Chairman in the Daily Mail

What was wrong with the thread about this that started yesterday ?

If of course he is an employee then there is nothing wrong with a bit of brinksmanship when needed, if, of course you are as important to an organisation as NC clearly is.

 

I have done it to a lesser extent at two jobs I have had, Im sure more of you have ?

 

We dont even know what his reasons were, was it a higher pay packet ? Was it to fund a new stadium (calm down mlg) or maybe just to make sure his ambition was matched ?

 

Whatever it was it happened, and the majority realise what his worth is to the club, the manager or the players didnt need to speak out, they would get jobs elsewhere, but they did, which proves the job he is doing.

 

I find it comical that positive/negative articles can be brushed under the carpet dependant on your agenda, taking everything on its own merit though I can look at it with the respect it deserves, and therefore Im going to ignore it

Thought last week illustrated how most people on here do judge stories -positive or negative- on their merits. Even before the follow-up BBC article came out, most people had accepted the Times article and had moved onto discussing its implications.

Given the caricatures from the usual suspects, you would have expected it to be summarily dismissed. Far from it.

Martin Samuel is no fool. His job is to ask questions and provoke responses. If anybody on here really thinks that what he has written is anything other than an invitation to headstrong foolishness then they should read "The Prince" instead of spending all their time boozing and boring people to death at their local pubs.

Is it a negative story though? Not really. He states several FACTS Cortese is just an employee, he is spending another mans fortune. It did appear that if the owners didn't back him then he, he manager and possibly some players would all go as well and he did it all and got what he wanted. Neither a negative or positive story, what it is is a reasonable account of the actions of the chairman in the last week who used the media to get what he wanted. Just because some of you don't like it it doesn't make it untrue.

- He may be "spending another man's fortune", but that's exactly what Markus wanted him to do in the first place. He installed Nicola as Executive Chairman and asked him to run the club for him. In other words, he's doing his job. So essentially Samuels is criticising Nicola for not being a multi-billionaire. The sh!t. It's easy for Samuels to have a pop at us because we're spending money, but we're actually on a pretty sound financial path as opposed to most of the other high spenders in this league. Surely a better target would be people who spend tonnes of cash at a club and end up driving them into the ground? Not going to happen.

- You talk about people complaining about an "anti-Saints bias". I would love you to show me a positive article written by Samuels about us. Good luck finding one. I think it does go OTT sometimes, but the fact is that Nicola has a rocky relationship with the media what with the photographers ban etc and that's always going to influence "opinion articles" such as this one.

- Obviously we don't know the ins and outs of the contract situation, but it was obvious from the start that it was a media ploy. I was never worried personally, but obviously a bit of a storm was kicked up over it and it was all blown out of proportion. A few days later and, surprisingly, Nicola ends up staying. Blimey, never saw that coming. It's nothing but a clever ploy - or blackmail if you like.

Some good points Mikey and I would add a couple more as well:

- Samuels seems to indicate that owners are somehow being backed into a corner by these nasty Execs. The Liebherrs in particular are business people and haven't accumilated billions by being held to ransom. Indeed, if they really had an issue with Corteses behaviour, they could have fired him like any other employee providing that they were confident that they could do a better job themselves or with someone else. I'm sure they don't need the likes of Samuels speaking out on their behalf

- Comparing Chairmen to spoilt and jumped up football players is off as well. Cortese hasn't done this for a personal pay rise as far as I can tell but to ensure that he is able to push the club on as promises. You can criticse the way in which this is done if you like but the reasons behind it are completely different IMO.

Some good points Mikey and I would add a couple more as well:

 

- Samuels seems to indicate that owners are somehow being backed into a corner by these nasty Execs. The Liebherrs in particular are business people and haven't accumilated billions by being held to ransom. Indeed, if they really had an issue with Corteses behaviour, they could have fired him like any other employee providing that they were confident that they could do a better job themselves or with someone else. I'm sure they don't need the likes of Samuels speaking out on their behalf

 

- Comparing Chairmen to spoilt and jumped up football players is off as well. Cortese hasn't done this for a personal pay rise as far as I can tell but to ensure that he is able to push the club on as promises. You can criticse the way in which this is done if you like but the reasons behind it are completely different IMO.

Agree. Your last point is particularly important.

Hmmm, never been a fan of the fat bear Samuels so find it difficult to read such a one sided article from him. This is the second or third negative Cortese article that Samuels has written in the past 2 and a half years, he's starting to seem a bit petty.

To the actual article. "Ransom". Bit extreme. If it weren't for Cortese being good at his job then surely it wouldn't matter (something he fails to address in his article).

