Third Division South Days Posted 3 February, 2010 Share Posted 3 February, 2010 http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/155975/Saints-declare-Southern-war/ Looks like Echo have fed dispute story to Nationals. Not much sign of bridge building going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibden Purlieu Saint Posted 3 February, 2010 Share Posted 3 February, 2010 http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/155975/Saints-declare-Southern-war/ Looks like Echo have fed dispute story to Nationals. Not much sign of bridge building going on. ****ing *****s. Daily Echo, **** off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Lej Posted 3 February, 2010 Share Posted 3 February, 2010 http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/155975/Saints-declare-Southern-war/ Looks like Echo have fed dispute story to Nationals. Not much sign of bridge building going on. This is absolutely pathetic, if the echo have been feeding this then they really are getting desperate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 3 February, 2010 Share Posted 3 February, 2010 Oh nothing like the journos sticking together is there. The Daily Express a newspaper scrapping the bottom of the barrel looking for stories to print. They must be in cahoots with the echo. yesterday they printed the Taxi drivers in soton and the ability to speak English story. So tomorrow will it be a story about Marcus's billions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhitmonSaint Posted 3 February, 2010 Share Posted 3 February, 2010 They make it sound so serious. I'd hardly put the Echo's ban in the same league as Pompey's fight to stay in business - yet that's how the express is making things out to be! Have the Echo issued any sort of apology for the fact they didn't adhere to Cortese's request to hold off on printing the Staplewood article? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 3 February, 2010 Share Posted 3 February, 2010 This is absolutely pathetic, if the echo have been feeding this then they really are getting desperate. The dispute is in the Public domain I am surprised it has not reported earlier by a national Newspaper they like anything like this . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 3 February, 2010 Share Posted 3 February, 2010 http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/155975/Saints-declare-Southern-war/ Looks like Echo have fed dispute story to Nationals. Not much sign of bridge building going on. That ought to do the trick - just watch NC cave in now and go grovelling to Murray. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Lej Posted 3 February, 2010 Share Posted 3 February, 2010 The dispute is in the Public domain I am surprised it has not reported earlier by a national Newspaper they like anything like this . The dispute in general is yeah, but the exact details of saints tough stance on ID at turnstyles for example? Surely only the echo would know of the so called "heavy handedness" from the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibden Purlieu Saint Posted 3 February, 2010 Share Posted 3 February, 2010 Everyone could just let Ian Murray know what we think of him.... ian.murray@dailyecho.co.uk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 3 February, 2010 Share Posted 3 February, 2010 That ought to do the trick - just watch NC cave in now and go grovelling to Murray. I agree no resolution for sometime I would have thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex Lion Tamer Posted 3 February, 2010 Share Posted 3 February, 2010 The club are acting like idiots though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibden Purlieu Saint Posted 3 February, 2010 Share Posted 3 February, 2010 The club are acting like idiots though Don't agree, they asked the Echo not to print something until 24 hours later, they disagreed, so that's their problem. I hope the Echo go bust, they're such a ****ty little paper, with ideas way above their station (and circulation). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Landrew Posted 3 February, 2010 Share Posted 3 February, 2010 Obviously a slower news day than the Express thought it would be. This is a such a non-story. While working today, I've been semi-entertained by the antics of Talksport who are arguing over the plusses and minuses of newspapers feeding the public with various scandals, notably the John Terry/Wayne Bridge story. Of course, they conveniently forget that they are also feeding the public, and keeping the subject alive, well past the point of interest, while suggesting that newsapapers are just after sales. It's a bit like the pot calling the kettle black. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 3 February, 2010 Share Posted 3 February, 2010 quick question. The Express give the reason for the ban - slightly early promotion of he training ground developments. Is this the only reason, because if it is, it doesn't half make the club look petty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Lej Posted 3 February, 2010 Share Posted 3 February, 2010 The club are acting like idiots though It seems as thought Cortese is a man of principle, and hasnt taken kindly to his request being ignored by the echo, therefore is letting them know about it in no uncertain terms. I'd say its more the principle of his wishes being ignored, than the actual details of what the echo actually did (eg print story a day early) which has riled him. Could be wrong though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 3 February, 2010 Share Posted 3 February, 2010 The dispute in general is yeah, but the exact details of saints tough stance on ID at turnstyles for example? Surely only the echo would know of the so called "heavy handedness" from the club. Not really - it's pretty common knowledge, it's been mentioned on here countless times over the past month or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex Lion Tamer Posted 3 February, 2010 Share Posted 3 February, 2010 Don't agree, they asked the Echo not to print something until 24 