FloridaMarlin

And the Premier League clubs who are relegated with parachute payments are going to agree to this, are they? Good idea in principle, but be careful what you wish for. This could give the Premier League the excuse they are looking for to pull up the ladder and end promotion/relegation, just keep it to themselves and run it as a closed shop like the NFL which is actually run competitively because it has......a salary cap! The combination of a salary cap and a draft system means the NFL is a much more competitive entity than th PL, hence the Arizona Cardinals are in the Superbowl. As I say, a Footbal LEague salary cap is a good idea, but Prem clubs won't go for it. Which will either kill it off, or if the Football League do it unilaterally, leave the Prem to carry out its own unilateral actions.

But only if the opinion is based upon fact, and is not made with malicious intent. I currently have a copy of McNae's Essential Law for Journalists open in front of me. As with any media laws, there is a lot of grey area. Lawyers like this, as it gives them plenty of scope to argue. If things were black and white, they would not be able to rack up huge fees for court appearances. I quote from the above mentioned tome: "A judge said if you accurately report what some public man has done and then say: 'Such conduct is disraceful' that is merely an expression of your opinion, your comment on the person's conduct. "But the judge said that if you assert that the man has been gulty of disgraceful conduct and do not state what this conduct was this is an allegetion of fact for which there is no defence (other than the truth or privilege). It then cites a case in which the apparent rigour of the rule was relaxed by a judge's decision in 2006, to whit Lowe v Associated Newspapers. This is where Rupert went after The Evening Standard and lost. However, let's not forget that Rupert went after Martin Samuel in The Times, who in an opinion column described Lowe's treatment of Dave Jones as "shabby." Lowe won £250,000 in damages, despite The Times arguing the comment was an honestly held opinion, based on facts and not made with malicious intent. It took a jury less than three hours to blow that out of the water, which just goes to show what a complete lottery the UK's libel laws are. Incidentally, what chariy did Lowe donate the £250,000 damages to? I recall that he sued The Times effectively with the club's money. In other words, had he lost the damages would have been paid by the club (he argued that by defaming him, Samuel was also defaming the club). In return, he would donate any damages he won to charity. No doubt somebody will confirm which charity benefitted from this largesse.....

Lowe sued The Times for the article in which Martin Samuel described his treatment of Jones as 'shabby.' He won his case, and that one word - "shabby" cost The Times £250,000. The Times argued that the comment made in a column was an honestly-held opinion, made without malice. Lowe's briefs were able to argue that Lowe's treatment was Jones was not "shabby." Here's the link to the piece the Times had to run as part of the verdict. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article583108.ece Incidentally, which charity did he give the £250,000 damages to?

Really? I wasn't aware of that. Are you sure it was Rod and not somebody who looks like him? I can't think of a reason why Rod would be down in the tunnel area (I wouldn't have thought Jan would know who he was to want to get him involved, even though I've no doubt P-J Bakker is one of Poortvliet's sporting heroes), but if he was then it can only be a good thing. He certainly knows how to put an arm around his players, and how to motivate them. You speak to any current or ex-Hampshire players and they'll all tell you what a great chairman he is, even if they have fallen out with other people at the club and left (no names!) He does go into the dressing room, but only after a day's play. He appoints a skipper and leaves the pre-game stuff to him. Warney instigated the famous Hampshire Victory Song (an idea he adopted from the Aussie's motivational handbook) and the players loved it that Rod was prepared to take his turn in leading it off. THAT'S when a chairman should be getting involved in the dressing room, throwing off his inhibitions (and often much of his clothing!) to show the players that winning means as much to him as it does to them. You just can't somehow see Rupert descending to the shop floor and mixing with the lower orders.