Bit's are true, bit's are not, a lot is completely unknown and pure speculation.

- He may be "spending another man's fortune", but that's exactly what Markus wanted him to do in the first place. He installed Nicola as Executive Chairman and asked him to run the club for him. In other words, he's doing his job. So essentially Samuels is criticising Nicola for not being a multi-billionaire. The sh!t. It's easy for Samuels to have a pop at us because we're spending money, but we're actually on a pretty sound financial path as opposed to most of the other high spenders in this league. Surely a better target would be people who spend tonnes of cash at a club and end up driving them into the ground? Not going to happen.

 

- You talk about people complaining about an "anti-Saints bias". I would love you to show me a positive article written by Samuels about us. Good luck finding one. I think it does go OTT sometimes, but the fact is that Nicola has a rocky relationship with the media what with the photographers ban etc and that's always going to influence "opinion articles" such as this one.

 

- Obviously we don't know the ins and outs of the contract situation, but it was obvious from the start that it was a media ploy. I was never worried personally, but obviously a bit of a storm was kicked up over it and it was all blown out of proportion. A few days later and, surprisingly, Nicola ends up staying. Blimey, never saw that coming. It's nothing but a clever ploy - or blackmail if you like.

Is he criticising him for not being a billionaire or is it More holding the owners of SFC to ransom by media using the threats of everyone walking out to enhance his position? Not having a go at Correse for doing it, it's worked out well for everyone, you even go on to admit that it was a media ploy so well done on arguing against me but actually agreeing with me. Cortese used the media to aid him to get what he wanted, everyone seems to agree on that. However the fact that a journalist you lot don't like has dared to state it means he is a c*ck with an anti saints agenda. You couldn't make it up.

Is he criticising him for not being a billionaire or is it More holding the owners of SFC to ransom by media using the threats of everyone walking out to enhance his position? Not having a go at Correse for doing it, it's worked out well for everyone, you even go on to admit that it was a media ploy so well done on arguing against me but actually agreeing with me. Cortese used the media to aid him to get what he wanted, everyone seems to agree on that. However the fact that a journalist you lot don't like has dared to state it means he is a c*ck with an anti saints agenda. You couldn't make it up.

His or the club's position? There might be enlightened self-interest i.e. what's good for the club is good for Cortese but its not a straightforward case of Cortese putting his interests over the club's as Samuel's dim footballer analogy suggests.

His or the club's position? There might be enlightened self-interest i.e. what's good for the club is good for Cortese but its not a straight case of Cortese putting his interests over the club's as Samuel's dim footballer analogy suggests.

Wayne Rooney said he wanted to leave Man U because he wasn't playing and not scoring as many goals/helping the team to success.

So not just self interest either. Just like Nicola.

Wayne Rooney said he wanted to leave Man U because he wasn't playing and not scoring as many goals/helping the team to success.

 

So not just self interest either. Just like Nicola.

you seem so bitter about the chairman, you really do.

Wayne Rooney said he wanted to leave Man U because he wasn't playing and not scoring as many goals/helping the team to success.

 

So not just self interest either. Just like Nicola.

Very good, so we are all agreed that it's not self interest, something which Samuel has clearly got wrong then by comparing chairman power to player power.

Is he criticising him for not being a billionaire or is it More holding the owners of SFC to ransom by media using the threats of everyone walking out to enhance his position? Not having a go at Correse for doing it, it's worked out well for everyone, you even go on to admit that it was a media ploy so well done on arguing against me but actually agreeing with me. Cortese used the media to aid him to get what he wanted, everyone seems to agree on that. However the fact that a journalist you lot don't like has dared to state it means he is a c*ck with an anti saints agenda. You couldn't make it up.

He doesn't just state it though does he.

And Samuel clearly doesn't like Cortese as shown by numerous articles over the last 3-4 years. So can we not expect that his articles on him are likely to be negative in nature?

Unlike most, he has never said anything good about Cortese, something even yourself has managed.

Very good, so we are all agreed that it's not self interest, something which Samuel has clearly got wrong then by comparing chairman power to player power.

Well no, because he's just confirmed they're still the same, both not self-interested. This is not a difficult argument to follow.

Well no, because he's just confirmed they're still the same, both not self-interested. This is not a difficult argument to follow.

Ok, the actions of Wayne Rooney and Nicola Cortese are exactly the same with the same drivers behind them.

Is that better?

He doesn't just state it though does he.

