Club Statement on Media Policy

[1976_Child]

http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10280~2116531,00.html

 

So the Echo is not banned then?

[dune]

Already being discussed on the paper ban fred.

[Johnny Shearer]

Makes it quite clear rather than the drivel that was in the much acclaimed Sun.

[saint_mears]

SO no chance in stance then ? Does anyone at Saints not realise that there is no money to be made from selling these photos ? No buyers for starters as they are all boycotting ! Totally pathetic

[NickG]

http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10280~2116531,00.html

 

So the Echo is not banned then?

 

were back last season, months ago - covered on other thread

[dronskisaint]

Lies, damn lies & anything written in the Sun....

[Thedelldays]

the Red Tops should be told where to go now and then...the same group of people that fabricate rumours and lies and publish an apology about 2 lines long inside the advert page

the same group of people that manipulated photgraphs of UK troops in the gulf abusing PoWs and tried to sell papers on the back of it.....yep, those are the very people

 

feck em

[JonnyLove]

So hopefully all you lot who keep damn'ing the club can **** off now and we can make the forum a nice place to be or should I just ask for my membership to be canceled now?

[hypochondriac]

So hopefully all you lot who keep damn'ing the club can **** off now and we can make the forum a nice place to be or should I just ask for my membership to be canceled now?

oh dear

[saint_mears]

So hopefully all you lot who keep damn'ing the club can **** off now and we can make the forum a nice place to be or should I just ask for my membership to be canceled now?

 

Nothings changed thought with that statement and they will now learn the hard way.

[1976_Child]

were back last season, months ago - covered on other thread

 

I didn't know that? When were they allowed back in?

[JustMike]

the Red Tops should be told where to go now and then...the same group of people that fabricate rumours and lies and publish an apology about 2 lines long inside the advert page

the same group of people that manipulated photgraphs of UK troops in the gulf abusing PoWs and tried to sell papers on the back of it.....yep, those are the very people

 

feck em

 

This.

[Faz]

This.

 

Me too.

[NickG]

I didn't know that? When were they allowed back in?

 

can't remember but well before end of last season

[Dave Benson Phillips]

the Red Tops should be told where to go now and then...the same group of people that fabricate rumours and lies and publish an apology about 2 lines long inside the advert page

the same group of people that manipulated photgraphs of UK troops in the gulf abusing PoWs and tried to sell papers on the back of it.....yep, those are the very people

 

feck em

 

So hopefully all you lot who keep damn'ing the club can **** off now and we can make the forum a nice place to be or should I just ask for my membership to be canceled now?

 

Lies, damn lies & anything written in the Sun....

 

Err, take your rose-tinted and Cortese blinded glasses off for a second. The Sun have not stated anywhere that journo's have been banned. They stated photographers have been banned.

 

So where is the lies exactly? It's a FACT the club has banned all local and national photographers from the stadium.

 

Expect The Sun to take the gloves off and lay in to Cortese big-time at some point this week.

 

But if you are going to know the Sun and stick up for Cortese, at least do your research first. Here's the link for you to go and have another look...

 

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/3086603/Opposition-0-Plymouth-1.html

 

You lot need to wake up and smell the coffee. Cortese is an arrogant control freak, there is nothing professional about him and look out for lots of stories in the nationals over the next week to back up what some people have posted on here about events regarding Training Ground, Staff, Pardew etc etc... No doubt they will be talking rubbish as well.

 

As lastly uber-fans. When 'congratulating Cortese' for winding up the British press, when saying what a great businessman he is, think about the effect bad publicity has on the club. Businesses do not want to associate themselves with the likes of Cortese, nor do they want to associate them with a team which creates negative publicity.

 

Don't believe me? Have a look round the stadium tommorow night at the lack of local business sponsorship around the perimeter.

 

More "I told you so" moments coming tommorow.

[hypochondriac]

Stu, PM me if you can (as I cannot PM you.)

[Carlos Fandango]

Well done Stu and the gang, hound out our chairman to prove how clever you are and then see what we are left with. Not that you will be affected sitting in the pub on matchdays instead of actually supporting your team.

[S-Clarke]

Well done Stu and the gang, hound out our chairman to prove how clever you are and then see what we are left with. Not that you will be affected sitting in the pub on matchdays instead of actually supporting your team.

 

No one is trying to hound out the chairman though, we are just voicing our concerns at the increasing moronic decisions he is making that are affecting our image.

