Daily Echo banned from St Marys

[John B]

Right so presumably the Echo declined a meeting? I can't think of another reason for the ban coming into affect. So again, how does that make it the clubs fault?

 

I agree but why ban the Echo thats what I cannot understand.

 

Most things are known before they are officially announced

Edited 15 December, 2009 by John B

[Ciaran]

Right so presumably the Echo declined a meeting? I can't think of another reason for the ban coming into affect. So again, how does that make it the clubs fault?

 

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.

[hypochondriac]

I agree but why ban the Echo thats what I cannot understand.

 

If Nicola said we need to organise a meeting to discuss this and the Echo declined then I would imagine this was the reason they have been banned. This will probhably be sorted out with the Echo agreeing to a meeting. I don't think it was an unreasonable request from the club and one which no doubt the Echo wish they had adhered to with hindsight. Arguing that fans need the Echo for saints news so should not have been banned is missing the point somewhat.

 

I realise I have filled in the blanks slightly, but IF this was the way it went (and in my opinion it looks likely) then it seems that the Echo is in the wrong.

[stevegrant]

Right so presumably the Echo declined a meeting? I can't think of another reason for the ban coming into affect. So again, how does that make it the clubs fault?

Quote from Ian Murray's column in the Echo:

 

"However, if a meeting with Saints' new boss was required, then a meeting we would seek. But phone calls to his office as requested went unanswered."

[once_bitterne]

The club knows it has no chance of controlling bigger media organisations, but is trying to bully the Echo because it thinks it has a change.

 

Southampton's local newspaper was giving its readers what they expect - as good a story as it could possibly write, not a cursory few paragraphs from a watered-down club statement.

 

 

 

As a journalist whose job is impeded by PR people every day, I know exactly what goes on. They phone me up, waste my time, lie to me and will deny even the most black and white of topics, until it is out in public, at which point they try to claim what I write is not true and usually say it is unfair to their organisation. That is what they are paid to do.

 

The whole point of real journalism is not to just ****ing regurgitate PR spin and press releases, but to print the real story. Unfortunately, the world is increasingly run by over-paid sharp-suited PR people, many of whom have no idea how newspapers work and are under the impression that they have a God-given right to control what is written about their organisation.

 

Newspapers are not there to give metaphorical hand jobs to local clubs, businesses and councils and it makes me sick that some of you people think that is how things should be.

 

Top Post. Without a doubt the most sensible contribution to this thread. As always it seems that instead of forming a judgement on this one specific incident a lot of fans are still going down the route of judging by how they feel about the people involved. Where before it was 'Lowe can do no right', we now have 'MC & NC can do no wrong'. Funnily enough neither statement was/is true.

 

I don't have a shadow of doubt that if the very same situation had happened this time last year that the people who have jumped on this thread and called the Echo a 'two bit rag' that has no relevance in the world today would instead be jumping on their high horse and championing the rights of a free Press and saying what an important piece of the local community the Echo is.

 

If you take this issue in isolation I cannot see how any fan can not feel slightly concerned that the new owners of the club feel it necessary to censor/control the local media. It sets a very dangerous precident for how they might behave in the future.

[hypochondriac]

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.

 

If that is the case then I apologise. Nicola really should organise a meeting behind closed doors to sort it out. If what you say is correct then I don't really think you can apportion blame. Six of one and half a dozen of the other.

[hypochondriac]

Quote from Ian Murray's column in the Echo:

 

"However, if a meeting with Saints' new boss was required, then a meeting we would seek. But phone calls to his office as requested went unanswered."

 

Fair enough. I hope they are able to contact him.

[John B]

If Nicola said we need to organise a meeting to discuss this and the Echo declined then I would imagine this was the reason they have been banned. This will probhably be sorted out with the Echo agreeing to a meeting. I don't think it was an unreasonable request from the club and one which no doubt the Echo wish they had adhered to with hindsight. Arguing that fans need the Echo for saints news so should not have been banned is missing the point somewhat.

 

I realise I have filled in the blanks slightly, but IF this was the way it went (and in my opinion it looks likely) then it seems that the Echo is in the wrong.

 

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

[Minty]

If you take this issue in isolation I cannot see how any fan can not feel slightly concerned that the new owners of the club feel it necessary to censor/control the local media. It sets a very dangerous precident for how they might behave in the future.

