SaintBobby

The club's official statement is ludicrous. The issue relates entirely to imagery (not to "banning" specific media outlets - although photographers are banned). Mainstream media outlets will not purchase photo imagery from a single source appointed by the club. The rough equivalent would be Tory Party conference only allowing in snappers from "Conservative TV". The broadcasters and newspapers would go bananas. This is a battle that Southampton Football Club can't possibly win. I don't want Cortese to resign, by the way. God no. Absolutely and emphatically not. I just want him to change this mad policy. Btw, if The Sun is playing it this heavy already, I don't rule out SKY Sports weighing in at some point before long. At that point, you really are a laughing stock.

Interesting post - I highlighted the point about "best for the club" to try and draw something out. I'm sure he is trying his best. I'm totally sure Cortese isn't some lunatic hell bent on destroying the club. Clearly not. The question is simply whether - in some areas - his judgement is bad. Overall, I'd say I'm about 70% happy with his decisions at the moment. Btw, that doesn't mean I won't criticise the 30% I disagree with. It goes to the transparency point, which Minty brought up originally. If your hypothesis about Solent interviews is right - and it may well be - then the club should spell it out. Not in a crisis management sort of way, but in a "fans charter" sort of way. I'd be more than happy with the following sort of approach: "The management team at Southampton Football Club are focused on improving the experience of following Saints for all supporters and, crucially, securing better results on the pitch with a view to climbing up the league ladder in the coming seasons. We appreciate that many fans and supporters care passionately about the club and that there will, of course, be accompanying national and local media interest in the club reflecting this interest. We intend to discharge our duty to fans and to the wider media as well as we possibly can, but feel a need to underline an important proviso. In the grand scheme of things, Southampton Football Club is a relatively small company. We employ 300 staff and operate on a turnover of £15m per annum (NB: both guesses!). We are determined to marshall these resources to contribute to the smooth running of the club and improving our performance and results on the pitch. We believe that involving the senior management of the club in responding to day-to-day stories or concerns could prove to be a misuse of resources, although our Customer Relations Team (or whatever) will work with any fan or supporter who has a specific problem or idea. To this end, although the owner of the club (Markus Liebherr) does not give media interviews, our Executive Chairman (Nicola Cortese) will be available for an extensive interview with Radio Solent three times a year, the Daily Echo two times a year and will attend a Saints Fans Forum in August and April each year. We are delighted that Radio Solent and the Daily Echo, as Saints official media partners, will make the interviews simultaneously available on the official Saints website and have already agreed to a schedule of XYZ for the coming season. We very much hope that all Saints supporters will agree that this is a sensible and satisfactory use of resources and the club does not intend to comment further, but will inform supporters of any change of this policy on the club's website." So, if it is the strategy, why not say so?

Fair enough. So do I. So do we all. But isn't the logic of your case that this is entirely a matter for the owners? Not for us?

There seems a lot of talking at cross purposes on this thread. Alpine is right that as a private company, SFC can do what they like, as long as it's legal. In a totally extreme case, Markus could price season tickets at £1m each and just sit and watch the games at SMS himself. If you can't or won't pay the £1m, well that's too bad. But Minty seems to be talking about best practice and that's a different thing all together. His original post argues that transparency is a wise way to behave. Not a legal obligation. Not something that fans can demand in court. Just a sensible way to behave. I think Minty's right. There aren't too many mass market businesses (and football is definitively a mass market business) where the "If you don't like, don't f***ing buy it" approach is a successful one. The business owners can pursue such a strategy if they like, but theya re probably foolish to do so. There will be some areas where transparency may not be possible. Staff departures are often covered by confidentiality agreements, for example. Or suppose a fan's payment for a season ticket had to be returned because his bank account was being investigated by the authorities for suspected money laundering (Note: I am in absolutely NO WAY suggesting this is what happened with regard to Nick Illingsworth, the example is just hypothetical). By and large though, explaining your decisions in a transparent way is a good thing, even if at the time it can be slightly awkward. Let's assume (and it's only an assumption), that the installment payment plan was cancelled because a measurable proportion of people cancelled their payments, but were still in possession of a physical season ticket and could access the ground for home games (given there tend to be 10,000+ empty seats, you could easily sit in an empty seat). You might make a business decision that the cost of policing this is too high to justify continuing with the arrangements. And it's a difficult thing to be transparent about, because you would basically be accusing people (your own fans, indeed) of fraud, with fairly limited proof. Nevertheless, you are better off explaining things transparently and carefully rather than just saying there's a problem for "administrative reasons" or some such like. The upside of transparency is that - in football - your fanbase start to act as keen advocates, contribute to encouraging more people (friends, family etc) to attend games, buying more of the club's products and participating in more of its activities. These are nebulous upsides, but that doesn't mean they don't count. In fact, they can be very substantial.

