stevegrant

A rather hilarious "accusation" when you can read on the footer of EVERY SINGLE PAGE of this site: I make no apology for having made a very one-sided agreement with the then-commercial director more than two years ago, in the interests of this site. The agreement was literally as follows: SFC agrees to allow SaintsWeb to display photos and images relating to the football club, i.e. club staff, the club crest, etc, which would otherwise be subject to copyright. I should point out to Stu (who I know can't actually read this, but I'm sure one of his plebs will pass the message on) that, actually, SaintsWeb does not enjoy "Official Nominated Fanzine" status, which would entitle the site to obtain the fixtures licence for a nominal fee (£1 + VAT) rather than the full licence fee (somewhere in the region of £350 + VAT). That was a choice we made right from the beginning, to ensure the site's independence was maintained. Also for Stu's information, the fixtures and live text licences do not amount to "around £10,000 per annum" as he stupidly, and without research, claims. The photos cost us nothing. Zilch. It also makes me laugh that Stu and another poster (strangely, another one who has been banned from here multiple times... go figure) both have this bizarre fixation that I'm somehow "in bed" with the club. Suggest you go back through my post history in the last 12 months, where you'll find countless examples of me voicing my disapproval at decisions taken by the club. As was suggested yesterday, the fact that both Nick and Stu approached me with the "Ted Bates Memorial Trophy" idea instantly raised alarm bells. Whether their intention is/was to antagonise the club, I don't know and, to be honest, don't care. As Nick rightly said to me, it comes to something when fans don't feel they can do something in memory of a club great, but as it turns out from a discussion with someone at the club, they wouldn't necessarily have an issue with SaintsWeb being involved in such an event if it was organised correctly. I'll leave you to insert your own Silverspoons-related gag there

You really are a strange creature, aren't you?

Ticket prices up to £60 http://www.football-league.co.uk/footballleaguenews/20110218/play-off-final-prices-announced-_2293334_2296575

Nothing I'm going to put on here until I've discussed them with Nick and Stu personally.

Well the goalposts have changed already then, it would seem

I was approached recently by both Stu and Nick with a proposal, but I'm not entirely comfortable with certain aspects of it, which they are both aware of. I'm happy to discuss it, but until they come back to me with a revision, the idea's dead in the water as far as I'm concerned.

Waddon Croydon, basically

The general rule is that if you can be bothered to send in an application, you'll get a ticket. Even for Pompey away, that's been the case. I'm intrigued by this system of averaging out the number of away games across a multiple-ticket application, so in theory a season ticket holder with 0 away games to their name this season could jump the queue ahead of someone who's been to 5 away games, if they applied alongside someone with 12 games.

The problem for Orient with West Ham moving to Stratford is that West Ham won't even come close to filling it for most games, so they'll introduce thousands of discounted tickets for local schools, etc, to bump up the attendance figures. If locals have a choice between free/cheap tickets at Orient or West Ham, who are they going to choose?

I don't think that's going to be the problem (would have been with Spurs, less so with West Ham), as West Ham's not actually that far from Leytonstone anyway. Apparently not. It amazes me that there were no plans put in initially to allow for retractable seating like they have at Stade de France, for example. Karren Brady's claiming that the furthest seat from the pitch at the Olympic Stadium will be 10 metres closer than the furthest seat at Wembley. She's obviously forgetting that Wembley is 50% bigger in terms of seating capacity than the West Ham-adjusted Olympic Stadium will be, and that the depth of each row of seats at Wembley is huge. I can't imagine the Olympic Stadium will have as much leg room.

Home games are now a 150-mile round trip for me, so that's nearly 3500 miles already

Just about ended up with a profit in the end. Went for: Huddersfield to qualify by any means - £5 @ 9/1 Huddersfield to win on penalties - £1 @ 50/1 Carlisle to win on penalties - £1 @ 50/1 Huddersfield to win 3-0 - £1 @ 11/1 Huddersfield to win 3-1 - £2 @ 10/1 A whole £2 profit

Not convinced there, they barely got an above-average attendance for their home playoff semi-final (first leg) last season.

Very much so. Also 50/1 for the tie to go to penalties!

Priceless :lol: :lol: :lol:

Yeah, god forbid anyone ever having a bad word to say about anyone or anything relating to SFC. Strangely, I didn't see you "getting behind the club" much in its hour of need...

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?