Ex Saints - No rift with club

[St Marco]

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/8849422.Ex_Saints_Association_deny_rift/

 

Nice to see the club and ex saints association have a "good and firm relationship". Which is the total opposite of what some on here had tried to lead us to believe!

[georgeweahscousin]

It puts a whole new slant on this event nonsense. It would seem it isn't even an official "Ex-Saints" organised event.

[Wes Tender]

So it does seem that there are indeed mischief-makers in the press who seek to destabilise the Club, particularly in the Daily Mail and the Echo. The story had two parties involved with it, the Club and the Ex-Saints. The journalists had the obligation if they wished to be treated as professionals to have checked both sides of the story before publishing. Now, it might well have been, judging by past experience, that the Club were reticent in commenting on it, but therefore where did the story surface from on the Ex-Players' side? Who was it that informed the press that the Club had refused permission for Adkins and the current squad to attend? Mike Osman? Le Tiss? Benali? Lawrie? Whoever it was, I think that they ought to be chastised by the Ex-Players charity for their actions.

 

As for the Mail, I think that they should be forced to print a retraction with the same number of column inches that they used for the original groundless allegations. As somebody also commented in the Echo, they should be told in no uncertain terms through the Club's legal people that if this scurillous campaign against the Club continues, they will be sued.

 

As for those posters who went off at half-cock, only too ready to besmirch the name of our Chairman without access to all of the facts, this comment from that thread deserves to be posted again.

 

Hypochondriac:

I think the last few pages, more and more sensible people are posting now they aren't being shouted down so much by the loons. Daren W, Um Pahars, Steve Godwin, CB Fry and others.

 

Incidentally, Steve Godwin and Um Pahars are one and the same person, so the list of "sensible" people is reduced by one. There weren't many "others" thankfully.

 

I wonder whether they will have the good grace to retract their remarks and apologise?

[dune]

So it does seem that there are indeed mischief-makers in the press who seek to destabilise the Club, particularly in the Daily Mail and the Echo. The story had two parties involved with it, the Club and the Ex-Saints. The journalists had the obligation if they wished to be treated as professionals to have checked both sides of the story before publishing. Now, it might well have been, judging by past experience, that the Club were reticent in commenting on it, but therefore where did the story surface from on the Ex-Players' side? Who was it that informed the press that the Club had refused permission for Adkins and the current squad to attend? Mike Osman? Le Tiss? Benali? Lawrie? Whoever it was, I think that they ought to be chastised by the Ex-Players charity for their actions.

 

As for the Mail, I think that they should be forced to print a retraction with the same number of column inches that they used for the original groundless allegations. As somebody also commented in the Echo, they should be told in no uncertain terms through the Club's legal people that if this scurillous campaign against the Club continues, they will be sued.

 

As for those posters who went off at half-cock, only too ready to besmirch the name of our Chairman without access to all of the facts, this comment from that thread deserves to be posted again.

 

Hypochondriac:

 

Incidentally, Steve Godwin and Um Pahars are one and the same person, so the list of "sensible" people is reduced by one. There weren't many "others" thankfully.

 

I wonder whether they will have the good grace to retract their remarks and apologise?

 

I won't be lectured by a numpty that refers to Matt Le Tissier as "the lazy Guernseyman".

[Dalek2003]

So it does seem that there are indeed mischief-makers in the press who seek to destabilise the Club, particularly in the Daily Mail and the Echo. The story had two parties involved with it, the Club and the Ex-Saints. The journalists had the obligation if they wished to be treated as professionals to have checked both sides of the story before publishing. Now, it might well have been, judging by past experience, that the Club were reticent in commenting on it, but therefore where did the story surface from on the Ex-Players' side? Who was it that informed the press that the Club had refused permission for Adkins and the current squad to attend? Mike Osman? Le Tiss? Benali? Lawrie? Whoever it was, I think that they ought to be chastised by the Ex-Players charity for their actions.

