The paper ban

[hypochondriac]

I stand corrected then. From your previous posts on the subject I was under the impression that you thought most of the wrongs @ SMS we due to Cortese.

 

From my own perspective, there are no rose tinted specs, just trying to step back and seeing that Camera's issue is with more than one person at the club. As WSS pointed out when things change a percentage of the employees at that org are disaffected. This happens in every organisation; the disaffected staff are the ones whose voices normally get heard.

 

I'm seriously interested to know from the OP by Camera, which decisions NC has made and then back tracked on. To the point where he/she would leave their job.

 

Fair comment Genevea. I do try to do the innocent until proven guilty stuff but when I hear all these little things about SFC, it adds up into a big thing and becomes hard to ignore.

[St Marco]

Interesting in that telegraph bit where it says bournemouths photographer has not been banned and is allowed to use the photos on their website.

I won't deny this whole thing is pretty daft but it doesn't effect anyone other then companies who take those photos to sell to you. In a week or so it will be the next thing and the media will be considered scum by those defending it now.

[Weston Super Saint]

Interesting in that telegraph bit where it says bournemouths photographer has not been banned and is allowed to use the photos on their website.

I won't deny this whole thing is pretty daft but it doesn't effect anyone other then companies who take those photos to sell to you. In a week or so it will be the next thing and the media will be considered scum by those defending it now.

 

Perhaps there is a different agreement for 'cup' games???

[moon monkey]

The story has featured on Talksport, which goes to show this story is now big. For a 'premiership only' station to give this coverage, shows how big it's getting. It is actually becoming very funny.

[Scudamore]

Interesting camera and backs up what I have heard. If you have an email address where I could contact you, kindly tell a mod who will pass it on. Thanks.

ITK groupie

[OldNick]

Not really Nick.

 

I'm sure you've been around the business world long enough to know that when a new management structure is put in place a lot of the 'old guard' will be upset with the new policies and procedures, especially if it means their 'cushy' job role is changed - I expect there were quite a few 'cushy' roles under the previous regimes....

 

I would take the post for exactly what it is, one ex-employee disgruntled with his/her previous employer.

WSS that is fair. I notice that some of the vitriol is coming from some who had privileged positions under previous regimes.

I do have my own reasons to be anti NC at present,but Im trying to be even handed and see things from the bigger picture and having a long-term view..

[Guan 2.0]

So there we have proof about how things are at SMS from an ex employee. Now watch everyone say he shouldn't be trusted and everything is rosy.

 

Ahh, but ironically. any investagative Journo worth his salt (especially the likes of Nick Davies, who wrote flat earth news) would tell you that everyone has an agenda (which is why it's so laughable when during discussions, people often shout "HE HAS AN AGENDA" like they've cracked the Da Vinci code). Which is why when presenting their story after leaving the company of someone they are now 'dishing the dirt' on it's vital to take into account the possibility that defects of their personality/criticism of their performance has made them unable to realise/recognise the otherwise positive image/performance of those they are criticising. This is far from the 'Smoking Gun' evidence required.

 

Now I'm not saying he is untrustworthy, just pointing out that it is far from 'proof'.

 

But I think others have already covered this:

 

It's not proof of how things are - it's an ex employee's viewpoint.

 

It's a bit dodgy for him posting what he has so if I was a mod i'd do the decent thing and remove his post and any quotes of his post.

 

The only difficulty with Camera is that people who have left, are on the outisde, will always be disgruntled in some shape or form.

 

There are plenty of North Korean defectors who have overstated much of the regime, similarly with the former Iraqis.

 

Definitely not questioning Camera as I don't know the chap/chappette, just trying to achieve a little bit of balance with all of this. Some good, some bad, that kind of thing.

 

For the record, I think this is a knee jerk reaction from print media, who a faced with the stark realisation that they must make cuts everyday due to the fact that they a) Operate a hopelessly outdated business model, and b) are in an industry that is dying on it's arse, and has already lost several publications. They resent internal change but have to live with it, and despise any measures seemingly taken against them from the outside.