 

While I agree with what much of Wilko and you say, to finish with this is a bit of an assumption. We simply don't know anything about this other than the basic facts as disclosed by Ian Murray, but beyond that, nothing.

 

God forbid, it could even be that the telephone calls went unanswered for a perfectly legitimate reason... or maybe not, but I really don't think we should start creating more out of it than we know just yet.

 

I would like more of an explanation from Cortese before I make my mind up about any of it, and in the mean time I remain of the opinion that it's just a shame such a positive story has to be clouded by this event.

[hypochondriac]

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

 

The fact that YOU knew about it is not the point. It was their money and they wanted to make it public with the press conference. It was a pretty simple request and IMO pretty stupid of the Echo not to adhere to it.

[hypochondriac]

While I agree with what much of Wilko and you say, to finish with this is a bit of an assumption. We simply don't know anything about this other than the basic facts as disclosed by Ian Murray, but beyond that, nothing.

 

God forbid, it could even be that the telephone calls went unanswered for a perfectly legitimate reason... or maybe not, but I really don't think we should start creating more out of it than we know just yet.

 

I would like more of an explanation from Cortese before I make my mind up about any of it, and in the mean time I remain of the opinion that it's just a shame such a positive story has to be clouded by this event.

 

Good post. I agree.

[NickG]

I read it like this;

 

football club and paper have special relationship - mutual benefit.

 

This involves the club giving them preferential contact/access

 

They spoke to Cortese about this planning issue and wanted to publish

 

Cortese wanted to wait (perhaps to manage local issue around planning etc)

 

Echo felt it was in public domain and decided to go ahead

 

Cortese felt they had broken their relationship and asked for a meeting to discuss

 

In the meantime he instructed the club to not allow privileged access to echo until this meeting

 

Echo got annoyed and tried to arrange the meeting - which is clearly more important to them than it is to Cortese and he is not rushing to sort it.

 

 

 

I feel it is bit sad that this hasn't been sorted and am sure it will.

 

I do not think Murray's Lowe comments were particularly mature.

 

Cortese maybe over reacting but hardly see where we can see him being a pompous ass and prima donna (FF) or to say boardroom shenanigans have returned (Murray)

Edited 15 December, 2009 by NickG

[John B]

The fact that YOU knew about it is not the point. It was their money and they wanted to make it public with the press conference. It was a pretty simple request and IMO pretty stupid of the Echo not to adhere to it.

 

Seems they were a little niave then?

 

I dont see it is a banning issue in the least

[Give it to Ron]

As the forum is here posters respond thats all

 

If the Forum was not here people would not comment and respond to others.

 

Some are probably fed up with God like attitude towards ML and NC who like Lowe are only trying to make a bit of money and enjoy themselves.

 

I am pleased that they are here but anybody owning the club with no debt should be able to run it well especially with the large and supportive Fanbase in League 1

 

Anyone who goes into football expecting to make money are a sandwich short of a picnic!

 

How many clubs are facing financial problems and why do we have no debt?

The reason the club has a large and supportive fan base is the way Nicola and Ml have run things unlike the previous lot who had gates about 5k less!

[Wes Tender]

Top Post. Without a doubt the most sensible contribution to this thread. As always it seems that instead of forming a judgement on this one specific incident a lot of fans are still going down the route of judging by how they feel about the people involved. Where before it was 'Lowe can do no right', we now have 'MC & NC can do no wrong'. Funnily enough neither statement was/is true.

 

I don't have a shadow of doubt that if the very same situation had happened this time last year that the people who have jumped on this thread and called the Echo a 'two bit rag' that has no relevance in the world today would instead be jumping on their high horse and championing the rights of a free Press and saying what an important piece of the local community the Echo is.

 

If you take this issue in isolation I cannot see how any fan can not feel slightly concerned that the new owners of the club feel it necessary to censor/control the local media. It sets a very dangerous precident for how they might behave in the future.

 

My God! Some people are becoming very precious about this. One can understand the position of the jounalist attempting to portray those of his profession as shining lights in the local community, when often the way that they act makes many of the general public hold them in low esteem, but to attempt to make this a debate on the freedom of the Press is taking things to ridiculous levels. Censorship or control of the local media is definitely not what this little episode is about.

