Daily Echo banned from St Marys

[Verbal]

Well simply because as someone else has mentioned, you seem to have based your opinion around what the Echo editorial has stated......unless you know more, which you indicate is not the case.

 

Normally your posts are more rounded and take both sides of a situation into account whereas on this occasion you have jumped to the Echo's side and decided NC is being "pompus". I dont even remember you referring to the rosey cheeked one as that too often

 

If Cortese is in the wrong on this, and it seems a matter of opinion and knowing the full story would help, then it will be the first time he has put a foot wrong since coming to the club. Surely, given that, someone as sensible and balanced as yourself would be inclined to cut him a little more slack. Apparently not, hence my puzzlement.

 

Regards

 

But do you not see the smallest irony in the club banning the Echo then not talking to the press about why one of them is banned?

 

Cortese has media advice, and I'm sure this will be sorted out quickly. I doubt very much that there is a 'smoking gun' - some huge offence for which the Echo is responsible beyond the perceived sleight of failing to honour a post-dated embargo. But we'll see...

 

The reality is that everyone loses with the banning - the club, sponsors, supporters, and of course the paper. Clearly, we can't have a situation where Southampton, uniquely, is a city where football reporting by the main newspaper is verboten. That's just silly.

[docker-p]

I don't like any organisation banning the any element of the press. Least of all Saints.

It's crass, churlish, and ultimately dangerous.

[Fitzhugh Fella]

Well simply because as someone else has mentioned, you seem to have based your opinion around what the Echo editorial has stated......unless you know more, which you indicate is not the case.

 

Normally your posts are more rounded and take both sides of a situation into account whereas on this occasion you have jumped to the Echo's side and decided NC is being "pompus". I dont even remember you referring to the rosey cheeked one as that too often

 

If Cortese is in the wrong on this, and it seems a matter of opinion and knowing the full story would help, then it will be the first time he has put a foot wrong since coming to the club. Surely, given that, someone as sensible and balanced as yourself would be inclined to cut him a little more slack. Apparently not, hence my puzzlement.

 

Regards

 

BeatleSaint - perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "pompous" but NickG had already earlier used the word to describe the editor of the Echo so I was merely reciprocating the insult. I accept I have no idea whether NC is pompous, therefore I withdraw it with apologies to Mr Cortese.

 

I accept there must be another side to this story but if NC is not saying what else can we base our opinions on?

 

Like you point out as far as I know NC has not put a foot wrong (apart maybe from the appointment of AO) since arriving. Obviously a capable and intelligent man. However I don't know whether in the country which he originates from, press freedom is taken so seriously as it is in this country. Whenever I have seen other autocrats at football clubs banning local newspapers in the past I have always thought it wrong. I am talking about the likes of Ken Bates, Robert Maxwell, Mandaric and a few other undesirables and I wouldn't want our club to give the impression that we are being run along similar lines.

 

Unless the Echo has done something pretty awful, that we do not know about, then I still think the club's actions rash and ott.

 

Regards to you.

[sadoldgit]

Like others I suspect that there is more to this tham meets the eye, but as long we we keep winning football matches I couldn't care less about the spat.

 

Lowe took stick stick for his relationship with them though and it does make you wonder now if it was more them and less him...unless we have another LOwe on board in NC?

[dune]

BeatleSaint - perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "pompous" but NickG had already earlier used the word to describe the editor of the Echo so I was merely reciprocating the insult. I accept I have no idea whether NC is pompous, therefore I withdraw it with apologies to Mr Cortese.

 

I accept there must be another side to this story but if NC is not saying what else can we base our opinions on?

 

Like you point out as far as I know NC has not put a foot wrong (apart maybe from the appointment of AO) since arriving. Obviously a capable and intelligent man. However I don't know whether in the country which he originates from, press freedom is taken so seriously as it is in this country. Whenever I have seen other autocrats at football clubs banning local newspapers in the past I have always thought it wrong. I am talking about the likes of Ken Bates, Robert Maxwell, Mandaric and a few other undesirables and I wouldn't want our club to give the impression that we are being run along similar lines.

 

Unless the Echo has done something pretty awful, that we do not know about, then I still think the club's actions rash and ott.

 

Regards to you.

