Minty

No, not at all, I should've got them done the week after the match, but one thing and another kept getting in the way, and here we are!

An excellent summary of my meaning SaintBobby, thank you.

Yeah, sorry, will try and get them done over the next couple of weeks. Had two weddings in the meantime, so lots of photos to process, and moving house this coming weekend! Sorry for the delay, will get onto it ASAP.

Alpine, I feel you're being slightly mischievous here. I'm sure you understand my point. As football fans, we support one club, and it is generally accepted that we don't have a choice in that regard. Therefore, the custodians of our club know that for many fans, choosing not to go to games would be a last resort, and therefore possibly feel they can get away with a lot more than they might otherwise in any other business because of that blind loyalty. Anyway we're getting off the original point.

Fari point, and I don't honestly know. But any organisation worth it's salt, should have its ear to the ground and know if a decision is going to potentially affect a lot of fans. The default position of saying nothing is not helpful IMO.

Again... this is about more than just the Sun. I don't care what the Sun thinks. But read the whole thread. Look at the wider implications.

Well, if they do things that we don't like, but think 'that doesn't matter because they won't go and watch another club' then I think that is exploitation. They know we have no alternative, because we won't just change to supporting another club. And Saint Fan CaM, I know we're not entitled, as I said in my very first post, and I don't expect to get everything I want, as I also stated in another post further down. Lowe was one extreme, I am simply (or not simply it seems) trying to say that I feel the club could do a lot better if it explained KEY decisions that affect, or have the potential to affect, a lot of supporters.

Indeed, there's an official article on an official club website, condemning the action. Hopefully those who think this is only about '******ing off The Sun' will see that it is about so much more than that.

Forgive me if I'm putting words in your mouth here, but it seems to me that you're basically saying that you don't mind them exploiting fans?

This is not about simply charging for photos and I think most people here would agree that they don't particularly care for the Sun either. It may be 'business at the end of the day' but this particular piece of business is unlikley to make us much money, as few people will actually pay us for photos, and the loss of goodwill could well lead to a further loss of money in other forms in the future.

I honestly don't know, but would like to find out. I assume it's a collective thing whereby licence fees are distributed evenly between all clubs within each division, or something similar, but I am only guessing. Payment for actual photos obviously goes to whoever has taken the image, but again those media outlets or photo agencies, will have paid for a licence. I think it's unlikely we'll find out how it works, unless someone who works in amongst it somewhere can tell us.

They do, already, through Football DataCo and the licencing arrangements that are already in place for all 92 league clubs. This is about a lot more than just paying for images.

Agreed, but that's a step or two further down the line than I was meaning. I simply mean explanations for decisions. Nothing more, nothing less. No, I haven't taken photos at St Mary's for some time now, and am not likely to again at this rate!

I completely agree that rational debate often does not get a look in (look at this forum for starters). I haven't dealt with football fans in the way you describe, but I have dealt with a lot of customers, and I would hope that any manager worth his salt, can effectively filter out the worthwhile comments and feedback, from the idiotic remarks you refer to. Most of what I refer to above is also not so much about two-way dialogue, just one-way... explaining why decisions have been taken, especially those that affect a lot of fans, or have the potential to. I have to to say I know little of the Nick I incident, and am happy to go along with what you say. I did mention in my OP that I do indeed believe that NC feels he is doing what is best for SFC, and so I will not criticise him in that regard, however I am just concerned that he could achieve more by being more inclusive and transparent. I may be wrong, I fully accept that, but based on my experience, I fear otherwise.

If you read my original post, you should also have read that I acknowledged this. As I've stated above, what they have to or don't have to do, is completely different from what I or anyone else might feel would be prudent to do. And it's football. We CAN'T go elsewhere... No matter how many aspects of Football become business-like, it is not a business in this sense, and as a result, it is effectively exploitation of a mostly static fan base because they know that fans don't want to go elsewhere.

I've considered doing so, so we'll see. I think it depends on what the news is about. I for one completely agree that with regard to signings and players and the endless speculation that goes on, it is entirely correct to only report on the facts as and when they happen. However, on things like the Season Ticket instalment scheme, and car parking charges, I believe more could've been said so we can understand if there is a reason why we are being inconvenienced/charged. As I said elsewhere... most people are reasonable and if something is explained, even if they don't agree with it, they can respect why it is being done and will go along with it.

I'm not sure how workable that will be, unless they signed a specific agreement saying so. Given that Saints are still (as far as I'm aware) covered by Football DataCo's licencing agreements on behalf of all clubs, it could be that the Plymouth paper have exploited that, meaning that as long as the paper have a licence (which they do) and they use photos taken by a licenced photographer (Plymouth's official snapper), then they might be ok.

It's exactly this kind of attitude that I really do NOT want associated with Saints, but I guess it is inevitable. Real shame IMO.