 

If any sensible person were to look at this in perspective, both the club and the newspaper have an interest in a mutually condusive relationship. The Club can utilise the newspaper to give them publicity and use them as a means of communication with the local community. The newspaper can use news regarding the local football club as a vehicle to sell copy to a large audience of subscribers who follow the team.

 

To enable the relationship between the two parties to function smoothly, there has to be a degree of give and take between them. It is simply ludicrous to conclude that if the club wish to distance themselves from the Echo for whatever reason that they are therefore guilty of censorship or wishing to control the media. The Club has the perfect right to either welcome the press or distance itself from it as they see fit.

[hypochondriac]

Seems they were a little niave then?

 

I dont see it is a banning issue in the least

 

It seems to me to be a sort of game where NC is showing who's in charge. IMO it will all be sorted soon following a meeting. I don't think the banning is going to be long term.

[Ciaran]

The fact that YOU knew about it is not the point. It was their money and they wanted to make it public with the press conference. It was a pretty simple request and IMO pretty stupid of the Echo not to adhere to it.

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?

[Give it to Ron]

Top Post. Without a doubt the most sensible contribution to this thread. As always it seems that instead of forming a judgement on this one specific incident a lot of fans are still going down the route of judging by how they feel about the people involved. Where before it was 'Lowe can do no right', we now have 'MC & NC can do no wrong'. Funnily enough neither statement was/is true.

 

I don't have a shadow of doubt that if the very same situation had happened this time last year that the people who have jumped on this thread and called the Echo a 'two bit rag' that has no relevance in the world today would instead be jumping on their high horse and championing the rights of a free Press and saying what an important piece of the local community the Echo is.

 

If you take this issue in isolation I cannot see how any fan can not feel slightly concerned that the new owners of the club feel it necessary to censor/control the local media. It sets a very dangerous precident for how they might behave in the future.

 

Yes its called experience - you never ever make a decision in life based on what has happened before have you??

I called the Echo a two bit rag and it is...that has been my stance for a number of years - even when your love god was here reaking havoc and running this club into the ground the Echo was a sh1te paper running sensationalist stories that you have so conveniently forgotten.

 

You may want the local chip paper running this club...controlling every piece of publicity...me I will go by the people that have done a great job so far.

[John B]

Anyone who goes into football expecting to make money are a sandwich short of a picnic!

 

How many clubs are facing financial problems and why do we have no debt?

The reason the club has a large and supportive fan base is the way Nicola and Ml have run things unlike the previous lot who had gates about 5k less!

 

I am very sorry but I disagree with you

 

ML bought the club plus the stadium at a knock down price and is a very good investment.

 

I agree that there are more people watching as we are winning matches and scoring goals

[John B]

It seems to me to be a sort of game where NC is showing who's in charge. IMO it will all be sorted soon following a meeting. I don't think the banning is going to be long term.

 

 

It is shame about the row because the investment is probably the best thing ML and NC have done after buying Rickie Lambert.

 

 

Getting top class youngsters in and developing them is very important to the future of the club

[krissyboy31]

I am very sorry but I disagree with you

 

ML bought the club plus the stadium at a knock down price and is a very good investment.

 

I agree that there are more people watching as we are winning matches and scoring goals

 

I think the way ML did it, is the ONLY way to make money out of football. Of course, if that is the deal, he also needs to know when to get out because any money made in the first 5 years (by progressing up the leagues) can easily be swallowed up by debt at a later date.

[John B]

I think the way ML did it, is the ONLY way to make money out of football. Of course, if that is the deal, he also needs to know when to get out because any money made in the first 5 years (by progressing up the leagues) can easily be swallowed up by debt at a later date.

 

Yes I agree no one was interested in buying it when the Wilde Bunch were involved which was not a surprise.

 

Dont know how much Pompey were sold for if in fact they ever were but £12m for SFC with a fine stadium is good business I would have thought.

[NickG]

if Liebherr is worth the reported £2.5 billion.

 

Lets say, for easy maths his spending plan is;

 

club from administration £15m

training ground / initial redevlopment stadium / academy etc £5m

playing investment

09/10 £3m

10/11 £5m

11/12 £7m

12/13 £10m

 

total spend £45m. A lot of money.

 

But 1.8% of his worth.

 

I don't know what the average worth of "normal" people is but, again for easy maths perhaps £500,000?

 

1.8% of that is £9,000.