 

But ultimately you do not know the circumstances surrounding the banning so you are giving your opinion based on knowing **** all about the situation.

 

You are the so called club historian yet you think it's ok to slag off NC without knowing the ins and outs. Given the FACT that NC and ML have done us proud since they arrived i think you are being completely and utterly ungrateful and showing them no respect.

 

For NC to do what he did it's reasonable to assume that the Echo betrayed a gentlemans agreement and as such they deserve to be shut out in the cold.

[The9]

And what sort of money have they made from it? Are these websites now self funding?

 

I was referring specifically to the Echo. Correct me if I'm wrong but the website is paid for or at least subsidised by the paper.

 

I'd imagine it would be difficult to tell yet. What you said was

I've not heard of a single newspaper that makes an income from their website. No paper - no website.

 

I just pointed out that there are, very recently, a number of papers now charging for subscriptions. If the websites are more successful than the paper copy then it could easily be a business decision to fold the paper version but maintain the staff for publishing online only. A number of websites clearly are self funding and have never had any links to newspapers, so it can be done.

 

Though as yet paper isn't completely dead as a method of news distribution, as we have an ageing population and the format still has its benefits.

[Matthew Le God]

Unless the Echo has done something pretty awful, that we do not know about, then I still think the club's actions rash and ott.

 

No logic to that at all!

 

That would be like making a comment on a high court judge giving a harsh 15 year prison sentence without you actually knowing the crime committed.

[sadoldgit]

Newspapers may be dying in terms of sales but they currently still drive agendas and inform TV news programmes. It time they may well move to online subscritions but not for a while yet. When you are going to work it is still eassier to pick up a paer than log into and read the same amount of mews on an IT device.

 

I spent 30 year working for The Times, Guardian, Telegraph and The Spectator. There is still something about newspapers and magazines that will never be replaced by the online media.

[Fitzhugh Fella]

But ultimately you do not know the circumstances surrounding the banning so you are giving your opinion based on knowing **** all about the situation.

 

You are the so called club historian yet you think it's ok to slag off NC without knowing the ins and outs. Given the FACT that NC and ML have done us proud since they arrived i think you are being completely and utterly ungrateful and showing them no respect.

 

For NC to do what he did it's reasonable to assume that the Echo betrayed a gentlemans agreement and as such they deserve to be shut out in the cold.

 

Then NC should at least explain that to be the case.

I don't know why you are getting your knickers in a twist.

 

And where am I slagging off NC?

 

Merely expressing an opinion that to ban the local newspaper is, without a full explanation a rash act that could be regarded sinisterly.

 

Christ Almighty, Cortese and Liebherr are given godlike status on here at times.

No one is that perfect.

[Fitzhugh Fella]

Newspapers may be dying in terms of sales but they currently still drive agendas and inform TV news programmes. It time they may well move to online subscritions but not for a while yet. When you are going to work it is still eassier to pick up a paer than log into and read the same amount of mews on an IT device.

 

I spent 30 year working for The Times, Guardian, Telegraph and The Spectator. There is still something about newspapers and magazines that will never be replaced by the online media.

 

I agree.

 

Whilst there is no doubt the standards of the English press have lowered considerably over the last 30 years there is still a place for good journalism with integrity.

 

Certainly the Guardian still has an element of that but not sure if there are many others.

 

The Echo is a rag these days - they have financial problems I believe which means they have no option but to go down market and make cutbacks. Still think however unless NC comes out with a good reason a ban to be unwarranted.

 

His continued silence unfortunately implies he has acted with too much haste. But we are not allowed to be critical it seems because it offends.

[saintsmike25]

Spoke to a few lads who work at the Echo.

Whilst Cortese is a very good chairman so far I think he wanted his name in lights with the announcement of the training ground - The echo found out about the redevlopment and it was in the public domain so they had every right to run a story on it.

Of course this annoys Cortese who wanted to announce the story before the Echo did.

Now the whole thing has got out of hand. And Ian Murrays comments and actions haven't helped, he even went to the game just to get escorted out.

 

And as well as that Southampton have had to make photographers sign contracts over pictures of the redevelopment, to make sure they don't show them to anyone else.