My concern is that if it continues, it could actually cause more problems for the club, and undermine some of the good work being done. And then it won't be fans not attending that will cause the problem, but other things... I am trying to suggest ways the club could actually help itself, if they were to take on board our concerns. I certainly don't think my expectations are unrealistic. Just because something is a certain way, doesn't mean it can never or will never change. Yes it is a private company and yes they can do whatever they like, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's best for the club.

Alps, can you not at least see why I raise this issue? If not, I would respectfully suggest you state your position and leave the thread, unless you want to constructively discuss it? (I know, it's a lot to ask for a thread on here these days, but I live in hope...)

To be fair to the club, they did make it clear that was for that season only. However, I would question the wisdom of making such a promise, and then not continuing it.

Thanks for the bit in bold alpine... I think you'll find I covered that in my opening post, and fully accept it. I just don't think it's the right way of going about it. BTW, plenty of people tell Steve Jobs their opinion of how he designs Ipods, it's up to him if he takes it on board. Constructive feedback is one of the most important learning tools available and I firmly believe those who don't accept feedback from others are far more likely to fail.

That name reminds me of an older Saints website... Looks good, will have a read.

This thread is not to debate the relative merits or otherwise of any particular decision made by the club recently... just want to make that clear because often threads get diverted too easily. However, whether you agree or disagree with some of the aforementioned decisions, one thing that surely no one can deny is that very little transparency from the club, if any at all. Some will, quite rightly, say that it is the clubs perogative to say what they want, and they are not required to be transparent. Some frankly don't care what they do as long as we win on the pitch. Maybe when I was younger, I might've been one of those. But not now. In my management experience, people may disagree with your decisions, but as long as you explain why a decision was reached, people can respect that and deal with it. I respect Cortese's desire to run the club as he sees fit, and I have no doubt that everything he does, he does because he believes it is for the good of the club. However, I strongly believe that he would help himself and the club if he showed us fans some respect, and explained why decisions were made. I don't expect, nor want, us to always agree on what he does, just as long as I can respect the reasoning or intentions behind doing so.

It's a shame the last few pages have deteriorated, because there is a worthy discussion to be had here, by those who want to discuss it (and not just fire off pointless comments about how it's unimportant... if you think it's unimportant, then find another thread to comment on). Thanks to Florida Marlin for putting some meat on the bones of my earlier post. As I said before, I'm no fan of the press, however it's the wider issue that is the problem for me and many others here. A mechanism already exists to licence the taking and use of football images, through Football DataCo. The system works. It allows bona fide media outlets and photographers/agencies access to do their job and ensures that monies for that are distributed fairly amongst all clubs. Now, Saints' reason for taking this action can realistically only be for one of two reasons: to control access or to control the revenue. Possibly both. With Football DataCo in place, if Saints are doing this to control access, they are simply depriving fans of the game at large from seeing a wider variety of pictures of Saints games, and creating a problem that didn't exist before. At a time when money in football is under the spotlight, and the sport is under pressure to become more accessible to the grass root fans who have to pay through the nose to watch games and be a part of something that wouldn't exist without them, it would be, IMO, an incredibly selfish and blinkered thing to do. If the reasons are commercial, which seems more likely to me, then on the face of it, it might seem like a reasonable thing to do, if you are trying to maximise revenue for the club and make the club more sustainable. However, as we're already witnessing, the media can create a problem for us, and hence our sponsors, by limiting the exposure we have. It creates a bad feeling that might not be such an issue in League 1, but will be difficult to shift as we climb up the leagues, and revenue may well be affected in an adverse way as a result. *If* it works, and we actually make money from it, again, on the face of it, most would probably say that is a good thing, but when a perfectly good system is already in place, through Football DataCo, which also ensures fair and equitable distribution of monies for licencing of football images, then I am genuinely concerned that the bad feeling and negative consequences could outweigh any small increase in revenue it might bring in. I don't know exactly how the distribution works amongst other clubs, but if it upsets the system then I can see other clubs criticising Saints for it, as well as the media. Either way, it also gives the impression that SFC is only concerned with itself and will do whatever it takes, to the detriment of others if need be, to get ahead. Again, clearly some of you have no issue with that, but I do. IMO, this kind of selfishness can only be bad for us in the long run. I prefer to treat others as I expect to be treated myself, and if other clubs start to act in the same way as we are, then football as a whole will become completely unsustainable and/or inaccessible to 90% of fans, because of the money required to be involved. We all want Saints to do well, but if the rest of football and fans suffer as a result, then that would be a very hollow victory. I want to be proud of my club, which means them achieving success in a sustainable way and on a level playing field. Unfortunately that will never truly happen because money is already here to stay, but this kind of thing just makes it worse.