Daily Echo banned from St Marys

[CB Saint]

What are they banned for

 

Not turning up for a meeting or publishing material that I already new about.

 

By the way I thought all publicity was good publicity.

 

Also the good news about the investment seems to have been lost in this apparent small minded row

 

Tell that to Tiger Woods!!!

[CB Fry]

You really have lost touch with reality over this. The Echo will still be printing close to the same as they did previously, with the exception it will be slightly later and copied from another source. And it's not as if we have not seen that before and those with a fear of keyboards never suffered previously. Just like the false assumption Cortese was stopping the Echo from printing anything about Saints and a "screw you" message to the fans. Those that rely on the Echo for their news of Saints will hardly know any difference, if at all.

 

I agree with Duncan that it would be best if this never happened and would prefer this to be sorted out, but in no way can I see any merit in blaming Cortese after all he has done for us. The Echo deliberately took this action over a minor story and are now paying the price. Cortese sees this as a lack of respect and has got the hump about it. Bearing in mind he has previously bent over backwards to help the Echo and there being no journalistic point of disclosure on this story, he has a point. Then the drama queen act of trying to escalate this to journalistic principle, with the charades on Saturday in trying to gain entrance. Added to the previous article in the week was just childish, whereas Cortese has just kept quiet.

Even without Cortese saving the club from extinction, I would be hard pressed to side with the Echo.

 

Why, what have the Echo done, exactly? I thought we only had "one side of the story"?

 

Congratulations the both of you for reading one side of the story and then flying in a tizzy of righteous indignation about how dare Cortese throw his weight around like a school bully and pick on the poor defenceless little regional paper.

 

Just answer me a couple of questions:-

 

Is the Club obliged by any law or set of rules or guidelines to pass on information to the Echo?

 

Is the decision regarding that within the remit of the Club's chief executive?

 

Is there not some expectation also that the Echo ought to show some maturity and professionalism too?

 

Having hopefully answered those questions sensibly, I would also hope that the two of you would wind in your necks and lay off the histrionics as if there had been some International scandal and try and get some reasonable perspective.

 

Surely the perspective is needed at club level. It was a press release about developing the training ground. It's not Watergate. And, again, as we've only had "one side of the story" what exactly have the Echo done, because you don't know either.

 

The only histrionics are coming from you, love ranting on about "there's no law against it". Absolutely LOLtastic.

[grammy]

I think the point here is that it's a "toys out of the pram" reaction from people who up until now have been completely professional. Hopefully the facts will soon come out.

[Wes Tender]

Why, what have the Echo done, exactly? I thought we only had "one side of the story"?

 

 

 

Surely the perspective is needed at club level. It was a press release about developing the training ground. It's not Watergate. And, again, as we've only had "one side of the story" what exactly have the Echo done, because you don't know either.

 

The only histrionics are coming from you, love ranting on about "there's no law against it". Absolutely LOLtastic.

 

If your comprehension of the English language was better, then you'd realise that by asking whether the club was obliged by any legal obligation or any other set of rules or regulations to provide the local rag with any information was meant to show how stupid the posters are to make too much of it.

 

As their obligations towards the press are nil, then going off the deep end about their withdrawal of access privileges and labelling it censorship or control is plainly ludicrous.

 

You could also have noticed that I said that it was not some International scandal and you might also have realised that Watergate was one of those, so at least we agree on that, then.

 

And why did you call me love, dear?

[CB Fry]

If your comprehension of the English language was better, then you'd realise that by asking whether the club was obliged by any legal obligation or any other set of rules or regulations to provide the local rag with any information was meant to show how stupid the posters are to make too much of it.

 

As their obligations towards the press are nil, then going off the deep end about their withdrawal of access privileges and labelling it censorship or control is plainly ludicrous.

 

You could also have noticed that I said that it was not some International scandal and you might also have realised that Watergate was one of those, so at least we agree on that, then.

 

And why did you call me love, dear?

 

 

Even more LOLtastic stuff. I understood perfectly your previous post, and it was hilarious.