 

He's also decided to rub the chairman of all 71 league clubs up the wrong way, should do us lots of favors when negotiating for players.

 

The fans forum should be fun as it will give him a chance to explain why he has gone about things the way he has.

[1976_Child]

Don't believe me? Have a look round the stadium tommorow night at the lack of local business sponsorship around the perimeter.

 

Of course this could also be a result of the recession.

[CB Fry]

Err, take your rose-tinted and Cortese blinded glasses off for a second. The Sun have not stated anywhere that journo's have been banned. They stated photographers have been banned.

 

So where is the lies exactly? It's a FACT the club has banned all local and national photographers from the stadium.

 

Expect The Sun to take the gloves off and lay in to Cortese big-time at some point this week.

 

But if you are going to know the Sun and stick up for Cortese, at least do your research first. Here's the link for you to go and have another look...

 

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/3086603/Opposition-0-Plymouth-1.html

 

You lot need to wake up and smell the coffee. Cortese is an arrogant control freak, there is nothing professional about him and look out for lots of stories in the nationals over the next week to back up what some people have posted on here about events regarding Training Ground, Staff, Pardew etc etc... No doubt they will be talking rubbish as well.

 

As lastly uber-fans. When 'congratulating Cortese' for winding up the British press, when saying what a great businessman he is, think about the effect bad publicity has on the club. Businesses do not want to associate themselves with the likes of Cortese, nor do they want to associate them with a team which creates negative publicity.

 

Don't believe me? Have a look round the stadium tommorow night at the lack of local business sponsorship around the perimeter.

 

More "I told you so" moments coming tommorow.

 

 

Good post.

 

It's a shame there are three threads about this now, but Cortese's arrogant stupidity on this utterly pointless matter is making the club a complete embarrassment when we could be basking in the glory of being favourites for the title and back on the up while that lot down the road rot. Oh well.

[strummer]

The same group of people that manipulated photgraphs of UK troops in the gulf abusing PoWs and tried to sell papers on the back of it.....yep, those are the very people

 

feck em

 

For the sake of accuracy, those pictures were sold to the Daily Mirror by serving servicemen, who claimed they were accurate. At worst the Mirror were guilty of being hoaxed, rather than manipulating anything. Additionally, the allegations in the article itself proved to be true and the men involved in the abuse were court martialled.

[Saint Fan CaM]

Well done Stu and the gang, hound out our chairman to prove how clever you are and then see what we are left with. Not that you will be affected sitting in the pub on matchdays instead of actually supporting your team.

 

This seems appropriate.

[buctootim]

So hopefully all you lot who keep damn'ing the club can **** off now and we can make the forum a nice place to be or should I just ask for my membership to be canceled now?

 

Its getting to that stage. Im starting to wonder where a good Saints fans site is.

[dune]

Its getting to that stage. Im starting to wonder where a good Saints fans site is.

 

You mean one where everyone agrees with timmy?

[buctootim]

You mean one where everyone agrees with timmy?

 

No i mean the one where trolling, Nazi, former talk to myself minor forum admins dont dominate the board with negativity, along with just four or five other maladjusted social misfits. You ****ed up your site Tristram and you must be gratified with the progress youre making on this one.

[Johnny Shearer]

Good post.

 

It's a shame there are three threads about this now, but Cortese's arrogant stupidity on this utterly pointless matter is making the club a complete embarrassment when we could be basking in the glory of being favourites for the title and back on the up while that lot down the road rot. Oh well.

 

I'm not sure why people care about what other fans/press think about their own club? This pointless matter has been tried before and will no doubt be tried again after Saints own experiment. If it goes wrong so be it, if it catches on then great.

 

Either way the storm will blow over sooner or later.

[Bwanamakubwa]

I dont agree with the ban and think it will cause us strife.

 

HOWEVER, at least there is a statement on the saints website regarding it - something lacking on other issues. Hopefully, this will set a precedent and whether people agree with the ideas or not we will feel more involved.

[dune]

No i mean the one where trolling, Nazi, former talk to myself minor forum admins dont dominate the board with negativity, along with just four or five other maladjusted social misfits. You ****ed up your site Tristram and you must be gratified with the progress youre making on this one.

 

Now Now Timmy, I deliberately crashed and burnt my site because it'd been hacked. It's a long story but the same person had also hacked this forums predecessor.

 

Said person was on here the other day...