 

Sure if you were going to invest £9k you would want a return. But a lot of people would blow that on motorbike, holiday, boat etc for pleasure.

 

I am hoping this is how he looks at it!

[CB Fry]

The club knows it has no chance of controlling bigger media organisations, but is trying to bully the Echo because it thinks it has a change.

 

Southampton's local newspaper was giving its readers what they expect - as good a story as it could possibly write, not a cursory few paragraphs from a watered-down club statement.

 

As a journalist whose job is impeded by PR people every day, I know exactly what goes on. They phone me up, waste my time, lie to me and will deny even the most black and white of topics, until it is out in public, at which point they try to claim what I write is not true and usually say it is unfair to their organisation. That is what they are paid to do.

 

The whole point of real journalism is not to just ****ing regurgitate PR spin and press releases, but to print the real story. Unfortunately, the world is increasingly run by over-paid sharp-suited PR people, many of whom have no idea how newspapers work and are under the impression that they have a God-given right to control what is written about their organisation.

 

Newspapers are not there to give metaphorical hand jobs to local clubs, businesses and councils and it makes me sick that some of you people think that is how things should be.

 

 

Astoundingly good post. Great stuff. Some of the more clueless contributors to the thread should heed this. Excellent analysis.

 

I read it like this;

 

football club and paper have special relationship - mutual benefit.

 

This involves the club giving them preferential contact/access

 

 

Don't disagree with most of Nick's post, but it's worth pointing out this "preferential treatment" runs to information that really no other media organisation actually want.

 

There are some delusionals in the "f*ck the Echo" camp who seem to think that you can find on "freeview" an interview with a key player/manager/coach at the club every single day, or a summary of how we are doing in context to previous seasons, or opinions of ex-players etc. Or simply new stuff to read about Saints. Every day.

 

When exactly are SSN going to broadcast an interview with, say Graham Murty today, or Adam Lallana tomorrow, or Kelvin Davies next week, or Alan Pardew three times a week?

 

And for the "what about the internet" chaps, well what about it? How often is the BBC or Sky websites updated with anything other than facts or brief post-match reports/quotes dropped in by the jobbing PA hack.

 

Anyone only has to look at the reams of comment on every Saints article on their website to see the interest and community served. Plus all the other thousands upon thousands of fans who have no interest in internet message boards.

 

The Echo does stuff that no-one else does or frankly can be arsed to do. Not Sky. Not the BBC. Not "Freeview". No one. And no, I don't want to be spoon fed tedium from the official site.

 

So people saying "it's all on freeview" or "you can go down the cybercafe" doesn't help things. People need a bit of perspective.

 

New stuff to read about Saints. Every day. What a bunts of c**ts the Echo are, eh?

[hypochondriac]

TBF the fact that the Echo is useful to hear about saints should not make them immune to being banned.

[Matthew Le God]

CB Fry,

 

A Daily Echo subscription for a year costs £93.60 (alot more if brought each day).

 

For that you get on most days 2/3 pages of Saints news (largely taken up by pictures). Most of this news is fed to them by the club and very little is exclusive. Ok, it is not just Saints news you are paying for but alot do buy it for this reason.

 

Saints Player is £40(or less if in a deal) for an annual subscription

 

For that you get...

 

1) Player/manager video interviews throughout the week(5 - 12 minutes in length)

2) Extended match highlights of games (around 12 minutes).

3) The occasional 90 minute game as a video eg the entire Wycombe Game

4) Access to an archive of previous seasons videos

5) Match commentary - useful for those out of BBC Solent area

6) Pre and post match interview in video 5 - 10 minutes in length

7) Feature videos

 

When you add that to all the other sources of free content it makes what the Echo does obsolete and lacking in depth in comparison.

Edited 15 December, 2009 by Matthew Le God

[Wes Tender]

Astoundingly good post. Great stuff. Some of the more clueless contributors to the thread should heed this. Excellent analysis.

 

Don't disagree with most of Nick's post, but it's worth pointing out this "preferential treatment" runs to information that really no other media organisation actually want.

 

There are some delusionals in the "f*ck the Echo" camp who seem to think that you can find on "freeview" an interview with a key player/manager/coach at the club every single day, or a summary of how we are doing in context to previous seasons, or opinions of ex-players etc. Or simply new stuff to read about Saints. Every day.