Interesting comparison as there are a lot of similarities with the two. When Bransgrove first got his foot in the door at Hampshire, he was seen as a pushy arriviste and feared by many of the old guard. Before he was voted on to the committee, he was one of these blokes who hang around on the fringes of cricket (and other sports) and loved to be one of the lads with the players. He was always a big supporter of their benefit years, and in fact got voted on to the committee, if my memory serves me correctly, on the strength of Robin Smith's nomination (I could be wrong, but my memory seems to steer me in that direction). The big fear - and 'fear' is not too strong a word to use - among the old guard was that he would want to run the train set, and so it proved. Like Lowe, Bransgrove took over the reins at a club housed in an outdated, but lovable ground, and forced them to up sticks and move to a new stadium. Bransgrove faced a harder job persuading people that Hampshire needed to move. Cricket does not have the level of support football does, and serious questions were asked about the viability and necessity of the Rose Bowl. But the big difference between Bransgrove and Lowe is that Bransgrove had a long-term plan, and was prepared to back it with his own money. Bransgrove is a very rich man. He hates anyone speculating or mentioning how much he might be worth (he once bawled me out in front of a full press box for doing just that, but never denied it when I asked if I had the figure about right), but he has ploughed a lot of his personal fortune into Hampshire Cricket. It's not all about philanthrophy. He has a very sharp business brain and although he has saddled Hampshire Cricket with huge great debts, unlike Lowe, he is prepared to underwrite most of them. His long-term vision (and he believes in it enough that he is even now beginning the next stage of the Rose Bowl's development in the middle of a huge economic slump) is to make the Rose Bowl a permanent fixture on the Test calendar, at which point he may see some return on hs original investment. Like Lowe, who got himself elected on to the FA Council, Bransgrove has ambitions to be the ultimate power-broker in cricket. For a lot of the suits and stuffed-shirts in the EWCB, he is too much of a loose cannon and advocates change too quickly. Like Lowe, Bransgrove does run his club in an almost dictatorial fashion, but unlike Lowe, has every right to do so as he ploughs in a fair proportion of his wealth. And unlike Lowe, he seems to get a lot of his decisions right, based on the fact that as a fan, he knows what makes fans tick. Probably no other county chairman could have attracted Shane Warne. Few counties could have afforded him, but Bransgrove - aided by some clever marketing and sponsorship - stumped up for a package. You could argue that getting Warne to Hampshire was the equivalent of getting Kaka in to Saints. A prospect just too big and expansive for Lowe to contemplate, but the sort of move Bransgrove loves because it puts his club on the map, raises its profile and puts bums on seats. As a centrally contracted player, you may not see much of KP at the Rose Bowl. But he's a Hampshire player, and it's no coincidence that Bransgrove has twice now managed to get the world's most high profile player to his club. For a time when Hampshire first moved to the Rose Bowl and Saints were still in the Prem, they were the two most powerful figures in sport south of Birmingham, outside London, and the Southampton area (yes, the Rose Bowl is officially within Eastleigh BC, but you try telling anyone it's not in 'Southampton') had two clubs and grounds it could be proud of. At that time, there was loose talk of a formal alliance of sorts between the two clubs. Not just in terms of ticket tie-ins, but in a sharing of philosophies, a pooling of common ground in sports science, etc. Bransgrove bought some Saints shares (not a vast amount, but enough to be polite) and he and Rupert were regular hosts to each other in their respective corporate hospitality boxes. There was even speculation that each would be invited or co-opted on to the other's board. But the relationship cooled. The mutual invitations to corporate hostility are no longer extended. Bransgrove became a mere 'customer' at SMS, and although previously a regular user of his season ticket, is rarely seen these days. The difference between Lowe and Bransgrove is that Rod is a bigger visionary who sees a bigger picture. He would not have allowed WGS to leave, and even if he had left, would have actively sought an even bigger name as replacement. Unlike Lowe, he is not afraid to spend a penny to make a penny, even if those pennies are his own. Bransgrove would certainly not allow himself to be answerable to a cabal of shareholders who allow him to cling to power in return for putting their interests first above everything else. Would Bransgrove have made a good Saints chairman? We wish. Lowe v Bransgrove - only one winner.

Part of their problem is that this year's TV income has already been spent - on buying a chain of pizza restaurants in the States (thanks to Gaydamak senior). The debt is now reckoned to be £92m, so even if they can hang on until next year's cheque arrives, it will only be used to plug this year's holes.