 

Why would there be "a legal obligation" for a football club to give information to a local paper. Why on earth would there be? It's just hilarious you are turning to the law. Hilarious.

 

Not sure why it is the people saying "this is a very odd decision by the club to ban the local paper after 120 years over something that seems completely and utterly innoculous" are the people "going off at the deep end" while those screaming "fc uk the Echo, there's no law against it" (again LOL LOL LOL) are pretending to be the level headed ones.

 

Of all the things that have happened to the club in the last one hundred and twenty years do you really think that an argument about a press release is the most appropriate event to facilitate the club banning the local paper? Don't you think the club, maybe, are the ones in your words "making too much of it". Maybe?

 

Yeah, I'm really off at the deep end, me. Bonkers. Loopy.

[Wes Tender]

Even more LOLtastic stuff. I understood perfectly your previous post, and it was hilarious.

 

Why would there be "a legal obligation" for a football club to give information to a local paper. Why on earth would there be? It's just hilarious you are turning to the law. Hilarious.

 

Not sure why it is the people saying "this is a very odd decision by the club to ban the local paper after 120 years over something that seems completely and utterly innoculous" are the people "going off at the deep end" while those screaming "fc uk the Echo, there's no law against it" (again LOL LOL LOL) are pretending to be the level headed ones.

 

Of all the things that have happened to the club in the last one hundred and twenty years do you really think that an argument about a press release is the most appropriate event to facilitate the club banning the local paper? Don't you think the club, maybe, are the ones in your words "making too much of it". Maybe?

 

Yeah, I'm really off at the deep end, me. Bonkers. Loopy.

 

You said it. Been on the festive juice?

[docker-p]

If your comprehension of the English language was better, then you'd realise that by asking whether the club was obliged by any legal obligation or any other set of rules or regulations to provide the local rag with any information was meant to show how stupid the posters are to make too much of it.

 

As their obligations towards the press are nil, then going off the deep end about their withdrawal of access privileges and labelling it censorship or control is plainly ludicrous.

 

You could also have noticed that I said that it was not some International scandal and you might also have realised that Watergate was one of those, so at least we agree on that, then.

 

And why did you call me love, dear?

Sorry fella, but your arguments are a load of toss.

For any organisation that relies so heavly on on the media to go banning a harmless local rag for a compleatly inconsequential reason is making themselves look silly and a little too precious.

Rather like you.

No offence.

[Matthew Le God]

Sorry fella, but your arguments are a load of toss.

For any organisation that relies so heavly on on the media to go banning a harmless local rag for a compleatly inconsequential reason is making themselves look silly and a little too precious.

Rather like you.

No offence.

 

Well your argument also falls flat on its face as you don't know the ins and outs of what happened and are all based on assumptions on your part.

[CB Fry]

Well your argument also falls flat on its face as you don't know the ins and outs of what happened and are all based on assumptions on your part.

 

 

And neither do you, despite peppering this thread with assumptions left right and centre.

 

The facts are the club have banned the Echo for the first time in 120 years for publishing a good news story about developing the training ground. There are no more "ins and outs" to look at.

 

I would love to hear what you think the "ins and outs" could possibly be, and why those "ins and outs" could justify the action of banning the local paper for the first time in 120 for something completely innoculous.

 

Maybe the Editor has run over Cortese's wife on purpose? Or on of the reporters has ****ged Cortese's mum? Come on, give us an idea.

[JustMike]

And neither do you, despite peppering this thread with assumptions left right and centre.

 

The facts are the club have banned the Echo for the first time in 120 years for publishing a good news story about developing the training ground. There are no more "ins and outs" to look at.

 

I would love to hear what you think the "ins and outs" could possibly be, and why those "ins and outs" could justify the action of banning the local paper for the first time in 120 for something completely innoculous.

 

Maybe the Editor has run over Cortese's wife on purpose? Or on of the reporters has ****ged Cortese's mum? Come on, give us an idea.

