alpine_saint Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/4269776.Saints_fans_call_for_council_to_sell_art_to_help_save_the_club/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottery st mary Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 They still have one of my paintings on their wall when I was ate at Primary school. Bet it is worth trillions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norwaysaint Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 They still have one of my paintings on their wall when I was ate at Primary school. Bet it is worth trillions. They did what to you at primary school? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 bit like your contribution...... If a football club is TRUELY part of a community's culture, then is the council/community owning a part of it that allows the club to survive any less valid than Art? Not quite sure what your objection would be...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottery st mary Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 They did what to you at primary school? A boy called Rupert would not let me play with his train set, so I ate his aamster. :---) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
londonsaint1604 Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 Not really. The Saints mean a lot more to the city than a few old paintings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slickmick Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 They can have a painting of the Doncaster train in exchange for buying our ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_saints Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 So they should. Art is a load of b0ll0x anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibden Purlieu Saint Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 I still struggle to see why you care Alpine? Do you love art? Or is it just something to moan about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 6 April, 2009 Author Share Posted 6 April, 2009 bit like your contribution...... If a football club is TRUELY part of a community's culture, then is the council/community owning a part of it that allows the club to survive any less valid than Art? Not quite sure what your objection would be...... Southampton City Council represent the interests of ca. 200,000 Southampton residents. A helluva lot more than ca. 20,000 of it residents from one minority interest group. The fact that you find merit in this idea says all it needs to for me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 6 April, 2009 Author Share Posted 6 April, 2009 So they should. Art is a load of b0ll0x anyway. Not really. The Saints mean a lot more to the city than a few old paintings. Spectacular. Really.... Makes you proud to hail from Southampton :rolleyes: A private venture gets into trouble, and the lunatic fringe call for the city's art gallery to be looted... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VectisSaint Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 There are a lot of folks on the Echo site who clearly cannot read (let alone appreciate good art). No-one is suggesting selling off all of the works of art, there are evidently 3500 items in the collection, and only 200 can be on display at any time. A few pieces to raise some cash to help the Club would not go amiss, after all the works of art are owned by the Council tax players of Southampton, and as a significant proprotion are also football club supporters there is no reason why a small portion could not be hived off. Indeed in many cases purchasers would loan back the art work to the gallery anyway. We could also donate a surplus picture of a train to help fill the gallery in future, may be a good investment for the future. As council tax players in the City, some of you should be asking why it is that the Council has such a large collection effectively gathering dust when the sale of some pieces could helpr reduce your council tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 Spectacular. Really.... Makes you proud to hail from Southampton :rolleyes: A private venture gets into trouble, and the lunatic fringe call for the city's art gallery to be looted... The art works are almost entirely in storage, as there is nowhere to display them - so who will miss them ? Also, some would say that for the city to have this amount of money salted away in this manner is itself an obscenity. You also make statements about "a minority of 20,000" residents - the fanbase is much bigger than the number attending SMS, and the impact on the city of the club completely disappearing is likely to be far more detrimental than a few paintings, that nobody gets to see, being deleted from the catalogue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Man Do Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/4269776.Saints_fans_call_for_council_to_sell_art_to_help_save_the_club/ Alps, what do you personally get more benefit out of? The football team or the paintings? What do the majority of rate payers get to see more of? Self serving certainly but in our situation any solutions worth considering if we get to keep a club next season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jam Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 Yes Southampton City Council should sell millions of pounds worth of investments in the middle of the worst economic downturn in decades because a private business couldn't run itself properly. Genious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 Yes Southampton City Council should sell millions of pounds worth of investments in the middle of the worst economic downturn in decades because a private business couldn't run itself properly. Genious. I'm glad that you think it's such a good idea. :smt083 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiltshire Saint Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 The daftest, most self-centred and most myopic rescue proposal would surely be my suggestion that we force all Young Saints into prostitution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 Southampton City Council represent the interests of ca. 200,000 Southampton residents. A helluva lot more than ca. 20,000 of it residents from one minority interest group. The fact that you find merit in this idea says all it needs to for me... Alpine I would like you to study my previous post agian - read carefully, perhaps getting the help of an adult to read it slowly to you. Because , you will then hopefully see that I have not expressed any merit or otherwise in this scheme. The fact reamins that MANY fans particularly those with your particular PoV believe football clubs to be at the heart of the community, indeed the notion of 'we've got our club back' stems from this community culture, as such I was merely pointing out that if this is true and to be believed, why should it not take preference in this case over art that although culturally just as important probably interests less than the 30,000 who would support a staidium ownship scheme... please read in future and not make up rubbish... