miserableoldgit Posted 10 May, 2010 Posted 10 May, 2010 :confused:.. Pubic would be my guess. Tee Hee!!
Tony F Posted 10 May, 2010 Posted 10 May, 2010 Yup - I have submitted an enquiry using the the email Webform on the OS and am supposedly guaranteed an answer within 7 days. 7 days......Wow - thats one heck of a long time in the life of Southampton FC - ask Pards! :-) Got my answer in about 2 hours.....and here it is. Thank you for your enquiry regarding Saturday's Matchday Programme. Due to unforeseen circumstances, this programme was removed from circulation. Unfortunately, we are unable to provide any copies of this programme for any purpose. Naturally, we do apologise for any inconvenience this causes. The Club will not be making any further comment on this issue Regards David David Luker Head of Supporter Services Southampton Football Club So we are no more the wiser ay?
benjii Posted 10 May, 2010 Posted 10 May, 2010 Got my answer in about 2 hours.....and here it is. Thank you for your enquiry regarding Saturday's Matchday Programme. Due to unforeseen circumstances, this programme was removed from circulation. Unfortunately, we are unable to provide any copies of this programme for any purpose. Naturally, we do apologise for any inconvenience this causes. The Club will not be making any further comment on this issue Regards David David Luker Head of Supporter Services Southampton Football Club So we are no more the wiser ay? Interesting. If it is down to some sort of commercial dispute with the publisher or third party or whoever, and there is a possible claim of some sort then it would not be surprising to refuse to comment further. If there is some sort of footballing bombshell that is relevant then no doubt all will become apparent in due course!
Wurzel Posted 10 May, 2010 Posted 10 May, 2010 Apparently it was a Trades Descriptions issue. Anthony Pulis had been listed in the squad members section.
trousers Posted 10 May, 2010 Posted 10 May, 2010 Got my answer in about 2 hours.....and here it is. Thank you for your enquiry regarding Saturday's Matchday Programme. Due to unforeseen circumstances, this programme was removed from circulation. If your question involved the use of the word "why?" then, no, you didn't get an answer, per se, within 2 hours.
Thedelldays Posted 10 May, 2010 Posted 10 May, 2010 If your question involved the use of the word "why?" then, no, you didn't get an answer, per se, within 2 hours. that response answers nothing....probably towing the party line
Window Cleaner Posted 10 May, 2010 Posted 10 May, 2010 Got my answer in about 2 hours.....and here it is. Thank you for your enquiry regarding Saturday's Matchday Programme. Due to unforeseen circumstances, this programme was removed from circulation. Unfortunately, we are unable to provide any copies of this programme for any purpose. Naturally, we do apologise for any inconvenience this causes. The Club will not be making any further comment on this issue Regards David David Luker Head of Supporter Services Southampton Football Club So we are no more the wiser ay? Bog standard fob off reply, don't know why he bothered
CanadaSaint Posted 10 May, 2010 Posted 10 May, 2010 Got my answer in about 2 hours.....and here it is. Thank you for your enquiry regarding Saturday's Matchday Programme. Due to unforeseen circumstances, this programme was removed from circulation. Unfortunately, we are unable to provide any copies of this programme for any purpose. Naturally, we do apologise for any inconvenience this causes. The Club will not be making any further comment on this issue Regards David David Luker Head of Supporter Services Southampton Football Club So we are no more the wiser ay? That looks suspiciously like a response written by a lawyer or someone with a legal mind. It would have been easy to set the matter to rest with a simple answer or even a half-assed excuse like "we weren't happy with the quality", but that's not what this is. Fascinating.
Hatch Posted 10 May, 2010 Posted 10 May, 2010 Maybe there was a confusion at the printers, who also have the contract for Asian Nymphs Monthly , and the centre page posters got muddled up. Must have been Fontes long hair.
Window Cleaner Posted 10 May, 2010 Posted 10 May, 2010 Maybe there was a confusion at the printers, who also have the contract for Asian Nymphs Monthly , and the centre page posters got muddled up. Must have been Fontes long hair. if that was the case the programmes would have sold like hot cakes at 15£ each. I bet if I saw it I could tell you what was wrong with it, I have a very acute eye for that sort of thing.
hughieslastminutegoal Posted 10 May, 2010 Posted 10 May, 2010 Apparently it was a Trades Descriptions issue. Anthony Pulis had been listed in the squad members section. No, it was the description "footballer" that went too far. The Advertising Standards Authority said it was an unsubstantiated claim.
grammy Posted 10 May, 2010 Posted 10 May, 2010 According to Radio Solent sports news this morning their "sources" claimed it was withdrawn because of something in there that AP was unhappy with. Apologies if already posted.