 

 

Im sure saints had valid reasons for banning the echo otherwise you would be reading in the paper itself how they were wronged blah blah.

 

Does make me laugh how most on here moaned about the echo and its poor journilsm and now people are moaning about them being banned. Seems to me its more a case of people just want something to moan about.

[doggface]

I'm amazed this thread is running and running when no one knows what occured.

Personally I don't care and am enjoying talking about football rather than politics for a change

[alpine_saint]

I'm amazed this thread is running and running when no one knows what occured.

Personally I don't care and am enjoying talking about football rather than politics for a change

 

Amen.

[Wes Tender]

Sorry fella, but your arguments are a load of toss.

For any organisation that relies so heavly on on the media to go banning a harmless local rag for a compleatly inconsequential reason is making themselves look silly and a little too precious.

Rather like you.

No offence.

 

Your opinion is based heavily on the premise that the club needs the Echo. It doesn't. The Echo will be forced to report what goes on at matches and at the club regardless, as they rely heavily on Saints fans buying their little rag. Nobody will notice the difference except that the Echo will be reporting things a little later than some other media and there is an increased risk that their information might not be as accurate, but again, most will hardly know the difference there either. When you talk about the media, the Echo is a titchy, titchy little part of that. I suspect that far more Saints fans look to the club's own site for news and information than to the Echo as it is.

 

And as has been pointed out by several people until they are blue in the face, your assertion that the reason was inconsequential is totally and utterly based on your conjecture. It was obviously not inconsequential to Cortese even if when the actual reasons become clear it might seem so to you. But as you don't run the club, your opinion doesn't count for much. No offence.

[Wes Tender]

Amen.

 

Good to see you Alpine. According to another thread, somebody was missing you.

[Weston Saint]

First comment on this issue as I do not have the clubs side of things only the article in the Echo.

 

Let's assume the club have been giving information (exclusivity) to the Echo and good access to all matters. Then comes pay back time when the Echo are asked to hold off for a day and let the club formerly announce the development. The Echo refuse and this upsets the club.

 

That said I think the clubs reaction, IF the Echo is correct, is a little over the top. Hopefully this will or has been resolved behind closed doors. If the club were giving some exclusivity to the Echo, withdrawing the same (and that includes any free tickets over and above press passes) is the correct sanction. No more. Responsible freedom of the press is a cornerstone of our society

[up and away]

First comment on this issue as I do not have the clubs side of things only the article in the Echo.

 

Let's assume the club have been giving information (exclusivity) to the Echo and good access to all matters. Then comes pay back time when the Echo are asked to hold off for a day and let the club formerly announce the development. The Echo refuse and this upsets the club.

 

That said I think the clubs reaction, IF the Echo is correct, is a little over the top. Hopefully this will or has been resolved behind closed doors. If the club were giving some exclusivity to the Echo, withdrawing the same (and that includes any free tickets over and above press passes) is the correct sanction. No more. Responsible freedom of the press is a cornerstone of our society

 

I agree, this reaction is a little over the top. As far as the club's side is concerned, what more could you want to know? What you have already is what I know, any more and it still does not really change the equation (Even if they were informed far earlier and asked to hold back until the launch, you then have the counter of it coming out in the public domain).

 

This does not come near any issue of freedom of the press. Stories are still there, but they now have to work for them, instead of being handed them on a platter. This just comes down to an issue of respect and Cortese has got the hump. There have been several instances in the past where the Echo has stretched, magnified issues, where they deserved this sort of treatment. Equally, Cortese has a couple of bank robberies in him before he negates the over whelming favour he has done for us.

 

I don't know if Ian has tried to send an olive branch to Cortese, but I would have expected to hear about that. Does not appear to me to be his style at present and the reference to Lowe seems he is going in the opposite direction.

[Greenridge]

.........

 

The facts are ......

 

The only facts are that you don't know the facts and nor would it appear does anyone else on here but it doesn't stop opinion and supposition. Storm in a tea cup that people need to get over.