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_saints Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 Yes Southampton City Council should sell millions of pounds worth of investments in the middle of the worst economic downturn in decades because a private business couldn't run itself properly. Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INFLUENCED.COM Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 Southampton City Council represent the interests of ca. 200,000 Southampton residents. A helluva lot more than ca. 20,000 of it residents from one minority interest group.... Disagree along with others re the number in the interest group, in addition to the fans many business' in the town benefit from Saints, how many revenue streams do you think would dry up if SFC no longer existed ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 6 April, 2009 Author Share Posted 6 April, 2009 A few points : I am not an art expert, but I doubt that the Ctiy's art collection has anything of serious-shiit value that could make a significant dent in the clubs debt Again, why should something that belongs to ALL southampton residents be used to keep the past time going on a small minority ? The database argument is not relevant, SFCs attendance is ca. 20,000 on average. Using the art collection to reduce council tax load for all residents has a justifiable air about, it, but dammit, its a short-term, superficial almost neanderthal-like thing to consider. I am of the opinion that this is only being suggested because art-gallery visitors and football match attendees are almost mutually-exclusive; it may also be an extension of the "class-war" thing people were accused of in their opposition to Lowe, only that battle has now lost its chief protagonist. After all, art is considered to be a "toff" thing. Jesus, the more I think of it the more bizarre this is. Its like taking Shakespeare off the GCE English Literature exam and replacing him with JK Rowling.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 Disagree along with others re the number in the interest group, in addition to the fans many business' in the town benefit from Saints, how many revenue streams do you think would dry up if SFC no longer existed ? Just think of the votes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 6 April, 2009 Author Share Posted 6 April, 2009 Alps, what do you personally get more benefit out of? The football team or the paintings? What do the majority of rate payers get to see more of? Self serving certainly but in our situation any solutions worth considering if we get to keep a club next season. A fair question. The football team, of course. However, I wouldnt want the club, a private business run by ego and ineptitude, to be rescued like this. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 A few points : I am not an art expert, but I doubt that the Ctiy's art collection has anything of serious-shiit value that could make a significant dent in the clubs debt The collection has a value in the region of £150m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottery st mary Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 Just spoke to a council painter...who also does a bit of decorating on the side...He states it ain't going to happen and most of the painting on the walls or even in the safe room was his work at time and half and double time on Sundays. He said some of his painting is very artistic but orrible colour schemes.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 6 April, 2009 Author Share Posted 6 April, 2009 The collection has a value in the region of £150m. So, that means selling off ca. 20% of it. Unacceptable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_saints Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 Again, why should something that belongs to ALL southampton residents be used to keep the past time going on a small minority ? The database argument is not relevant, SFCs attendance is ca. 20,000 on average. The database argument is not relevant? So they are nothing to with SFC and have no interest in SFC then? The average attendance is 20,000. What is the average attendance of the art gallery and how many people are on their database? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 I think a football club is more valuable to the City than a bunch of old paintings, most of which are just stuck in storage somewhere. Common sense says flog a few and have a Council owned stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 6 April, 2009 Author Share Posted 6 April, 2009 The database argument is not relevant? So they are nothing to with SFC and have no interest in SFC then? The average attendance is 20,000. What is the average attendance of the art gallery and how many people are on their database? I dont understand the point you are trying to make. The database is irrelevant. Probably 60-70% is made up of one-time buyers. I do not know what the average attendance of the art gallery is, nor do I think it is relevant either. The collection is there for the people of the city to enjoy (is it still free entry ?). SFC charges over 20 quid for entry and ploughs most of its revenue back into 20-odd spoilt, privelledged and often underperforming egomaniacs. Reading people trying to justify this is f**king bizarre.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itchen Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 I find myself in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with Alpine. Any public art gallery can only exhibit a fraction of the work it owns at any one time otherwise how could exhibitions rotate? This is the usual nonsense from the Echo which seems to think that because only 200 paintings can be exhibited then the gallery should not own any more than that. I support Saints. I go to most home games and the occasional away one. But I would not support plundering one tremendous city asset to help out a failing one. We have the best art gallery in England outside London simply because our forefathers were far sighted enough to build a decent collection without worrying about the small minded snipings of people like Ian Murray. There are many city assets that could be flogged off to help Saints if that's the road we want to go down. Why stop at paintings? We could run the city from a business park in Totton, why not flog the Civic Centre? Do we really need the Sports Centre or Golf Course while Saints are in trouble? And wouldn't the Common look better with a nice housing estate on it? The Council is right to explore sensible ways it could help Saints. But this scheme isn't one of them and I suspect is just an Echo fantasy anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 6 April, 2009 Author Share Posted 6 April, 2009 Aye. Its populist Nu-Labour "class war" crap. Welcome to the Big Brother/ X-Factor generation....