Joensuu

[Quick summary for those unwilling to read: Would you rather have a club offering ‘expensive success’, or one providing ‘affordable pastime’?] I’ve been trying to work out why we seem to be so divided as supporters. I have always assumed that we all want the same outcome, and couldn’t fathom why there was so much division. Over the past couple of weeks, some of the threads on here have got me thinking, perhaps we actually don’t all want the same thing. I think we fall into two camps, one want to see the club become more successful, and another who would prefer a football to be more like it was in the 60s, you know, a break at the end of the week, a cheap afternoon out, with beers, and friends. We all know that Sky has fundamentally changed football. Money has bloated the game, it's made it a more expensive pastime. Marketing has opened the game up to a completely different type of fan. Unfortunately, in this post-Sky world, no club can survive on good faith and community spirit alone. Money is needed to fuel the game, and the more successful clubs have refined effective ways of cashing in, both by increasing ticket prices, charging for advertising, and most importantly trying to assert leverage to get their hands on as much of the TV pot of gold as they can. It’s become a dog-eat-dog industry, only the richest seem likely to survive, let alone be successful. In the good old days, the ideal chairman/owner was a retired local business man; a virtually anonymous party, who only really got involved in the club when a new manager was needed. Investment wasn’t the priority, nor was business acumen. However, I fear, times have changed. In this new world, I’d argue that the ideal chairman is a businessman first and foremost. He (or she) focuses on the profit margins, doesn’t get drawn into media debates, and has the objective of ‘success’. Is this ‘success’ really the division in our fan base? What would you prefer, a return to the old days (to cheap tickets, terraces, the odd scuffle after a game, and unfortunately in this post-Sky world seeing the team probably either languishing in league 2, or going out of business altogether), or do you prefer being treated as a consumer, not a fan, watching a businessman lead the team through the leagues, and accept that your pocket will be a lot lighter, but your team surviving, and perhaps even becoming successful? I think football has changed, and a return to the pre-Sky idyll is a pipe dream. I think we are consumers of a company, who are for the first time in their history being managed as if they were in the FTSE 100. I'm not saying that that's what I want, more that that is the reality of the state of the modern game. We also have to accept that the clubs fan base has shifted. The last 15 years have attracted different types of fan to the club, often people willing to spend more on their ticket, more on their merchandise, and demand more from the results. The outcome of this is unfortunately pricing others out of the game. I should also add, that as Saint's fans we've been spoilt. We've tasted 27 years of success, all achieved with luck, skill, and judgement, but not with money. As such, we don't seem to have woken up to this post-Sky world as fast as the fans of other teams have, We still seem to believe we can have our cake and eat it. Unfortunately, IMO, luck alone won't bring success again. If we ever want to return to the top, money, and business acumen are the only way forward. I might be on the wrong track, but for me this might explain why our fanbase seems so divided: we simply have different objectives. So, would you rather have a club offering ‘expensive success’, or one providing ‘affordable pastime’?

I think there must be something wrong with your kettle...

*rumoured, but possible, and likely for good reason if true. ** definate, but for unknown, probably good, reason. ***strongly rumoured, and seems likely, but if it has happened, for unknown, possibly good, reason. ****definately, and for good reason. *****seemingly, but we've only heard half the story, thankfully one of the clubs is acting professionally. ******rumoured. *******agreed, the ones who see the steam rising from a kettle, so jump to the conclusion it's smoke, and ring the fire brigade. 2 + 2 = ?

Erm, delightful chap http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/search.php?searchid=163542 One of those who likes to post 'comedy' from the sidelines. He's become a somewhat of a cause célèbre of late, mainly because it has been suggested that he is banned from the main board with no explaination. Whether this is true or not is unknown, whether his posts contain humour or not is dubious.

And I wasn't even legally dubious... damn, must try harder...

Alan, what's the point of preseason? Alan, what's your take on the strange short/direct passing tactics which are often used by lesser managers? Alan, have you ever been subject to an NDA? What about an NDA preventing you from speaking about an NDA? If you answered 'yes' or 'no comment' to either question, when can we expect your autobiography to be released?

I like this thread. It has shown us that there isn't evidence of Cortese lying, that Cortese wasn't extensively booed, and that Mitchell washes his laundry in public. It also shows us that some people will try to pin anything they can on Cortese. Why bother with irrelevant things like evidence eh?