 

As for the Mail, I think that they should be forced to print a retraction with the same number of column inches that they used for the original groundless allegations. As somebody also commented in the Echo, they should be told in no uncertain terms through the Club's legal people that if this scurillous campaign against the Club continues, they will be sued.

 

As for those posters who went off at half-cock, only too ready to besmirch the name of our Chairman without access to all of the facts, this comment from that thread deserves to be posted again.

 

Hypochondriac:

 

Incidentally, Steve Godwin and Um Pahars are one and the same person, so the list of "sensible" people is reduced by one. There weren't many "others" thankfully.

 

I wonder whether they will have the good grace to retract their remarks and apologise?

 

I doubt whether the likes of CBFRY will retract his remark or apologise, he has never done so in the past even when he has been wrong on some major issues.

[manji]

Yet again it shows Nicola was right in his decision and also shows the fans who were quick to jump to support the "ExSaints" were using it as an opportinity to bash the Chairman.

As I have mentioned many times the likes of the posters mentioned above are all "fanontheboard" losers whose nose was put out of joint when Nicola took over.

Another lot who lost out were the likes of MLT,Mark Dennis,Lawrie,Benali and Osman. Funny that eh ?

[Wes Tender]

I won't be lectured by a numpty that refers to Matt Le Tissier as "the lazy Guernseyman".

 

I'm not at all surprised to read that you won't apologise. You never do when you're wrong, which is quite often. But when it comes to numptydom, you were one of the main contenders for the number one spot. Egg all over your face.

[saintjay77]

I won't be lectured by a numpty that refers to Matt Le Tissier as "the lazy Guernseyman".

 

Are you saying he wasnt lazy? Would he himself say he wasnt a lazy player?

 

I think its fair to call him a lazy guernseyman. doesnt mean he wasn't foooking amazing for the 5 or 10 mins he showed up each game though.

Edited 12 February, 2011 by saintjay77

[um pahars]

Nice to see the club and ex saints association have a "good and firm relationship". Which is the total opposite of what some on here had tried to lead us to believe!

 

Indeed it is very good news to hear that the Club and The Ex Saints have a "good and firm relationship" and on the other thread that is all that I wanted them both to have.

 

Working together positively for the good of the Club. They are decent little charity, doing much good out in the Community and keeping the name of the Club and the its former heroes (and some not so "heroes") in the mind of many communities.

 

If anyone was offended by that wish, then I'm more than happy to apologise on here. Similarly, if anyone felt any of the attacks were personal (I can assure you, they were not), then I'm more than happy to apologise.

 

But I certainly won't be apologising for the majority of my posts on that thread that were countering claims it wasn't even a charity, along with other insinuations and underhand comments about the charity and its operations.

[Wes Tender]

Indeed it is very good news to hear that the Club and The Ex Saints have a "good and firm relationship" and on the other thread that is all that I wanted them both to have.

 

Working together positively for the good of the Club. They are decent little charity, doing much good out in the Community and keeping the name of the Club and the its former heroes (and some not so "heroes") in the mind of many communities.

 

If anyone was offended by that wish, then I'm more than happy to apologise on here. Similarly, if anyone felt any of the attacks were personal (I can assure you, they were not), then I'm more than happy to apologise.

 

But I certainly won't be apologising for the majority of my posts on that thread that were countering claims it wasn't even a charity, along with other insinuations and underhand comments about the charity and its operations.

 

Nothing wrong with the posts you made on that thread, Steve. What is upsetting is that because of these groundless allegations, the Ex-Saints charity has had its reputation sullied. I'm not going to second guess how the story reached the Mail, or who was the source, but they have done both the charity and the Club a disservice.

[up and away]

As for the Mail, I think that they should be forced to print a retraction with the same number of column inches that they used for the original groundless allegations. As somebody also commented in the Echo, they should be told in no uncertain terms through the Club's legal people that if this scurillous campaign against the Club continues, they will be sued.