hours later, they disagreed, so that's their problem. I hope the Echo go bust, they're such a ****ty little paper, with ideas way above their station (and circulation). They made an unreasonable demand which the Echo rightly refused to fulfil and so they throw out their toys. Ok so the club has all the power in this situation but I would rather the Echo retained the independence to print what it likes when it likes rather than it become the OS part 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedAndWhite91 Posted 3 February, 2010 Share Posted 3 February, 2010 Doesn't show us in a particularly good light does it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailOB Posted 3 February, 2010 Share Posted 3 February, 2010 quick question. The Express give the reason for the ban - slightly early promotion of he training ground developments. Is this the only reason, because if it is, it doesn't half make the club look petty? It does make the club look petty - why can't they resolve this with the Echo considering that the Echo has acted with so much dignity and professionalism since this initial incident ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonnyLove Posted 3 February, 2010 Share Posted 3 February, 2010 The issue with the Echo is more from the fact that they were asked to delay a day and get all the details and have all the pic's and information they wanted. However to sell more papers on the day the Echo published the little information they got from else where and use that to entice people to buy the paper. Instead of waiting an extra 24 hours and then publish everything which probably would of sold more papers in the long run. I stand by the club on this. Although small it is the principle that counts here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry the Badger Posted 3 February, 2010 Share Posted 3 February, 2010 the Echo has acted with so much dignity and professionalism since this initial incident ! You cannot be serious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 3 February, 2010 Share Posted 3 February, 2010 Doesn't show us in a particularly good light does it. That is what newspapers do unfortunately look for the bad angle No mention in the article that after Administration Southampton FC are one game from a Wembley Final Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 3 February, 2010 Share Posted 3 February, 2010 quick question. The Express give the reason for the ban - slightly early promotion of he training ground developments. Is this the only reason, because if it is, it doesn't half make the club look petty? It sure does . I see so many on here adopting a 'my club right or wrong' attitude that I seriously wonder if they even bothered to pause for thought for a second and realise just how petty this stupid business makes our club look to the outside world . Will all involved try to grow up and act like adults please . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_clark Posted 3 February, 2010 Share Posted 3 February, 2010 Forget all the little petty digs from the Echo since then, like the comments about preferring Lowe as chairman, how the Italian club had never even heard of Cortese (before printing a tiny little correction a couple of days later, which no doubt went completely unnoticed). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horley CTFC Saint Posted 3 February, 2010 Share Posted 3 February, 2010 http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/155975/Saints-declare-Southern-war/ Looks like Echo have fed dispute story to Nationals. Not much sign of bridge building going on. Sure it wasn't John Suchet - looks the more likely culprit to me. He was very annoyed with SFC I seem to recall? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 3 February, 2010 Share Posted 3 February, 2010 The issue with the Echo is more from the fact that they were asked to delay a day and get all the details and have all the pic's and information they wanted. However to sell more papers on the day the Echo published the little information they got from else where and use that to entice people to buy the paper. Instead of waiting an extra 24 hours and then publish everything which probably would of sold more papers in the long run. I stand by the club on this. Although small it is the principle that counts here. I would agree with you but the Echo says the ban was nothing to do with an embargo so I dont really know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 3 February, 2010 Share Posted 3 February, 2010 That is what newspapers do unfortunately look for the bad angle No mention in the article that after Administration Southampton FC are one game from a Wembley Final Why would they? It's irrelevant to the incident they're talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_Jonny Posted 3 February, 2010 Share Posted 3 February, 2010 Everyone could just let Ian Murray know what we think of him.... ian.murray@dailyecho.co.uk why? Do you not agree that the club has spat its dummy out big time on this one? I think its pathetic, getting this snobby and ****ish over a positive story being printed 24 hours early even though we all knew about it anyway. ****ing stupid if you ask me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 3 February, 2010 Share Posted 3 February, 2010 Why would they? It's irrelevant to the incident they're talking about. I know Newspapers always like printing bad things not good things thats my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonnyLove Posted 3 February, 2010 Share Posted 3 February, 2010 I would agree with you but the Echo says the ban was nothing to do with an embargo so I dont really know. Was not an embargo they just asked to give it 24 hours (so they would have the press conference) and then all the details would be in the Echo. The echo went sod it lets print it now and try and get all the readers we can without the club so the club told them to **** off. Quite fair in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedAndWhite91 Posted 3 February, 2010 Share Posted 3 February, 2010 