 

Personally both sides should sort it out, the club needs the paper and it's bad press for it not to be involved with the Echo, whilst the Echo needs the club for readers.

 

Hopefully those in charge at Southampton like Cortese will realise they've made a mistake on this one.

[Joesaint]

Spoke to a few lads who work at the Echo.

Whilst Cortese is a very good chairman so far I think he wanted his name in lights with the announcement of the training ground - The echo found out about the redevlopment and it was in the public domain so they had every right to run a story on it.

Of course this annoys Cortese who wanted to announce the story before the Echo did.

Now the whole thing has got out of hand. And Ian Murrays comments and actions haven't helped, he even went to the game just to get escorted out.

 

And as well as that Southampton have had to make photographers sign contracts over pictures of the redevelopment, to make sure they don't show them to anyone else.

 

Personally both sides should sort it out, the club needs the paper and it's bad press for it not to be involved with the Echo, whilst the Echo needs the club for readers.

 

Hopefully those in charge at Southampton like Cortese will realise they've made a mistake on this one.

 

agree with that, they should sort it, the Echo has to play the nice guy and friend of the club to get the best news, I'm fairly sure thats how reporters work. Saying that I don't have a clue!!!

[sadoldgit]

We have had too many sideshows that we don't need in the past and this is another. The only thing that matters is getting this club promoted, not petty spats between people who should know better.

[Fitzhugh Fella]

We have had too many sideshows that we don't need in the past and this is another. The only thing that matters is getting this club promoted, not petty spats between people who should know better.

 

All I know is that we could not have done "In That Number" without all the old Echos to give us the descriptions of all the matches.

 

Thank God this is the first time in 121 years that it has happened.

 

I see there is a big spread on the new plans on the official website with a long interview with Cortese but the Echo ban is not mentioned.

 

For the record I am 100% behind the way it seems this club is being run but I do fear a mistake has been made on this particular issue.

[hypochondriac]

All I know is that we could not have done "In That Number" without all the old Echos to give us the descriptions of all the matches.

 

Thank God this is the first time in 121 years that it has happened.

 

I see there is a big spread on the new plans on the official website with a long interview with Cortese but the Echo ban is not mentioned.

 

For the record I am 100% behind the way it seems this club is being run but I do fear a mistake has been made on this particular issue.

 

I believe it is a matter which should be sorted in private between the two parties. It serves no interest to be airing it all in public and the Echo is fully to blame for that.

[Matthew Le God]

I do fear a mistake has been made on this particular issue.

 

How can you say that? You are passing comment on a sentence without knowing the crime!!!

 

Would you say a high court judge giving someone a 15 year sentence is harsh if you don't know the crime that put them in the dock in the first place? It could have been murder could have been shoplifting, they could be innocent they could be guilty. Until you know the crime any comment on the punishment is null and void.

Edited 13 December, 2009 by Matthew Le God

[up and away]

Originally Posted by sadoldgit

We have had too many sideshows that we don't need in the past and this is another. The only thing that matters is getting this club promoted, not petty spats between people who should know better.

All I know is that we could not have done "In That Number" without all the old Echos to give us the descriptions of all the matches.

 

Thank God this is the first time in 121 years that it has happened.

 

I see there is a big spread on the new plans on the official website with a long interview with Cortese but the Echo ban is not mentioned.

 

For the record I am 100% behind the way it seems this club is being run but I do fear a mistake has been made on this particular issue.

 

But where is the mistake? There is no sideshow going on here, because Cortese is not magnifying any reaction. In todays age there is very little the club needs from the Echo, it is the Echo which have all the needs.

The club has bent over backwards to the Echo since Cortese has come in, often with them having information before the official website.

 

Cortese wanted to make a splash of the proposed training facilities and asked the Echo to hang back. The Echo decided that a story of this magnitude and discussed on web forums was a point where it could not care a damn or felt it had to draw a line in the sand, so decided to print. Cortese decided that if you cannot be bothered to do me one small favour, why should I offer you any assistance at all? This is more a matter of respect than anything else. You cant take take take all the time, then release all on top of the cake during desert when you feel the need arises.

 

If this gets brought up in the future, I really doubt Cortese will have instigated it. If it does turn out to be a slanging match, it will just be the Echo in the corner.