 

As for those posters who went off at half-cock, only too ready to besmirch the name of our Chairman without access to all of the facts, this comment from that thread deserves to be posted again.

 

Hypochondriac:

I think the last few pages, more and more sensible people are posting now they aren't being shouted down so much by the loons. Daren W, Um Pahars, Steve Godwin, CB Fry and others.

 

Incidentally, Steve Godwin and Um Pahars are one and the same person, so the list of "sensible" people is reduced by one. There weren't many "others" thankfully.

 

I wonder whether they will have the good grace to retract their remarks and apologise?

 

Well maybe now they would like to inform us all as to where all the money from this goes and the "expenses", but I will not be holding my breath.

 

We just have Cortese on one side and part of our history on the other. The damage has now been done and the divide is now too big, best just to give merits to either as you see fit. I am not going to agree with MLT and Benali over this, but that in no way detracts from me what they have done for the club. Lawrie is another matter, I just wish he would **** off and sew his lips up. This sort of thing is never far away from him and if he really had the clubs interest at heart rather than his ego, he would never of got embroiled with most of the issues over the decades.

[NickG]

There is quite a regular pattern forming.

 

Story slating Cortese.

 

Period of slagging him off.

 

He keeps quiet.

 

Truth comes out to back him up.

[Deppo]

I won't be lectured by a numpty that refers to Matt Le Tissier as "the lazy Guernseyman".

 

Guernsey is a British Crown Dependency so there's no point trying to be racist/xenophobic about this, dune. Best save it for more deserving groups like the Muslims, Gypsies and the French.

[um pahars]

Nothing wrong with the posts you made on that thread, Steve. What is upsetting is that because of these groundless allegations, the Ex-Saints charity has had its reputation sullied. I'm not going to second guess how the story reached the Mail, or who was the source, but they have done both the charity and the Club a disservice.

 

I think I even mentioned in one of the posts on that thread that I was saddened to see this good little charity being used as a Political Football in a battle of larger egos (with people on here then happy to give it a kick). And as I also mentioned, both sides need to stop pouring fuel on the fire and someone needs to bash their heads together. I don't think anyone comes out of this very well, intentionally or unintentionally.

 

The Ex Saints part of the Mail article (the bit about withdrawing use of logo) is a quote directly attributed to MLT. As he's on their "board", one would assume he's not lying over something that is so easy to substantiate.

[Wes Tender]

There is quite a regular pattern forming.

 

Story slating Cortese.

 

Period of slagging him off.

 

He keeps quiet.

 

Truth comes out to back him up.

Agreed. Perhaps as a result, those "sensible" posters will be a bit more circumspect the next time they perceive there is an opportunity to slag off Cortese and hold their tongues until they know a few more facts, rather than taking what the Mail or Echo say as being the Gospel truth. They might even listen more closely to the "loons" who advocate holding off from making snap judgments based on personalities. But I won't hold my breath.

[Weston Saint]

I think there is a lesson here, not to take media reports at face value particularly when they are perceived as attacks on the club and Mr Cortese.

 

The club have maintained a policy not to respond to all the nonsense reported. They will only respond when such allegations are damaging to the club such as the report that the club was up for sale just when Mr Cortese was negotiating with a new major sponsor.

 

I am glad Ex Saints have gone on record. I thought it strange that there was a rift when we saw so many ex players introduced at the FA cup games.

 

I commented on a previous thread about the protagonists who appear to have a grudge and I will not repeat it here.

 

The club are not innocent. Some of Mr Cortese’s decisions have ruffled feathers. However none have put the club at risk. We are entitled to shout when we feel a decision is wrong for us or the club BUT we must make sure we have all the facts.

 

I do see the clubs reticence to fully communicate contributes to false rumour making but that is the consistent approach they have decided to take.

[brmbrm]

There is quite a regular pattern forming.

 

Story slating Cortese.

 

Period of slagging him off.