[docker-p]

the Red Tops should be told where to go now and then...the same group of people that fabricate rumours and lies and publish an apology about 2 lines long inside the advert page

the same group of people that manipulated photgraphs of UK troops in the gulf abusing PoWs and tried to sell papers on the back of it.....yep, those are the very people

 

feck em

Yeah thats right feck em, despite the fact that they won't buy the clubs photos so less revenue for us. Who cares we showed them. I bet they'll think twice before taking on NC again. LMAO

[SaintBobby]

The club's official statement is ludicrous.

 

The issue relates entirely to imagery (not to "banning" specific media outlets - although photographers are banned).

 

Mainstream media outlets will not purchase photo imagery from a single source appointed by the club.

 

The rough equivalent would be Tory Party conference only allowing in snappers from "Conservative TV". The broadcasters and newspapers would go bananas.

 

This is a battle that Southampton Football Club can't possibly win.

 

I don't want Cortese to resign, by the way. God no. Absolutely and emphatically not.

 

I just want him to change this mad policy.

 

Btw, if The Sun is playing it this heavy already, I don't rule out SKY Sports weighing in at some point before long. At that point, you really are a laughing stock.

[woodsaint]

Funny how a certain dave benson phillips is criticising the businessman that nicola cortese is. Is this not the guy who said we wouldnt get 9k season tickets sold this season.....oh. Someones going to be proved wrong again me thinks. Try getting behind your club for once and stop with this personal vendetta against cortese. Are you lowe in disguise?

[aintforever]

****ing genius idea, annoy the Sun when the single largest contributer of money to football in England is Sky TV.

 

I wonder how many pics SFC will have to sell to make up for not being shown live on Sky again?

[docker-p]

The club's official statement is ludicrous.

 

The issue relates entirely to imagery (not to "banning" specific media outlets - although photographers are banned).

 

Mainstream media outlets will not purchase photo imagery from a single source appointed by the club.

 

The rough equivalent would be Tory Party conference only allowing in snappers from "Conservative TV". The broadcasters and newspapers would go bananas.

 

This is a battle that Southampton Football Club can't possibly win.

 

I don't want Cortese to resign, by the way. God no. Absolutely and emphatically not.

 

I just want him to change this mad policy.

 

Btw, if The Sun is playing it this heavy already, I don't rule out SKY Sports weighing in at some point before long. At that point, you really are a laughing stock.

 

I think this post sums it up perfectly, including not wanting NC to resign. I do think this episode does illustrate either NC's lack of understanding of British media, or British business culture, or both; either way ML needs to insist he takes on some Non Exec board members to offer advice as this, and some other of NCs decisions, have been poor.

In our 125th, year when we want the media to be helping us celebrate, he's lined them up against us.

[wild-saint]

Im sure somebody will correct me but I genuinely thought all the photographers (particularly the nationals) at the games were self employed photographers that sold thier photos to the tabloids.

 

If this is so what difference does it make to the papers whether they pay our photographer or some selfemployed snapper. if this is not the case they have a lot of emplyed photographers on thier employment books.

 

Iam guessing NC's ruling doesnt suit the papers as they cant control the prices like they can with self employed photgraphers.

[Dave Benson Phillips]

Funny how a certain dave benson phillips is criticising the businessman that nicola cortese is. Is this not the guy who said we wouldnt get 9k season tickets sold this season.....oh. Someones going to be proved wrong again me thinks. Try getting behind your club for once and stop with this personal vendetta against cortese. Are you lowe in disguise?

 

Err.... firstly... how is this my fault? I didn't make the decision to ban photographers from SMS, I didn't even start this thread!!! And I definately am not one of the dozens of press editions reporting this.

 

If really all you can pick out is me being 4,000 out in Season Ticket estimations, you are clutching at straws. I speculated on season ticket numbers, never posted as fact.

 

What is a FACT is that the press will now turn on Cortese, expect some pretty scathing attacks from the national press over the next couple of days, it will happen, he has fooked off the press and it seems fooked off Sky ( which is probably even a bigger no,no )

 

When it all does come out, there's alot of you that will have to put your hands up and say you were wrong on so many occasions and Cortese is the person who has been made out to be by some of the connected posters on here. I have no doubt that anyone will actually have the b*llocks to admit they were wrong though.