[itchen]

BeatleSaint - perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "pompous" but NickG had already earlier used the word to describe the editor of the Echo so I was merely reciprocating the insult. I accept I have no idea whether NC is pompous, therefore I withdraw it with apologies to Mr Cortese.

 

 

I've never met Mr Cortese so cannot comment on whether I would describe him as "pompous". I have however met, and dealt with, Ian Murray and "pompous" would seem to be a very suitable adjective. "Self-serving" and "arrogant" would be two more.

 

I don't know why the club has banned the Echo (if it has). It is normal when issuing a press release with an embargo to expect that embargo to be respected. This is only partly to do with managing a story in your own interests. It is also to be fair to the whole of the media. The Echo could, perhaps, be accused of upsetting other news organisation (eg local BBC and ITV) by jumping the gun. If, of course, the Echo sourced th story on its own without help from the club then the ban does look heavy handed.

 

The Echo is probably loving being banned. It makes them look far more important than they are. Their sales have been falling for years like most local papers. Even before the rise of the internet, commuting by car instead of by train or bus means that people have stopped buying evening papers to read on the journey home.

 

On top of that, the Echo is simply not a very good paper with few good stories and most of those can be found elsewhere. Being banned is the biggest thing to happen to the paper for years.

 

The Echo needs the football club much more than the club needs the paper. I am sure, once Mr Murray has had his five minutes in the spotlight, the Echo and the club will get together and agree some form of words to get the ban lifted.

[John B]

 

 

Christ Almighty, Cortese and Liebherr are given godlike status on here at times.

No one is that perfect.

 

Totally agree it really is over the top sometimes especially as the only positive attribute ML has is loads of dosh

[Verbal]

How about both sides of this argument agree that the sooner the ban is lifted the better?

[Fitzhugh Fella]

How about both sides of this argument agree that the sooner the ban is lifted the better?

 

Indeed.

[RonManager]

How about both sides of this argument agree that the sooner the ban is lifted the better?

 

I could never agree to both sides agreeing - agreed?

 

It's a strange word if you say it slowly out loud - aaaggrrreee. Strange, very strange.

 

Arguments like this lose all point over time, like Alex Ferguson still refusing to talk to the BBC over something insignificant that happened eons ago. I can't even remember what it was now.

[docker-p]

If Nicola Cortese feels it's an appropriate reaction to ban the local newspaper for reporting a story that was already well out there in the public domain he is, at best, guilty of poor judgement, and at worse, displaying the sort of boorish arrogance once associated with a certain Rupert Lowe.

[Thedelldays]

I love the way people can make a judgement on NC or the Echo without knowing all thge facts....

[NickG]

should be remembered that in the full page article -written by the editor - he stated the club were not happy and wanted the prevent further contact between club and echo until Cortesse had a meeting with them to discuss it.

 

I find it very strange that saints fans (or fan) are taking issue and calling Cortesse pompous without knowing what happened, and I suspect without bothering to read the article.

 

He maybe (and to be honest if he keeps running club as he is I don't mind if he is) pompous but I have seen nothing apart from the rantings of Murrey to suggest he is.

[aintforever]

The internet has made the Echo pointless, Cortesse can do as he pleases IMO.

[dune]

BeatleSaint - perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "pompous" but NickG had already earlier used the word to describe the editor of the Echo so I was merely reciprocating the insult.

 

How very adult of you. I hope NC notes your remarks and tells you to ram it if and when you turn up grovelling for info to write another one of your rubbish books. Does this little tantrum have anything to do with your freebie perks being removed by any chance?

[NickG]

To clarify where my "pompous" came from - as it seems to be justification for calling Cortesse pompous it was based on reading the full page article in the echo.

 

I appreciate some are out of the area who won't be able to read full article, but if I still have it I will add some quotes to justify why I thought the editor came across as pompous, but it was a tone that ran through out the article and culminated in bitter comparisons of Cortesse to Lowe.

[Verbal]

How very adult of you. I hope NC notes your remarks and tells you to ram it if and when you turn up grovelling for info to write another one of your rubbish books. Does this little tantrum have anything to do with your freebie perks being removed by any chance?

 

Just curious. Did you know FF was a Saints supporter?