[Matthew Le God]

The Daily Echo can't get stories from the club so instead go to Nick Illingsworth chairman of the now defunct Saints Trust for opinions. Why is Mr Illingsworth still/ever the representative of Saints fans? The Saints trust was pointless in the first place, and now really doesn't have any point or power.

 

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/4818777.Saints_fans_flock_back_to_St_Mary_s/

[Weston Saint]

The Daily Echo can't get stories from the club so instead go to Nick Illingsworth chairman of the now defunct Saints Trust for opinions. Why is Mr Illingsworth still/ever the representative of Saints fans? The Saints trust was pointless in the first place, and now really doesn't have any point or power.

 

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/4818777.Saints_fans_flock_back_to_St_Mary_s/

Nothing wrong with asking Nick for an opinion. You seem to have conveniently missed the comment from Mike O’Callaghan the "leader" of SISA.

 

If they are approached for a comment (and I assume the Echo has their contact details) what should they say..."no comment"?

[captainchris]

If your comprehension of the English language was better, then you'd realise that by asking whether the club was obliged by any legal obligation or any other set of rules or regulations to provide the local rag with any information was meant to show how stupid the posters are to make too much of it.

 

As their obligations towards the press are nil, then going off the deep end about their withdrawal of access privileges and labelling it censorship or control is plainly ludicrous.

 

You could also have noticed that I said that it was not some International scandal and you might also have realised that Watergate was one of those, so at least we agree on that, then.

 

And why did you call me love, dear?

 

What are you talking about? The issue is not whether it's legal to ban the Echo or not. That argument has nothing what ever to do with the issue.

 

Who cares whether it's legal or not. What matters is many thousands of the fans rely on the Echo for information about the club that is not always on the web site. Also we like the opinion of the Echo and others on Saints - this called free speech which is and always will be in this country - I hope legal and encouraged....

 

Any business would be well advised to take up the opportunity to use this free media source to the full in order to encourage sales and communicate with it's customers or in this case fan base too....

 

The administration have shown me nothing to justify this paddy they are throwing and banning the Echo is completely unjustified and does a disservice only to fans - great decision !!

[NickG]

What are you talking about? The issue is not whether it's legal to ban the Echo or not. That argument has nothing what ever to do with the issue.

 

Who cares whether it's legal or not. What matters is many thousands of the fans rely on the Echo for information about the club that is not always on the web site. Also we like the opinion of the Echo and others on Saints - this called free speech which is and always will be in this country - I hope legal and encouraged....

 

Any business would be well advised to take up the opportunity to use this free media source to the full in order to encourage sales and communicate with it's customers or in this case fan base too....

 

The administration have shown me nothing to justify this paddy they are throwing and banning the Echo is completely unjustified and does a disservice only to fans - great decision !!

 

and you know that, how?

[John B]

and you know that, how?

 

What was the point of banning the Echo ?

 

 

NC may regret that decision if things go wrong at anytime in the future

[NickG]

no idea, sounds strange and wrong but all I know is what I read in a bizarre column by Murray saying he missed Lowe.

[converted_saint]

To be fair, I'm not really sure what the Echo did wrong given that news of the planned development had already been leaked to the national press. But I'm sure Cortese had a reason, beyond just being petty.

[NickG]

What are you talking about? The issue is not whether it's legal to ban the Echo or not. That argument has nothing what ever to do with the issue.

 

Who cares whether it's legal or not. What matters is many thousands of the fans rely on the Echo for information about the club that is not always on the web site. Also we like the opinion of the Echo and others on Saints - this called free speech which is and always will be in this country - I hope legal and encouraged....

 

Any business would be well advised to take up the opportunity to use this free media source to the full in order to encourage sales and communicate with it's customers or in this case fan base too....

 

The administration have shown me nothing to justify this paddy they are throwing and banning the Echo is completely unjustified and does a disservice only to fans - great decision !!

 

I'm sorry but this policy stinks and I do not like it at all - not one bit!!!