 

I said weeks ago there will be plenty of " I told you so " moments in the coming weeks... and there will be. I don't post stuff on here to be an attention seeker, if I did then I wouldn't have tried to change my name and I would be in the papers spouting off etc etc... I post stuff because I hear things from various reliable sources and like to redress the balance when some of you say what a god Cortese is.

 

And buctootim... as if the club give a f*ck about what a bunch of nobodies think on an internet forum FFS... they don't give a toss about one of the worlds most relentless press, so I really don't think they are going to give a toss and Cortese walk out because of a few computer nerds.

 

I don't have any posts left now till the morning. By then there will be more to talk about.

 

Make sure you pick up a copy of The Sun in the morning.

 

Lastly - Dulldays... I thought you said you weren't going to renew? LOL - hypocrite.

[docker-p]

Iam guessing NC's ruling doesnt suit the papers as they cant control the prices like they can with self employed photgraphers.

Not sure about league 1 clubs, but higher up the leagues there will be a mix of freelancers and staffers. Most of the freelancers will be working specificaly for one paper on a retainer, or one agency, rather than hawking around images after the game.

 

But the issue is any club, bar the top 2 or 3, need newspaper coverage more than the newspapers need the club. Make it difficult for the Sun or whoever they will just say "fine, we won't cover you then, it's your loss".

[wild-saint]

Not sure about league 1 clubs, but higher up the leagues there will be a mix of freelancers and staffers. Most of the freelancers will be working specificaly for one paper on a retainer, or one agency, rather than hawking around images after the game.

 

But the issue is any club, bar the top 2 or 3, need newspaper coverage more than the newspapers need the club. Make it difficult for the Sun or whoever they will just say "fine, we won't cover you then, it's your loss".

 

what do we actually gain / lose from this media coverage that we will now lose? it seems to me that we get the square root of fook all from the papers currently.

 

Whats the saying? all publicity is good publicity. we are probably getting more media coverage in the media on this story than we will get cumulatively in the rest of the season based in league 1.

[CB Fry]

I'm not sure why people care about what other fans/press think about their own club?

 

I've read enough threads after live TV games from bellyachers whinging about anti-Saints bias on BBC, ITV, Sky and elsewhere to know that there are plenty that do care what others think. And the vast majority of people grizzling "sod the press" come from the angle of "boo hoo, we never get a mention anyway".

 

My main problem is this action is an utterly utterly pointless waste of time and energy from a man I am losing respect for by the day. I thought we were trying to get promoted.

[docker-p]

what do we actually gain / lose from this media coverage that we will now lose? it seems to me that we get the square root of fook all from the papers currently.

 

Whats the saying? all publicity is good publicity. we are probably getting more media coverage in the media on this story than we will get cumulatively in the rest of the season based in league 1.

Well try to sell perimiter advertising with no press coverage, or next season try looking for a shirt sponsor.

In the scheme of things, if all the media outlets had gone along with this we would have made only peanuts.

But Fleet Street doesn't like being pushed around; look out for plenty more negative stories about SFC thanks to this silly policy

[wild-saint]

Well try to sell perimiter advertising with no press coverage, or next season try looking for a shirt sponsor.

In the scheme of things, if all the media outlets had gone along with this we would have made only peanuts.

But Fleet Street doesn't like being pushed around; look out for plenty more negative stories about SFC thanks to this silly policy

 

surely most perimiter advertising and shirt sponsorship money raised is based on the 20k people at the ground, tv coverage and shirt sales to fan base and not on a few small pics in the local rag and once a week in a sunday paper.

 

I agee that we may see a load of negative stories increase in the short term whilst it is a hot story. However it could be argued that any negative enrgy directed at us could be turned into a seige mentality to improve our chances this year.

[docker-p]

surely most perimiter advertising and shirt sponsorship money raised is based on the 20k people at the ground, tv coverage and shirt sales to fan base and not on a few small pics in the local rag and once a week in a sunday paper.

 

I agee that we may see a load of negative stories increase in the short term whilst it is a hot story. However it could be argued that any negative enrgy directed at us could be turned into a seige mentality to improve our chances this year.

Advertising seen by 20k in the ground, and the potential of 6 million in sunday papers sold each week.

Siege mentality may work, or you could have unsettling stories about Lallana connected to this club, and Lambert to that club, that aint going to help anyone

[Matthew Le God]

Well try to sell perimiter advertising with no press coverage, or next season try looking for a shirt sponsor.

In the scheme of things, if all the media outlets had gone along with this we would have made only peanuts.