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 I find myself in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with Alpine. Any public art gallery can only exhibit a fraction of the work it owns at any one time otherwise how could exhibitions rotate? This is the usual nonsense from the Echo which seems to think that because only 200 paintings can be exhibited then the gallery should not own any more than that. I support Saints. I go to most home games and the occasional away one. But I would not support plundering one tremendous city asset to help out a failing one. We have the best art gallery in England outside London simply because our forefathers were far sighted enough to build a decent collection without worrying about the small minded snipings of people like Ian Murray. There are many city assets that could be flogged off to help Saints if that's the road we want to go down. Why stop at paintings? We could run the city from a business park in Totton, why not flog the Civic Centre? Do we really need the Sports Centre or Golf Course while Saints are in trouble? And wouldn't the Common look better with a nice housing estate on it? The Council is right to explore sensible ways it could help Saints. But this scheme isn't one of them and I suspect is just an Echo fantasy anyway. The Golf Course is one of the best tracks around, but it is in poor condition because the Council won't pay for it to be maintained properly. It should remain a Golf Course but it should be leased to a private company who would maintain it in the way it deserves to be. The thought of my £140 a month going towards a few dust gathering paintings really p*sses me off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 6 April, 2009 Author Share Posted 6 April, 2009 The thought of my £140 a month going towards a few dust gathering paintings really p*sses me off. Now you are being silly. Most of it goes to the police, the firebrigade, refuse collection, and public-sector gold-plated pensions. I doubt you pay more than 50p towards the art gallery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 So, that means selling off ca. 20% of it. Unacceptable. Twenty per cent of £150m is £30m. The debt against the stadium is currently £24m and Aviva/Norwich Union are believed to be looking in the region of £10m-£15m to sell it, according to the papers. Factor in the fact that the council is already considering at selling off a fraction of the art work to fund other projects (such as the flats on the site of Tyrrell and Green) in the city - their reason being that only 10 per cent of the collection is ever on display. In fact, to raise £10m, they would only need to sell off in the region of 230 pieces from the 3,500 strong collection, using the average value of just under £43,000 per piece - assuming they were to fund the purchase 100 per cent in this way. Now personally, I do see some merit in the plan - after all the council could make a lot of income from the stadium. For example, two sell out concerts a year (the stadium has permission for four) could bring in an income (before costs) in the area of £2.5m per annum on their own, using an average ticket price of £35. This would actually - shock horror - make the stadium a sound investment in principle - especially bearing in mind over 90 per cent of the art is sat there doing nothing, away from the people who want to see it. However, I feel it's a moot point as I don't think the council will buy the stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 So, that means selling off ca. 20% of it. Unacceptable. Assuming every piece has the same value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 6 April, 2009 Author Share Posted 6 April, 2009 Assuming every piece has the same value. What else can be used as a basis for this discussion ? You reckon the council should flog off the few jewels in the crown for the football club then ? This discussion gets more daft by the minute.. And I thought it was Lowe who argued quantity over quality.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloridaMarlin Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 Couple of things here. The story in the Echo is the result of journalism of the worst kind and an example of the media feeding itself. The story says that Saints fans are calling for the city to sell off some of its art works. Where was this call first made? Why, on the Echo's message board. So the Echo gets its stories from its own message boards. What insightful journalism. Secondly, most of the city's art collection is either on loan (permanently or temporarily), or donated as a behest, with all sorts of covenants on it, preventing its subsequent onsale. The council couldn't sell its art collection, even if it wanted to. I'm pretty sure the council wouldn't have such large holes in its budget if every time there was a shortfall, they simply took a Lowry, Monet or Millais down and bunged it up to Christie's. But I actually agree with Alps on this. The art collection is for the enjoyment of all the people in Southampton. I don't think anyone is under any illusions about the benefits a high-riding sports club brings to any city, but sports fans wear blinkers. They only care about their pastime. As much as I love Saints, I don't think it is right or fair to ask all the population of the city to bail the club out totally. How would Saints fans feel if years ago, the city council came cap-in-hand to Saints and asked them to sell off Matty to help rescue them financially. I'm putting my tin hat on here, expecting some stick but as a rich man (who was asked to get involved with a football club on the south Coast) once said to me: "Fans are always critical of owners for not putting enough of their money in. But why should I put millions of pounds in to subsidise peoples' hobby, where all they do is come along every other week and spend some money." A tad harsh, perhaps, but he still has his millions, and it's certainly a bit of food for thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 Now you are being silly. Most of it goes to the police, the firebrigade, refuse collection, and public-sector gold-plated pensions. I doubt you pay more than 50p towards the art gallery. I'm not being silly though am I. My missus used to work for the Council as a home carer, she left because they halved her wages. They now pay Councillors a small fortune to f*ck up our City, they pay managers a small fortune to waste our money, and they waste lots of money on buying art that the majority of tax-payers couldn't give a monkeys about. Personally, I would be happier if they used the money to buy the Stadium, rather than spunking it on idiot councillors, lazy greedy management and dust gathering paintings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 LOL at Alpine trying to start an arguement. What sort of **** goes on a football message board of a club possibly about to go out of existence and bang on about how they would rather their council own £150mill worth of old paintings instead of a football club? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 What else can be used as a basis for this discussion ? You reckon the council should flog off the few jewels in the crown for the football club then ? This discussion gets more daft by the minute.. And I thought it was Lowe who argued quantity over quality.. I'm not arguing anything - in fact, I wouldn't want to see the art sold to buy the stadium - I was just clarifying your conjecture. There may be two pieces worth £30m between them, or there may be 800 small pieces worth the same. Neither is 20% of the collection though as I don't think art should be ranked on a perceived value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 6 April, 2009 Author Share Posted 6 April, 2009 Factor in the fact that the council is already considering at selling off a fraction of the art work to fund other projects (such as the flats on the site of Tyrrell and Green) in the city - their reason being that only 10 per cent of the collection is ever on display. Do you have a source for this ? I thought T & G was being turned back into parkland, for a start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graffito Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 So you don't like this proposal. What's your's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deppo Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 So you don't like this proposal. What's your's? A sloe gin fizz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 6 April, 2009 Author Share Posted 6 April, 2009 Personally, I would be happier if they used the money to buy the Stadium, rather than spunking it on idiot councillors, lazy greedy management and dust gathering paintings. Well, I agree with 2 of the 3, and the third I would just say they should stop procuring for now at taxpayers cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 6 April, 2009 Author Share Posted 6 April, 2009 LOL at Alpine trying to start an arguement. What sort of **** goes on a football message board of a club possibly about to go out of existence and bang on about how they would rather their council own £150mill worth of old paintings instead of a football club? Erm, one who likes art and football ? Does that make me a pooftah like Graeme Le Saux then ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 6 April, 2009 Author Share Posted 6 April, 2009 lol what stupid fans thought this was a good idea. Do people really think the council would sell some stuff that will never lose value on a club that could quite easily lose it all. Sounds like an Illingsworth special to me. He's been talking to the council a lot recently.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 Erm, one who likes art and football ? Does that make me a pooftah like Graeme Le Saux then ??? Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffo Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 60-70% of people on the database are one time buyers? Do you just make things up to suit you? Seriously, and honestly, who really gives a **** about paintings? I'd say a lot more people in Southampton care about the club, or the benefit the club has on the community, such as catering, local shops, pubs, and the general area on match day, than they care about a ****ing art gallery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Give it to Ron Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 Well we could use the stadium to show another 200 so the Art luvvies have 2 galleries...well we already have our own contribution of a train. Its the Echo stirring it to sell papers nothing else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itchen Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 Twenty per cent of £150m is £30m. The debt against the stadium is currently £24m and Aviva/Norwich Union are believed to be looking in the region of £10m-£15m to sell it, according to the papers. Factor in the fact that the council is already considering at selling off a fraction of the art work to fund other projects (such as the flats on the site of Tyrrell and Green) in the city - their reason being that only 10 per cent of the collection is ever on display. In fact, to raise £10m, they would only need to sell off in the region of 230 pieces from the 3,500 strong collection, using the average value of just under £43,000 per piece - assuming they were to fund the purchase 100 per cent in this way. Now personally, I do see some merit in the plan - after all the council could make a lot of income from the stadium. For example, two sell out concerts a year (the stadium has permission for four) could bring in an income (before costs) in the area of £2.5m per annum on their own, using an average ticket price of £35. This would actually - shock horror - make the stadium a sound investment in principle - especially bearing in mind over 90 per cent of the art is sat there doing nothing, away from the people who want to see it. However, I feel it's a moot point as I don't think the council will buy the stadium. There are reasons that the council could get involved in buying the stadium - not least that it uses it a great deal anyway for meetings and education and because the CCTV control room is sited there. But I doubt it could actually make any substantial amount of money from it. Your estimate of £2.5 million assumes that performers, promoters, PA providers etc give their services free. 90% of the art is not sitting there doing nothing. It is rotated into exhibitions in the gallery and is loaned out to other galleries and, in return, Southampton gets other art work back for people here to see. But that is rather beside the point. I concede that Southampton FC does mean a huge amount to people in Southampton, even those who never set foot in St Mary's. And I also concede that more people would care if the football club closed than if the art gallery did. But I don't think it's right to line one up against the other. They each have their place. If the City can find the money to help the club out without it being a subsidy from council taxpayers then great, go for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now