 

When exactly are SSN going to broadcast an interview with, say Graham Murty today, or Adam Lallana tomorrow, or Kelvin Davies next week, or Alan Pardew three times a week?

 

And for the "what about the internet" chaps, well what about it? How often is the BBC or Sky websites updated with anything other than facts or brief post-match reports/quotes dropped in by the jobbing PA hack.

 

Anyone only has to look at the reams of comment on every Saints article on their website to see the interest and community served. Plus all the other thousands upon thousands of fans who have no interest in internet message boards.

 

The Echo does stuff that no-one else does or frankly can be arsed to do. Not Sky. Not the BBC. Not "Freeview". No one. And no, I don't want to be spoon fed tedium from the official site.

 

So people saying "it's all on freeview" or "you can go down the cybercafe" doesn't help things. People need a bit of perspective.

 

New stuff to read about Saints. Every day. What a bunts of c**ts the Echo are, eh?

 

Any sensible person will temper what they read in any newspaper as not being an objective piece as it will be slanted in a particular direction often in line with Editorial policy, or the angle that the owner wishes to put on it. Anybody who believes that most of the stuff that they read in the local rag is pure news without that slant, is naive.

 

Therefore, when I read a post from a journalist moaning about how the PR people waste his time and want to show their clients in a particular light, then I'm inclined to think, tough. The newspapers are guilty of the very same thing themselves and the readers have to read between the lines to get to the uncluttered facts, the bare bones of the piece. The papers are perfectly capable of taking a quote out of context to completely alter the perception that others might have of an individual or a group if that is their inclination. They might decide that they don't like somebody, a party or a group and then run a campaign of character assasination to ruin them. They sensationalise everything, as good news isn't news in their opinion.

 

Rather than publish an article about what a happy family man Graham Murty is, or how Adam Lallana likes to walk his dog on the Common, they would far rather report that they were womanising like Tiger Woods, or that they beat their wives, or at least went out clubbing and drink driving. The most that they have written about any Saints players in recent times was about Dyer and B-WP and didn't they just love that?

 

As far as the Echo's coverage of the local team is concerned, obviously it is slanted in favour of that team. But from the internet it is possibly through sites like News Now to read the reports of the local rag of the rival team, to read the comments from their fans. By reading both sides, one is far more likely to make a reasoned judgement and get some objective balance.

 

Just as we have only read about one side of this episode and therefore have no balance here either.

Edited 15 December, 2009 by Wes Tender

[Ciaran]

For that you get on most days 2/3 pages of Saints news (largely taken up by pictures). Most of this news is fed to them by the club and very little is exclusive. Ok, it is not just Saints news you are paying for but alot do buy it for this reason.

 

Saints Player is £40(or less if in a deal) for an annual subscription

 

For that you get...

 

1) Player/manager video interviews throughout the week(5 - 12 minutes in length)

2) Extended match highlights of games (around 12 minutes).

3) The occasional 90 minute game as a video eg the entire Wycombe Game

4) Access to an archive of previous seasons videos

5) Match commentary - useful for those out of BBC Solent area

6) Pre and post match interview in video 5 - 10 minutes in length

7) Feature videos

 

When you add that to all the other sources of free content it makes what the Echo does obsolete and lacking in depth in comparison.

 

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.

[Matthew Le God]

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.

 

I said when you add that in conjunction to the free content you can get elsewhere for other media outlets which unlike the Echo aren't going to give a Saints sided view and instead are independent.

 

I'd prefer to watch Alan Pardew's pre match and post match interviews in full than read a small part of them in a paper.

 

I'd prefer to watch extended highlights or full match videos than read a match report

 

etc etc

[Verbal]

Wes, I'm really surprised that you've fallen into line with the Party of God on this, with the fatuous argument about how the club's continuing public silence on this means that we can't draw any conclusions.

 

This is a trivial and local incident in the grander scheme of things, and involves a newspaper that isn't popular on here. But it really is astonishing to see how easily people might be to sacrifice good journalism in the face of the kind of pressures that Wilko quite rightly complains about in the wider world. Sadly, we live in a world where the information presented to the public is increasingly sanitised by corporations and governments, and where sanctions are sought against journalists, photographers and others don't toe the party line.