But Fleet Street doesn't like being pushed around; look out for plenty more negative stories about SFC thanks to this silly policy

 

Since when has any of this meant "no press coverage"? Saints match photos still exist, highlights on BBC TV/website and Sky TV/website.

 

How many match action shots have non-cropped hoardings showing clearly the full name of the sponsor? How many shots per season would a League One team get in the national press? Most weeks League One coverage is a brief paragraph without a photo and if there is a photo it is rare for it to show any non cropped logos.

[Saint Fan CaM]

There's some ******* hypocrites on here alright. Bang on about how much it costs getting into a game, but then stand-up for the likes of Murdoch and Sky - the very organisation that has ruined English football by maintaining stupid player salaries. Personally I couldn't give a stuff about a 'news' paper that dishes up Correy stories as if they're real life and an organisation that props up the disgrace that is the English football Premiership.

[SaintBobby]

I have a lot of sympathy with the press reaction to the club's media policy.

 

There is a legitimate issue about "press freedom" - and let me try and explain that without implying that the ban on photographers is in any way the moral equivalent of South African Apartheid or North Korea's national press.

 

If there is a single club source for imagery, this has a potentially enormous impact on editorial matters because the club can choose which images to make available. Reputable newspapers are clear that they are covering a public event. They therefore want to have access to "Lambert head in hands" or "Schneiderlin sees red" or "Pardew kicks water bottle" pictures as much as goal celebrations etc.

 

You will see from pictures used in the programme and on the official website that they are very pro-Saints. For example, the big pull out picture in the Plymouth programme is of Hammond's headed goal against Reading. No imagery of Antonio notching Reading's fourth goal. Or Butterfield's futile protest against the Reading penalty. Or people booing and laughing when Pulis took to the pitch.

 

There's nothing wrong with that. Southampton's website and programme are marketing materials - propaganda even. And that's fine. (For example, in the "guide to the next away game section", have you ever seen the prediction be of a Saints's defeat?)

 

This isn't - and cannot be expected to be - remotely acceptable to a sports editor. Any more than the club asking to, say, check written copy for "accuracy" before a journalist files it with their newsdesk. If I was the sports editor of a national newspaper, I would certainly boycott all imagery of Saints' home matches and would explain to my readers why.

 

Cortese will have the last laugh if he is right that the commercial imagery rights he's protecting really do have substantial financial value. But I really doubt that they do. And I'm pretty certain that whatever minimal value such imagery might have has already been out-trumped by the ill will and negative publicity that has been secured in the last 24 hours.

 

The interesting question now is whether the club will back down in the face of such an obvious error or whether they will dig their heels in. Given that even the accredited agency is now making it plain they will not abide by the exclusivity deal, it would seem like pig headedness in the extreme to continue down this path http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=45816&c=1

[Micky]

Since when has any of this meant "no press coverage"? Saints match photos still exist, highlights on BBC TV/website and Sky TV/website.

 

How many match action shots have non-cropped hoardings showing clearly the full name of the sponsor? How many shots per season would a League One team get in the national press? Most weeks League One coverage is a brief paragraph without a photo and if there is a photo it is rare for it to show any non cropped logos.

 

Totally agree with this. The issue is not to do with, and nor is it really going to have massive impact from such sponsors. Had we a shirt sponsor - they would probably have kicked off, can't see that any other SMS sponsor would really be too bothered.

[JackanorySFC]

I have a lot of sympathy with the press reaction to the club's media policy.

 

There is a legitimate issue about "press freedom" - and let me try and explain that without implying that the ban on photographers is in any way the moral equivalent of South African Apartheid or North Korea's national press.

 

If there is a single club source for imagery, this has a potentially enormous impact on editorial matters because the club can choose which images to make available. Reputable newspapers are clear that they are covering a public event. They therefore want to have access to "Lambert head in hands" or "Schneiderlin sees red" or "Pardew kicks water bottle" pictures as much as goal celebrations etc.

 

You will see from pictures used in the programme and on the official website that they are very pro-Saints. For example, the big pull out picture in the Plymouth programme is of Hammond's headed goal against Reading. No imagery of Antonio notching Reading's fourth goal. Or Butterfield's futile protest against the Reading penalty. Or people booing and laughing when Pulis took to the pitch.

 

There's nothing wrong with that. Southampton's website and programme are marketing materials - propaganda even. And that's fine. (For example, in the "guide to the next away game section", have you ever seen the prediction be of a Saints's defeat?)

