Ciaran

Nope. I do work for a newspaper company though.

Radio Solent did it the same time while Sky Sports did it the day before. Weirdly, Eurosport(!) were the very first place to do it. http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/07122009/63/saints-hope-training-ground-ahead.html

Does it necessarily? He could be keeping quiet because he can't adequately explain the reason for the banning without looking petulent and silly.

Sorry I posted that on the wrong thread!

How do you know it is wrong?

But that's very different to what the Echo say - they reckon there was no aggreement about no printing the stpry. So who is right? http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/4873124.Editor_s_comment_on_Saints_ban/

To clear up the O'Hara thing, that is a different case as it involves two loans and that is where the rules are getting muddled, as far as I know.

The rule is three clubs on permanent deals. Loans do not count. That's how we signed Rasiak in 2006, after he played for Derby and Spurs in the same season. We brought him in on loan and signed him permanently at the end of the season. That's what would have to happen in this instance. The O'Hara thing is people getting the rule muddled up.

It also gave the same amount of space to the reasons he should stay....

Couple of points - Can you prove it is 'spoon fed by the club'? You're comparing an entire year's worth of newspaper (not just sport) to about 75 videos. And 50 or so commentaries. No analysis, no unbiased comment.

This thread is going around in circles here, I feel. EVERYONE knew it - it had already been reported on Sky, Eurosport and the BBC, as well on various forums like this one. It's not just a case of the Echo breaking an agreement - in fact it doesn't look like there was one - rather a request from the club that was turned down. Why was no request made to the other broadcasters? If it was, they also turned it down, as they ran with it before (or at least at the same time as the Echo) so why haven't they been banned? If the Echo hadn't run the story when they did, readers (not to mention people on here!) would have hammered them for reporting something one or two days after everyone else had. They had to run it or risk losing credibility as a news outlet - their job is to inform readers, not to pander to the requests of private companies or anyone else. After all, the club had the best part of two weeks to do a press conference. Why leave it so late, when they knew the documents would have been published by the council?

From what I remember from reading the article the other day, Cortese wanted a meeting, the Echo tried to arrange one, only for Cortese to change his mind.

The club can't 'tell' someone not to public documents. They do not have the right, even if the document relates to something they are doing. That's the law, because it is the whole point of a public document.

Ignoring the fact the story had been reported by Sky and Eurosport before the Echo ran it, do you really want people to lose their jobs before Christmas time, just because your football club chairman doesn't like their boss? Words fail me.

The Echo wouldn't need permission to use the image, despite it being copyright. Seeing as it was used in a news story about the development and the documents, I'm fairly certain that is qualified as a)a fair dealing and b) public interest, although I'd have to check that with a proper legal eagle to be 100%. As it is, I'm just 95% certain!