 

In fact I'm angry - very with this. I'm going, as I often do, with my son who is 18 and not earning. Total cost £44.00 !!!!

 

Someone who may or may not have a youngster gets in for a total cost of £10.00 !!!!

 

This system just does not work at all. I'd go with an adult full price and a nipper a nominal fiver but this system leaves me speachless - it just does not add up. I should have bought two lots of adult/child tickets and taken my lad for £20.00 !!! In fact I'm so against this rediculous system it will not encourage me to go again unless the club issue a statement saying it's a huge **** up and that I can have £22.00 back!

 

It's rotten to the core and discriminates against honest fans !

 

This and the Echo fiasco are leading me to think that this 'Set Up' need to wind it in a bit and quickly - their judgment lately is showing signs of arrogance which even starts to push the limits of the previous administration.....

 

didn't notice both from same poster, guess someone doesn't like the new regime!

[John B]

didn't notice both from same poster, guess someone doesn't like the new regime!

 

It would be surprising if everybody had the same view but it is possible that others may agree with the poster.

 

I am pleased the new regime is in place and with the lack of debt I feel we will progress well.

 

 

Whether NC and ML are the dream team only time will tell

[NickG]

imagine at some stage a manager will be sacked/not sacked, or player sold/not bought and we will moan.

 

up until now I couldn't wish for better

[Weston Saint]

OK, after some discussion with others this represents what I think could have happened:

 

I suspect the Echo have been waiting for this to happen for a while.

 

Our Chairman is a bit of a tyrant by some accounts. A recent high level departure from the club is perhaps testament to that view. (I personally think he is the best thing that has happened to our club in a long while)

 

I believe the club had no problem with stories saying the club had applied for planning consent as that it was in the public domain the day New Forest District Council put it on their website, as required by law.

 

I understand they had originally intended to hold a press conference but postponed it as there were significant changes to the application (involving building a new main entrance to the training ground)

 

The club were happy for the Echo to run stories saying that the club had applied for permission, but because of the changes, asked they hold off on details, including publishing images (which were on NFDC's website).

 

Initially the Echo agreed to hold off ahead of the original press conference, but then the story began to leak and I suspect the Echo felt the moving of the new main entrance was not sufficient reason to stop them running the story, with images of the buildings that was in the public domain. It has been suggested they had complied with the clubs first request to hold off the previous week.

 

The argument seems to be that the club say the Echo was the only media organisation who did not comply with their request for a favour but the echo are of the opinion that Radio Solent was the only other local media and are not able to show images . Sky & BBC probably did not warrant that depth of national media coverage. Not sure what BBC South or Meridian position was.

 

Then there was a stand off with threats which were then carried out by the club.

 

The club were a little naive, and the Echo a bit petulant in their editorial.

 

What happened then was like two little boys trying to assert some authority. Echo banned but senior editorial people turning up on match day demanding a meeting.

 

Silly situation and the club should reconsider, lift the ban but make them pay for their tickets. The Echo do not come out of this well either but good to see they are still reporting.

[redandwhitebill]

The problem with this argument (both sides of it) is that we don't have full access to the facts.

 

*IF* there is no more to this than meets the eye and Cortese has gone off the handle over a simple request for a delay then he is clearly in the wrong. Even if he has slipped exclusives to the Echo in the past it is no excuse for losing it over having a request refused - we live in a country where the press is free to report on whatever they choose and he has no right to control that. If it was a fit of pique what a silly thing to have one over. And as for those who say he has the right to ban whosoever he pleases, well, yes, technically he has that power as SFC chairman. But come on. Beyond the Echo, SFC is hardly well served by local print media and I believe, if the initial assumption holds true, he is doing the fans a disservice by making reporting, and thus their knowledge of their team, harder to come by.

 

However, *IF* there is more to this than meets the eye and Cortese or the Echo is using the training ground as a pretext for the fall out the Echo may be to blame. I am struggling to think of a decent example but maybe the Echo did something to justify the ban - might one of their reporters may have called Cortese's wife ugly?

