Chairman in the Daily Mail

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?

A decent article IMO and pretty much sums up my view. Of course it is perceived as 'negative' though so it's clearly some idiot journalist with an agenda trying to destabilise us again. Ho hum...

I'll refrain from further comment until Turkish has reminded us of the SWF rules re: commenting on bad vs good newspaper articles.

Edit: Damn, Hypo jumped the gun.

Classic one sided view in the tory rag. No one really knows what happened do they?! I for one am haply at the stability this club has had for once.

Classic one sided view in the tory rag. No one really knows what happened do they?! I for one am haply at the stability this club has had for once.

The thought police to post #4 please!

What a surprise. Martin Samuel's axe was getting blunt, so needed grinding.

Samuels is a complete and utter bellend who has always had an agenda with us.

'The fans don't sing her name', no but they do sing her dad's name long and proud every game, her name only came into the public domain 'officially' on Saturday.

'inevitable glass ceiling', 'Shaw to Chelsea', NC only here on a stepping stone 'to the next level'. blah, blah, blah.

Poor journalism. Our beloved Markus passed away in 2010 not 2011.

I thougth NC was a mere employee. How could be possibly hold the club to ransom?

it must be easy to hold multi billionaires to ransom these days by being a mere employee

Samuels is a complete and utter bellend who has always had an agenda with us.

'The fans don't sing her name', no but they do sing her dad's name long and proud every game, her name only came into the public domain 'officially' on Saturday.

 

'inevitable glass ceiling', 'Shaw to Chelsea', NC only here on a stepping stone 'to the next level'. blah, blah, blah.

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.

I thougth NC was a mere employee. How could be possibly hold the club to ransom?

it must be easy to hold multi billionaires to ransom these days by being a mere employee

It is if they have little desire to be held accountable for the messy departure (or to clean up afterwards.)

Samuels is a complete and utter bellend who has always had an agenda with us.

 

'The fans don't sing her name', no but they do sing her dad's name long and proud every game, her name only came into the public domain 'officially' on Saturday.

 

'inevitable glass ceiling', 'Shaw to Chelsea', NC only here on a stepping stone 'to the next level'. blah, blah, blah.

This.....

A decent article IMO and pretty much sums up my view. Of course it is perceived as 'negative' though so it's clearly some idiot journalist with an agenda trying to destabilise us again. Ho hum...

Ahr Hypo the Turkish Wannabe strikes strikes a mortal blow.... Your powers of intellect never cease to amaze me... It is not perceived as negative.... IT IS a negative article DOH!

And you guys are behind the times as already being discussed on the Cortese stays thread. The fact that Samuals has bothered to writes such a negative OPINION piece is a question you should be asking, because there is no news in it, just opinion, and yes, negative at that, so what is his motivation? Or don't you care about that now as its tuned to your own (or you master Turks) opinion?

The ONLY 'controversy' in any of this saga is that is was Strange that NC used the media when he is normally so guarded. That is a fair and reasonable question... The rest is simply his Deliberately controversial POV. His motivation for which is unclear, but he has a history with us, having nailed his paper for £250k damages under Lowe, probably has something to do with it....

It is if they have little desire to be held accountable for the messy departure (or to clean up afterwards.)

he is a mere employee according to you. why not remove him now and have someone else in next week. Easily get a new manager in too. he has hardly been here long and the players are contracted to the club anyway........

Much as I hate to admit it - I actually agree with most of what he is saying. But he couldn't resist putting his own DM version of negative spin on it could he.

Utter trash-worthy opinion from a journo that has issues with the club - always has and always will. The day he writes some news is the day I might take notice of him.

6 replies before anti Saints agenda is mentioned. Surely a mboard record?

I said at the time that Cortese had done a Wayne Rooney.

6 replies before anti Saints agenda is mentioned. Surely a mboard record?

It's been repeated in most of the posts since then though to make up for it.

6 replies before anti Saints agenda is mentioned. Surely a mboard record?

Post #18 before Turkish highlights someone mentioning anti Saints agenda. Two records broken in one thread.

Just looking through the script for this thread. You'll love page 7. Hilarious!

There are only 2 people who now the truth regarding the talks and relationship between K Leibherr & N Cortese, and neither is going to tell anybody else.

It's been repeated in most of the posts since then though to make up for it.

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.