[Fitzhugh Fella]

How very adult of you. I hope NC notes your remarks and tells you to ram it if and when you turn up grovelling for info to write another one of your rubbish books. Does this little tantrum have anything to do with your freebie perks being removed by any chance?

 

You know who I am

I dont know who you are.

 

If you are big enough to throw unpleasant insults at least have the courage to let me know who you are.

Edited 13 December, 2009 by Fitzhugh Fella

[Fitzhugh Fella]

To clarify where my "pompous" came from - as it seems to be justification for calling Cortesse pompous it was based on reading the full page article in the echo.

 

I appreciate some are out of the area who won't be able to read full article, but if I still have it I will add some quotes to justify why I thought the editor came across as pompous, but it was a tone that ran through out the article and culminated in bitter comparisons of Cortesse to Lowe.

 

Nick

 

I will admit Murray comes across as being pompous

(and actually he is in real life).

 

I have never met NC so like I said earlier I withdraw that reciprocated remark and apologise.

 

He's probably a very nice bloke but I still think his banning the Echo does "no one no good".

[hypochondriac]

You know who I am

I dont know who you are.

 

Why not get in touch personally

 

duncan@duncanholley.co.uk

 

Are you man enough?

 

Why should he? What exactly would that serve? Calling either NC or the editor from the Echo pompous is quite frankly pathetic from both sides unless they know either party personally and know all the facts in this case. As you appear to have just used the word pompous because Nick did, well that just about sums you up. I've actually met Nicola and as you have not I suggest you apologise.

 

Edit: I see you have apologised now. Good. You seem to be doing a lot of that lately though.

[dubai_phil]

Nick

 

I will admit Murray comes across as being pompous

(and actually he is in real life).

 

I have never met NC so like I said earlier I withdraw that reciprocated remark and apologise.

 

He's probably a very nice bloke but I still think his banning the Echo does "no one no good".

 

Perhaps NC was having a bad day at the office that day, he seems a bit short of managers in the back office lately.

 

Noticed the Echo had a report of the game, cannot believe they got that from here or from listening to Solent

[beatlesaint]

Totally agree it really is over the top sometimes especially as the only positive attribute ML has is loads of dosh

 

How would you either know that or come to that conclusion then ?

 

Its a pretty sweeping statement to make isn't it ?

And based on what facts ?

 

FFS - saving our football club from extinction might be seen as a positive !

[Matthew Le God]

Noticed the Echo had a report of the game, cannot believe they got that from here or from listening to Solent

 

The club can't stop Echo reporters going to the game. Otherwise they'd have to make the stewards do full background checks on everyone going through the turnstiles, which of course isn't feasible. All they have done is stopped the Echo having behind the scenes access.

[TheMidfieldGeneral]

Sorry if this has already been said, skim Reading on my iPhone.

Ever since Murray became editor The Echo has turned into a rag that will do anything to grab headlines.

Ask Jason Dodd how they intruded into his private life in the most disgusting way possible. Even the Sun wouldn't have sunk to those depths.

 

F**k The Echo!!

[Greenridge]

How would you either know that or come to that conclusion then ?

 

Its a pretty sweeping statement to make isn't it ?

And based on what facts ?

 

FFS - saving our football club from extinction might be seen as a positive !

 

Our John is renowned for some strange posts at times.

[jam]

I'd imagine it would be difficult to tell yet. What you said was

I've not heard of a single newspaper that makes an income from their website. No paper - no website.

 

I just pointed out that there are, very recently, a number of papers now charging for subscriptions. If the websites are more successful than the paper copy then it could easily be a business decision to fold the paper version but maintain the staff for publishing online only. A number of websites clearly are self funding and have never had any links to newspapers, so it can be done.

 

Though as yet paper isn't completely dead as a method of news distribution, as we have an ageing population and the format still has its benefits.

 

I think we are a long way off websites replacing printed papers. It's an interesting situation. I believe we currently have an unsustainable situation where newspaper websites are running off the back of printed circulation sales / advertising which is disincentivising people from paying for printed content.

 

We in this country at least are in the mindset of considering Internet content as free, spoiled I assume by habit and the excellent BBC online offering (which of course is not free to license payers). In addition web advertising is cheap compared to print advertising.