There are two seperate things going on here. From the Site Owner's perspective, assuming a maximum of 3000 subscriptions (I assume there are less in reality), means Baj and Steve have at most £15K to maintain a forum with. In IT terms that's peanuts. Hosting fee + Licencing (if any) + Apps support + Opps support, will swallow that budget, before any development or upgrades are factored in. However, from the Customers perspective, £5 is a lot to stump up for seemingly not a lot. The £30 suggested by the OP, is simply not value for money. Let's face it, Saintsweb isn't really financially viable, the owners simply can't sell the product at a price which will cover the costs. Saintsweb is only viable because of the non-charged support time provided by Baj. Without a £5 fee the site would be almost impossible to run. With the £5 fee the site is open to criticism as a business, providing services to its customers. Do I think having more than 3 posts a day and the ability to start threads is worth a £5? No. Do I think having saintsweb at all is worth £5. Yes - its the only sensible place to get Saints news. I see my subscription more as a donation, and less as a fee.

Yup, I guess that all the anti-Cortese bunch must have accidently bought tickets together or something, because the rest of us, and the videos of the day, all heard/recorded nothing but cheering. Either that or those who heard booing should possibly go to have their ears tested.

MLG, you seem to have stumbled across an answer to the riddle. An answer which sees no lies being told: May 17th: Journalist asks Cortese to respond to rumours about Pardew, Cortese tells Journalist that rumours are 'ill informed'. May 20th: Liebherr phones Cortese. Markus tells Cortese that he has lost faith in Pardew's ability, and wants Cortese to sack him. Cortese argues back, saying Pardew has just won a cup, and that we should give him more time. August Bank Hol: Cortese reveals to journalists that Markus had wanted Pardew removed back in May, but that Cortese had convinced him otherwise. Based on the evidence we have, these are a perfectly logical series of events to extrapolate. Where is the evidence of any lies being told? Edit: [Also, even if the two dates in May were reversed, why couldn't a CEO tell a white lie? If he says anything else (i.e. 'yes we are considering his position' or 'No Comment') the media would know they were on to something, and Pardew would have had to have been sacked within a week. Obviously this was not Cortese's intention, or Pardew would have been sacked in May, so had Cortese responded in a different way, it would have forced him to sack a manager who he obviously wanted to keep on. So even if the sequence of events is different, what would be wrong with telling a white lie for the benefit of the club?]

Genuine question Steve, could you point me to examples of Cortese lying?

I agree, a pattern is emerging. Cortese is too professional to engage with rumours, nonsense, and slanging matches held in the media. Some of our fans don't know what a gifthorse looks like, let alone which end the mouth is.

I don't see anyone saying they love Cortese. Just lots of rational posters who are defending him because they recognised that the Echo story is indeed inflamatory, and that Bompey chairman is not exactly the most trustworthy of sources. Defence of Cortese against the mud slingers, and rumour mongers doesn't mean you 'love him', more that you want to see evidence before you leap to conclusions.

I think this 'the money dried up before Markus passed on' thing is a red herring. We spent a hell of a lot of the Summer before last to lure Lambert and the rest, and then spent some of the following summer's budget early to get Fonte and Barnard in the Janurary window. Despite this we continued spending more than anyone else in the league the following summer, spending almost 3/4 millon on 3 fullbacks. The real question is whether this generous cash flow is going to continue without Markus (let's hope his family continue to fund our progress). If not, will Cortese continue being level headed in wanting to accomplish our shared goals, whether he starts using only money the club itself produces, or whether he will need to go, business case in hand, to the Leibherr's to ask for further investment. Point is, in the last transfer window we outspent everyone else in the league, so why people think the money has dried up baffles me. How do you think a fan of any other team in League 1 would react if they spent 1/2 million pounds on a fullback? I doubt you'd find any of them using it as evidence to demonstrate how 'skint' they are.

How many games could he have played under Pardew? Answer 1 How many appearences did he make under Pardew? Answer 1 Therefore, can I challenge your assumption that Pardew didn't seem to rate him. And therefore can I challenge your assumption that Guilherme's signing was 'Cortese inspired'? As I feel he is still finding his feet and adjusting the UK, I would also like to challenge your assumption that this is a 'faux pas' at all. However, I can only conclude that you have started a thread not to comment on a player you have barely seen on the pitch, but instead to try to have a pop at Cortese (with no evidence) from a different angle.

Didn't take me long to find an example, I'm sure there are countless others, most of which were probably deleted: http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?23914-Travellers-in-Romsey[url=http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?23914-Travellers-in-Romsey&highlight=paki][/url] (Note Ponty's posts below DBP's). Oh, don't worry, I rarely read his posts, problem is he threw them about on every thread. You could try ignoring him, but other people quoted his posts. Some of them were so inflametory that they needed rebuking. I know, I shouldn't feed the trolls, but it's hard not to sometimes.