It's not fair for those who work in the media to name-drop, as talking to and interviewing sports stars is part of the job. In fact, if you don't speak to famous people, you're not doing your job properly. So I won't bang on about those I've met, interviewed, ghost written columns for, and even had run-ins with. Oh, all right, I will a little bit. Highlights? Not necessarily Saints related, but interviewing John McEnroe after he had retired (still full of pith and vinegar), shaking hands with Michael Johnson after he set a world record in winning the 200m gold medal in Atlanta, having a ride on Chris Boardman's bike as part of a piece written after he won gold in Barcelona, just being in the same room as Kathy Freeman after her gold in Sydney in 2000, er....I'll stop there for fear of outstaying my welcome. I was lucky in that footballers were far more approachable, accessable and agreeable back in the day, and of all the Saints players I have known, the nicest was Matt Oakley (still keep in touch with him to this day). Duncan's not the only one to be insulted and sworn at by Rupert. But hey, it was part of the job, and I've been sworn at down telephones lines by better people than him!! But it's not all honey. The downside of working in the media is that you cannot be a fan and be as awestruck and worshipping as you should be. Professionalism dictates that you have to treat even your heroes with cool, calm detachment, and not deference. It means that you cannot let your true feelings show, like a fan can. The worst accusation that can be attached to any sports hack is that he is a fan with laptop.

In the extremely witty way that football clubs have of playing with the media (and with the aim of 'keeping the opposition guessing') experience tells me that the player put up in front of the assembled hordes on pre-match press day, usually doesn't play!

Explain 'prevented'. The only way the Echo or any paper could be 'prevented' from running a story would be on a legal issue. That would either be because the paper was not confident itself in standing up the story and risking a libel suit, or because the paper was legally prevented from running it by an injunction taken out. We can probably discount the second (injunction), while the first would not be beyond the realms of possibility if people orginally prepared to back the story and stand it up, suddenly got cold feet. I would think either of the above scenario was unlikely in terms of 'preventing' the story being published. What you probably really mean is the Echo might have been 'persuaded' or 'pressured' into not running the story. That's a different issue where you enter the realms of politics and the acts of tightrope walking that local papers have to perform in order to maintain a balance of retaining its credibility while having a relatioinship with the club. No paper likes to be seen to be a stooge, or in the pocket of a football club, but at the same time, it has to enjoy a reasonable working relationship Football clubs are notoriously *****ly organisations, who do not like criticism, and when it comes to scraps with its local media, hold some pretty strong cards, in the shape of access. A newspaper's prime concern is how to best retain its readership, and many editors feel it is not worth compromising the readers they obtain through the regular coverage of games, etc, for an expose story that will cost them entry to the ground, and access to the training ground and players as the chairman spits his soother and cuts all ties. The key is to pick the battles you know you can win. Any paper also has to consider its advertising, and even a journalistically strong and campaigning editor (and you could not put Ian Murray in that bracket!!) has to think about the effect the stories he might run has on those who have commercial tie-ins to the paper (how many provincial newspapers -esepcially those owned by US companies such as Gannet, run stories that are critical of those companies who place big lucrative ads with them. As far as The Echo is concerned, the 'Affair of the Naughty Tesco Employee Punished By Being Locked In The Freezer' springs to mind). The Echo does have all sorts of commercial tie-ins with the club, but there comes a time when an editor has to consider the paper's credibility and weigh it against the commercial implications. The people at The Echo aren't complete dimwits. They know which way the wind is blowing, and they're also aware of their standing and reputation. If they have decided to change tack (and from the distant viewing of the website, I'm not noticing any sea-change in their stance) then it is because they FEAR LOSING READERS who feel they can no longer trust the paper to bring them insightful, objective reporting on the affairs of Southampton FC. Even then, I suspect there would be plenty of internecine rumblings between the news floor and the suits, bean counters and envelope-lickers upstairs, who are not only concerned about the future of advertising and the Saints Magazine (is that still published?) but also about their table in the corporate hospitality suite. I've burbled on ad nauseum on this forum about the constant power struggle between the media and football and football clubs. Joe Kinnear's spectacular foul-mouthed blast when he went into his first presser as Newcastle manager was an attempt to mark out his territory and put some markers down. The North-east media is a formidable edifice, and Newcastle Utd meddle with it, or take it on at its peril. The Echo, for whatever reason, has long since been the sort of thundering, roaring media giant that would have the club shaking in its shoes and dreading to cross. I've had dealings with Lowe in the past, and his attitude with the media (and he once said these exact words to me) is: "If you are not with us, you are against us." He sees no such animal as objectivity. For a would-be politician who stood on a ticket of freedom from the shackles of European control, he cannot accept a media with a free voice which could aim some barbs of criticism his way. In a mellow off-the-record moment, he once told me that he accepted and indeed welcomed a degree of personal criticism as it kept him humble, and caused him to reflect on his actions, but that he would not countenance any adverse publicity of the club as it could affect the share price (a common fear among those who stalk The City). I found it difficult to believe the first bit then, and although I was never the recipient of the sort of telephone tirade that Duncan Holley and others have had to endure, rabid red-faced rants were aimed in my direction. Time was (and he may still do it) when the press office's first job of the day was to scan every paper and media outlet cut out every item written about Saints and take them to Rupert's office. He'd need a magnifying glass to see our coverage in the national newspapers these days, and although he might not have enjoyed the 15 minutes of fame the Man Utd cup tie gave Lawrie over the weekend, he would have ridden that out in the knowledge that now the national spotlight is off SFC, he only has to battle the local media. It will be interesting to see how far the Echo decide to run with this particular ball. Are they prepared to risk Adam Leitch being banned from the ground? Or would Rupert refuse to nibble at the bait, fearful of the resulting hoop-la that would inevitably follow from that course of action?