 

He keeps quiet.

 

Truth comes out to back him up.

 

A bit of a less superficial view would be that it is a move towards healing rifts, a more political gesture aimed at trying to bring the parties together, quite probably with condescension from the PLC.

 

I am not against that by any means at all, just maybe it is a bit more realistic/less malleable than people who believe everything they read in the Echo (???ugh?? does anyone????)

[Gingeletiss]

I think I even mentioned in one of the posts on that thread that I was saddened to see this good little charity being used as a Political Football in a battle of larger egos (with people on here then happy to give it a kick). And as I also mentioned, both sides need to stop pouring fuel on the fire and someone needs to bash their heads together. I don't think anyone comes out of this very well, intentionally or unintentionally.

 

The Ex Saints part of the Mail article (the bit about withdrawing use of logo) is a quote directly attributed to MLT. As he's on their "board", one would assume he's not lying over something that is so easy to substantiate.

 

Beg to differ UP, imho the club comes out of this heads up. As for the logo thing, the club is also justified in this, imo. Still, until the next media attack eh!

[GenevaSaint]

Well that's all good news.....so who is getting the profits from the event? Another charity? Or was Cortese right in not allowing others to make a profit from the clubs name?

[Fan The Flames]

There is quite a regular pattern forming.

 

Story slating Cortese.

 

Period of slagging him off.

 

He keeps quiet.

 

Truth comes out to back him up.

 

No this is the pattern;

 

Story slating Cortese.

 

Period of slagging him off and slagging MLT, LM, dark forces etc for trying to destabilise the club.

 

They all keeps quiet.

 

Truth comes out and the forum numpties get shown up for what they are.

[Crab Lungs]

Agreed. Perhaps as a result, those "sensible" posters will be a bit more circumspect the next time they perceive there is an opportunity to slag off Cortese and hold their tongues until they know a few more facts, rather than taking what the Mail or Echo say as being the Gospel truth. They might even listen more closely to the "loons" who advocate holding off from making snap judgments based on personalities. But I won't hold my breath.

 

I totally agree, but sadly the same people who found fault in every owner pre-Cortese will continue to do so in Nicola; not that things shouldn't be looked at objectively, it's just that this lot do it for the sake of it... even when things are far, far better than they've ever been.

 

You can guarantee they'll be the ones with all the answers and solutions whenever we have our next crisis, too... and boy do they revel in a crisis!

 

Still, it's hard to stop people who like the sound of their own voice...

[Thedelldays]

im sure Hypo knew about this all along

[dune]

Are you saying he wasnt lazy? Would he himself say he wasnt a lazy player?

 

I think its fair to call him a lazy guernseyman. doesnt mean he wasn't foooking amazing for the 5 or 10 mins he showed up each game though.

 

No decent Saints fan would ever refer to MLT as Wes Tender did.

[Deppo]

I love the lazy Guernseyman. He's my all-time footballing hero.

[John B]

Although it is not a big thing there still remains the fact that at the moment we dont know if any current staff are going to the event and if not why not.

 

It will be a shame if some dont attend and mix with some of the great players I have seen in the Red and White Stripes and Yellow of Southampton and played in some great not to be forgotten games.

 

The Daily Mail like all newspapers tries to put on slant to get the widest publicity but there might something behind their story as apparently SFC did not respond to an invitation from the the organisers if they had I doubt whether there would have been a story but only time will tell.

 

Dont really know why people get so upset with others reading of the situation because in 99% of the cases the poster has no idea of what has really happened

[um pahars]

Beg to differ UP, imho the club comes out of this heads up.

 

As I said when some were incorrectly claiming the Ex Saints weren't a charity (and a whole host of other attacks on its credibility), I'm afraid mud sticks.

 

As for the logo thing, the club is also justified in this, imo.