 

Circulation is dropping but there is currently no precedent for a successful web model either subscription or ad based. Maybe that example you provided will work. Maybe the website will just become very quiet.

 

End of ramble.

[captainchris]

Reinstate the Echo immediately. The Echo is pretty poor and the editor is rather pompous and amatuer, however Saints need the paper and so do the supporters.

 

I often completely dissagree with what the paper says about the game and the Saints issues but I do order it every night to keep up with the latest news on the club.

 

I have certainly lost a tiny bit of respect for NC over this.

 

Think again Saints - a bad move - what ever the detail of the reasoning!

[FloridaMarlin]

The club can't stop Echo reporters going to the game. Otherwise they'd have to make the stewards do full background checks on everyone going through the turnstiles, which of course isn't feasible. All they have done is stopped the Echo having behind the scenes access.

 

Er....that's pretty much what they did.

 

Turnstile stewards were issued with pictures of Echo sports staff to stop them getting in.

 

They sent along a non-sports desk person, who bought a ticket and covered the game.

 

As mentioned elsewhere, they made photographers sign an agreement not to supply the Echo with pictures.

 

That possibly amounts to some form of restraint of trade for freelance photographers, I would have thought.

[hypochondriac]

Reinstate the Echo immediately. The Echo is pretty poor and the editor is rather pompous and amatuer, however Saints need the paper and so do the supporters.

 

I often completely dissagree with what the paper says about the game and the Saints issues but I do order it every night to keep up with the latest news on the club.

 

I have certainly lost a tiny bit of respect for NC over this.

 

Think again Saints - a bad move - what ever the detail of the reasoning!

 

Don't be silly.

[Matthew Le God]

Reinstate the Echo immediately. The Echo is pretty poor and the editor is rather pompous and amatuer, however Saints need the paper and so do the supporters.

 

I often completely dissagree with what the paper says about the game and the Saints issues but I do order it every night to keep up with the latest news on the club.

 

I have certainly lost a tiny bit of respect for NC over this.

 

Think again Saints - a bad move - what ever the detail of the reasoning!

 

Why have you lost respect for Nicole Cortese when you don't know what happened? Completely illogical.

 

You are passing judgement on a punishment without knowing the crime apart from an account from those in the dock. They may be guilty they may be innocent but you don't know what of!!! So how can't you then decide if a ban was excessive or not?

 

Secondly the club doesn't need the Echo and can get on fine without them. The Echo needs Saints on the other hand. As for you getting Saints news, there are plenty of other media outlets in the modern age to get Saints news.

Edited 13 December, 2009 by Matthew Le God

[Matthew Le God]

Er....that's pretty much what they did.

 

Turnstile stewards were issued with pictures of Echo sports staff to stop them getting in.

 

They sent along a non-sports desk person, who bought a ticket and covered the game.

 

As mentioned elsewhere, they made photographers sign an agreement not to supply the Echo with pictures.

 

That possibly amounts to some form of restraint of trade for freelance photographers, I would have thought.

 

Turnstile stewards issued with photos wouldn't work. No way can they check whether all 20,000 fans entering work for the Echo. The stewards aren't paid enough to care and would just let anyone in rather than have a stand off. Most stewards don't look at you as you hand them the ticket anyway. If I were a dishonest person(which I'm not) I reckon I could get into St Mary's with a child ticket as the stewards barely check validity of tickets let alone them scan the crowd for Echo staff.

 

What the club will do is stop the Echo having interviews after the match and at the training ground and also stop feeding them stories.

 

It isn't a restraint of trade because if the club wishes it can stop anyone entering the ground including the freelance photographers. Perfectly within their rights to add conditions.

Edited 13 December, 2009 by Matthew Le God

[Verbal]

Turnstile stewards issued with photos wouldn't work. No way can they check whether all 20,000 fans entering work for the Echo. The stewards aren't paid enough to care and would just let anyone in rather than have a stand off. Most stewards don't look at you as you hand them the ticket anyway. If I were a dishonest person(which I'm not) I reckon I could get into St Mary's with a child ticket as the stewards barely check validity of tickets let alone them scan the crowd for Echo staff.