 

Either way, the burden of proof lies on NC to reveal the full reasons. If there are none, or he does not reveal them if there are, he will continue to look bad as a result of this. I am thankful to mr liebherr and his team for saving saints but that should not preclude me from pointing out that this is not how I want SFC run. The Echo, in my view, does the club and its fans and the south in general a great service through its in-depth reporting of Saints.

 

COYRs

[saint1977]

Idiotic from the Echo, Cortese may have over-reacted slightly but given the past problems this club has had with planning issues (not least Stoneham), I can see the reason for caution. The Echo could have sorted this out easily but as ever, choose to pick a stupid spat. There will only be one winner here and that is Cortese. I mean for pity's sake, but for Cortese we wouldn't even exist!

[Weston Saint]

The problem with this argument (both sides of it) is that we don't have full access to the facts.

*IF* there is no more to this than meets the eye and Cortese has gone off the handle over a simple request for a delay then he is clearly in the wrong. Even if he has slipped exclusives to the Echo in the past it is no excuse for losing it over having a request refused - we live in a country where the press is free to report on whatever they choose and he has no right to control that. If it was a fit of pique what a silly thing to have one over. And as for those who say he has the right to ban whosoever he pleases, well, yes, technically he has that power as SFC chairman. But come on. Beyond the Echo, SFC is hardly well served by local print media and I believe, if the initial assumption holds true, he is doing the fans a disservice by making reporting, and thus their knowledge of their team, harder to come by.

 

However, *IF* there is more to this than meets the eye and Cortese or the Echo is using the training ground as a pretext for the fall out the Echo may be to blame. I am struggling to think of a decent example but maybe the Echo did something to justify the ban - might one of their reporters may have called Cortese's wife ugly?

 

Either way, the burden of proof lies on NC to reveal the full reasons. If there are none, or he does not reveal them if there are, he will continue to look bad as a result of this. I am thankful to mr liebherr and his team for saving saints but that should not preclude me from pointing out that this is not how I want SFC run. The Echo, in my view, does the club and its fans and the south in general a great service through its in-depth reporting of Saints.

 

COYRs

Depends if you know someone with access to both sides.

 

Enough said! I will now withdraw from this thread.

[INFLUENCED.COM]

Ultimately this will boil down to whose need is greater and they will be the one's to capitulate, posters whose opinions I respect have posted what they know of the situation and have offered what I consider a non bias take on events, from that imo both parties should revisit events and ask themselves did we do the right thing, offer an olive branch and put it down to experience.

[saint_mears]

Well i found out earlier that the chief sports writer at the pompey news is also banned from fratton and training ground. All the pompey news reporters where banned from feb to july of this year as well.

[benjii]

Depends if you know someone with access to both sides.

 

Enough said! I will now withdraw from this thread.

 

Lol.

 

Grist to the ITK mill.

[Legod Third Coming]

Is this really still going?

 

Who gives a flying feck. Chip wrappings.

[sunrise]

Who gives a toss, the Echo is ****e and gets some of the stuff they use in their rag from here anyway.

[NickG]

Saints winning.

Good crowds

Fans happy.

 

Good chairman.

[SaintRobbie]

Saints winning.

Good crowds

Fans happy.

 

Good chairman.

 

Great manager.

Superbly wealthy owner.

Excellent new Chairman.

More players to come.

 

Who cares about The Echo?... apart from the fact that it is the only paper that regularly reports on Saints. I think a New Year compromise is probably needed, but I for one hope that The Echo get behind what's going on at our Club and stop being such drama queens. Afterall, they were toothless for too long when Lowe was allowed to run riot and did little to oust him IMHO. They were part of the problem.

 

The Club need to learn a lesson too though. This sort of thing actually plays into the hands of the local media - it is bad publicity, but helpful publicity for the Echo, afterall how many more copies of the Echo were sold when they were banned by the Club?

 

Sounds like a Harry Hill fight to me!

 

Bring on promotion and Pompey in the CCC next season!

[trousers]