 

We may have to start with "assuming the directly attributable quote from MLT is true", then I have to say I can't find the logic of banning use of the Club's logo by the Ex Saints. With the Club happy to state they have a strong relationship with them, I think that makes some of the excuses no longer valid, so why would you say it is justified?? I am genuinely interested.

 

After all, I look up to the top of this board and see the crest fully on display. If a forum like this can use it, then why not a "connected" charity??

Edited 12 February, 2011 by um pahars

[Fitzhugh Fella]

It does amuse me when the Echo report something vaguely anti-Saints it gets heaped with vitriol and questions about its accuracy but when it prints positive news it is showered with praise and no one questions its veracity.

The messenger who brings bad news always gets shot especially on football forums.

[Fitzhugh Fella]

As I said when some were incorrectly claiming the Ex Saints weren't a charity (and a whole host of other attacks on its credibility), I'm afraid mud sticks.

 

 

 

We may have to start with "assuming the directly attributable quote from MLT is true", then I have to say I can't find the logic of banning use of the Club's logo by the Ex Saints. With the Club happy to state they have a strong relationship with them, I think that makes some of the excuses no longer valid, so why would say it is justified?? I am genuinely interested.

 

There was some debate in the pub last night that the club have banned the crest being used in the Echo's obituary pages. Don't know if it is true but I haven't noticed it recently.

 

After all, I look up to the top of this board and see the crest fully on display. If a forum like this can use it, then why not a connected charity??

 

There was some debate in the pub last night that the club have banned the crest being used in the Echo's obituary pages. Don't know if it is true but I haven't noticed it recently.

[Deppo]

There was some debate in the pub last night that the club have banned the crest being used in the Echo's obituary pages. Don't know if it is true but I haven't noticed it recently.

 

Definitely worth speculating about though.

[Gingeletiss]

As I said when some were incorrectly claiming the Ex Saints weren't a charity (and a whole host of other attacks on its credibility), I'm afraid mud sticks.

 

 

 

We may have to start with "assuming the directly attributable quote from MLT is true", then I have to say I can't find the logic of banning use of the Club's logo by the Ex Saints. With the Club happy to state they have a strong relationship with them, I think that makes some of the excuses no longer valid, so why would you say it is justified?? I am genuinely interested.

 

After all, I look up to the top of this board and see the crest fully on display. If a forum like this can use it, then why not a connected charity??

 

Is the forum looking to make money out of this logo then?

 

The club is being run as a business now, and for that reason alone, I agree with their stance. I also agreed to the 'no photographers' stance, from a purely business viewpoint. This is a bit of a 'royalties' minefield UP, you only have to look at the music and film industry and the internet (downloading). That is my viewpoint, I do not seek anyone else to agree

[um pahars]

There was some debate in the pub last night that the club have banned the crest being used in the Echo's obituary pages. Don't know if it is true but I haven't noticed it recently.

 

Maybe with the Club doing well and hopefully coming out from somevery dark times, life expectancy of Saints fans has risen!!!!!

[hypochondriac]

As I said when some were incorrectly claiming the Ex Saints weren't a charity (and a whole host of other attacks on its credibility), I'm afraid mud sticks.

 

 

 

We may have to start with "assuming the directly attributable quote from MLT is true", then I have to say I can't find the logic of banning use of the Club's logo by the Ex Saints. With the Club happy to state they have a strong relationship with them, I think that makes some of the excuses no longer valid, so why would you say it is justified?? I am genuinely interested.

 

After all, I look up to the top of this board and see the crest fully on display. If a forum like this can use it, then why not a "connected" charity??

 

This. I'm not sure how this changes anything. The point still stands, albeit not the entire organisation and now just applies to selected legends like mlt.

[John B]

Is the forum looking to make money out of this logo then?

 

The club is being run as a business now, and for that reason alone, I agree with their stance. I also agreed to the 'no photographers' stance, from a purely business viewpoint. This is a bit of a 'royalties' minefield UP, you only have to look at the music and film industry and the internet (downloading). That is my viewpoint, I do not seek anyone else to agree

 

I agree that the Club should be run as a business which I am sure it was when it was a PLC but some decisions have proved to be petty.

