Minty

Let's not start yet another petty argument about such a subject eh? Markus deserves better, even if you do disagree about the actions taken.

It's clear to me that players and management all knew Markus well and will be affected by this. Therefore, I think that if the club decide it is best to postpone the game, and MK Dons support that decision, then I fully support the decision too.

Indeed. Rise above it, ignore it and let them show themselves up for what they are.

And you've sung it on stage too... ;-)

Yet another reason why it's such a silly decision.

Which is yet another reason why this is such a silly decision, even if purely from a commercial point of view.

I really think people need to get beyond the specific issue of the media reaction, and look at the wider implications that have been mentioned numerous times on this thread and others.

Don't twist my words. As Steve has said above, the mods won't tell people what to think or do. I doubt anyone is really *backing* The Sun or The Echo, and as I said, I have no time for either of them myself particularly. However on this issue I feel the club is wrong, and I am willing to say so.

Theres the rub... I perceive it as a thread that highlights how a positive contribution from fans can make a real difference to the team, if they get behind them.

I don't buy the Sun or the Echo anyway, because I don't like them. But I agree with a lot of what they say on this issue. Individuals can make their own choice. The mods certainly won't try to tell fans what to do though.

It will certainly be interpreted that way by some people Pancake... although I must admit it's not my first concern. It would soon become apparent if they were doing so, because reporters and fans and tv cameras would still see the issue so the club could never hide something. That would open them up to even more criticism which would be REALLY stupid. So yes, it's possible, and no, I wouldn't be comfortable about it, if I felt it was a possibility, but I don't think they would be that stupid. As always though, I await to be proven wrong...!

Thanks Pancake. When a thread gets this long however, people rarely read through it all or do their own research to make sure they know everything about the issue... My closing comments on this issue: I fully accept that many people go along with, and even encourage Saints' intention to look at new revenue streams, even if it upsets others, or has the potential to, be they fans, other clubs, the media or whoever. I also fully accept that football needs to change, and the way it currently handles access and image rights, not to mention tv rights etc and a host of other things, is purely about money and fans are never the top priority. If Saints can be part of something to change that, then I would welcome it, but only as part of a collaborative and co-operative effort with other clubs. By trying to go it alone, it only exacerbates the perception that football, and our club inparticular, only cares for itself, when football as a whole needs to become more open and inclusive and ensure that fans are treated fairly, that the media who want to cover games are treated consistently, and that all clubs benefit fairly from anything like this which applies across the board to all clubs.

The clue for me is in the name. We are 'supporters'... a bit of support from us shouldn't be too much to ask.

I'll take that kind of mess all season long if it means we win 2-0 every game.

Indeed, very well put.

Indeed. How many photos are there in UK media on a daily basis? How many of those are of SFC? Any agency signing up to this risks losing all their other business. No one is likely to risk that except a smaller agency just starting out with little to lose, but then they risk having nothing else to gain.

For the record, I do actually agree there are too many threads on the photo ban subject. I also agree that those who just seem to enjoy wallowing in negativity and saying 'I told you so' if something turns out to come true, adds no value to this site whatsoever. I also think this site is pretty tedious, but because when I try and raise my concerns in any given thread, more often than not the subject gets lost amongst the abuse and insults and complete inability of a large number of posters to respect a different opinion to their own and debate it in a constructive way, rather than some of the rubbish we end up with. The mods have a tough job. I've been there, done it, got numerous t-shirts. They can't be on here all the time, and frankly, they only have to moderate when the posters themselves can't behave themselves or sort themselves out. The fact they have to do so much, says more about the posters than it does about the mods.

I'm not rallying behind the 'SCUM' at all, and if you read carefully, you'll see that most others don't care about them that much either. What they care about is the effect it will have on SFC in the long run. Saints are included in the same arrangement as the other 91 league clubs in signing up for Football DataCo to represent them when it comes to accreditation of photographer and licencing of picture reproduction. As I've typed several times now. That is how Saints are paid. This does not stop Saints ALSO obtaining revenue from selling their own pictures (which they have done for years, and can still do.) What Saints have done is simply restrict access so that they control the market. Careful NTKM, I will do what I feel it is right to do. I am as certain as I can be (and am more than happy to be proved wrong if it doesn't happen) that we will NOT make much money on this AT ALL, because media and other outlets will NOT buy pictures from us. Also, it will be interesting to see if any agency takes on the role, given that they would also likely suffer a boycott from the media. And bearing in mind agencies depend on a LOT more than just pictures of Saints, I can't see any established agency worth it's salt, taking up Saints offer. On this point I agree completely. But that now instead of the quality of pictures dictating which ones earn the money, Saints are now just trying to control the market, to the detriment of all other agencies, newspapers AND clubs, who will probably question the validity of the agreement in light of the Football DataCo position. All in all, I can see this being damaging to SFC, which is what I care about.

All depends what additional paperwork was provided by SFC for the official Plymouth photographer to sign. However, under the terms of Football DataCo's accreditation and licencing policies, the Plymouth snapper is accredited to take photos, and the Herald have a licence to print Football League photos, so under the agreement that is in place for all other clubs and grounds, there is no issue. It just depends if they signed something specifically with SFC. If they did, even THAT could go against the Football DataCo agreement, which would be interesting.

Dear oh dear... if you don't agree with someone you have two choices: post a reply as to why you don't and try to change their opinion, or ignore it. This kind of post only serves to wind up those who can't resist having a pop at you for it, and takes the quality of posts yet lower by diluting those worth discussing. There are some who only seem to moan without any constructive reasoning behind it, making it difficult to discuss, but you just have to ignore that. If you're capable of doing so. This forum is what we all make it. If you want it to continue being full of crap, then carry on posting crap. If you want it to improve, ignore the crap and post as you would expect others to post. As I said elsewhere, I live in hope.

Alps, that is bang out of order. I care about SFC. As a result, if I think something has been done which I don't agree with I have every right to raise it, especially on a discussion forum about SFC. Your lack of respect for differing points of view is disappointing. I accept that some people do go OTT about NC and things that happen at the club. Ideally, we'd all be able to discuss the issues in a mature way and with respect for each others point of view, but when a site is as popular as this one is, you will always get unhelpful posts that contribute nothing. The simple answer is to reply to those posts which are worthy of reply to, ignore those which you think aren't, and treat others as you would expect others to treat you. I live in hope.

I think that he thinks he is doing what is best for the club. However with some of these decisions, I do not believe it will prove to be so, hence my concerns. If someone you cared about made a decision which they felt was correct, but you felt otherwise, you would say something, because you care about them. I care about SFC. Indeed, and I'm not going to start surmising about who is or isn't advising Cortese. All I know is that decisions are being made which I and others disagree with, and feel that in the long term, they will be counter-productive.

Which is what already happens at every club out there. The issue is the banning of other accredited photographers, who have been deemed fit and proper by the company appointed by every league club, including ourselves, to do their job for their newspaper or agency, and take photos of our games, as we have previously agreed to. The clubs' own images are already protected and always have been. They just want to control who has access to St Mary's and try to make more money from other organisations in a way which completely goes against the nature of the game in this country IMO.

What it also confirms is that money is more important than being part of a football community that operates for the benefit of fans first and foremost... which stinks IMO.

Hmmm, that's more notable for what it doesn't say, rather than what it does. Making your own photos available is fine, but most clubs do that already. Photographers applied for access the normal way last week and were told they were not permitted, so the club aren't being entirely open here I don't think. They specifically mention 'reporting on a game' but not photography. That doesn't clarify anything IMO.