Other teams have worked out pretty quickly how to play us, and what we are about. How many teams at SMS this season have lined up with two solid banks of four, and two up front? They let us play our nice passing football in front of them, knowing that we lack the wit and guile to play through them, the pace to get behind them, or the physical presence to batter down the door. They suck us in, and when they get the ball, play it quickly up front to where two pacy strikers are likely to get on the end of anything played over the top as Saints invariably hold a high back-line. It ain't rocket science to work out how to play in this division. So why can't we do it? Or to phrase the question differently, why do we have to be different from everybody else with a formula that doesn't work?

Watch the Daily Mail for the response from Lowe! Expect Charlie Sale's column within the next week to contain some piece of gossip from a well-placed source, either rubbishing the previous regime with particular reference to Lawrie, or extolling the virtues of the current set-up in the most trying and difficult circumstances (which were inherited from the previous regime). But hey, all's fair in love and war for the hearts and minds of supporters in the media propaganda war. Lawrie has his contacts in the media which he has used for years, so does Rupert. Unfortunately for Lawrie, the fickle nature of the media means that after the final whistle tomorrow, the caravan will pack up and move elsewhere, and Southampton FC will return to what it has been - a relegation-battling Championship club on the south coast which doesn't figure on the radar of the national newspapers which he deals with. Once United up sticks and leave town, media interest departs with it. The only outlet remaining remotely interested in the affairs of Southampton FC will be Charlie Sales' Daily Mail column. I suspect Lowe might well know that, which is why he has kept a low profile, and not responded (yet) to any pre-match pops at him. He can ride this out for a few days until the hoop-la is over, safe in the knowledge that after Monday, all he has to contend with is the hapless local media.