 

And Samuel clearly doesn't like Cortese as shown by numerous articles over the last 3-4 years. So can we not expect that his articles on him are likely to be negative in nature?

 

Unlike most, he has never said anything good about Cortese, something even yourself has managed.

I don't consider it a negative article though, he's stating the FACT that Cortese used the media as a tool to get what he wanted. Something this forum has lambasted Redknappp for. When Vptese does it he's a great guy who loves the club, anyone else they are wan*ers using their mates in the media. Regardless of who the journalist is I don't se how anyone can say what he has said is wrong.

There are some wierd, paranoid people on here.

You're not wrong there buddy.

I don't consider it a negative article though, he's stating the FACT that Cortese used the media as a tool to get what he wanted. Something this forum has lambasted Redknappp for. When Vptese does it he's a great guy who loves the club, anyone else they are wan*ers using their mates in the media. Regardless of who the journalist is I don't se how anyone can say what he has said is wrong.

Of course it's a negative article, it's highly critical, how can that be positive?

I don't give a sheet what the overblown windbag thinks, but I believe we can rightly ask questions as to his motives over this. Same as its odd that Cortese did use the media in this case when previously he is so keen to keep stuff behind closed doors. Truth is that NO one knows why he felt he had to take this approach in this case, other than NC.

Its just as easy to think Katharina Liebherr was in the know challenging NC, to demonstrate that any one actually believed in his strategy....

I just find it more strange that you see never seem more pleased than when someone is openly critical or negative about the club... Actually defending it as well... Not thenormal attitude of a down to earth fan.

I don't give a sheet what the overblown windbag thinks

Odd, just what I was thinking.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2327233/Nicola-Cortese-Txiki-Begiristain-Ferran-Soriano-seizing-moment-clubs--MARTIN-SAMUEL.html

 

Bit of realism/truth spoken here?

No just more crap from Martin Samuels. In my view he has gone from being the very best football journalist to being the worst.

Wayne Rooney said he wanted to leave Man U because he wasn't playing and not scoring as many goals/helping the team to success.

 

So not just self interest either. Just like Nicola.

The same Rooney who talked up a move to Man City in 2010 coz they were offered to double his wages?

My biggest problem with the article is when Samuel says that at Southampton, it is always about Cotrese. Can anyone show me what NC has ever done to further things for himself? To me, he puts the club first, and has always done what he considers best for the club. He may do it in his own style, which others might not agree with, but I really cannot agree that it's all about him. Putting a structure in place that will facilitate his vision for the future of the club is not "always being about" him.

A somewhat vindictive article singling out NC, which leads one to think that he has an axe to grind. Journalists should be somewhat more objective.

And trying round up everyone else's opinion into one that's easier for you to mock is just as intelligent right?

 

What does the article say? I can't click on DM links.

Look at how many posters have said exactly what I predicted.

Odd, just what I was thinking.

cracked me up congrats.

My biggest problem with the article is when Samuel says that at Southampton, it is always about Cotrese. Can anyone show me what NC has ever done to further things for himself? To me, he puts the club first, and has always done what he considers best for the club. He may do it in his own style, which others might not agree with, but I really cannot agree that it's all about him. Putting a structure in place that will facilitate his vision for the future of the club is not "always being about" him.

 

A somewhat vindictive article singling out NC, which leads one to think that he has an axe to grind. Journalists should be somewhat more objective.

How many times a season do the players and manager amongst others reference the chairman? Who put themselves on the front of the programme? A section of the fans also make it about him by doing a cringeworthy chant every few games.

Look at how many posters have said exactly what I predicted.

What are you on about?

Are people knocking the article because its 'negative' (though in the weird and wonderful la la land of the mboard, it's a straight-down-the-middle commentary)? Or are people knocking it because its arguments are dubious which happen to be 'negative'?

If its the latter, engage with the criticisms rather than dodge them and resort to lazy generalisations.

Players and managers referencing the chairman isn't the chairman doing it, nor are fans singing it. As for the front of the programme, I will confess only to having bought one programme in the past few years (against Villa, as I took my boy for his first game). Didn't Lowe do the same with the programme? Do you expect the Chairman to stay quiet? Maybe he shouldn't turn up to the games either.

I can see where he is going with the article, however he can't resist a few snide comments eg "Cortese’s great talent is for spending another man’s fortune"

He really doesn't like cortese does he.

quite why he mentioned Levy too?

unless, he is telling said billionaire who to employ?

What are you on about?

 

Are people knocking the article because its 'negative' (though in the weird and wonderful la la land of the mboard, it's a straight-down-the-middle commentary)? Or are people knocking it because its arguments are dubious which happen to be 'negative'?