 

Tesco I think is run as a business and some things it does helps the customer as well as the community and its profitability.

 

I doubt whether Tesco would charge for Parking and not let local charities collect money outside

[NickG]

No decent Saints fan would ever refer to MLT as Wes Tender did.

 

I would never call MLT "Wes Tender Did".

[Fitzhugh Fella]

Maybe with the Club doing well and hopefully coming out from somevery dark times, life expectancy of Saints fans has risen!!!!!

 

After last Saturday?

[Thedelldays]

I agree that the Club should be run as a business which I am sure it was when it was a PLC but some decisions have proved to be petty.

 

Tesco I think is run as a business and some things it does helps the customer as well as the community and its profitability.

 

I doubt whether Tesco would charge for Parking and not let local charities collect money outside

did you know that Tesco have official charities in their stores...

many moons ago, my first job was at tesco (in millbrook) and every year, the store had ITS "official" charity....

so, maybe not so different

[spyinthesky]

There was some debate in the pub last night that the club have banned the crest being used in the Echo's obituary pages. Don't know if it is true but I haven't noticed it recently.

 

Duncan

 

You are closer to the goings on at the club than most

 

What is your take on the Ex Saints situation.

 

The original Ex Saints was fronted by Roy Beazley and a nuber of 1960's/70's Saints like Bob McCarthy, Stuart Williams, Ken Jones, Dennis Hollywood, Dennis Pring etc

 

In more recent times (possibly due to the age profile of the older players) more recent ex players have taken on the mantle and there has been a more 'professional' aspect to the organisation, run by Tim Manns

 

I understand that there has been friction between the 'old guard' and the new Ex Saints (operating under a slightly different name)

 

Do you know who is actually organising the De Vere event tonight and the Mayflower one tomorrow?

 

I attended a charity event at St Marys last year (think it was Ex Saints connected) and the organiser was v uncomplimentary abouit the asistance given by the club and Mr Cortese (can't remember exactly what the particular issue was)

 

There does seem to be some friction sculling around between the club and others.

 

This is a shame as we all want the Saints to prosper and the Liebherr/Cortese setup has generally been positive but all this can be tainted by disputes within/without the club

[OldNick]

Indeed it is very good news to hear that the Club and The Ex Saints have a "good and firm relationship" and on the other thread that is all that I wanted them both to have.

 

Working together positively for the good of the Club. They are decent little charity, doing much good out in the Community and keeping the name of the Club and the its former heroes (and some not so "heroes") in the mind of many communities.

 

If anyone was offended by that wish, then I'm more than happy to apologise on here. Similarly, if anyone felt any of the attacks were personal (I can assure you, they were not), then I'm more than happy to apologise.

 

But I certainly won't be apologising for the majority of my posts on that thread that were countering claims it wasn't even a charity, along with other insinuations and underhand comments about the charity and its operations.

UM IMO I dont thin k you posted anything wrong, you are just a difficult sod at the best of times Lol.

Your posts were relevant as you were questioning about the charity being registered.

[up and away]

It does amuse me when the Echo report something vaguely anti-Saints it gets heaped with vitriol and questions about its accuracy but when it prints positive news it is showered with praise and no one questions its veracity.

The messenger who brings bad news always gets shot especially on football forums.

 

When you continually transport sheite from one point to another, it's not difficult to understand why some would view this as a sewage truck. If you then throw in the odd interflora delivery it may well come as a surprise, but your view of a sewage truck is always going to be the over whelming reflection.

 

Especially when you claim persecution, only to find it's the Echo themselves that have broken the FL rules over image rights and incurred the wrath of Dataco.

[OldNick]

So are we going to get to the bottom of who is organising the event and how the monies are going to be dispersed?