 

This isn't - and cannot be expected to be - remotely acceptable to a sports editor. Any more than the club asking to, say, check written copy for "accuracy" before a journalist files it with their newsdesk. If I was the sports editor of a national newspaper, I would certainly boycott all imagery of Saints' home matches and would explain to my readers why.

 

Cortese will have the last laugh if he is right that the commercial imagery rights he's protecting really do have substantial financial value. But I really doubt that they do. And I'm pretty certain that whatever minimal value such imagery might have has already been out-trumped by the ill will and negative publicity that has been secured in the last 24 hours.

 

The interesting question now is whether the club will back down in the face of such an obvious error or whether they will dig their heels in. Given that even the accredited agency is now making it plain they will not abide by the exclusivity deal, it would seem like pig headedness in the extreme to continue down this path http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=1&storycode=45816&c=1

 

Absolutely bang on the money - however plenty of "my club can do no wrong"/ "Murdoch kills babies"/ "The Sun's 8m readers don't matter"/ "we don't need Sky"/ "blue chip potential sponsors dont need exposure to 10's of million sky viewers/ Sun Readers when we are getting 18k at hometo Huddersfield next season" will ignore the important editorial message in your post mate.

[Flyer]

Im sure somebody will correct me but I genuinely thought all the photographers (particularly the nationals) at the games were self employed photographers that sold thier photos to the tabloids.

 

If this is so what difference does it make to the papers whether they pay our photographer or some selfemployed snapper. if this is not the case they have a lot of emplyed photographers on thier employment books.

 

Iam guessing NC's ruling doesnt suit the papers as they cant control the prices like they can with self employed photgraphers.

 

Its all to do with censorship and control, do you think saints will make pictures available of a saints player spitting at an opponent or making a 2 footed tackle or anything controversial? The stuff that sells papers.

[hypochondriac]

The club's official statement is ludicrous.

 

The issue relates entirely to imagery (not to "banning" specific media outlets - although photographers are banned).

 

Mainstream media outlets will not purchase photo imagery from a single source appointed by the club.

 

The rough equivalent would be Tory Party conference only allowing in snappers from "Conservative TV". The broadcasters and newspapers would go bananas.

 

This is a battle that Southampton Football Club can't possibly win.

 

I don't want Cortese to resign, by the way. God no. Absolutely and emphatically not.

 

I just want him to change this mad policy.

 

Btw, if The Sun is playing it this heavy already, I don't rule out SKY Sports weighing in at some point before long. At that point, you really are a laughing stock.

 

Oh Sky are aware of this. I can't see us being on there any time soon for a league match.

[JackanorySFC]

Totally agree with this. The issue is not to do with, and nor is it really going to have massive impact from such sponsors. Had we a shirt sponsor - they would probably have kicked off, can't see that any other SMS sponsor would really be too bothered.

 

Errr, sorry to state the obvious but isn't the Commercially savvy NC looking a sponsor next season? If you owned a large business/ had control of a serious marketing budget why would you invest in us (potential exposure maximum of 30k every other week here + local press at away games) when other small clubs(we are a small club Im afraid) get that + local press(Echo has 130k readers) and nationals with their millions before you get to the small matter of Sky....

 

Once again, slate the Sun (everyone at our club has this ludicrus notion we should get more weekly national press coverage than our modest league 1 statur deserves) but they ran a front cover of us after the JPT running at approx 240k copies in SO postcodes due to Southampton being a workingclass city that buys the paper in droves! Great PR by them (take note SFC) at the time, but seems plenty are happy to ignore gestures like that when it suits them

 

Oh, also the Sun are running a "Football for £9.50" promo in asssociation with 60 league clubs aiming to make football accesable to local communites in conjunction with the FA and Clubs. Guess which SO post coded club hasn't signed up?

[St Marco]

So i guess it boils down to who do you believe. The Sun newspaper and about 4 people on here, or NC, the guy who normally never says a word about anything?

 

hmmmmm tough decision....guys on here who over-react at the slightest thing....or the dude when the club was falling apart managed to put money where his mouth was and actually do something to help us?

 

Poor old media, we should all write a letter saying we back their right to go to an event, take photos and make their bosses loads of money on the back of those photographs. It's just not on. It isn't like these photographers take photos, put them in their papers then expect us to buy the paper to see that photo is it....oh wait...it is....poor old media.