Hurrah! Somebody else (besides me) who has seen through all the spin and bullship as to the real reason why the world is beset with apparently frivolous and barmy health and safety laws. And none more so than the Land of the Free. Organisations have to do this to protect themselves from people whose first reaction to anything untoward is to run (or rather limp in an over-exaggerated way) to their nearest ambulance-chasing lawyer to try and wheedle them some money. One of the great legacies handed to the world by the USA is No-win, No-fee legal action. It's a licence for every gimp with a grievance to try and extort money, aided by lawyers who have the ethics of a ****roach, and instead of showing these people the door of their office, gleefully join in the pursuit. Of course, as home of the hair-trigger litigator, the US is home of some of the all-time classic civil law claims. Best was the woman who sued the makers of Winnebagos (camper vans). She was injured after her van left the road and overturned while she was in the back making a cup of coffee. She claimed she had put the truck into Cruise Control on a long straight, highway, and nowhere was it explained to her that she still had to have her hands on the steering wheel. Now, all RVs have to carry an explanatory warning that putting your vehicle into Cruise Control does not mean you can go and prepare lunch in the back. As for the picture issue, somebody on here mentioned DataCo, and they are right to do so. DataCo was formed by the Premier and Football League to control and monitor the licensing of the football 'product'. One of the measures is to licence all those journalists who wish to cover professional football in England. Part of the reason for this is that any journalist who writes something counter to the interests of the product, can have their license revoked, thereby depriving them of their livelihood. A friend of mine wants to set himself up as a freelance sports journo, but he cannot get a license from DataCo unless he can provide copies of match reports of 30 games he has covered. Unfortunately, he cannot get 30 games to cover them becaue he doesn't have a license to gain admission......

I wasn't aware Graham had a sister. I know of a brother.

Please tell me you are joking regarding the first paragraph. Who do you think sets the tone for the Echo's sports coverage? You can't hail him on the one hand for being a beacon of journalistic morals and standards, and then berate the paper's coverage under his stewardship as patronising. He uses some of the oldest journalistic tricks in the book to give the impression that the paper is a strident voice of protest. What you do, is use a fan with a gripe to write a lengthy letter which you publish. When the club moan and complain you say: "We didn't write it, it's what the fans are saying." It's an act of journalistic ventriloquism, putting your words into somebody else's mouth in the hope nobody will see your lips moving. His only get-out is that he doesn't dictate the paper's sports coverage. For that you have to look higher, even higher than the editor, Ian Murray. I'm not sure even Simon 'Pulitzer Prize' Carter is prepared to strap on a pair and risk his job by kicking against the dictats of his employer.

Holland's entry in the Euro Strictly Come Dancing soon found himself performing the Paso Doble alone after his partner refused to have her feet trodden any more on by his heavy clogs.

In the word of Professor Henry Higgins (so memorably played by Rex Harrison) in My Fair Lady: "I think he's got it, by George, he's got it!" It's very early, but I don't recollect saying Lowe was the only person in football who tries to control the media. Of course he's not alone, but it doesn't disguise the fact that he does it, which is what concerns me as far as our club goes. I think the point I'm trying to make, which is why perhaps some people are finding it difficult to take in, is that Saturday's presser was out of the ordinary because Jan decided to reject the press officer's advice and answer the question. Most managers are happy to use a press officer's intervention as a device to get them out of a tight spot. When the press officer butts in, the manager will shrug his shoulders and theatrically raise his eyebrows as if to say: "Sorry, what can I do? I was ready to answer the question, but I've been stopped." The thread set out to ask whether there was a falling out between the chairman and his head coach. All I've tried to do is indicate that if Saturday's press conference was any yardstick, their relationship may not be so lovey-dovey as Peter Andre and Jordan.

You're quite right, it's very, very rare for a manager not to be accompanied by a press officer, and I don't think I said it wasn't. Their presence is for one reason only, to try and ensure the manager is not asked any potentially embarassing or contentious questions. It's all part of the policy that football has of trying to control the media agenda, and Saints are by no means the only ones to embrace it. Every reporter attending a game in the Prem or FL has to be licenced (by a company set up by the PL and FL), with the obvious inference that if he makes himself too much of a nuisance to a particular club, they can apply to have his licence revoked, thereby threatening his livelihood. But for the Saints press officer to jump in in the manner he did yesterday, tells that he had been given a brief beforehand as to what lines of questioning were not to be allowed to be pursued. That is also not unusual, but does also smack of fear and paranoia. What made yesterday's press conference unusual and enlightening was the fact that the reporter, unlike most other pliant journos when fronted up in such circumstances, stood up to him, and asked if he was denying Jan the opportunity to answer the question. The second, and probably most important aspect from the viewpoint of this thread (in case you had forgotten) was that Jan effectively told the press officer to keep his nose out and proceded to answer the question. That tells me that while Jan might have been aware that certain lines of questioning were considered off limits from the club's official viewpoint (and we know who decides and dictates that!) that he is prepared to go against that and speak his mind. And no, I was not there, but I do get my info first-hand and pretty quickly (there's this thing they have these days called 'the internet') from numerous old buddies in the media, including several who were at the press conference. As to who I am, I'm not sure myself sometimes.

