Minty

Well, it seems pointless commenting on this much more without knowing Cortese's side of things, and frankly I think it's all a bit silly. The longer it goes on, the sillier it is, and whilst it's not exactly a big black mark on either party, it's still an annoying blemish on what has been a positive, progressive season. In the great scheme of things, it matters not, unless it develops. 3 points today is all that matters right now, so that's all I'm gonna worry about for the rest of the day.

Control, no, I agree. Influence however, I bed to differ. And I am under no illusions... the planet will do what it has to do. What we are talking about is the effect we are having on the planet such that it can continue, or otherwise, to support the human race. Mother Nature may well cool things down but not until after we're extinct. This is about so much more than any one particular aspect, but ultimately it comes down to this for me: I want my children, grandchildren and great grandchildren to have a home that can sustain them and their children, and therefore believe it is only right that I moderate my activities so as not to deny them their opportunity to live. I believe my activities do have an effect on the planet and it's resources, and whilst climate change can never be wholly proven one way or the other, the diminshing resources are clear for all to see, and I believe a precautionary principle should apply in all cases. To act in any other way, is IMO selfish, and I think would be arrogant to assume that my actions will not have any effect. I'll happily debate it if there are specific reasons you feel we don't need to worry, but I have decided there's little point replying to or engaging with St George anymore as he clearly can't respect anyone elses point of view. I would also urge everyone else to either ignore him or at least leave the insults out now because it's not getting anyone anywhere, and I think most people have made up their mind.

lol... substitute St George for Monckton, and me and a few others for the Wessel and co, and you almost have this thread!!!

Jeez, does it really need all this in depth analysis?! Simple facts are that MB noticed this post: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A60412934 on 606, and then posted it on here. It is simply coincidence that it was noticed by that person, at that time, and that it took that long between them being published on the 25th Nov, and being noticed by a fan who then posted the link on 7th Dec on 606.

Erm... they were published on Nov 25th.

Yes. Knowing someone who works there doesn't mean you're gonna defend the paper as a while. As I said, I've worked for the Echo myself and they edited my work so it read differently to how it was intended and got me into some hassle... but in this instance I'm just calling it as I see it. In fact most people seem to be fairly middle-of-the-road as far as I can see, in that we don't know exactly what was said between NC and the Echo, but that ideally, the two should've had a dialogue about how to proceed. If there was agreement between the two then I can understand the Club's actions, but equally I understand the Echo's need to publish things once they are available. And once again, I think the whole thing is getting blown massively out of proportion, especially given that the basis for this whole spat was a POSITIVE story in the first place. For the record, Matt Le God, the plans were published on the NFDC website on November 25th.

Christmas, Birthday, Easter, Hannukah, and then died and gone to heaven...

Indeed, and I think we're in danger of losing this fact. The story here is the continuing investment in Southampton Football Club by the new owner and his staff. If that gets overshadowed by this then it would rather sad IMO.

Good job I'm not a mod anymore, or I'd ban you! And jizz-mopping is SO 2005...! :cool:

Thanks to Pancake: ... it got me thinking What are your favourites? One of mine: "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies."

That's both cruel and funny in equal measures.

Can i just state that I'm not defending the Echo here or taking sides, because if there is any kind of agreement or understanding between the Echo and the Club then they should at least discuss the fact they want to publish it. Also, having worked for the Echo, had articles edited by the Echo such that they have a different meaning, and got into sh!t because of the Echo, I would be the last person to defend them... However... as has been stated, the Echo exist to make money and they do that by selling papers and they do that by having news that people want to read, ideally before anyone else has it. So, I can understand why they published it, because any 'exclusive' in this instance would've effectively been lost already.

lol! He'll only blow it on Guiness.

Well, what's in a name? Compared to much conventional thinking I guess they are 'new' but the substance is more in their proposals and policies... real world solutions for real world problems IMO.

Just to clarify, the application was received on 19th November and published on their website on 25th November, so it's been 'public' for over two weeks now.

Look good, AND functional...

MB got it from someone on 606 I believe... bottom line is it was publicly available via the NFDC website and whoever saw it first was gonna broadcast it, via forums like 606 or this one, and then media would pick up on it from there. Verbal's advice is spot on IMO. If something is publicly available, no matter what part of whatever website it might be on, it *will* be found and posted and discussed, and the Echo, love them or hate them, can quite rightly publish the details.

I would've agreed until I came across the New Economics Foundation. They speak a lot of sense IMO: http://www.neweconomics.org/

Frankly, it's all a bit pathetic.

Well no, but I meant within the UK. Sorry!

Wayne Thomas is quite clearly staring at her ar$e...!

It'll be on iplayer too so will be available to fans outside the local area. Sounds good.

There's several parts to this. 1 - The actual 'story'... well as discussed on here, the planning application is in the public domain, and so there is absolutely no reason why the Echo shouldn't publish it. The club could've worked with the Echo and said something like 'OK, publish a small teaser first, but please hold off with the details and we'll give you some in depth content to print in return.' It's all about dialogue. 2 -The Lowe comment is just ridiculous, petty crap which helps nothing or no one, except making the Echo look like a spoilt child spitting out it's dummy. 3 - The whole issue is, in the great scheme of things, not really that important and I'm nto gonna lose any sleep over it.

What you see as 'PR' and 'buttering up', I think most fans (my guess, and I stand to be corrected) would welcome as good communication with fans. If you're not interested, that's fine, and you can happily sit back and enjoy the bits you like, but in this day and age, I think only the very naive or very arrogant organisations (in business as well as football) think they will always keep the fans happy, and so to have some channels of communication is beneficial. Whether they are used is up to us, and if we're happy, so be it, but I think it's important to still have them.

I disagree. Fans have got involved in the past because they were concerned and wanted to try and do something to help. Whilst the methods have been debated long and hard and many fair criticisms levelled at Supporters Groups, the one thing I am personally 100% certain of is that the majority have always done so with good intentions. It's all in the past now however and I too am more than happy with how things are going, but in the past that wasn't the case, so these people tried to do something. Again, disagree, David Luker is simply doing his job, which is not just selling tickets, but also liaising with fans according to how the hierarchy above him see fit, which is what this has laid out. What both David Luker and Supporters Groups have in common is that they are the ones who've often put their heads above the parapet, only to be shot at, when all any of them want is to improve things for everyone involved. If others disagree with the way they go about it, that's fair enough, but I think it's massively unfair to criticise them for giving a sh!t and wanting to do something about it.