 

This is why they particularly chafe against this action, despite they themselves removing themselves (in the case of Newscorp) from newsaggregators (most notably newsnow) and attempting to make both the Sun and Times on-line subscription based, and limit the amount of people who can access and disseminate their 'product' whilst maximising revenue, whilst reporting on SFC with righteous condemnation for doing much the same thing!

 

Cortsese has no doubt realised, through his earlier conflict with The Daily Echo, that this level of personalised criticism is part and parcel of tangling with the media in this country. And as a man who was hand picked for his experience for looking after, representing and taking decisions for the billionaires he represented, I doubt Markus will be calling him up to say: "sorry son, But the Sun have called you a Berk, and the Plymouth local has drawn a cartoon that's doing the round's. Pack your bag, old china, it's the dole queue for you!".

 

Likewise, the papers need to realise this isn't Lobby Journalism, and there is no-one that needs re-electing. Petty Politicking won't work here.

[(not THE) Kevin Moore]

It's not proof of how things are - it's an ex employee's viewpoint.

 

It's a bit dodgy for him posting what he has so if I was a mod i'd do the decent thing and remove his post and any quotes of his post.

 

That's assuming they ARE an ex-employee, which is by no means a given.

 

There are many reasons to question the validity of this view and a lie repeated ad infinitum is still a lie (not claiming he/she is lying but we have no way of telling either way and just because it fits with the general 'NC is evil' vibe on here don't make it true).

[Lord Duckhunter]

My mate has a very nice house in Poole, he got it by being a freelance photographer. He takes photos of events (including football matches) and sells them on to the nationals and other media outlets. Sometimes The Sun will contact him with a quirky or strange story (man bites dog ect) and ask him to go along and take a photo. After he's done so, they then pay him for this photo.

 

When you go to the game there are not employees of The Mirror, The Star, The Sun, The Telegraph, The Express and so on, all there snapping away for photos exclusively for their paper.

 

From now on if The Sun want a picture of the action at SMS they wont be able to pay someone like my mate for the photos, but will have to pay our own in house photographer for the photos.And this is a major story???????

[OldNick]

That's assuming they ARE an ex-employee, which is by no means a given.

 

There are many reasons to question the validity of this view and a lie repeated ad infinitum is still a lie (not claiming he/she is lying but we have no way of telling either way and just because it fits with the general 'NC is evil' vibe on here don't make it true).

Good having you back posting

[Liquidshokk]

My mate has a very nice house in Poole, he got it by being a freelance photographer. He takes photos of events (including football matches) and sells them on to the nationals and other media outlets. Sometimes The Sun will contact him with a quirky or strange story (man bites dog ect) and ask him to go along and take a photo. After he's done so, they then pay him for this photo.

 

When you go to the game there are not employees of The Mirror, The Star, The Sun, The Telegraph, The Express and so on, all there snapping away for photos exclusively for their paper.

 

From now on if The Sun want a picture of the action at SMS they wont be able to pay someone like my mate for the photos, but will have to pay our own in house photographer for the photos.And this is a major story???????

 

In which case why are the sun so worked up about it? they just pay a different person for the photos surely!?

[Weston Super Saint]

In which case why are the sun so worked up about it? they just pay a different person for the photos surely!?

 

But if they printed the truth they wouldn't be able to use their sensationalist "Clotese" tag....

[Lord Duckhunter]

In which case why are the sun so worked up about it? they just pay a different person for the photos surely!?

 

I would think it's a control thing. They're proberly worried that the big clubs will do the same but charge a hell of a lot more.If Man U are paying Rooney for his image rights, then it makes sense for them to own and sell photos of him playing at OT to the media.

[CB Fry]

THIS IS ALL ABOUT MONEY. Why do Premier clubs do this then? Previously photographers had to pay a set fee for being allowed to take photographs, with the club having no rights over the images. This is more about putting everything in place for the future rather than now. Even in our pomp we were never going to command that much for image rights, until you get a home cup game against ManU and all of a sudden that goes out the window. This is one part which gives us control over our merchandising, giving us the right to earn possible revenue from this rather than others. No newspaper is going to like this because it nibbles into their margins, but they are quick in defending any item they hold image rights on.