The post-match press conference was interesting yesterday. Without prompting, and in answer to a question, Jan said how important Surman and Lallana are to the team, how the team is better with them, how he wants to build a team for the future around them, and how he would not want to lose them. Jan was then asked how he felt about the financial situation leaving him facing the prospect of losing them in January. At which point, the accompanying SFC press toady jumped in, and said: "He's not answering that, questions about the financial situation have been fully dealt with elsewhere, if you want information on that, it has all been explained on the club website." The journo stood his ground, and said: "I asked Jan the question of how he felt about possibly losing players, if he chooses not to answer the question, fine, but I want to know whether he will answer the question." It apparently threatened to blow up, at which point Jan gestured to the press flunky to chill, asked the journo: "Sorry, I forgot what the question was, can you repeat it." He did, and Jan answered it, much to the annoyance of the press guy. It was patently obvious to everyone there, that the press guy had been given orders to babysit Jan, and make sure he didn't say anything out of turn when asked potentially awkward questions. It's one of Rupert's oldest devices, to try and control the media agenda. In fairness to JP, he doesn't dodge questions, but no doubt this was all reported back. The press guy will probably get it in the neck for failing to do his job and prevent Jan from answering questions, and it appears that Jan will not be gagged when it comes to answering. It's as sure a collision course as the Titanic and a big lump of ice.

With every passing season, this division gets harder to get out of, and while we remain in our present situation off the field, it will not happen. Just for the sake of argument, assume Birmingham, Wolves and Reading go up at the end of this season. That still leaves the likes of Bristol City, Sheffield Utd, Ipswich, QPR and Cardiff to compete with, all of whom appear (and I stress, appear) to be be better set up financially to compete in the top half of the table than we are. Then you are also looking at clubs like Swansea, Derby, Coventry, and even Burnley and Plymouth who appear to have overtaken us. Next year, Leeds are likely to be back in the Championship, and no doubt they will have a certain amount of financial clout. All this, without even mentioning whichever three teams come down, boosted by the parachute payments (yes, I know, it hasn't done Charlton much good). The picture it paints to me is one of struggle and continued struggle, unless we get some investment in. The current team is a potentially good one in the making, but it's three years away from being a side capable of competing in the top half. Physically, they youngsters are just not up to the constant battle presented by most teams in the Championship. And how many of this team are likely to be around in three years time? There has never been a worse time to be out of the Premiership if you are a club without a wealthy benefactor, or considerable investment. That's not a criticism of Poortvleit. No matter who came in, unless they had considerable funds to invest in new players - and to keep the ones we have got - we would not be able to mount a serious challenge. I fear our exile will be a long, and painful one. Unless things change, I don't see us getting back into the Premiership for at least 10 years, by which time they will probably have pulled up the ladder and stopped promotion and relegation (you can check through all my previous posts if you want to know what I mean by that).

