SaintBobby

Saints grip on the game weakening. Possesion is now at 45% Saints 55% AFCB

Bournemouth fire in a shot, just misses near post.

Lets let in a few goals then right away...that way we can only improve...

Puncheon makes space and fires in an on target shot from edge of the box, smothered by AFCB keeper.

According to the Saintsplayer commentary, its 442 with AOC up front.

Good start from Saints...mainly in Cherries half. Lallana everywhere. Lots of corners leading to nought....like on Saturday

Davis Butterfield-Fonte-Seaborne-Dickson Puncheon-Wotton-Hammond-Lallana Chamberlain-Barnard Lambert is on the bench

I really hope this is irony....

We are not, I'm afraid, ever going to see Saints in Hello magazine territory. Every attempt to control photographic imagery from matches has been a failure - that includes efforts by Man Utd, Celtic and Bristol Rovers. There is no reason to believe Southampton will succeed and early indications - such as the photo agency we appointed now refusing to sign the contract and various media organisations boycotting the imagery - are that the plan ahs probably failed already.

I'm usually a status quo sort of bloke. I was even a defender of Burley to the last FFS! I'd like to see Pardew given the season to get us promoted. And I think that he will/would. However, it does seem the vibes are not great in terms of board/manager relations. I think the pressure is really on after the defeat against Plymouth. It's not just that we lost that bothered me, it's that we were poor, particularly in the second half. I thought there was a lack of belief and fitness about the team. Sure, it's unfortunate that Lambert and Lallana were unfit to start, but even so... I doubt that Pardew has even 10 games to prove himself. If we were (God help us) to lose our next three league games, I doubt that Cortese will say "let's see if he can win the next six on the spin". There are three ways this can pan out, I think: 1. Give Pardew until Xmas. If we're not in the top 2 or 3, get rid. Bring in a new manager who can make some changes in the transfer window and hopefully secure promotion. 2. Give him until October, if we're not doing well and moving in the right direction, then replace him. 3. Make a decision to remove him in the next ten days or so - if, say, we fail to beat MK Dons. I very much hope we go for option 1. And I hope we're clear at the top of the League by then and AP leads us to the league title by March. But, if only given a choice between options 2 and 3, I'd probably go for option 3.

I'm not sure there's any dispute about the facts is there? So, I don't think this needs to come down to who you believe. I believe every word of the statement about the club's media policy on the official website. I just happen to think the policy is extremely stupid.

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

There is a "where do you stop?" problem. It's easy for you or me to say that if we were the billionaire owner of the club, we might spend another £5m on, say, a winger, central midfielder and striker. There's clearly been quite a lot of cash splashed thus far - on both transfers and wages. Btw, I don't think it's at all obvious that non promotion would be a consequence of failing to make further signings. We could very well get promoted with the squad we've got. Similarly, we might not get promoted even if we spend a few million on additions to the squad. I'm as frustrated as the next Saints fan that the signings have not (yet?) matched the quality of last August or the January transfer window. But I'm also conscious that you can get in to the Jack Hayward/Wolves syndrome of forever spending a few million on "one more heave". That's not to say the club owners have got it right - just that it's a lot easier for you and I to work out how they should hypothetically spend their money and wax lyrical about it on a message board than it is for the "real people" with the real money to make hard cash decisions.

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.

Interesting post - I highlighted the point about "best for the club" to try and draw something out. I'm sure he is trying his best. I'm totally sure Cortese isn't some lunatic hell bent on destroying the club. Clearly not. The question is simply whether - in some areas - his judgement is bad. Overall, I'd say I'm about 70% happy with his decisions at the moment. Btw, that doesn't mean I won't criticise the 30% I disagree with. It goes to the transparency point, which Minty brought up originally. If your hypothesis about Solent interviews is right - and it may well be - then the club should spell it out. Not in a crisis management sort of way, but in a "fans charter" sort of way. I'd be more than happy with the following sort of approach: "The management team at Southampton Football Club are focused on improving the experience of following Saints for all supporters and, crucially, securing better results on the pitch with a view to climbing up the league ladder in the coming seasons. We appreciate that many fans and supporters care passionately about the club and that there will, of course, be accompanying national and local media interest in the club reflecting this interest. We intend to discharge our duty to fans and to the wider media as well as we possibly can, but feel a need to underline an important proviso. In the grand scheme of things, Southampton Football Club is a relatively small company. We employ 300 staff and operate on a turnover of £15m per annum (NB: both guesses!). We are determined to marshall these resources to contribute to the smooth running of the club and improving our performance and results on the pitch. We believe that involving the senior management of the club in responding to day-to-day stories or concerns could prove to be a misuse of resources, although our Customer Relations Team (or whatever) will work with any fan or supporter who has a specific problem or idea. To this end, although the owner of the club (Markus Liebherr) does not give media interviews, our Executive Chairman (Nicola Cortese) will be available for an extensive interview with Radio Solent three times a year, the Daily Echo two times a year and will attend a Saints Fans Forum in August and April each year. We are delighted that Radio Solent and the Daily Echo, as Saints official media partners, will make the interviews simultaneously available on the official Saints website and have already agreed to a schedule of XYZ for the coming season. We very much hope that all Saints supporters will agree that this is a sensible and satisfactory use of resources and the club does not intend to comment further, but will inform supporters of any change of this policy on the club's website." So, if it is the strategy, why not say so?