 

 

Premier League clubs don't do it. It's not about money, because our photos are worth jack sh it. Even if we beat Man U eight nil in the league cup and Ricky Lambert took a dump on Mike Phelan's head, the photos wouldn't be worth that much.

 

It's not about money.

[SaintBobby]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-10914863

 

You gotta love the fact that someone's drawn the action in cartoon format. Maybe it's just me but I find this whole thing somewhat amusing.

 

For the first time in years football ACTUALLY has a sense of humour!

 

It is certainly reaching high levels of farce...I guess that is amusing in a way.

 

One interesting thing in that BBC website piece is the fact that calls from the Beeb were not returned. That's not an encouraging sign and is pretty much breaking rule 1 of media relations.

[St. Jason]

I feel sure there are sound reasons for the strategy regarding the press. It's a storm in a teacup and anyway, when the time is right and the 'ban' is lifted, they'll all be falling over each other to get a slice of the club's success.

 

Got to disagree with you here mate, don't see how this is good for the club or just a 'storm in a tea cup'!

 

From a sponsor point of view the club must now become less attractive, they may well want to sponsor but I feel a company looking for national coverage would now be renegotiating the contract now Britains best selling newspaper no longer covers us, they don't even refer to us as Southampton FC anymore, yesterday we were 'opposition' and in today's fixtures we are 'South coast team' great work nc!!!

[St. Jason]

But if they printed the truth they wouldn't be able to use their sensationalist "Clotese" tag....

 

So we'll be seeing a writ issued to The Sun from Cortesse for liable then as The Sun is lining!!!

[ponto1963]

Now mentioning the ban on BBC News this morning, and people doing cartoon pictures instead.

[SO16_Saint]

Now mentioning the ban on BBC News this morning, and people doing cartoon pictures instead.

 

I nearly spat out my weetabix!!

[Pancake]

So now more "mainstream" news outlets are picking up on this (admittedly from a different angle, but still said how daft the idea is) will the "oh it's only the Sun" posters start to change their mind?

[fareham saint phil]

The Sun's stance is like NC's pointless. NC must know if he backs down and scraps this then the sun will give it "The sun won it" as they do about everything. We are an easy target as we dont have the massive fanbase to annoy, would they do it to one of the prem's big 4, no i dont think so. I think this may rumble on for a while as NC doesn't seem the sort to back down, and the sun are enjoying having a pop at our expense.

 

Maybe a chant of "2-0 to the south coast club" might head off the away support at the pass!!

[JonnyLove]

The only reason why these papers are getting funny about it is because they used to get the photo's for free and now they have to pay. And if this catches on they will have to pay for all the clubs. Their all saying it won't last but what are we loosing. Nothing really we get all the information we need from the official website and here.

 

It is about time the Football League stood up to all these people and actually started to make something on the things they can. This is what the Premier league has done with TV rights and such like. What is the difference with Saints and or any other league club looking to increase their revenue stream and or protect their image rights.

 

For me I don't care if the match report is in a paper with a photo or not but I bet they will cave in should we be topping the league on a not premier league weekend beating someone 6-0. Other than that League 1 never gets a mention anyway.

 

Also a bit rich of the BBC highlighting this on breakfast as they do this all the time for everything that the BBC has done. What is really funny is that the BBC makes more money form selling it's intellectual property than the TV licence brings in and to be fare they could fully sustain themselves using this without the TV licence (Sorry off topic for a bit there).

Edited 11 August, 2010 by JonnyLove

[up and away]

Originally Posted by up and away

THIS IS ALL ABOUT MONEY. Why do Premier clubs do this then? Previously photographers had to pay a set fee for being allowed to take photographs, with the club having no rights over the images. This is more about putting everything in place for the future rather than now. Even in our pomp we were never going to command that much for image rights, until you get a home cup game against ManU and all of a sudden that goes out the window. This is one part which gives us control over our merchandising, giving us the right to earn possible revenue from this rather than others. No newspaper is going to like this because it nibbles into their margins, but they are quick in defending any item they hold image rights on.