It doesn't necessarily mean that keeping quite does him any harm, just that it does him no favours. Any sacked manager has an element of 'doubt' surrounding them, they can choose to try and explain the reasons behind the sacking, and see the 'doubt' in their abilities start to evaporate, or they can remain silent. Of course, you may be right, there might be a NDA stopping Pardew from speaking. I doubt we will ever know. But whether there is an NDA in play or not, the silence (enforced or otherwise) is not doing Pardew any favours. As you say 'if there was one'. I didn't see any obvious lack of public support, when asked by the Beeb, last March or so, Cortese was accurate with his wording, saying we 'needed to improve' our league results. Why should he pretend to be happy? Why not be honest? As the falling out was only a rumour, and as there were rumours to the contrary (that Markus disliked Pardew's playing style, but Cortese convinced him to keep Pardew), it think it's fair to say that we don't know whether there was a falling out in the first place. All we know is that for some reason Pardew was removed, the haste with this this was done, the fact no replacement was lined up, the fact that it followed a 4 goal win, all suggest to me that something serious, and unexpected occurred, which Cortese had to react to. Evidence for a split, prior to the August Bank Holiday, is insubstantial.

So you're saying that Mr Romsey was a comedy foil, who lit the ignition paper by posting something controversial, and added fuel to any dieing thread by saying something outrageous, but that he made up for his blatent trolling by interspersing it with racism, misogyny, and playground stapstick antics? Stu, represents the decline of the board. In the past he would have been ousted by the admins long ago.

We don't know every little detail, and I think big things like sacking a manager are important to keep private, as they are subject to UK Employment Law, don't you? You only get to hear why a team & manager part company when one party or another leaks/reveals the reason. If the reason is positive (i.e 'move on to next challenge', 'spend more time with family' etc) then the manager might be inclined to let people know. If the reason is negative (e.g. performance, misconduct etc) it's not in the interests of the manager to reveal the reason. For employers, it is very difficult to provide any public reasons for a sacking. Clubs have to be very careful what they say, as even hinting could see them wind up in an expensive court case. Any professional employer will not reveal the reason any employee is dismissed: it's generally only the employee who can choose whether they want to provide any information. It is to Cortese's credit that we know so little; while Pardew's silence really doesn't do him any favours.

You hark back to some golden posting age which never existed. StuRomsey never added anything of value to the site beyond childish humour, stories about the girls he was currently pursuing, and how he gets into all manner of fights. He hated anyone wearing replica shirts, as they are seemingly too soft or something. In every way he reminded me of that Jay character with the awful hair from Inbetweeners, you know the one who sends his time obsessing with sex, and is all talk but no trousers. Except I imagine the real-life Stu is somewhat fatter. [is that infactionable mods?]

I lost interest when Jon Cruddas decided not to stand.

Whether one further penny is invested by the Leibherrs or not, doesn't really matter, the financial stability of having a backer is more than enough for me. Lets put it a different way, if you asked the fans of all 92 league clubs whether they would swap their current board/owner for ours I wonder how many of them would jump at the chance? [My guess is that around 85 of them would bite your hand off, 2 or 3 would have to think about it, and only around 5 at most, would eventually turn you down. Does that help sum up why I feel loosing Cortese & the Leibherrs is very unlikely to make are situation better, but highly likely to be a backward step]