That is what newspapers do unfortunately look for the bad angle No mention in the article that after Administration Southampton FC are one game from a Wembley Final You're not wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_clark Posted 3 February, 2010 Share Posted 3 February, 2010 Was not an embargo they just asked to give it 24 hours (so they would have the press conference) and then all the details would be in the Echo. The echo went sod it lets print it now and try and get all the readers we can without the club so the club told them to **** off. Quite fair in my opinion. Completely agree. Maybe it's time for a fan-run weekly paper dedicated to Saints news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 3 February, 2010 Share Posted 3 February, 2010 Was not an embargo they just asked to give it 24 hours (so they would have the press conference) and then all the details would be in the Echo. The echo went sod it lets print it now and try and get all the readers we can without the club so the club told them to **** off. Quite fair in my opinion. I think what you have mentioned is an embargo as other media outlets were reporting it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadgerBadger Posted 3 February, 2010 Share Posted 3 February, 2010 I think it shows us in a good light, NC says don't print the trainnig ground stuff wanna do it properly, it's our baby, we're paying for it and want the kudos and rightly so Local rag sniffs a cheap scoop and prints it - how to win friends and influence people eh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhitmonSaint Posted 3 February, 2010 Share Posted 3 February, 2010 Would it have been that hard for the Echo to delay printing the story for 24 hours? Rather than run the risk of falling out with our new Chairman? Many exciting things are going to be happening to this club in the next few years. Surely it would have made better business sense to stay in the clubs good books, to reap the benefits later? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailOB Posted 3 February, 2010 Share Posted 3 February, 2010 You cannot be serious. What do you think ? This was a reply to a message saying the club come out of this in a bad light (unfortunately its hard to the put the tone of sarcasm down in text - sorry)! FFS since the disgraceful stories that the Echo have ran since this and their constant attempts to undermine the regime at SFC - does anyone really think the club should bow / scrape / apologises to the Echo. Personally I think the Echo behaviour has taken away any chance of a proper reconcilliation. You can picture the headlines now if the club 'apologise'. We win etc.. Murray and his cohorts have acted more shamefully since the initial request / incident that how this all happened now seems totally irrelevant. They have shown all the best qualities recently of the 'gutter press' I say f**k em, all IMHO of course Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonnyLove Posted 3 February, 2010 Share Posted 3 February, 2010 I think what you have mentioned is an embargo as other media outlets were reporting it No an embargo is when their are told not to print it. The echo were asked not to print it but it is up to them. However the club offered them allot to go with the waiting for 24 hours. But instead the Echo got greedy and printed the stuff that was already in the domain and not all the other items that would of come with waiting 24 hours. Lest face it The news came in the late addition of the Echo. How many copies of the paper would they have sold due to this breaking news. It was just 24 hours. The paper got greedy and ignored a request from the club they are meant to have a trusting relationship with. If it was a week then ok they have a point but 24 hours. No that is just greed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Mywords Posted 3 February, 2010 Share Posted 3 February, 2010 The club are acting like idiots though Agreed. It is making Cortese look like Ferguson in his refusal to speak to the BBC - petty & vindictive. And whatever you think of the original "betrayal" by the Echo, the action which adversely affected For Dementia cannot be defended with any conscience and did our club no favours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint_mears Posted 3 February, 2010 Share Posted 3 February, 2010 The Daily Echo think they are more important than they actually are. They where totally humiliated a couple of weeks back. end of Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 3 February, 2010 Share Posted 3 February, 2010 quick question. The Express give the reason for the ban - slightly early promotion of he training ground developments. Is this the only reason, because if it is, it doesn't half make the club look petty? Thing is I think Cortese looks at this as a matter of principle - its not about the 'seriousness' of the story, but about not doing as they were asked - so trust is broken down. The Echo should just have held fire as asked and then they would have enjoyed the trust and thus possibly exclusives in the future... Once again some **** made the wrong call and is now trying to get symapthy from their journo pals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 3 February, 2010 Share Posted 3 February, 2010 No an embargo is when their are told not to print it. The echo were asked not to print it but it is up to them. However the club offered them allot to go with the waiting for 24 hours. But instead the Echo got greedy and printed the stuff that was already in the domain and not all the other items that would of come with waiting 24 hours. Lest face it The news came in the late addition of the Echo. How many copies of the paper would they have sold due to this breaking news. It was just 24 hours. The paper got greedy and ignored a request from the club they are meant to have a trusting relationship with. If it was a week then ok they have a point but 24 hours. No that is just greed. I might possibly agree if it was not already in the Public Domain before the Echo published although I dont think it is a good idea to tell the press when they can publish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krissyboy31 Posted 3 February, 2010 Share Posted 3 February, 2010 A nice balanced report from those nice people at the Daily Express!