 

If its the latter, engage with the criticism rather than dodge them and resort to lazy generalisations.

Even as I write, Mr Gimp is probably emailing the fat journo pointing out that our evil Chairman had his photo on the programme cover, that the players have to mention him periodically in a favourable light, for fear that they are not selected for the team or sold off, and that the fans have been seduced by this megalomaniac into chanting his name at matches.

Opinion peices sometimes include facts, normally selective facts chosen by the.author to support their opinion. Just because they contain some truth, does not indicate that an opinion piece is actually 'true'.

As such what we have is the authors interpretation of the evidence, which happens to emphasise the negative interpretation, while deliberately overlooking the alternatives.

Of course, the forum WUM's won't hear anything said to criticise this opinion piece, as it happens to side with their anti-saints agenda.

A swift banning of WUM's please mods (only the blatant ones like Turkish, Hypo, Miltonroader etc.). Let people with opinions rather than agendas be heard for once.

A poorly written article full of unsubstantiated speculation.

Style: how can something be both "literal and metaphorical"? It's one or the other. How can a football club "hit the glass ceiling" - he obviously doesn't understand the meaning of the term.

Substance: how can one have such confident opinions about a situation one knows very little about? We know virtually nothing for certain about the situation between Cortese and the Liebherrs. And we also know little about the process and motivations involved in how this situation got into the media. And Cortese is not an "owner-manager".

To be honest there is the ring of truth about the article but then again I don't pay much attention to what this fat feck of a journalist has to say. Has he ever run a business, has he ever played football, too fat to do that. He has a talent for putting words together so like most journos he can just sit back, snipe and criticize.

This

How many times a season do the players and manager amongst others reference the chairman? Who put themselves on the front of the programme? A section of the fans also make it about him by doing a cringeworthy chant every few games.

If you wish to talk about someone who thinks it's all about them, try looking for a poster on here with 18,294 posts to his name. Mr Gimp, more like Mr MeMe!

Opinion peices sometimes include facts, normally selective facts chosen by the.author to support their opinion. Just because they contain some truth, does not indicate that an opinion piece is actually 'true'.

 

As such what we have is the authors interpretation of the evidence, which happens to emphasise the negative interpretation, while deliberately overlooking the alternatives.

 

Of course, the forum WUM's won't hear anything said to criticise this opinion piece, as it happens to side with their anti-saints agenda.

 

A swift banning of WUM's please mods (only the blatant ones like Turkish, Hypo, Miltonroader etc.). Let people with opinions rather than agendas be heard for once.

Opinion pieces are given protection against libel in law. This is fundamental to the principal of free speech and allowing people to express opinions, whether you agree with that opinion or not.

In order to enjoy the protection of the law under Fair Comment the opinion must be the honestly held opinion of the writer; it should be recognisable to the reader as opinion; the comment must be based on provably true facts; the subject commented on must be a matter of public interest.

Defendants pleading Fair Comment do not need to persuade a judge or jury to share their views, they have to satisfy the judge/jury that the comment on established facts, represents a view that a person could honestly hold on those facts.

This message board would not exist without people's desires to express opinions, and that's what Martin Samuel has done.

To paraphrase what other, greater people have said before, we may not agree with his opinion, but we defend his right to be able to express it.

It will be a poor day when the right to express an opinion is taken away.

I doubt Martin Samuel has an anti Saints bias but you do wonder where the articles are that ever praise us in any way. The fact that he never mentions the fact that Cortese has guided the club from -10 in League 1 to the Premier League in 4 seasons probably means that most Saints fans will look at the article and think it's a bit loaded on one side.

In regards to a club's achievements you can argue that the managers did that, I'd argue that the players did that as well, the manager simply got them playing together in a cohesive unit. The chairman does likewise, gets all the ingredients together to achieve success but the moment it's mentioned that they too merit some congratulations, they're mocked.

A club is the sum of all parts and quite often the chairman is overlooked. I like Bill Kenright but you ask any Everton fan and they bemoan the lack of investment when Kenright will quite gladly tell you that if you found a suitable, long term buyer, he'd sell tomorrow... He's done well for the toffees but how often does he get praise? Not enough in my book...

Samuel's a bit of tool, he likes the controversial points but often misses bits out that don't suit his standpoint...

Opinion pieces are given protection against libel in law. This is fundamental to the principal of free speech and allowing people to express opinions, whether you agree with that opinion or not.