I said at the time that Cortese had done a Wayne Rooney.

I'm not asking for recognition, it's just interesting to see that it is a view agreed with elsewhere.

Edit: It was amusing though

:lol:

Every newspaper article good or bad should be taken with a pinch of salt, particularly one from the daily mail and Martin Samuels.

Firstly he knows no more about the situation than we do, the whole thing was clearly blown out of proportion by the media and was actually a storm in a tea cup.

Secondly this statement -

There is a middle raft of executives — Cortese at Southampton, Daniel Levy at Tottenham Hotspur and the former Barcelona pair Txiki Begiristain and Ferran Soriano freshly installed at Manchester City — who are seizing their moment.

Seizing the moment? You mean doing their jobs, how the hell can anyone criticise what Levy has done as Chairmen? They have developed that club from mid table fading giants to top 4 challengers with about a 10th of the spending of Chelsea or Man City and they are in the process of constructing a new stadium. Is Levy ever seen talking in the media or commenting about stuff? No, he's getting on with his job which the owners have appointed him to do.

Shocking really that experienced and well qualified businessmen are appointed to run football clubs.

I said at the time that Cortese had done a Wayne Rooney.

And made yourself look stupid the first time, now we know you are, by repeating it......what a tool!

Never read such a load of crap TBH. Poor paper and Samuals is a cretin anyway who always seems to have an agenda to peddle regarding Saints and NC.

Not really a surprise to see Hypo jumping all over it with a gleeful smile on his face, its anti Saints so I imagine his week has started well... Bless.

I do love the old arguement of 'its anti saints so its poor journalism' that gets chucked in there straight away, as if you defend from the fact that it is genuinely a nothing article that just stokes the ego of the man. In reality would it be a positive spin no doubt Hypo would be there to discredit it, unfortunately you are at one end of the spectrum like MLG is the other.

As boring as it isI expect this thread will run to 20 pages of pointless posturing

samuals is a total bellend. We know the mail bit like the echo hates everything to do with Southampton FC

Samuales has no idea what really was going on and like other journo's they make things up from their fanatasy world

If NC's contract was up for negociation then I see nothing wrong with how he has acted.

He was perfectly entitled to pitch for what he thinks he is worth and what he wants for the club and the owners were entitled to reject him if they think he was asking too much. That's business.

This is assuming that his contract was actually up for negociation, if it wasn't then I'd assume that salary and spending allowances had already been worked out in prior contract negociations and Samuels has a point.

are the sunstill reporting that NC is about to leave the club or have they now caught up with saturdays annoucement

He is a bewhiskered tw*t. I can recall Rupert Lowe suing him over some article years ago and Rupes won!

You'd have to be foolish to ignore some of what he says. I do wholeheartedly disagree with the 'fans always want the club to spend remark'.

I think the reason for supporting Cortese was far from that, but in fact a desire to have stability. Of course if we add quality in the summer without being stupid i'll be pleased. However first and foremost I want to see the club remain stable.

Interesting article, although missing the most interesting point for me in that why there was such a difference in the vision for Saints between chairman and owner. I just hope that any growth in the club is sustainable and not built on sand like the skates.

The Daily Mail is a newspaper that many people would say prints propaganda not news and tries to stir up hatred and fear as a marketing tool, so why should its football pages be any different.

Interesting article, although missing the most interesting point for me in that why there was such a difference in the vision for Saints between chairman and owner. I just hope that any growth in the club is sustainable and not built on sand like the skates.

Come to that, this journo who some consider to be objective, doesn't appear to have written much in the way of condemnation of the Skates, does he? I might be mistaken, but I don't recall him questioning their ownership by gun-runners, Arabs who don't exist or who are penniless, Russian Mafia, or Hong Kong loan sharks. Where were his articles about the massive spending beyond their means, cheating the taxman or charities, buying the FA Cup, with players they couldn't afford, etc.

He's very selective about whom he wishes to be objective about and even then his objectivity is based on his conjecture about our situation rather than hard facts.

Is he still writing about Cortese? This from a journo who was convinced in 2010 that the "little monster", Cortese, was about to f**k off to AC Milan. How did that one pan out?

There is an irony here: our forum experts are quick to mock others for creaming themselves whenever a positive story breaks yet appear to jump on every negative story with equal verve.

Bless their m***y, little cotton socks.

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.