Premier League clubs don't do it. It's not about money, because our photos are worth jack sh it. Even if we beat Man U eight nil in the league cup and Ricky Lambert took a dump on Mike Phelan's head, the photos wouldn't be worth that much.

 

It's not about money.

 

Even the papers complaining about the issue admit it's about money, this is just not in question. This is all about image rights and how they are controlled. Premier clubs that pay millions for these rights do things in different ways, but at the end of the day it's still all about controlling the image rights. I am not going to argue about the present value of image rights, but like all the £M's being spent on the infrastructure, has no real dividend for the present but something for the future.

 

Anyone would think the Sun were the vanguard of journalistic ethics, when even a glance at the facts should leave you scratching your head. The Sun had no problem with ripping the status quo apart when it moved from Fleet Street to Wapping, sticking two fingers up as they did so. Murdoch has shown absolutely no interest in the reputation of the press and you suddenly believe he's now doing things for the good of the profession?

 

Previously the papers normally bought the photo and image rights for that photo from the independent photographer. Saints alone are no real threat to profit to Murdoch, but if the rest start following suit and extending to various other areas, it is a major threat to their profits. Murdoch does not give a flying **** about those independent photographers as has been amply demonstrated by his previous actions with dealing with his employees and contractors. Anyone thick enough to believe this is about media control has completely lost their marbles. When was the last time the Leagues acted upon a single photo, even courts to that matter. Video and sound recordings yes, but a photo rarely.

[Master Bates]

Big statement from the Echo back page, same s**t, different day.

[Pancake]

The only reason why these papers are getting funny about it is because they used to get the photo's for free and now they have to pay.

 

Did they ********. Go back and read Minty's posts.

[Dave Benson Phillips]

This will just drag on and on and on and on because I don't see Cortese as the type to sit back and admit he is wrong which is the only way the press will back off.

 

We are now The Suns little pet joke, and they will use us as an excuse to take the p!ss as often as they can. All of you that say " Ahh the scum is a joke paper anyway, who cares what they think "

 

.... the sell up to 4 million papers in the UK every day, so that is a massive readership to make us and our chairman look like complete c*nts. I don't see it affecting their readership in this area, if anything it has probably boosted sales for them, with people buying a copy each morning.

 

Come on... admit it, how many of you non-Sun readers bought a copy today to see what they have done with the report?

 

The views on this forum are extreme 'pro' or 'anti' in general... pretty much every person away from this forum in the last week or so I have spoken to agrees Cortese is a complete arrogant tosser... of course most are not bothered enough to do anything about it... but Cortese is slowly digging his own grave.

 

I haven't met a single person away from this forum who doesn't think The Suns hate campaign against us is funny as f*ck, whilst being a little bit embarrassing and bad PR for the club. I haven't met a single person that thinks The Sun are being slightly out of order.

 

It's nothing to do with the payments in my opinion, it's to do with freedom of press and Cortese thinking that he can control every last detail that comes out of the club, and can manipulate what is written about the club.

 

This is naive and just won't wash with the British Press. Look through the Saints gallery... if there was a controversial handball... would they put it in the gallery? Would they have given the press pictures of a Prutton style attack on the ref? Would they show opposition chances etc? Images of any trouble inside/outside the stadium etc etc...

 

No... course they wouldn't. Banning the press photographers means they get to censor and approve images before they are distributed. As a League 1 team our photo's have a minimal commercial value to the national media at the moment and the papers will just do without them.

 

This will in turn have an effect on Corporate Sponsorship because of the less exposure, not to mention the 'bad name' that the SFC brand is being tagged with in the national press. Businesses do not want their brand associated with a Football Club which is ridiculed daily in the press and won't want to work with a person like Cortese. Not the wisest decision from Cortese when his Marketing managers first task in only a couple of weeks will be to find a shirt sponsor for next season.

 

Noticed the lack of sponsorships around the perimiter last night? Before anyone says about recession... have a look round some of the away stadiums this season... seems only us are struggling... I wonder why?

