a call when you need a suitable soundbite.

Why did you email the club? I think they already realise what a non-entity SISA are. It's the Echo that need prompting in this department. Although I've previously contacted them on a number of occasions and also tried to engage Dan Kerins on the matter on a couple of topics on here, all to no avail. And I agree with CanadaSaint, it would be nice to see a poll on the matter; if nothing else to determine whether this forum alone is content at the Echo claiming that SISA are their Fans' representatives.

They do not speak for me, never have done and never will.

You may not question their motives, but I certainly question their methods. What exactly are they trying to achieve? There has already been a public statement on behalf of the family that they will continue with Markus' wishes to support the club. This is just creating an argument with Cortese for their own selfish, self-publicing interests. Yes, they may only represent 6 people. But that's my whole point, the Echo's promotion of such an otherwise insignificant number may have the misleading effect of suggesting that these people actually speak for a signigicant number of fans. 6 of them want answers to this question. It would seem from this thread alone that quite a few others don't want to badger the Liebherr family over such a trivial matter. Yet which is the one that always gains the ear of the local media, and how is that in any way fair and balanced reporting?

I think Saint Mears has adequately proved the point of the whole thread!

Incorrect. I have nothing against SISA/Saints trust existing, that's entirely up to them. i personally think they serve absolutely no worthwhile purpose, but if their "members" want them to continue, that's up to them. What I very much object to is a group of a handful of people being falsely represented in the local and national media as spokespersons for the entire fan base. And I should note; I blame the Echo most of all for this, as it is only the publicity they give that causes these non-entities to continue. Everyone knows that SISA consists of a handful of people yet the Echo continues to promote as them as the voice of all fans.

Dan Kerins seems to get half of his material from this site; he seems to give the anti SISA/Saints Trust threads a miss though.

I'd love for this to happen, once and for all. Lets find out some answers to some simple questions: How many fans are members of SISA? How many fans are members of the Saints Trust? How many fans do SISA claim to represent? How many fans do the Saints Trust claim to represent? How many fans are happy for SISA/Saints Trust to speak for them? (And lets be straight here, the Echo's headline is "Fans want Liebherr family assurances", and Mike O'Callaghan from SISA and Illingsworth from Saints Trust are often referred to as "Fans Chief", so they are being seen as representing fans as a whole.

I agree with all that; the bit in bold is the one that annoys me the most. The Echo know that SISA speak for no-one but a tiny collection of publicity hungry individuals; yet they continue to give them the publicity they crave as it fills column inches without them having to do much research. Lazy journalism.

According to the Echo, yes, this Saturday.

No, he really didn't. He made a statement along the lines of "I can't talk about it but I had no choice." Which neither confirms nor denies things one way or the other. He could simply have aluded that Pardew and staff refused to work with Reed's side of the house, therefore going against Cortese's blueprint for management of the club, therefore leaving himno choice but to find another man. Don't try and misinterpret words just to suit your argument, especially when the club have issued a public statement on the matter.

The rag-tag lovers of self-promotion, SISA, are at it again in today's Echo, demanding that the Liebherr family offer a public assurance to supporters regarding the future stability of the club. According to SISA, the Liebherr family are now "duty bound to listen to the supporters who fund the club and the limited company. If the family are committed to the club's welfare their first concern would be to acknowledge fans' perspectives and that committment can only be confirmed with an announcement clarifying exactly who is monitoring the club's progress above Mr Cortese". Personally, i think that if SISA themselves were in any way committed to the club's welfare rather than promoting their own weird self-interests, they'd shut the f*ck up for once and give their whole desperate need for publicity a good rest. The rest of their public statement is a complete pile of jumped-up incendiary nonsense, and shows their moribund association up for the spiteful argumentative non-entity it really is. By the way, if anyone wants to go their meeting to tag along with their bullsh1t, it's happening at 1.30pm at Northam Social Club.