stevegrant

Gary Megson is, rather hilariously, the favourite for the job. Disappointed Irvine got the boot, he was doing a fine job of keeping Wednesday out of the promotion race.

Indeed it isn't. However, for all the theorising about Nick not being as innocent as first appears, the only facts we are aware of in this whole situation is that: 1. Nick was quoted in the Echo during the month existing ST holders had to renew at discounted prices, giving his opinion that the withdrawal of the payment plan was both a mistake and should have been warned of in advance - nothing particularly controversial there, I don't think? 2. Shortly after the deadline, Nick found that he had a refund on his statement for his season ticket money (note: from what he told me, nobody from the club contacted him to inform him of this situation, he just happened to notice it). He contacted various people at the club to query it, and nobody was able/willing to provide an answer. 3. The IFO also tried and failed to obtain any sort of explanation or defence of the decision from the club. 4. The IFO produced its findings and recommendations this week. Usually when an industry ombudsman investigates a case, they are provided with the version of the facts from both parties. For some reason, the club chose to ignore the ombudsman. If the club has made a perfectly reasonable decision, why would they not defend themselves, even in private? I think I'm right in saying that in civil legal cases, offering no defence is essentially an admission of guilt. Their silence, regardless of their "we don't respond to speculation (except on May 17th when we'll put out a statement which will then be removed a few months later when it turns out to have been nonsense)" mantra, is baffling on this occasion.

Good to see we're not being at all hypocritical by being judge, jury and executioner with an assumption (because that's what it is) that Nick must have done something wrong. For all we know, any one of us could be in his position at any time. I believe - but I have no facts to back this up - that due to the timing of Nick being refunded his season ticket payment and being told he would not be allowed to possess one (within a week or two of the discounted prices finishing in the summer), it is his comments relating to the withdrawal of the ST payment plan that has led to this situation. That being the case, do you believe it is right that a supporter (regardless of whether they've been to 3 Saints games in their lifetime or 3000) who voices his/her opinion about a controversial club policy - that affected 10% of last season's season ticket holders - is told that they are not allowed to buy a season ticket for daring to have an opinion? It sets one hell of a worrying precedent. Where does the line get drawn? As for the club's silence, perhaps they know that if they did actually reveal the reason and it turned out to be a pathetic one, they would lose a fair bit of credibility and goodwill among the fans, and that by keeping quiet, they'll have enough people who will assume everything they say is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and it'll all blow over.

Nick hasn't raised this issue through the media at all. Read the Echo article again, not a single quote from Nick. When the issue was first raised back in the summer, Nick said nothing about it as he wanted to just get the issue sorted and saw no gain in potentially inflaming the situation. Given that his role within the various supporter organisations that have been around over the years has generally involved getting publicity for whatever projects, initiatives, etc those organisations are running, surely it would be a dereliction of those duties to NOT confer with the media? His involvement at that level and his long history of supporting the club is why the media turn to him first. They know that he's reliable and generally available whenever required. In the age of 24-hour news, that's a priceless commodity for the press. I'd like to think that that company, faced with "continued" complaints about their service, would be rather more keen to engage with that customer to see how they could improve things. Well technically it does, within the boundaries of the law. And for clarification, I'm not part of the Saints Trust and haven't been for at least three years (might even be four, I've lost count). No idea on the last part really, I've no idea what they're up to, although I would potentially counter that this sort of situation is EXACTLY why every club needs a strong supporters organisation. Not that I've noticed, to be honest, but then I don't buy the Echo anymore, mainly as I don't live in the area anymore and most of the content I'm interested in is available online. In the past, I've always found most of his comments are generally "within range" of what I think, occasionally there are some which I disagree with and there are some that I'm completely aligned with, but things are rarely black and white, and yet people seem determined to decide they're in one camp or the other on every single issue. As I said above, ignore the fact that this is Nick Illingsworth. If someone had written into the letters page of the Echo and ended up being quoted in an article (which happens occasionally, so I'm informed by people at the Echo), and their comments are negative towards something that has happened at the club, would you say they deserve a proper and timely explanation for whatever caused that grievance, or would they deserve to be denied the right to guarantee their own seat for every game, as they have done for the preceding 30-odd years?

I've just worked out who you are. You posted a diatribe on Saintslist not too long ago slagging off various respected Saints fans and also this forum stating that "I don't post on there anymore and have no intention of returning". Assuming you see no reason to question the club's decision on this, would you therefore not question it if I just suddenly decided that I was going to revoke your subscription to the forum just because you said some nasty words (and unlike the others, didn't apologise for your bizarre and unwarranted outburst) and that if you wanted access, you'll have to pay £10 every time you want to post? I'm afraid it is you who miss the point about Nick, mainly on the basis that this whole situation is not (or at least should not be) about Nick Illingsworth as a "personality" (or however you want to describe him). It is about a genuine long-standing supporter of the club being refused a season ticket without even the common courtesy of being given a reason.

You genuinely believe that someone would spend what must have been a bloody fortune for 30-odd years on something he holds a grudge against? Apologies if I can't find the logic in that.

I assume the IFO have only just delivered their verdict, and that Nick didn't approach them straight away in July.

If he was, why would he go to the Football League and IFO? Surely they would discover that he was talking ******** and tell him where to go?