Well here you are incorrect because I HAVE actually met Cortese. To be honest at the time I was impressed by him, I don't think you need to have met him personally though to comment on some of his decisions. I don't have to know him to disagree with his introduction of the excessive ticket tax, to disagree with his handling of the photo ban or to disagree with charging people who park at the stadium for the travel club. I understand why these things have been done but I don't agree with it. Apologies for assuming you hadn't met him, and I agree that this isn't a prerequisite for discussions (otherwise how could I pass any judgement on him, having never met the man). I too disagree the booking fee, think he didn't show best judgement with the photographer ban (although should be credited for changing his decision when he realised his mistake). I think charging for parking is generally a good idea, however I think some concession should have been made for away coach travellers. The important point you make, is that you 'understand' why these thing have been done. Again, you don't need to have met him to comment on his decisions, especially ones which impact me. Agreed... again I think some of Cortese's decisions have been very unprofessional, especially the lack of explanations to the supporters (something which supposedly he admitted to at the season ticket meal, as I said I hope he changes for the better.) I can't think of any decsion which has been 'unprofessional', sure he has made some decisions you might not agree with, but 'unprofessional'? He could certainly do with improving is communications, but I agree with his general policy of not responding to rumour. News, should be, well, news, not rumour. I too hope his communications change for the better. No they haven't, many posters have expressed their dissatisfaction at a number of different decisions both on here and via PM but you can pretend that it is no one if it makes you feel better. Docker P, revolution saint, me, Fitzhugh Fella, Stevegrant, Nick Illingsworth, dune to name a couple off the top of my head but there were quite a few more. There's a big leap from 'expressing dissatisfaction' to support someone who tells the owners to 'f**k off' without having any evidence to base this on. Anyone can express dissatisfaction, but when this becomes spreading unsubstantiated rumours, I feel a line has been crossed. I never denied that, personally the ideal scenario for me is that Cortese appoints a fan liaison officer or someone similar to ensure that fans views are listened to and that policy is created with fans in mind. Many supporters I speak to feel like they are being exploited by the new setup and it doesn't create good feeling. I agree with you one that. Rather a far cry from supporting the opinion of someone telling the owners to 'f**k off' though isn't it? Well as Cortese is very much part of the committee and appointed everyone else who was part of it, you could argue that it is very much Cortese who is at least partially to blame. I accept that point is pretty irrelevant in this debate though. Agreed. People have NOT been throwing mud at Cortese all summer! Can you not understand that people object to some of the decisions which HAVE been made? The photographer ban is a fact, charging people who use the travel club is a fact, the three pound ticket tax is a fact, p*ssing off Francis Benali is a fact (and yes it is, talk to him about it.) the delayed training ground is a fact, it isn't mud slinging for the sake of it! When the admin of this forum expresses concerns, does that not tell you something? Do you think that everyone who has a problem with some of Nicola's decisions wants him to fail? Because it sounds like that is what you are saying, that you think people are creating stories with no evidence just because they don't want Nicola in charge. Do you really believe that? Do you honestly think there has been no mud throwing? There have been rumours, and counter-rumours being spread about for months now. I'm not talking about objecting to decisions - that's fair enough. I'm talking about the character slating, the comparisions with Mussolini etc. Criticising the decisions is one thing, jumping to conclusions without evidence is another. I don't believe we are undermining them by expressing concern at some of Cortese's decisions and asking for explanations. He himself has said he does not have a lot of experience of english football. I shall be going to the fans forum again this year and shall be asking these questions directly so don't think it is just all talk from me on here. It isn't undermining someone to question what they are doing in some instances. This is after all my club. No nor do I, questioning decisions is one thing, forming opinions on rumour is another. I do believe you are undermining the owners, and therefore club when supporting anyone who suggests he should 'f**k off'. That's hardly constructive. Has he reversed it? Genuine question as I have been away and have not seen any evidence of a reversal. If so then long may it continue, especially with some of his other decisions and with explaining things to the fans. I hadn't seen any evidence for this either, and questioned it. Steve Grant responded with a link which suggested that he'd reversed his decision. I suppose my opinion is slightly different from other supporters. I just want to see saints players doing well, putting their heart and soul into playing and having a good go at teams with the odd win thrown in. I would be quite happy to stay in the championship if I got to watch this every week with my mates and a few beers. For me, winning isn't the be all and end all, sure it is nice to win but it isn't going to be the end of my life if we lose. Give me an entertaining 3-3 over a dour 1-0 win any day. I feel that Cortese has put some exploitative measures in place to take advantage of me and my fellow fans and I don't like it. I'm not sure if having a lot of money is worth it if ultimately I am priced out of going in the future (and this includes small costs such as the ticket tax and the travel coach.) Now that I can agree with. I'd rather lose 5-4 than scrap a win with one shot on goal. It might seem like some of Cortese's decisions have been 'exploitative'. I see it slightly differently. This is a company, he is the CEO, he is making decisions, many of the most objectionable of which are increasing club revenue. This to me is evidence of an effective CEO, cutting wastage, and focusing on the future of the club. So yes, supporters might feel a little lighter in the pocket, but like any product you buy, you are the customer, if you don't like the product, or the price, simply shop elsewhere or don't buy. I have had to make some tough decsions, and have cut back on the games I go to, should I blame the CEO for this, when all he's doing is his job? So is the real problem with Cortese the fact he's too good at his job?

Agreed. The statement could be interpreted either way, or in countless other ways. I wasn't intentionally ignoring any given word. Merely reading the statement in the way it seems to make most sense. Perhaps for clarity, I should have replaced "first team" with "club", which would have left less room for ambiguity:

I think threads like this help us to remember that 'rumour' + 'rumour' + 'rumour' does not equal 'fact'.