[SimplyRed&White]

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/8324655.Daily_Echo_comment_on_Southampton_FC_photographs/

[HurleyBurley]

Hi All,

 

I just wanted to quickly say that i'm so glad that a lot of you are now realizing that the football club isn't as safe as everyone thought a year ago. Having recently left employment at the club (voluntarily), mainly down to certain people there, Cortese included, and not liking the way the club is being run, i am very glad to be out! Love the team and Pardew, but the management is shocking and it affects the whole club and team, and stuff like this has been happening none stop since Cortese took over. He makes ridiculous decisions, and then goes back on it when he realizes he was wrong. I know most of the office was looking for jobs when i left!... just thought you should all know incase anyone was still thinking Cortese is a God! - Markus yes, Cortese no

 

Chairman takes over failing/failed organisation, makes changes and staff aren't happy SHOCK

[Minty]

Did they ********. Go back and read Minty's posts.

 

Thanks Pancake. When a thread gets this long however, people rarely read through it all or do their own research to make sure they know everything about the issue...

 

My closing comments on this issue: I fully accept that many people go along with, and even encourage Saints' intention to look at new revenue streams, even if it upsets others, or has the potential to, be they fans, other clubs, the media or whoever. I also fully accept that football needs to change, and the way it currently handles access and image rights, not to mention tv rights etc and a host of other things, is purely about money and fans are never the top priority.

 

If Saints can be part of something to change that, then I would welcome it, but only as part of a collaborative and co-operative effort with other clubs. By trying to go it alone, it only exacerbates the perception that football, and our club inparticular, only cares for itself, when football as a whole needs to become more open and inclusive and ensure that fans are treated fairly, that the media who want to cover games are treated consistently, and that all clubs benefit fairly from anything like this which applies across the board to all clubs.

[View From The Top]

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/8324655.Daily_Echo_comment_on_Southampton_FC_photographs/

 

Personally I think they are correct.

[saintscottofthenortham]

The comments from the echo are fair, I have had enough of all this carp. I am anything but anti-Cortese, but I really do feel that he is starting to get a bit power happy. Although I can't help but think the clubs external media advisor, David Bick would have had a large part to play in this whole thing.

 

Press is a very important aspect of football, and now the only time we will be in the press is when they can give us a right good ripping.

 

It does all seem petty, the club would never make good money out of this setup even if the press were all for it. I don't understand it and you only have to look back at clubs in the past who have attempted it to see that it just will not work.

[Pancake]

Thanks Pancake. When a thread gets this long however, people rarely read through it all or do their own research to make sure they know everything about the issue...

 

Minty, parking the commercial aspect of the issue to one wide, do you feel comfortable with allowing the the club to be ablke to select exactly what shots from games are released to the mass market? Previously, anything that happened could and would be shot and published; but with this new policy effectively allowing the Club to "vet" images before releaseing them to the press, do you feel that there is a risk of this being seen as a way for the Club to only allow "positive" vewis of SFC to be seen by the public?

[Minty]

It will certainly be interpreted that way by some people Pancake... although I must admit it's not my first concern. It would soon become apparent if they were doing so, because reporters and fans and tv cameras would still see the issue so the club could never hide something. That would open them up to even more criticism which would be REALLY stupid.

 

So yes, it's possible, and no, I wouldn't be comfortable about it, if I felt it was a possibility, but I don't think they would be that stupid.

 

As always though, I await to be proven wrong...!

[eelpie]

The press have never given SFC a monkey's appraisal in the past. I don't expect this ever to change. Reports in the London papers rarely credit Saints when we win. It's usually the other team that lost. So I'm not too bothered. Our only response should be comprehensive victories on the pitch.

[eelpie]

Tell him to leave a few copies of the sun around today because in the pools section and the fixtures section we're refered to as "South Coast Team". The Sun are not going lose this battle.

 

Perhaps we should change our name to Saints South Coast FC when Pompey disappear.

[sfc4prem]

God, can't we just go back to the good old days when we didn't have a photographer ban...