Ah, yes, I do remember that. I think that was Brian Bennett, can't remember exactly what was said, but the response from Jim Hone (I believe) was basically "don't care what you think, you're not even a season ticket holder". He wasn't banned, refused entry to a game, or anything like that though. Just a childish putdown via a club statement. Interestingly, the club is using the same PR advisor as it did in the Hone/Hoos era...

That's quite the accusation without divulging any facts to back it up...

Not that I'm aware of. I know Richard Chorley was banned from St Mary's for a while, although can't remember what that was for.

Why not ban StuRomseySaint then, who ran two coaches to Wembley, and it would be fair to say he didn't pay for them out of his own pocket. Last time I checked, we live in a (relatively) free world where enterprise is encouraged. What "negative remarks"? I can't remember anyone (other than perhaps Tony Lynam) being in any way disappointed with the takeover So what? Football club supporter in "supporting the football club" shocker. Don't know. Have you asked him? Was there actually any money raised from it at all? It didn't seem particularly well-supported at the time. Comments that have been echoed by hundreds of other people? IIRC, there were quotes from numerous people in the Echo when the ST details were released. If the reason was a genuine one - and for all I know, there may be a genuine and appropriate reason - why would the club not at least tell Nick himself why he has not been allowed to buy a season ticket this season? It would seem as though he (and others) have asked on numerous occasions, otherwise he wouldn't have seen fit to get the Football League and IFO involved.

One way of putting it, I suppose.

Worth bearing in mind that the recommendations (and that's all they are at this stage) refer only to domestic use, so pubs still won't be able to show 3pm kickoffs...

Seems somewhat unlikely...

Not at all... after all, the description of this part of the forum is: "General discussion area for all non saints related topics to be discussed sensibly. Infractions will be issued to those abusing this forum". Now, where's that infraction button... No I haven't read it, I can't be arsed reading that part of the forum as it's generally populated by mongs like you.

Congratulations, as well as being incredibly bigoted, you're also impressively ill-informed. Lump them all together, let's just call you stupid and be done with it. Seems much easier. I am intrigued as to how you've come to the conclusion that SHE got Keys and Gray fired (and I know Keys officially resigned, but let's face it, he jumped before he was pushed), considering it was somebody WITHIN SKY who leaked the recordings, and she has not given a single public comment on the issue and has tried to remain out of the spotlight as much as possible - how match officials should be. She decided to make herself unavailable for two games (one where she was due to run the line, in League Two, the other where she was due to referee in the Blue Square North) because, in my opinion (an opinion Mike Riley, head of the referees organisation, shares), she realises football should be about the players, not the officials, so to avoid a media storm, she decided it was best to try to let things die down a bit before returning. Dunno if you've noticed (you almost certainly haven't, considering you probably think that a woman shouldn't have a job unless it's cooking your ****ing dinner), but officiating at the highest level is actually a job for which she will be (reasonably well) paid. As a result of the storm created solely by Keys and Gray, she will be losing out on that income. I can only now assume you're on some sort of bizarre windup to see how many people can get angry and report your threads. You're up to 5 on this one, so keep going, be my guest.

When the pair of you have grown up, perhaps we might be able to drag the thread back to its original purpose? On which note, I see Elliott Bennett, Brighton's best player, has put in a transfer request. Heavily linked with a move to Norwich.

Adjourned until 11th February.

No surprise that Keys has resigned, the phrase "jump before you're pushed" springs to mind. As I said earlier (somewhere on page 3 of this thread, I think), I do suspect there's a link between Gray's lawsuit against the News of the World and this whole sorry episode. Keys and Gray have been doing this for years (read the Matt Scott article in the Guardian where he's spoken to three current and former female Sky employees), and it's only now that it's found its way to the newspapers... coincidence? I doubt it, but arguably Gray was playing with fire by carrying on in that manner. Surely he's not so completely in a bubble that he wasn't aware that there were loads of people within his own company who would love to take him down a peg or two? While Keys' comments were ill-advised at best as well, I think he's been dragged into it because he's intrinsically linked to Gray rather than solely for his own misdemeanors. Without the vested interest in getting at Gray, Keys would probably have remained untouched. I've not heard Keys' comments on TalkSport, but I saw all the quotes on Twitter as they were happening, and the general consensus seemed to be that it was an absolute car-crash, a complete PR disaster. He said sorry so many times that it completely lost its meaning and seemed to imply that he was only saying sorry to save face rather than because he actually meant it. And then there was the classic "I'm not proud of what happened at the weekend, but with success comes envy". I mean, seriously, what the ****?!

Wow, that's quite the bitter response from the Zimbabwe selection panel

Where abouts in the rules does it say this? I can't seem to find it...

Sheffield Wednesday equalise against Yeovil, 1-1

I'm quite surprised so many people both in broadcasting and in the game have been so quick to throw their weight into the argument as football does tend to be quite a secretive business when things like this happen. How many times have people been sacked as a broadcaster and they've just been ushered out the back door without a word said by anyone? Yet Sky News and Sky Sports News have produced in-depth reports, public statements from the head of Sky Sports, etc. It's almost as if they're glad they found an excuse to bin him. One thing some people may learn from this is that you take on Rupert Murdoch at your peril. Gray is suing the News of the World - another of Murdoch's media outlets - as part of the phone-tapping scandal, and it's odd and rather convenient how the initial leak was made (with Sky implying they won't be conducting an inquiry to discover the source) and then when everything kicked off, additional clips were then leaked to add extra weight.