I could give you plenty of examples of journos from one-club cities who have gone after the chairman, and who would have had the national newspapers falling over themselves to get them, if they wanted to go. You might not remember Mike Neasom from The News, who went after successive p***ey chairmen, from John Deacon, thru Jim Gregory and Venables, to Mandaric with a relish, and who would have had Gaydamak wetting himself had he not died a few years ago. Alan Oliver at the Newcastle Chronicle is fearless in his pursuit of the truth, just ask Freddie Shepherd and now Mike Ashley (and he could walk into any national paper he wants had he chosen to), Rick Waghorn did a lot to send Robert Chase packing from Norwich, Don Watters likewise with Ridsdale at the Yorkshire Evening Post. Closer to home, Derek MacGregor worked for the Bournemouth Echo, where he was banned for some of the critical stuff he wrote when Tony Pulis was in charge. He went straight from the Bournemouth Echo to The Sun. The pattern with the names above, and it's a sad one, is that all those guys are of an older generation of football writers, one which always put the pursuit of the story and the truth ahead of anything else. That's not to say that the current or future generations of reporters are not pursuers of truth, but what has changed is the attitude and stance of the organs they work for. You can't blame the reporter if his employer's stance is not to take the club on. Even The News, once the most fearless critic of p***ey, has now become a flag-waver. The paper has realised that the football club is the biggest story in the city and consequently, its financial well-being is strongly tied to the club's. A glance at the paper (or its website in my case) shows a fawning use of the word "we" when talking about the club. It's the sort of thing that would have the fearless Neasom spinning in his grave. For all its faults, that is a level of sycophancy the Echo has not yet resorted to. If you do know anything about the workings of the media, and the football press in particular, you will know that being banned by a club will do no harm at all to an individual reporter's career prospects or chances of working for a national newspaper. In fact, just the opposite. It shows the reporter has the cojones to stand up and try to tell the truth, and damn the consequences. A little notoriety is actually considered sexy by most sports editors in national newspapers. Editors control the direction and tone of a newspaper's coverage. Reporters actually have little control over what they write. Editors will know, via the conferences held daily (more than once a day at some papers) what stories his reporters have or are working on. As the director of the paper's coverage, it is the editor's decision what storylines to chase down, and how he subsequently wants them played. It's down to the editor to decide whether he wants to run a story which will result in his reporter being banned, and a good editor will back his reporter if that happens. That happened early on in Lowe's first term at the club, when both parties were holding pi**ing contests to scent-mark out their territory. The paper blinked first, not locally, but bowing to pressure from on high as The Echo's American owners Gannett (God love 'em) were concerned at the implications on advertising revenue and ordered the editor to back down. Lowe has never forgotten his victory on that occasion and is probably still using it as leverage even now. Allied to that, is the fact that increasingly these days, editors aware that the football club is invariably the biggest story on their patch, fear it would be counter-productive to upset them, with General Patton's words on tents and urination at the forefront of their thoughts. Under those circumstances, it's rather difficult for a reporter to write the sort of story which you claim will harm his career!

As with all these stories, you start by wondering how it got into the papers in the first place. Who fed it to them? Who leaked the info, and why? Why would Stoke want to to come out? They wouldn't for fear it could start an auction. In whose interest might it be to start an auction to enhance the player's price? In whose interest might it be to try and ignite interest where there hasn't previously been any? Not saying it is the case, but it has happened that clubs use a third party (agent's player, etc) to feed a story into a paper to create interest where there was none previously, to raise some badly needed income.