[Gingeletiss]

Personally I think they are correct.

 

Do you!, then ask them for free copy's of all the photo's they take, not just of football. Ask them why they have to offer money for photographs you and I take, when they request them.

 

Please share with us the results of your enquires.

[Pancake]

Do you!, then ask them for free copy's of all the photo's they take, not just of football. Ask them why they have to offer money for photographs you and I take, when they request them.

 

Please share with us the results of your enquires.

 

I do feel you are mising hte point entirely. What has asking for free photos got to do with anything?

[Gingeletiss]

I do feel you are mising hte point entirely. What has asking for free photos got to do with anything?

 

Simple, they will charge you for said photograph, one they took, as they own the image rights. What they want from Saints, is the right to take photographs, and own the image rights. That is my understanding of this.

[Pancake]

Simple, they will charge you for said photograph, one they took, as they own the image rights. What they want from Saints, is the right to take photographs, and own the image rights. That is my understanding of this.

 

Still dont get your link about "free" photos. The Echo (et al.) never got "free" photos of Siants (or other) matches.

[up and away]

This will just drag on and on and on and on because I don't see Cortese as the type to sit back and admit he is wrong which is the only way the press will back off.

 

We are now The Suns little pet joke, and they will use us as an excuse to take the p!ss as often as they can. All of you that say " Ahh the scum is a joke paper anyway, who cares what they think "

 

.... the sell up to 4 million papers in the UK every day, so that is a massive readership to make us and our chairman look like complete c*nts. I don't see it affecting their readership in this area, if anything it has probably boosted sales for them, with people buying a copy each morning.

 

Come on... admit it, how many of you non-Sun readers bought a copy today to see what they have done with the report?

 

The views on this forum are extreme 'pro' or 'anti' in general... pretty much every person away from this forum in the last week or so I have spoken to agrees Cortese is a complete arrogant tosser... of course most are not bothered enough to do anything about it... but Cortese is slowly digging his own grave.

 

I haven't met a single person away from this forum who doesn't think The Suns hate campaign against us is funny as f*ck, whilst being a little bit embarrassing and bad PR for the club. I haven't met a single person that thinks The Sun are being slightly out of order.

 

It's nothing to do with the payments in my opinion, it's to do with freedom of press and Cortese thinking that he can control every last detail that comes out of the club, and can manipulate what is written about the club.

 

This is naive and just won't wash with the British Press. Look through the Saints gallery... if there was a controversial handball... would they put it in the gallery? Would they have given the press pictures of a Prutton style attack on the ref? Would they show opposition chances etc? Images of any trouble inside/outside the stadium etc etc...

 

No... course they wouldn't. Banning the press photographers means they get to censor and approve images before they are distributed. As a League 1 team our photo's have a minimal commercial value to the national media at the moment and the papers will just do without them.

 

This will in turn have an effect on Corporate Sponsorship because of the less exposure, not to mention the 'bad name' that the SFC brand is being tagged with in the national press. Businesses do not want their brand associated with a Football Club which is ridiculed daily in the press and won't want to work with a person like Cortese. Not the wisest decision from Cortese when his Marketing managers first task in only a couple of weeks will be to find a shirt sponsor for next season.

 

Noticed the lack of sponsorships around the perimiter last night? Before anyone says about recession... have a look round some of the away stadiums this season... seems only us are struggling... I wonder why?

 

Your idea of "the peoples verdict" is to canvass Sun readers for their informed opinion, you don't see a small problem here? Try that in Liverpool and see if you notice the difference. In reality you more than likely gobbed off at some innocent sitting next to you, whilst you were "reading" the Sun.

 

How any idiot can believe a photo is going to settle a controversial handball is totally ludicrous. Just what you are going to prove of a picture of Prutton next to the ref, or one of your asbo warriors with his hand on a chair is just normally not tenable as evidence. Sometimes photo's can give that justification, but very rarely in comparison to video. 99% of what you are suggesting is totally useless for controlling the outcome of events, especially when you consider the police and league have unfettered access to the cctv and video cameras operating.