[for_heaven's_Saint]

Tbh I'm a little surprise by this story having heard first hand some of the Ex-Saints' opinions on NC. But if they are able to remain adult and professional and work through their differences that can only be a good thing.

[um pahars]

Is the forum looking to make money out of this logo then?

 

If we're talking in strict business terms, then surely this site could be viewed as being in competition with the Club. I certainly visit this site more for the news (and gossip) than I do the Official Site, so you could argue it takes traffic (and therefore money) from the OS.

 

If we're looking at this in the cold light of day, then I would have to say that if a Charity that has a "good and firm relationship" with the Club and has many ex employees doing good deeds cannot use the logo, then this site should be receiving a request in the next few days.

 

FWIW, I think this site should be allowed to use it, along with a number of other institutions (with the Club's agreed permission). It must be possible for the Club to extend its goodwill and the let the logo be used by a number of initiatives after having a chat with them and being sensible about it.

 

The club is being run as a business now, and for that reason alone, I agree with their stance. I also agreed to the 'no photographers' stance, from a purely business viewpoint. This is a bit of a 'royalties' minefield UP, you only have to look at the music and film industry and the internet (downloading). That is my viewpoint, I do not seek anyone else to agree

 

I have to agree and it is not just Saints who have gone down this route. A number of Clubs recently changed their logos in order to copyright it and protect it form exploitation. I can totoally see the logic in protecting the brand in terms of merchandise, copyright abuse etc with regards "normal" business, but would have hoped that there would be the ability to allow agreed dispensations for certain organisations.

[VectisSaint]

I love the lazy Guernseyman. He's my all-time footballing hero.

Its part of his endearing quality, that he was (a) from Guernsey and (b) that he was lazy. He says as much himself. It is not an insult. When the phrase was originally introduced I seem to recall the poster was using it as a comparison, compared calling Cortest a slimy Italian (or something similar) with someone calling MLT the lazy Guernseyman. Still does not detract from the fact that MLT is not the brightest when it comes to media gaffs as he ably demonstrated in his book. Will never detract from his footballing ability or his legendary status.

[up and away]

As for the Mail, I think that they should be forced to print a retraction with the same number of column inches that they used for the original groundless allegations. As somebody also commented in the Echo, they should be told in no uncertain terms through the Club's legal people that if this scurillous campaign against the Club continues, they will be sued.

 

As for those posters who went off at half-cock, only too ready to besmirch the name of our Chairman without access to all of the facts, this comment from that thread deserves to be posted again.

 

Hypochondriac:

I think the last few pages, more and more sensible people are posting now they aren't being shouted down so much by the loons. Daren W, Um Pahars, Steve Godwin, CB Fry and others.

 

Incidentally, Steve Godwin and Um Pahars are one and the same person, so the list of "sensible" people is reduced by one. There weren't many "others" thankfully.

 

I wonder whether they will have the good grace to retract their remarks and apologise?

 

Well maybe now they would like to inform us all as to where all the money from this goes and the "expenses", but I will not be holding my breath.

 

We just have Cortese on one side and part of our history on the other. The damage has now been done and the divide is now too big, best just to give merits to either as you see fit. I am not going to agree with MLT and Benali over this, but that in no way detracts from me what they have done for the club. Lawrie is another matter, I just wish he would **** off and sew his lips up. This sort of thing is never far away from him and if he really had the clubs interest at heart rather than his ego, he would never of got embroiled with most of the issues over the decades.

[um pahars]

But if they are able to remain adult and professional and work through their differences that can only be a good thing.

 

Fingers crossed, this might be the start of something new, where diplomacy, consideration and reconcilliation are used instead of battles being played out in the public view.