Fair enough. So do I. So do we all. But isn't the logic of your case that this is entirely a matter for the owners? Not for us?

There seems a lot of talking at cross purposes on this thread. Alpine is right that as a private company, SFC can do what they like, as long as it's legal. In a totally extreme case, Markus could price season tickets at £1m each and just sit and watch the games at SMS himself. If you can't or won't pay the £1m, well that's too bad. But Minty seems to be talking about best practice and that's a different thing all together. His original post argues that transparency is a wise way to behave. Not a legal obligation. Not something that fans can demand in court. Just a sensible way to behave. I think Minty's right. There aren't too many mass market businesses (and football is definitively a mass market business) where the "If you don't like, don't f***ing buy it" approach is a successful one. The business owners can pursue such a strategy if they like, but theya re probably foolish to do so. There will be some areas where transparency may not be possible. Staff departures are often covered by confidentiality agreements, for example. Or suppose a fan's payment for a season ticket had to be returned because his bank account was being investigated by the authorities for suspected money laundering (Note: I am in absolutely NO WAY suggesting this is what happened with regard to Nick Illingsworth, the example is just hypothetical). By and large though, explaining your decisions in a transparent way is a good thing, even if at the time it can be slightly awkward. Let's assume (and it's only an assumption), that the installment payment plan was cancelled because a measurable proportion of people cancelled their payments, but were still in possession of a physical season ticket and could access the ground for home games (given there tend to be 10,000+ empty seats, you could easily sit in an empty seat). You might make a business decision that the cost of policing this is too high to justify continuing with the arrangements. And it's a difficult thing to be transparent about, because you would basically be accusing people (your own fans, indeed) of fraud, with fairly limited proof. Nevertheless, you are better off explaining things transparently and carefully rather than just saying there's a problem for "administrative reasons" or some such like. The upside of transparency is that - in football - your fanbase start to act as keen advocates, contribute to encouraging more people (friends, family etc) to attend games, buying more of the club's products and participating in more of its activities. These are nebulous upsides, but that doesn't mean they don't count. In fact, they can be very substantial.

Obviously, the Sun is getting most of the attention on here - but there's also a link showing that the Telegraph are no longer using imagery from Southampton. And the Sports Journalists Association have condemned the decision. As others have pointed out, Plymouth Argyle and the local Plymouth paper are unhappy too. No doubt the same will apply to other clubs and local papers too. The old adage that all publicity is good publicity is just wrong. Ian Huntely and Raul Moat attract a lot of publicity. none of it good. Ok, NC is being portrayed as "crazed" and "cretinous", not as a mass murderer - but this isn't the publicity we want at all. Despite our opening day defeat, there's a good story to tell about Southampton Football Club, our new owners and the rebuilding of the club from the brink of oblivion. Getting these stories reported contributes to a feel good atmosphere and encourages the "marginal" fan to turn up and buy a ticket. Today's sort of coverage is emphatically NOT what the club needs.

The ban is utterly ludicrous - and possibly a breach of our responsibilities within the Football League. I think The Echo is a separate matter - there's been some falling out there and there might eb a good business acse for tryign to make the OS the first point of call for SFC news, not the local paper. But we want substantial publicity in national newspapers. Football clubs a rare entity whereby media publicity dwarves any paid-for publicity/direct marketing in terms of it's value or AVE as it's known (advertising value equivalent) - political parties and pop stars are other examples. This is a truly idiotic decision by the club. And probably an unsustainable one, in my view.

The board members who presided over two relegations? Or the board members who brought the club to the brink of financial collapse? Or does someone need to tick both boxes before they are called in to act as an adviser on how to run Southampton Football Club?

What is this about booing at the end of a match being a disgrace? I can just about understand labelling any booing during the match as disgraceful, but once the final whistle has gone? And why does it matter that it was the first match? Or is the received wisdom that you can boo, but only after 4 or 5 consecutive defeats?

As far as I recall, each match in the league is worth the same. So it doesn't matter which c.30 of the 46 games you win. Hope this helps

I booed them at the end. Cheered them on to the final whistle, apart from a few screams of "what the f&ck was that?" Make no apologies for booing at the end at all

Exactly. Maybe 0 0 or 1 1 would have been a fair result, but with just one or two shots on target, we were never going to win easily. Plymouth did defend doggedly, but we can expect that all season. Most worrying thing is we did not look fit in the second half.

Fine as in not relegated or fine as in league 1 champions?