 

In case you had not noticed that the main advertising source for football clubs is on the playing strip, something we have deliberately forgone this season before any of this raised it's head.

 

This is all about the pennies that come from image rights. Cortese wants those pennies for something he believes the club generates, not the red tops. The red tops want all those £'s from the collective and view this as another threat to their profit margins should others follow suit. We now have this "massive" Echo stand on the "freedom of the press", whereas it has absolutely nothing to do with that. This is a perk the papers used to get, which has been removed and they do not like where this is leading. With no contract to argue against, it turns to the "freedom of the press" in an attempt to argue the case. Cortese cannot change what happens with the cctv or video as that is out of his control, so trying to line this up behind the "freedom of the press" is akin to a one legged man in an arse kicking contest.

[Gingeletiss]

Still dont get your link about "free" photos. The Echo (et al.) never got "free" photos of Siants (or other) matches.

 

You are trying to twist the meaning here. They may pay a small fee to take the photographs, but then then own the image rights, and with that, are in a position to sell said photos on to a wider customer base and make a profit. So what is wrong with the club wanting to take that potential profit, and use it as their own.

[Weston Super Saint]

This will just drag on and on and on and on because I don't see Cortese as the type to sit back and admit he is wrong which is the only way the press will back off.

 

We are now The Suns little pet joke, and they will use us as an excuse to take the p!ss as often as they can. All of you that say " Ahh the scum is a joke paper anyway, who cares what they think "

 

.... the sell up to 4 million papers in the UK every day, so that is a massive readership to make us and our chairman look like complete c*nts. I don't see it affecting their readership in this area, if anything it has probably boosted sales for them, with people buying a copy each morning.

 

Come on... admit it, how many of you non-Sun readers bought a copy today to see what they have done with the report?

 

The views on this forum are extreme 'pro' or 'anti' in general... pretty much every person away from this forum in the last week or so I have spoken to agrees Cortese is a complete arrogant tosser... of course most are not bothered enough to do anything about it... but Cortese is slowly digging his own grave.

 

I haven't met a single person away from this forum who doesn't think The Suns hate campaign against us is funny as f*ck, whilst being a little bit embarrassing and bad PR for the club. I haven't met a single person that thinks The Sun are being slightly out of order.

 

It's nothing to do with the payments in my opinion, it's to do with freedom of press and Cortese thinking that he can control every last detail that comes out of the club, and can manipulate what is written about the club.

 

This is naive and just won't wash with the British Press. Look through the Saints gallery... if there was a controversial handball... would they put it in the gallery? Would they have given the press pictures of a Prutton style attack on the ref? Would they show opposition chances etc? Images of any trouble inside/outside the stadium etc etc...

 

No... course they wouldn't. Banning the press photographers means they get to censor and approve images before they are distributed. As a League 1 team our photo's have a minimal commercial value to the national media at the moment and the papers will just do without them.

 

This will in turn have an effect on Corporate Sponsorship because of the less exposure, not to mention the 'bad name' that the SFC brand is being tagged with in the national press. Businesses do not want their brand associated with a Football Club which is ridiculed daily in the press and won't want to work with a person like Cortese. Not the wisest decision from Cortese when his Marketing managers first task in only a couple of weeks will be to find a shirt sponsor for next season.

 

Noticed the lack of sponsorships around the perimiter last night? Before anyone says about recession... have a look round some of the away stadiums this season... seems only us are struggling... I wonder why?

 

Today's newspaper is tomorrow's fish and chip paper!

 

Two week's and the Sun will have forgotten all about this and will have moved on to something far more important like a bunion on Rooney's toe, or John Terry ****ging some glory hunting bint.

[Minty]

I really think people need to get beyond the specific issue of the media reaction, and look at the wider implications that have been mentioned numerous times on this thread and others.

[Danny]

You are trying to twist the meaning here. They may pay a small fee to take the photographs, but then then own the image rights, and with that, are in a position to sell said photos on to a wider customer base and make a profit. So what is wrong with the club wanting to take that potential profit, and use it as their own.