[Daren W]

So it does seem that there are indeed mischief-makers in the press who seek to destabilise the Club, particularly in the Daily Mail and the Echo. The story had two parties involved with it, the Club and the Ex-Saints. The journalists had the obligation if they wished to be treated as professionals to have checked both sides of the story before publishing. Now, it might well have been, judging by past experience, that the Club were reticent in commenting on it, but therefore where did the story surface from on the Ex-Players' side? Who was it that informed the press that the Club had refused permission for Adkins and the current squad to attend? Mike Osman? Le Tiss? Benali? Lawrie? Whoever it was, I think that they ought to be chastised by the Ex-Players charity for their actions.

 

As for the Mail, I think that they should be forced to print a retraction with the same number of column inches that they used for the original groundless allegations. As somebody also commented in the Echo, they should be told in no uncertain terms through the Club's legal people that if this scurillous campaign against the Club continues, they will be sued.

 

As for those posters who went off at half-cock, only too ready to besmirch the name of our Chairman without access to all of the facts, this comment from that thread deserves to be posted again.

 

Hypochondriac:

 

Incidentally, Steve Godwin and Um Pahars are one and the same person, so the list of "sensible" people is reduced by one. There weren't many "others" thankfully.

 

I wonder whether they will have the good grace to retract their remarks and apologise?

 

Could someone please explain to me what I have to apologise about?

[GenevaSaint]

So are we going to get to the bottom of who is organising the event and how the monies are going to be dispersed?

 

That's a clear as a pint of Guinness to me Nick.

[Fitzhugh Fella]

Duncan

 

You are closer to the goings on at the club than most

 

What is your take on the Ex Saints situation.

 

The original Ex Saints was fronted by Roy Beazley and a nuber of 1960's/70's Saints like Bob McCarthy, Stuart Williams, Ken Jones, Dennis Hollywood, Dennis Pring etc

 

In more recent times (possibly due to the age profile of the older players) more recent ex players have taken on the mantle and there has been a more 'professional' aspect to the organisation, run by Tim Manns

 

I understand that there has been friction between the 'old guard' and the new Ex Saints (operating under a slightly different name)

 

Do you know who is actually organising the De Vere event tonight and the Mayflower one tomorrow?

 

I attended a charity event at St Marys last year (think it was Ex Saints connected) and the organiser was v uncomplimentary abouit the asistance given by the club and Mr Cortese (can't remember exactly what the particular issue was)

 

There does seem to be some friction sculling around between the club and others.

 

This is a shame as we all want the Saints to prosper and the Liebherr/Cortese setup has generally been positive but all this can be tainted by disputes within/without the club

 

Spy - I am not close to anyone at the club any more so no real insights from there.

I know Tim Manns and I know he was asked to "professionalise" the ex-Saints by creating a proper data base etc. I also know someone put a bit of money into it and bought a box which various ex-Saints would be invited to. Whether or not that person is still around i do not know.

I also know Roy Beazely who was very helpful when we did the Give it to Ron appeal but he has been pretty unwell recently.

I am not really sure the politics of new v old but I think it about time everything came under one umbrella and it would be nice if the club sponsored it and thereby had an element of control.

 

Old players are sometimes regarded as hangers on I know but at the same time they are part of our history. Tough call really. Does Joe Bloggs who played 1 game in 1957 qualify for a freebie. Where do you join the line?

 

I don't know why the club did not organise something re a dinner to mark the 125th. By not doing so it opened itself up to criticism and someone else organising something which has in turn led to all these rumours. It does seem remarkable that all of us have one common ambition to see Saints suceed but so many of us fall out.

 

I don't believe ex Saints managers players etc want to see Saints fail because they don't get on with NC like some on here claim. Lawrie and Matt love the club as much as you and I and while both air their grievances as fans they are both entitled.

 

I think the Echo love all this because it gives them something to write about. Don't think too many Echo journalists are Saints fans anyway.

[Pancake]

I won't be lectured by a numpty that refers to Matt Le Tissier as "the lazy Guernseyman".

 

But it's OK to (xenophobically) call NC "the slimey Italian" eh?

[manji]

Definitely worth speculating about though.

 

Particularly if its another underhand snipe at Cortese...................with no truth in it.