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 3 February, 2010 Share Posted 3 February, 2010 Would it have been that hard for the Echo to delay printing the story for 24 hours? And then have everyone whinging that they were reporting on old news? Why haven't Radio Solent been banned? They broke the news before the Echo did, and they also broke the "Cortese to Milan" nonsense as well... Essentially, Cortese knows that he wouldn't stand a chance against the BBC, but with the amount of goodwill he is being afforded right now (and rightly so), he believed he'd be able to get the Echo right where he wanted them. I suspect he underestimated the stubbornness of Ian Murray in that respect. Rather ironically, despite the indignant outrage from some on here, I've been reliably informed that the Echo website recorded its second-highest ever number of monthly hits in January. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 3 February, 2010 Share Posted 3 February, 2010 And then have everyone whinging that they were reporting on old news? Thats my point once it was reported elsewhere it was hardly confidential. If the BBC etc had not reported it I doubt whether we would be discussing the issue now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fitzhugh Fella Posted 3 February, 2010 Share Posted 3 February, 2010 (edited) a 'my club right or wrong' attitude . Sort of sums this forum up I'm afraid. I am no fan of Murrays and have clashed with him on a number of occasions but this has got really silly now. Some old-timers rely on the Echo for Saints' coverage and the club and the Echo have a responsibility to sort this out. I hear Murray is keen to attempt a reconciliation but NC will not meet. Edited 3 February, 2010 by Fitzhugh Fella Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailOB Posted 3 February, 2010 Share Posted 3 February, 2010 Agreed. , the action which adversely affected For Dementia cannot be defended with any conscience and did our club no favours. Did it really ? We are talking about 1 (ONE) media outlet of many which was not allowed access to facilities that the club provided. A media outlet which in all essence is a local rag with a small readership. Maybe the Echo should have made the charity aware that they would not be permitted to report from within the club when they were invited and maybe (if they cared so much about this deserving charity - and I mean no slight against the charity) they could have put aside a good section of their paper for an extended article and arranged for Mr Suchet to meet at another more comfortable venue at their expense rather than dragging them out onto the street. SFC could have always told the charity to bugger off and find another venue if their intentions were to undermine its awareness campaign ! Or maybe it is media chums backing each other for another petty snipe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuRomseySaint Posted 3 February, 2010 Share Posted 3 February, 2010 why? Do you not agree that the club has spat its dummy out big time on this one? I think its pathetic, getting this snobby and ****ish over a positive story being printed 24 hours early even though we all knew about it anyway. ****ing stupid if you ask me. I believe the Echo is spitting it's dummy out actually and acting like children, all the negative stories and spin they have been printing, is it any wonder their ban has been upheld? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_clark Posted 3 February, 2010 Share Posted 3 February, 2010 Maybe the Echo should have made the charity aware that they would not be permitted to report from within the club when they were invited and maybe (if they cared so much about this deserving charity - and I mean no slight against the charity) they could have put aside a good section of their paper for an extended article and arranged for Mr Suchet to meet at another more comfortable venue at their expense rather than dragging them out onto the street. Highlighted that bit because it's worth noting that the charity got about a paragraph more than the story about the press conference having to take place outside the stadium. Which proves, IMO, just how petty the DE are being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Mywords Posted 3 February, 2010 Share Posted 3 February, 2010 Did it really ? We are talking about 1 (ONE) media outlet of many which was not allowed access to facilities that the club provided. A media outlet which in all essence is a local rag with a small readership. Maybe the Echo should have made the charity aware that they would not be permitted to report from within the club when they were invited and maybe (if they cared so much about this deserving charity - and I mean no slight against the charity) they could have put aside a good section of their paper for an extended article and arranged for Mr Suchet to meet at another more comfortable venue at their expense rather than dragging them out onto the street. SFC could have always told the charity to bugger off and find another venue if their intentions were to undermine its awareness campaign ! Or maybe it is media chums backing each other for another petty snipe. Maybe the Club should have made the charity aware that they would be turfed out onto the street if the Echo was in attendance. Either way, the charity was made to suffer because of a petty dispute that was nothing to do with them and that is not acceptable in my book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Block 5 Posted 3 February, 2010 Share Posted 3 February, 2010 I reiterate what I have said elsewhere on this forum. **** Murray and **** the echo. It seems like a couple of sperm guzzling echo employees are posting on this thread to try and win over popular support. Jog on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now