 

The Football DataCo agreement means newspapers cannot sell any images they take inside football grounds, without the express permission of the home club. Most clubs have their own facility to sell photos, anyway - saintsfcpics.com was Saints' one. Don't know if it still exists or not. I imagine so.

[View From The Top]

Do you!

 

Yes, I do.

 

The money involved is peanuts but in this country we have a rich tradition of sports photo journalism and the idea that a club selects what photos that newspapers, even ones as odious as The Sun, use is, IMHO, wrong.

[sfc4prem]

So what is wrong with the club wanting to take that potential profit, and use it as their own.

 

Nothing. Don't see what all the big fuss is about apart from all the "toy thrown out of pram" negative press.

[beatlesaint]

You are trying to twist the meaning here. They may pay a small fee to take the photographs, but then then own the image rights, and with that, are in a position to sell said photos on to a wider customer base and make a profit. So what is wrong with the club wanting to take that potential profit, and use it as their own.

 

To a degree absolutely nothing BUT lets just have a look at the facts here.

Apart from The Echo how many or how often do you see match photos of Saints in a newspaper these days ?

In League 1 all the nationals give each league game in the division about 8 lines. You may very occasionally see a match action photo but its by no means a regular occurence.

 

So, looking at it like that tell me - why are newspapers going to pay to use an SFC sanctioned photo ?

If we were Premiership it would be completely different. If we were Campionship it might be a minor annoyance to them.

But we arent - we, or Cortese, are coming across as a bunch of big time Charlies in a league that the national press couldnt really give two hoots about.

There isnt a great deal of demand for the newspapers to sell on their photos of League 1 Southampton or Brentford or Orient.

 

So we now have the situation where nobody will buy the clubs official photos therefore SFC will not make a penny out of this arrangement and supporters who live away or cannot get to games will not get to read any sort of half decent match report, or any at all, in their morning national newspaper......and the benefit to Southampton FC is ??

 

Sweet F.A.

 

If Cortese wanted to do this then he should really have waited until or if we reach the Premiership.

And if his motivation is to make a bit more money then he has scored a spectacular own goal.

Just back down on this one Nicola, for the sake of the goodname of SFC.

Edited 11 August, 2010 by beatlesaint

[Weston Super Saint]

Yes, I do.

 

The money involved is peanuts but in this country we have a rich tradition of sports photo journalism and the idea that a club selects what photos that newspapers, even ones as odious as The Sun, use is, IMHO, wrong.

 

You seem to think that 'selective photos' is a new thing. It isn't!

 

Saints - and every other club - have always had the freedom to decide which pictures get released and which don't....

 

The Football DataCo agreement means newspapers cannot sell any images they take inside football grounds, without the express permission of the home club. Most clubs have their own facility to sell photos, anyway - saintsfcpics.com was Saints' one. Don't know if it still exists or not. I imagine so.

[View From The Top]

To a degree absolutely nothing BUT lets just have a look at the facts here.

Apart from The Echo how many or how often do you see match photos of Saints in a newspaper these days ?

In League 1 all the nationals give each league game in the division about 8 lines. You may very occasionally see a match action photo but its by no means a regular occurence.

 

So, looking at it like that tell me - why are newspapers going to pay to use an SFC sanctioned photo ?

If we were Premiership it would be completely different. If we were Campionship it might be a minor annoyance to them.

But we arent - we, or Cortese, are coming across as a bunch of big time Charlies in a league that the national press couldnt really give two hoots about.

There isnt a great deal of demand for the newspapers to sell on their photos of League 1 Southampton or Brentford or Orient.

 

So we now have the situation where nobody will buy the clubs official photos therefore SFC will not make a penny out of this arrangement and supporters who live away or cannot get to games will not get to read any sort of half decent match report, or any at all, in their morning national newspaper......and the benefit to Southampton FC is ??

 

Sweet F.A.

 

 

As I said early in the thread it is insane for a divison 3 club to take on the press like this. They don't need pictures of SFC as most of them couldn't care less about us.

 

It's a battle I don't see how we can win and one that will not make a single penny.

 

The club lose and the readers of The Echo lose.