And just because some people like it, doesn't make it all true either.

whether the article is positive, negative or indifferent doesn't change the fact that this is a total opinion piece with no news or research whatsoever.

Therefore its credibility relies purely on the reputation of the person giving it.

Forgive me if I don't get too worried by this.

As I said, several things in there which are true. This forum only last week was full of tales of brinksmanship, yet now the media have picked up on it it's all bulls*it from a knob head with an anti Saints agenda. You couldn't make it up.

whether the article is positive, negative or indifferent doesn't change the fact that this is a total opinion piece with no news or research whatsoever.

 

Therefore its credibility relies purely on the reputation of the person giving it.

 

Forgive me if I don't get too worried by this.

I don't think anyone is worried are they? In the era of celebrity chairman I can't see too much wrong in what he's said, regardlesa of what people think about the paper and the journo, who is of course a lazy, lying scumbag with an anti Saints agenda, aren't they all?

As I said, several things in there which are true. This forum only last week was full of tales of brinksmanship, yet now the media have picked up on it it's all bulls*it from a knob head with an anti Saints agenda. You couldn't make it up.

There is no denying the brinksmanship which happened. Whether or not it's seen as a good thing or a bad thing and indictitive of a shift towards nasty exec types taking over football is a different matter

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.

It's a blog piece to express his opinion, not really the same as reporting a story objectively. He's using Cortese as an example to criticise football club ownership, particularly focussing on Chairmen who run the club on behalf of the owners. Like I pointed out earlier he groups Levy in there for no apparent reason, who has overseen an excellent period of sustained growth at spurs, seems to criticises directors at Barcelona who have had one their most successful periods ever and are backing a manager who is going through a tough time (and was appointed from within) and obviously dislikes the sacking of Mancini or at least the handling of it yet seems to blame this on the directors not the owners.

Whilst there are some elements of facts in the story he has blown them way out proportion. He knows nothing of the conversations between Cortese and Katrina Liebher, none of the details about Cortese's comments, and yet he has taken 'considering his future' and turned it into 'footballer's hissy fit for not getting his own way. Chairmen are too important and are ruining football'.

Sensationalist journalism at it's best and something he has done in the past. As opinion blogs go it's of a pretty poor standard and I've seen many more objective and sensible opinion blogs from those that don't get paid to do it.

Martin Samuels is a very good journalist, and like most good journalists, is quite capable of holding opposite views at the same time.

Yes, there is a lot of truth in what he says, and some of Cortese's conduct has been questionable in tis whole affair.

But you would probably give this piece more credence were it not for the fact that Samuel has in the past been a willing, pliant tool for the very thing he criticises Cortese for.

"So Cortese played up, just as a manager would. Stories began appearing that he would quit," writes Samuel (a West Ham fan) who is among the first people Redknapp turns to when he needs something planted in the media.

We've all ground our teeth before and expressed amazement at how the media have never really turned Harry over, and how wiv a cheeky Cockernee grin and wink, he has the media apparently eating out his hand.

Here's one reason why.

And does he have an anti-Saints bias?

I'm not sure you can entirely accuse him of this, but any journalist who has been burned by somebody will dip his metaphorical pen in acid when given an opportunity to strike back.

Samuel was the author of The Times piece about Dave Jones which Rupert sued for, and won £250,000 damages (which charity did benefit from that £250,000, by the way?).

It was an interesting case from a legal point of view as The Times claimed Samuel's description of Jones removal as "shabbily handled" was entitled to the libel defence of Fair Comment (as it was called then).

To be entitled to this defence, the autor has to prove that the words written were his honestly held opinion, that the opinion is based on fact, and that there was no malicious intent.

The jury took less than three hours to reach a unanimous verdict which doesn't say a great deal about the freedom of speech and opinion, to be honest. You might not like Samuel's opinion, but he should be entitled to express it.

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

Quote from Markus Liebherr after acquiring the club : I am delighted to entrust Nicola with the running of the club in the long term. From Wikipedia. About says it all really. Those were his wishes and intentions.

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

I've threatened to walk a few times in my career. Sometimes you have to. The reaction really depends on how you present your grievance, how many other people have similar issues, and your perceived value to the org. You'll also get different mileage out of different people.

In NC's case, the story did go public, which is unfortunate, but as you point out, everyone lined up behind him. I think he's done a very good job so far, with some qualification.