The Kraken

Anyone speaking to the club, and offering an opinion (which is fine) needs to do so as an individual. You simply cannot speak for hundreds of people and capture everyone's opinion, its impossible. Take the SISA poll on here, if we had someone saying "well, obviously you can see SaintsWeb don't want SISA speaking for them", you're effectively not being truthful as there are some people who ARE happy for SISA to talk on their behalf. Opinion pieces are good from individuals. If Duncan wants to give one, great. He has a record as club historian and more than earned the right to an opinion about the club. However, it would be an opinion from Duncan Holley. Not from any organisation. My point is this; I don't believe anyone NEEDS to speak to the media on my behalf. The use of polls and such like mean that majority views can be gauged and heard, and I'd like to see more of this and much less of "titles" attempting to condense the various views of their members into a few sanitised words.

Just because you think they were right on an issue that happened 13 years ago, you think they should be given the benefit of the doubt for carrying on as an unelected, militant, incendiary "voice of the fans" despite only having the backing of 4% of fans to speak on their behalf? Ok then.

No, I completely disagree with that part and would suggest that it exactly what we DON'T want. We already have that. This site should be used as a resource to gauge opinions only, with fair and impartial reporting of the outcomes. Having one person speak on behalf of hundreds is a recipe for disaster. As a consensus it is quite possible to summarise a set of poll results in a balanced format, but having a designated spokesperson is a step too far, and far too much like the SISA / Saints Trust recipe we're trying to get away from.

Baj, no need to have a "voice of Saintsweb", in fact that's just what we're trying to get away from. The Echo printed my letter today which condemned SISA's public statement yesterday. In it I made mention to the poll run on here, and simply stated the percentage figure of those that had voted "no, SISA do no speak for me". So no need for SaintsWeb to appear as anything but an online resource used to conduct a poll about a certain topic.

The Liebherr family.

John, I'm perfectly aware what the quote is, being as I was the one who (a) raised the post on here and (b) sent a letter to the Echo condemning it. I don't agree at all with that statement. I don't agree the Liebherr's are duty bound to listen to supporters. I don't believe we need any more firm assurances as to their committment to the club, we've already had them. The only thing I do believe is that this is an incendiary public statement designed to undermine Nicola Cortese all in the name of "giving the fans a collective voice". You say they want to know what other supporters think, so answer me this. If they cared that much what other supporters think, why didn't they consult other supporters BEFORE issuing such a controversial public demand?

I've just seen a copy of the Echo, and to be fair to them, they've printed in full my letter to them yesterday regarding the SISA statement. Here it is, for anyone interested... SISA don't speak for most fans I would like to comment on your article in yesterday’s Echo titled “Fans want Liebherr family assurances”, whereby you report on Southampton Independent Supporters Association (SISA) calling for the Liebherr family to make a public statement regarding their ownership of the club. Firstly, I think your readership need to fully understand the significance of SISA. While they may be titled a "supporters’ group", their actual membership figures (while clouded in mystery) are believed by some to be in single figures, and certainly not enough to be considered a significant figure. Therefore they simply do not offer the cross section of opinion that a typical supporters’ association would. A subsequent poll was initiated yesterday on the Saints Web Forum (the most popular online Southampton supporters website), titled “Do SISA speak for you”. Currently over 95% of those polled have replied in the negative, that SISA do not speak for them. Given the amount of space your newspaper gives to SISA, I feel it is very important that this point is made clear to your readers. Secondly, in this particular instance, I must also register my dissatisfaction that you offered no balanced debate on the point of the article; the demands for a public statement from the Liebherr family. Speaking only for myself, I absolutely do not require a public statement from them, and I find it abhorrent that a supporters association seemingly with the best interests of the club at heart should seek to invade the privacy of a family who are clearly still grieving for their lost loved one. I find it particularly galling considering a public statement has already been offered on behalf of the family, stating that they are dedicated to continue with Markus’ wishes in supporting the club. I am therefore moved to question the motives of SISA’s request for a further statement, and suggest it is just an incendiary move designed to undermine the club’s management by Nicola Cortese. I hope your readers can understand that, just because SISA (and indeed the equally moribund Saints Trust) appear regularly in print in your paper, they in no way speak on behalf of the vast majority of Saints fan in the city and beyond. That we as individuals do not align ourselves with now-defunct supporters groups should not detract from that fact. Yours sincerely etc. EDIT: There was also a nice picture of Markus, with the strapline Markus Liebherr: No family statement needed.

CanadaSaint; just so there's no confusion and to ensure I'm not misquoting him, here are the actual comments from Dan Kerins on the matter. As for the "fans' chief" comment - they are in charge of organisations (relatively small ones, admittedly) of fans. A headline is often limited to about twenty characters, so to explain the nuances of their position in the big scheme of things is not appropriate - that is what is done in the article, by saying something like "Joe Bloggs, secretary of the Fan club". People often assume that the word "fans" means all fans. I've never understood why. and... As for correcting the reading that fans means all fans, that's what why we say exactly who they are. As for the earlier suggestion of just naming them rather than giving them a title, the title places them in context. For example, the inclusion of the word SISA has instantly made many on here know exactly who you are talking about (and also why I assume there has been no comment on the other fan's comment in the paper - he is not a person known in wider circles as I assume he has no affiliation to any groups. Had he been a member of the Trust, SISA, whatever, I imagine his comment would have garnered a lot more attention. In other words, it backs up the accusations that the titles are used, despite being defunct orgainisations, because the reader will recognise the title and therefore associate more gravitas towards the position. I do and will continue to believe that this is absolutely wrong. In terms of balance, perhaps the Echo should conduct a "Who are you" piece on SISA; they are in print all the time, so lets hear about you. How many members do you have? How often do you meet? How can I become a member? Can I be elected to the board? Etc. Etc.

Ringwood, I'll give you benefit of the doubt and assume that you haven't read my other posts on the matter (or indeed properly read my quote that you posted). In fact I'll quote it again for you. "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 do have a problem with, as I have previously stated and as you yourself hint at, is the Echo publishing quotes from SISA / Saints Trust under the description "Fans' chief"". That mistakenly gives the impression that a significant body of fans are voicing an opinion, when that simply isn't true. You ask why I don't join SISA or the Saints trust and change from within? It's a very simple answer, and one that I've previously given. I think they serve no worthwhile purpose any more. The information age was very different back when SISA were originally formed, and abck then I'm perfectly willing to admit that they filled a need for the fans to have a collective voice. But now we have various messsage boards, the Official Site, fans forums, the Daily Echo paper has a right to reply as does it's website. In short, there are so many ways that fans can now have a voice that the need for a supporters association to trumpet the views of the unheard is simply redundant. And that's my major point in all of this. SISA and the Saints Trust know that they don't speak for us all; they know they can't. Yet they continue to labour under their own self-impoortance just to appear in print. As Dan Kerins from the Echo said, more often than not it is SISA members contacting the Echo, and not the other way round. If the Echo simply accepted them for the defunct orgainsations they clearly are and deprived them of the oxygen of publicity they so crave it would solve the problem instantly.

The second paragraph gives it away....! "Those are the words of Southampton Independent Supporters Association chairman Mike O'Callaghan"

Don't get me wrong, I completely agree with you, and have contacted the echo previously myself with similar requests. However, as my discussions with Dan Kerins yesterday proved, they are unwilling to move away from the SISA/Saints Trust monikers as, they believe, it is perfectly valid for inclusion. I disagree.

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.