 

What the club will do is stop the Echo having interviews after the match and at the training ground and also stop feeding them stories.

 

It isn't a restraint of trade because if the club wishes it can stop anyone entering the ground including the freelance photographers. Perfectly within their rights to add conditions.

 

If FM says stewards were issued with photos to ID Echo staff, I'd be inclined to believe him, given his inside knowledge. But as you say, a search like this would hardly be foolproof.

 

The larger issue is that the longer there isn't an explanation from the club, the more your position just seems like an attempt to close down the argument. In any case, I'd expect some kind of statement from the club tomorrow - any smart media management would dictate that.

 

The club will have to address what seems on the face of it a bit of problem. The embargo appears to have been applied only to the Echo - and, worse, seems to have been imposed only after the Echo approached the club for comment on the plans.

 

This isn't how embargoes work. They are applied at some point before the point at which information is released - in this case, either when the planning application is made, or when the council nominates the time and day that it makes the application public. You certainly don't announce embargoes after other media - including the BBC and even TSW - have covered the story extensively.

 

If it turns out that the club did exactly this, and placed the embargo only for the BBC, etc., to break it, then fine - except that there still has to be an explanation as to why the Echo was singled out for sanctions and not the Beeb - and us!

 

Either way, this is all an unhealthy situation, and both the club and the paper should move quickly to resolve it. It's all very well for a selfish few on here to say f**k the Echo, but there are people out there for whom it is their means of following the club.

 

And it does hurt people. The photographers, for example, by following the club's apparent diktat (if this was the case) that they couldn't sell their pictures to the Echo would have lost income. Plus there's the issue of how the sponsors might feel about it, etc, etc. Everyone loses in the end.

 

Expect it all to be resolved within the next week.

[Matthew Le God]

Expect it all to be resolved within the next week.

 

I doubt that will happen any time soon and if it does it will be because the Echo did alot of groveling. The balance of power is very much with the club as they don't need the Echo as much as the Echo needs access to the club in the modern age of multi source and easily available media. Most of the Echo's "exclusives' have come because the club has told them before anyone else. In future the club can do this elsewhere if it wants and doesn't trust the Echo anymore.

Edited 14 December, 2009 by Matthew Le God

[Verbal]

I doubt that will happen any time soon and if it does it will be because the Echo did alot of groveling. The balance of power is very much with the club as they don't need the Echo as much as the Echo needs access to the club in the modern age of multi source and easily available media. Most of the Echo's "exclusives' have come because the club has told them before anyone else. In future the club can do this elsewhere if it wants and doesn't trust the Echo.

 

Wanna bet?

[Nineteen Canteen]

I love the way people can make a judgement on NC or the Echo without knowing all thge facts....

 

To be fair Delldays that could apply to just about every thread on here since inception. Nowadays though there are far fewer alleged ITKers and that has increased the level of speculation.

 

Apart from the obvious answer does anyone actually know how this is being financed?

[Matthew Le God]

Wanna bet?

 

You only highlighted part of the sentence and took it out of context.

 

I doubt that will happen any time soon and if it does it will be because the Echo did alot of groveling.

 

Look at the "if"...

[Verbal]

Right, but I'm saying it'll be sorted out by next week. I wouldn't expect either side to grovel. That's just silly. Time for a grown-up resolution. I have faith in Cortese and his advisors to sort this out.

[Matthew Le God]

Right, but I'm saying it'll be sorted out by next week. I wouldn't expect either side to grovel. That's just silly. Time for a grown-up resolution. I have faith in Cortese and his advisors to sort this out.

 

I doubt the club took the decision lightly and was possibly the straw that broke the camels back after a number of "incidents". Speculation of course on my part but Mr Cortese doesn't come across as a man that would impose a ban for a one off discretion. Nor the type that would feel the need to impose a ban and then back down within days. I feel this ban is to send a message that whatever they did was unacceptable. We don't yet know what they are supposed to have done, what the ban is exactly and if the Echo is innocent or guilty. So for people to call Mr Cortese "pompous" or the ban excessive is ridiculous as the crime is not known and the punishment is only sketchy to the public atm so to decide whether it is appropriate or not is bizarre given the current evidence.

Edited 14 December, 2009 by Matthew Le God