Obviously, the Sun is getting most of the attention on here - but there's also a link showing that the Telegraph are no longer using imagery from Southampton. And the Sports Journalists Association have condemned the decision. As others have pointed out, Plymouth Argyle and the local Plymouth paper are unhappy too. No doubt the same will apply to other clubs and local papers too. The old adage that all publicity is good publicity is just wrong. Ian Huntely and Raul Moat attract a lot of publicity. none of it good. Ok, NC is being portrayed as "crazed" and "cretinous", not as a mass murderer - but this isn't the publicity we want at all. Despite our opening day defeat, there's a good story to tell about Southampton Football Club, our new owners and the rebuilding of the club from the brink of oblivion. Getting these stories reported contributes to a feel good atmosphere and encourages the "marginal" fan to turn up and buy a ticket. Today's sort of coverage is emphatically NOT what the club needs.

The ban is utterly ludicrous - and possibly a breach of our responsibilities within the Football League. I think The Echo is a separate matter - there's been some falling out there and there might eb a good business acse for tryign to make the OS the first point of call for SFC news, not the local paper. But we want substantial publicity in national newspapers. Football clubs a rare entity whereby media publicity dwarves any paid-for publicity/direct marketing in terms of it's value or AVE as it's known (advertising value equivalent) - political parties and pop stars are other examples. This is a truly idiotic decision by the club. And probably an unsustainable one, in my view.

The board members who presided over two relegations? Or the board members who brought the club to the brink of financial collapse? Or does someone need to tick both boxes before they are called in to act as an adviser on how to run Southampton Football Club?

What is this about booing at the end of a match being a disgrace? I can just about understand labelling any booing during the match as disgraceful, but once the final whistle has gone? And why does it matter that it was the first match? Or is the received wisdom that you can boo, but only after 4 or 5 consecutive defeats?

As far as I recall, each match in the league is worth the same. So it doesn't matter which c.30 of the 46 games you win. Hope this helps

I booed them at the end. Cheered them on to the final whistle, apart from a few screams of "what the f&ck was that?" Make no apologies for booing at the end at all

Exactly. Maybe 0 0 or 1 1 would have been a fair result, but with just one or two shots on target, we were never going to win easily. Plymouth did defend doggedly, but we can expect that all season. Most worrying thing is we did not look fit in the second half.

Fine as in not relegated or fine as in league 1 champions?

Me too. We need to play much better than that to get near the play offs

That was a totally dreadful second half performance. I think Cortese will lose patience with Pardew before long. Not saying he should, but he will. An utterly embarrassing 2nd half effort against a truly uninspired and limp Argyle team.

Good first half display. Not enough height up front though. Puncheon doesn't look totally fit to me, so we aren't really showing bags of pace either. 6.5 out of 10 so far

Good first half display. Not enough height up front though. Puncheon doesn't look totally fit to me, so we aren't really showing bags of pace either. 6.5 out of 10 so far

How many do you think the club should have ordered? And in which sizes? A few points here: 1. I understand it is a "complex" shirt, because of the sash. Am not totally clear on the production process, but in essence, the "printing presses" can run off 5,000 Stoke shirts, 3,000 Sunderland shirts, 2,000 Exeter shirts and, if you want to run off another 1500 (old) Saints shirts, they could add this to the end of the run. 2. The sash requires a separate run-off and callibration 3. Initial early sales were not great. If you pre-ordered the shirt - in any size - you got it. No problem. Sales then surged and an additional order has been placed....but Umbro arent about to stop running off Milan/Barca/Santos (or whatever)etc etc shirts for a League 1 team unless you are willing to pay a HUGE premium for them to do so. 4. The club should be restocked by early-mid September. And will not take a major revenue hit for being out of the stock for the first few weeks of the season, however annoying it may be for us fans.

Ohhhh pleasse.... Has anyone clarified yet whether this is a problem with Nick Illingsworth's credit limit on his Mastercard rather than the onset of the holocaust?

This is a great product. Im London-based and take the train from Clapham Junction to Southampton Central. I'd rather read the programme on my iPhone on the train down than buy a hard copy at SMS at 2.55pm. Sure, theres not a hell of a lot in it of massive interest - but at £29, it's about the price of a Saturday newspaper. Im signing up (if it works!)

The claims are clearly libellous. On cross-examination, the bold initial claims turned into something much less dramatic. But probably still untrue. Abysmal behaviour.

Possibly a slight exaggeration....

I think it's an accepted (i.e. accurate) generalisation that older folk tend to purchase a disproportionately high number of newspapers and visit a disporportionately low number of websites.

The banning of the Echo may be petty. And/or it may be a sound business decision. Local papers everywhere are in serious decline. Local sports news/gossip is vital to them. However, this means football clubs are owners of a crucial news source and they may wish to control it themselves. A website can't replace a local newspaper - especially for older readers - but if the club want to develop the OS as the "go to" point for official and breaking news, that's fine by me. Of course, it may turn out to be the right decision made for the wrong reasons.

I didn't know that...wish him well.

Quite probably. If we play well, get a bit unlucky, but still secure say W 1 D 2 L 1 and then sign 3-4 really good players on August 30th (example: Vassell, Stock, Danns, Antonio), then I reckon I would feel the same way. Yes. FWIW, in reality, I reckon: a. Our record in August will be better than this b. Our signings will arrive earlier than this c. Our signings wont be as good as the 4 I listed