 

In order to enjoy the protection of the law under Fair Comment the opinion must be the honestly held opinion of the writer; it should be recognisable to the reader as opinion; the comment must be based on provably true facts; the subject commented on must be a matter of public interest.

 

Defendants pleading Fair Comment do not need to persuade a judge or jury to share their views, they have to satisfy the judge/jury that the comment on established facts, represents a view that a person could honestly hold on those facts.

 

This message board would not exist without people's desires to express opinions, and that's what Martin Samuel has done.

 

To paraphrase what other, greater people have said before, we may not agree with his opinion, but we defend his right to be able to express it.

 

It will be a poor day when the right to express an opinion is taken away.

Thanks for this but who is bringing the law into this discussion other than yourself?

The thought police to post #4 please!

Haven't read the article yet, but it _is_ a Tory rag. It's not called the Daily Fail, Daily Wail, or Daily Heil for nothing! I think the second is the most apposite though.

Of course, the forum WUM's won't hear anything said to criticise this opinion piece, as it happens to side with their anti-saints agenda.

 

A swift banning of WUM's please mods (only the blatant ones like Turkish, Hypo, Miltonroader etc.). Let people with opinions rather than agendas be heard for once.

Thats a bit harsh on my supporter base, Hypo sings my name from his location.

I think its sad that soft WUM types like Deppo/Bearsy and Dog get banned just for being silly and or funny, whilst the intelligent WUM types like the ones you mention who have the ability to mock, insult and bully others whilst carefully staying within forum law get to run riot!

In fact, maybe that commands respect rather than a ban?

So......"Succesful chairman increases the value of a billionaires investment" can now be said in a different way......you live and learn...

"Cortese’s great talent is for spending another man’s fortune"

Haven't read the article yet, but it _is_ a Tory rag. It's not called the Daily Fail, Daily Wail, or Daily Heil for nothing! I think the second is the most apposite though.

It isn't called that at all. It's the quite hilarious nickname given to it by people like yourself

I fail to see anything wrong at all in what he's said. There are some wierd, paranoid people on here. He's simply reported exactly what Most normal people said Cortese was doing.

And some abnormal ones it would seem.

Opinion pieces sometimes include facts, normally selective facts chosen by the.author to support their opinion. Just because they contain some truth, does not indicate that an opinion piece is actually 'true'.

I posted a response to the article, in a polite and (in my eyes) erudite manner, but in the typical way of the Daily Mail, should you go against the author in such a manner as to show his arguments to be pithy, you won't get published.

I posted a response to the article, in a polite and (in my eyes) erudite manner, but in the typical way of the Daily Mail, should you go against the author in such a manner as to show his arguments to be pithy, you won't get published.

You don't know what pithy means do you? You are right though, the article was pithy.

Overbearing, forceful, trenchant, aphoristic etc etc. I pointed out in my reply that there was no need to grind the axe and as a journo be more subjective

You don't know what pithy means do you? You are right though, the article was pithy.

I believe to to have been a typo; he really meant p issy

Yet more example of the Daily Fail (LMFAO) and its anti Saints agenda, everyone associated with this so called newspaper really is scum

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2191156/Southampton-unearth-new-star-James-Ward-Prowse.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2060821/After-Walcott-Bale-Oxlade-Chamberlain-Southampton-aiming-create-new-golden-generation-England.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2045312/Alex-Oxlade-Chamberlain-heads-list-Southampton-graduates.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2255232/Arsene-Wenger-praises-Southamptons-youth-set-up.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2255691/Southampton-longer-need-selling-club.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2255851/Luke-Shaw-scouting-report-How-did-Southampton-starlet-fare-suitor-Wenger.html

And some abnormal ones it would seem.

Agreed.

Opinion pieces are given protection against libel in law. This is fundamental to the principal of free speech and allowing people to express opinions, whether you agree with that opinion or not.

 

In order to enjoy the protection of the law under Fair Comment the opinion must be the honestly held opinion of the writer; it should be recognisable to the reader as opinion; the comment must be based on provably true facts; the subject commented on must be a matter of public interest.

 

Defendants pleading Fair Comment do not need to persuade a judge or jury to share their views, they have to satisfy the judge/jury that the comment on established facts, represents a view that a person could honestly hold on those facts.

 

This message board would not exist without people's desires to express opinions, and that's what Martin Samuel has done.

 

To paraphrase what other, greater people have said before, we may not agree with his opinion, but we defend his right to be able to express it.

 

It will be a poor day when the right to express an opinion is taken away.

Well it won't go down well on here, but the truth does hurt sometimes doesn't it?

An usually insightful and well written piece by Martin Samuel in my view.