"And no I don't work for the echo or in journalism!" I think we can tell that from your perception of a sports journalist's role. "Adam Leitch is a sports journalist, not an investigative journalist trying to dig up as much dirt as he can so that he can offer sensationalist headlines." As beat reporter, it is a sport's journalist's role to cover all aspects of the club's activities, both on and off the field, and not only because the two are inextricably linked. It's not a question of digging up dirt. Any journalist worth his salt will want to break the stories on the important issues which affect the club. At the heart of this, is the issue of where a sports reporter's role begins or ends. What is a sports journalist? It may sound like an exercise in semantics, but is he a journalist who just writes about sport, or is he a journalist who ALSO writes about sport? How many of the sports journalists at Heysel, Hillsborough or Bradford put their pens down as events unfolded and said: "I'm not writing anything on this, because it's nothing directly to do with the match," and leave the press box? Probably none, because they are journalists, first and foremost, and as a journalist your duty to your readers and your personal desire is to tell the tale. Now, some papers will try and 'protect' their beat reporter by getting guys from the news desk to cover the off-field activities. The rationale behind this is that they can somehow try and persuade the club that it wasn't our football man that uncovered the financial irregularities, so don't take it out on him by banning him from the ground. It hardly ever works. So, has a deal been done, or is the Echo in the club's pocket? To some extent, the local paper is always in the club's pocket. Its coverage is at the behest and whim and mercy of the club. In the UK, all papers have always operated from the overriding fear of having their privileges withdrawn. That's partly down to self-interest and lack of collectivism in the UK. If one paper is banned by a club because of its stance or something it has written, the others rub their hands and immediately try and take advantage. In the States, the media takes a wider view and looks at a bigger picture. An attack on one paper is viewed as an attack on ALL the media, an undermining of their rights and privileges, and even an assault on their right of freedom of speech as set down in the Constitution. Consequently all the media organisations would unite in their condemnation of the club, and it would not be a case of the club banning one paper, but of the club risking a media blackout!! Freedom of Speech and an assumption of a right to know is also probably more ingrained in the American public than the UK. In the UK, fans expect reporters to be fellow supporters. You only have to look at the Echo website for proof of this. How often is a reporter who has tried to tell it as it is slammed for being negative and failing to get behind the team? Unfortunately, all this makes for is a weak and compliant media. Football and clubs in the UK know that banning one paper will not produce the sort of collective outrage and response they would suffer across the pond. Because of that, Football and clubs know they hold the aces, and control the media agenda. The product of that? Football and clubs basically take the p*ss out of the media in the UK. No access to players, no one-on-one interviews. The only comments from managers or players come from tame, insipid controlled press conferences, presided over by a club (or FA, in the case of England) press flunky who stares daggers at the assembled reporters, fields the questions and bats away any potentially controversial or dangerous ones. It is standard practice in the States in all the major sports - NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL - that pre-game, the media is given access to players at the training camp, and post-game they are allowed into the locker rooms (or dressing rooms) 15 minutes after the end of the match, once the coach has done his debrief. You can really imagine Sir Alex Ferguson letting the media into Man Utd's dressing room, can't you? No you can't because he has never been asked, and nobody would dare ask him now. The Premier League perpetuates this soft-pedalling with its woolly requirement that all clubs to make one MEMBER OF THE COACHING STAFF and two players available for post-match interviews. That allows Fergie to wriggle out of talking to the BBC (only the UK's biggest broadcaster!) while the farce conducted in the tunnel of the presentation of the MoM award and other TV flash interviews serve duty as the post-match player interviews. Written media rarely if ever gain access to players, club press officers tell newspaper reporters: "Get your quotes off the tv." The fear of having even the lip service that passes for access removed is the overriding one in the UK media, and now dictates everything. The failure to take a collective stance when it should have, means the UK now has the football media it deserves. Insipid, compliant and weak-kneed. No wonder Premiership clubs are owned by some of the biggest crooks on the planet. No wonder managers take all sorts of underhand, illegal payments with little fear of impugnity. Back to original question. Is the Echo in the club's pocket? Who knows, but they won't be the only party guilty of that particular crime. Only when they realise they have nothing to lose will they take the gloves off. And when their advertising revenue no longer depends or hinges on their Saints coverage (and that is often a big factor with local papers) will they realise the biggest thing they have to lose is their credibility.

Nothing like the Old Boy network to get you work!! http://www.loweoliver.co.uk/radley.htm Is it true that Lowe & Oliver were the preferred electrical contractors when SMS was built?

If the Big Four had been allowed to go that WOULD sealed the death of domestic football as we know it, or at least changed it beyond all recognition (even more so than now). If they had gone, TV would have followed them, and with it ALL the money, so therefore no Prem. Some might argue that might have left a better, more even playing field, but it would be a hollow competition. Imagine F1 without Lewis Hamilton and Massa and the Ferrari and Williams teams. The prime strategy of 16 Prem clubs for the past five years has been to do everything they can to stop the Big Four leaving, and it might still happen. I've rambled on here before about the spectre of a world league, funded by big tv money. When the big Tv money first came in from Sky, all the old Division One clubs welcomed it as a means of pushing on, and the new generation of stadiums has largely been created on the back of big TV income. But all it has done is create a monster. Like it or not, the Big Four are the only real attraction for TV, all the rest is just window dressing and filling for the main event. Unfortunately, there is no way back to how it was, no matter how much we all hanker for the past. Whatever happens, football is changed permanently.

After collecting The Recipe For Disaster from Delia Smith at the Norwich game, Rupert was pleased to see it wasn't too hard to follow.