 

And sometimes, the best friends are those ready to tell others when they're wrong or have failed to understand something. In this case, no one has suggested other than that an embargo was imposed selectively and after the fact. That is not how embargoes work, nor how they should work.

 

This is a storm in a teacup which should be settled by the end of the week. Anything else would suggest some peevish egos at work. But I have faith...

[Redondo Saint]

Holy crap, this thread has generated some debate!!

 

Surely this episode is all about balance?

 

Banning the Daily Echo is not a long term SFC strategy in my opinion. Did the paper show a lack of integrity? Clearly something happened that NC felt was wrong and his punishment was to ban them. Right or wrong, he is in charge and felt this was in the best interest of SFC, but I am sure it's not a permanent decision.

 

The editor of the local paper decides to go public regarding the ban, and in my opinion spins it deliberately to cause mischief amongst the fans - why mention Lowe?

However, they feel they have done nothing wrong.

 

The attempts of some posters trying to make out that the ancient craft of journalism is to always report fact and truth is at best naive. Similarly we should not blindly accept everything that comes from 'official websites' as fact and truth.

 

I don't particularly care for Murray but do recognise his paper provides value in reporting news from SFC. A failed relationship for The Echo and SFC does neither party any favours as it stops the fans from reading about the club.

 

My advice to them both is to get over yourself, share a bottle of wine somewhere and resolve the situation quickly!

Edited 15 December, 2009 by Redondo Saint
Rushing

[CB Fry]

Post removed!

Edited 15 December, 2009 by CB Fry

[Verbal]

I said when you add that in conjunction to the free content you can get elsewhere for other media outlets which unlike the Echo aren't going to give a Saints sided view and instead are independent.

 

I'd prefer to watch Alan Pardew's pre match and post match interviews in full than read a small part of them in a paper.

 

I'd prefer to watch extended highlights or full match videos than read a match report

 

etc etc

 

Interesting, I'm sure - but writing solipsistic posts like this demonstrates a kind of selfishness that's quite revealing. Regardless of what you want, what about those who are engaged by the coverage in the Echo and elsewhere?

[Wes Tender]

So what you are looking for from your local paper is to slag the club off and look for ways for it to undermine it? Fine. I've got nothing I can possibly say to argue against that because it beggars belief. It's also precisely what other "F*** the Echo"-ers are slagging the Echo off for, they seem to want it just be a PR extension.

 

And the Newsnow stuff you mention? Well, that would be articles from, well, errr, local papers elsewhere. So the internet is great at aggregated but not originating, which was the point I was making.

 

You are worthy of being a newspaper journalist yourself, as you have put a spin on what I said that would have had the Echo editor patting you on the back and mentally fast-tracking you for a bright future with them.

[CB Fry]

I said when you add that in conjunction to the free content you can get elsewhere for other media outlets which unlike the Echo aren't going to give a Saints sided view and instead are independent.

 

I'd prefer to watch Alan Pardew's pre match and post match interviews in full than read a small part of them in a paper.

 

I'd prefer to watch extended highlights or full match videos than read a match report

 

etc etc

 

 

Remind me what other sites are producing new written content about Saints at the same frequency as the Echo?

 

If by "independent view" you mean "no interest whatsoever" then yes, I agree the national press and TV stations really do have an "independent view" about Saints.

 

As I said before "I've got an Iphone, everyone can fu ck off down a cybercafe" is not a particularly mature approach, but that seems to be your stance.

 

And I best two parts of eff-all of the fan base sat and watched that Wycombe Game in full.

 

And sticking up video content is not exactly challenging, or difficult.

 

It's the other stuff that no-one else can be arsed to do, and it is only the Echo that wants to do it.

[Wes Tender]

Anyway, off to the match I go, to witness for myself how the team are playing and to form my own opinions, rather than have some journo tell me what his own opinion of the game was.

[Matthew Le God]

 

It's the other stuff that no-one else can be arsed to do, and it is only the Echo that wants to do it.

 

You could interchange alot of the articles on http://www.clubfanzine.com/southampton/ or many other Saints fanzines with those published in the Echo and people wouldn't notice you swapped them.

 

btw I don't have an iphone

[CB Fry]

You are worthy of being a newspaper journalist yourself, as you have put a spin on what I said that would have had the Echo editor patting you on the back and mentally fast-tracking you for a bright future with them.

 

 

Apologies Wes, I have reread your piece, I misread it.

 

But you are still wrong.

 

Rather than publish an article about what a happy family man Graham Murty is, or how Adam Lallana likes to walk his dog on the Common, they would far rather report that they were womanising like Tiger Woods, or that they beat their wives, or at least went out clubbing and drink driving. The most that they have written about any Saints players in recent times was about Dyer and B-WP and didn't they just love that?

 

Not sure I want to live in a world where the Echo refuse to publish a story about a player drink driving in fear of upsetting the club or the player.

 

So the Echo should ignore wife beating or drink driving and just publish stuff about Dog-walking family men.

 

I beleive there was quite a bit of comment about BWP on this forum and people "loved it". As did the fans singing songs about it.

 

Maybe that was just my imagination.

 

Good-oh.

[CB Fry]

You could interchange alot of the articles on http://www.clubfanzine.com/southampton/ or many other Saints fanzines with those published in the Echo and people wouldn't notice you swapped them.

 

btw I don't have an iphone*

 

 

Yeah, the Ugly Inside website is just brilliant. Blimey.

 

At the end of the day that site is populated by spanners like us, and I think there is plenty of that in the world already.

 

And thousands and thousands of people never, ever, ever go on forums, which was my other main point. They have lives.

 

*You did tell people to go to cybercafes though....

[70's Mike]

Apologies Wes, I have reread your piece, I misread it.

 

But you are still wrong.

 

 

 

Not sure I want to live in a world where the Echo refuse to publish a story about a player drink driving in fear of upsetting the club or the player.

 

So the Echo should ignore wife beating or drink driving and just publish stuff about Dog-walking family men.

 

I beleive there was quite a bit of comment about BWP on this forum and people "loved it". As did the fans singing songs about it.

 

Maybe that was just my imagination.

 

Good-oh.

 

not sure anyone is saying ignore bad stories about club players, just that since Murray arrived they have been more in evidence than positive stories.

i am sure the first piece he did about the club was to tell the fans how sh*t they were compared with the skates

[John B]

Anyway, off to the match I go, to witness for myself how the team are playing and to form my own opinions, rather than have some journo tell me what his own opinion of the game was.

 

So please dont post your opinions on your return;)

[dune]

At the end of the day Nicola (with a bit of help from Mr Liebherr) have not only saved our club, but given us a dream come true scenario. As far as i'm concenerned ML is God and NC is Jesus.

 

The Echo have had the red carpet rolled out for them and have been given exclusives even before the OS. And this is how that grotty little paper repay the favour.

 

I'd have done exactly the same as Nicola did if they'd gone back on their word after all he's done for them.

 

The Echo need Saints far more than the Saints need the Echo so as far as i'm concerned Murray can go **** himself.

[John B]

At the end of the day Nicola (with a bit of help from Mr Liebherr) have not only saved our club, but given us a dream come true scenario. As far as i'm concenerned ML is God and NC is Jesus.

 

The Echo have had the red carpet rolled out for them and have been given exclusives even before the OS. And this is how that grotty little paper repay the favour.

 

I'd have done exactly the same as Nicola did if they'd gone back on their word after all he's done for them.

 

The Echo need Saints far more than the Saints need the Echo so as far as i'm concerned Murray can go **** himself.

 

At the moment you are probably right but when things go wrong perhaps not

[Greenridge]

At the moment you are probably right but when things go wrong perhaps not

 

It almost seems as though you are hoping they fail John. Very sad indeed but not surprising considering who you backed last time. Personally I'm glad they're here and saved our club. I suppose it demonstrates how far we have come as a club in the last six months that a trivial little matter such as this is the highlight of the forum. In a way that's great news.

[John B]

It almost seems as though you are hoping they fail John. Very sad indeed but not surprising considering who you backed last time. Personally I'm glad they're here and saved our club. I suppose it demonstrates how far we have come as a club in the last six months that a trivial little matter such as this is the highlight of the forum. In a way that's great news.

 

I am not hoping they fail

 

Of course I want them to succeed like every other Manager/Chairman unlike you possibly but probably it will not be success without a few failures on the way .

 

But you are right the good news about the investment for the Academy has been overshadowed by the row .

[Burnsie]

Top Post. Without a doubt the most sensible contribution to this thread. As always it seems that instead of forming a judgement on this one specific incident a lot of fans are still going down the route of judging by how they feel about the people involved. Where before it was 'Lowe can do no right', we now have 'MC & NC can do no wrong'. Funnily enough neither statement was/is true.

 

I don't have a shadow of doubt that if the very same situation had happened this time last year that the people who have jumped on this thread and called the Echo a 'two bit rag' that has no relevance in the world today would instead be jumping on their high horse and championing the rights of a free Press and saying what an important piece of the local community the Echo is.

 

If you take this issue in isolation I cannot see how any fan can not feel slightly concerned that the new owners of the club feel it necessary to censor/control the local media. It sets a very dangerous precident for how they might behave in the future.

 

Agree 100%.

 

It is a highly disturbing development, completely at odds with the supposed professionalism and maturity of our new owners. I would expect it of some precious, egomaniac lower league chairman like Paul Scally at Gillingham, or even of Rupert Lowe, but I'm very alarmed that it has happened at our club. It's no good to speculate (in a fashion that is inevitably favourable to Cortese) that there could be more to this than meets the eye, and that the Echo might somehow deserve it. I can't imagine a set of circumstances that would justify this move. Nothing defamatory has been printed (and if it had, this wouldn't be the way go about dealing with it); in fact the coverage of the club lately has been universally glowing.

 

I would say that this is the thin end of the wedge, but in fact I consider it a very serious matter, so it's a fairly thick part of the wedge.

 

This is an outrageous act of bullying. It hasn't the least justification so far as I'm concerned. The decision should be reversed immediately.

[up and away]

There are some delusionals in the "f*ck the Echo" camp who seem to think that you can find on "freeview" an interview with a key player/manager/coach at the club every single day, or a summary of how we are doing in context to previous seasons, or opinions of ex-players etc. Or simply new stuff to read about Saints. Every day.

 

When exactly are SSN going to broadcast an interview with, say Graham Murty today, or Adam Lallana tomorrow, or Kelvin Davies next week, or Alan Pardew three times a week?

 

And for the "what about the internet" chaps, well what about it? How often is the BBC or Sky websites updated with anything other than facts or brief post-match reports/quotes dropped in by the jobbing PA hack.

 

Anyone only has to look at the reams of comment on every Saints article on their website to see the interest and community served. Plus all the other thousands upon thousands of fans who have no interest in internet message boards.

 

The Echo does stuff that no-one else does or frankly can be arsed to do. Not Sky. Not the BBC. Not "Freeview". No one. And no, I don't want to be spoon fed tedium from the official site.

 

So people saying "it's all on freeview" or "you can go down the cybercafe" doesn't help things. People need a bit of perspective.

 

New stuff to read about Saints. Every day. What a bunts of c**ts the Echo are, eh?

 

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.

[Thedelldays]

wasnt it the echo who reported the swiss takeover before anyone on here got wind of it..?

 

yes, yes they did

[JackFrost]

At the end of the day Nicola (with a bit of help from Mr Liebherr) have not only saved our club, but given us a dream come true scenario. As far as i'm concenerned ML is God and NC is Jesus.

 

The Echo have had the red carpet rolled out for them and have been given exclusives even before the OS. And this is how that grotty little paper repay the favour.

 

I'd have done exactly the same as Nicola did if they'd gone back on their word after all he's done for them.

 

The Echo need Saints far more than the Saints need the Echo so as far as i'm concerned Murray can go **** himself.

 

LOL I bet there were plenty of people saying similar compliments about Lowe in '96

[Wes Tender]

Agree 100%.

 

It is a highly disturbing development, completely at odds with the supposed professionalism and maturity of our new owners. I would expect it of some precious, egomaniac lower league chairman like Paul Scally at Gillingham, or even of Rupert Lowe, but I'm very alarmed that it has happened at our club. It's no good to speculate (in a fashion that is inevitably favourable to Cortese) that there could be more to this than meets the eye, and that the Echo might somehow deserve it. I can't imagine a set of circumstances that would justify this move. Nothing defamatory has been printed (and if it had, this wouldn't be the way go about dealing with it); in fact the coverage of the club lately has been universally glowing.

 

I would say that this is the thin end of the wedge, but in fact I consider it a very serious matter, so it's a fairly thick part of the wedge.

 

This is an outrageous act of bullying. It hasn't the least justification so far as I'm concerned. The decision should be reversed immediately.

 

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.