Window Cleaner Posted 10 May, 2010 Posted 10 May, 2010 According to Radio Solent sports news this morning their "sources" claimed it was withdrawn because of something in there that AP was unhappy with. Apologies if already posted. Then one would have to look at the Chairman's comments page (if there is one) I suppose. Unless of course AP thought better of singling out his binkies for special praise as if the rest of the team didn't count.
revolution saint Posted 10 May, 2010 Posted 10 May, 2010 Maybe there was a confusion at the printers, who also have the contract for Asian Nymphs Monthly , and the centre page posters got muddled up. Must have been Fontes long hair. Avram bought the lot...case closed.
Saints Warrior Posted 10 May, 2010 Posted 10 May, 2010 They cut and pasted a page from a few seasons ago and it about Rupert Lowe taking over the club and his vision... Can he be returning . . . a reverse forward and backward takeover
SaintRichmond Posted 10 May, 2010 Posted 10 May, 2010 Rumour has it the program today gave away about someone leaving the club before it's officially announced? So no programs on sale before the match today. Aparently, in his Managers Notes, Pardew said how much he was looking forward to the 2010/11 campaign, where he would be leading Saints on a serious challenge for the Division One Title ........ Cortese agrees with EVERYTHING bar the name PARDEW Simples:D
dronskisaint Posted 10 May, 2010 Posted 10 May, 2010 I'm sorry I can't name the source but someone who is married to one of the footballing staff has a copy & has, with him, read it from cover to cover & is at a loss to see anything that could be construed as controversial in the editorial content. This lends credence to the theory (& it's fairly obvious by now that the Club are not going to comment officially) that it is a commercial issue that could have cost more to compensate than the loss of revenue created by the loss of sales & advertising revenue in one issue. I've never before posted as ITK & possibly will never again but in this instance I am 100%sure that what she has told me is accurate...interpretation is for this forum naturally - I've had my guess above.
Ivan Katalinic's 'tache Posted 10 May, 2010 Posted 10 May, 2010 Got my answer in about 2 hours.....and here it is. Thank you for your enquiry regarding Saturday's Matchday Programme. Due to unforeseen circumstances, this programme was removed from circulation. Unfortunately, we are unable to provide any copies of this programme for any purpose. Naturally, we do apologise for any inconvenience this causes. The Club will not be making any further comment on this issue Regards David David Luker Head of Supporter Services Southampton Football Club So we are no more the wiser ay? Cut and paste job from Mr Luker, as I got the same e-mail!!!
chrisobee Posted 10 May, 2010 Posted 10 May, 2010 Bog standard fob off reply, don't know why he bothered Yep, in other words "you're just a fan so why the hell do we need to tell you."
Kingsland Nick Posted 10 May, 2010 Posted 10 May, 2010 Yep, in other words "you're just a fan so why the hell do we need to tell you." Luker was there when R*****t L**e was chairman, so what else do you expect?
NickG Posted 10 May, 2010 Posted 10 May, 2010 Yep, in other words "you're just a fan so why the hell do we need to tell you." which is a fair point!
stevegrant Posted 11 May, 2010 Posted 11 May, 2010 Got my answer in about 2 hours.....and here it is. Thank you for your enquiry regarding Saturday's Matchday Programme. Due to unforeseen circumstances, this programme was removed from circulation. Unfortunately, we are unable to provide any copies of this programme for any purpose. Naturally, we do apologise for any inconvenience this causes. The Club will not be making any further comment on this issue Regards David David Luker Head of Supporter Services Southampton Football Club So we are no more the wiser ay? Got to say that's a pretty pathetic response from the club. Their silence is deafening, I'm assuming they think people will stop talking about it if they just try to ignore it...
The9 Posted 11 May, 2010 Posted 11 May, 2010 Luker was there when R*****t L**e was chairman, so what else do you expect? So was Lallana, and Matt Le Tiss - what's your point ?
NickG Posted 11 May, 2010 Posted 11 May, 2010 Got to say that's a pretty pathetic response from the club. Their silence is deafening, I'm assuming they think people will stop talking about it if they just try to ignore it... or surpised that we are still talking about it now!
dubai_phil Posted 11 May, 2010 Posted 11 May, 2010 Well, as it seems that Wednesday is the new Friday when something momentous is due to happen I guess by the end of today we are likely to at least narrow down the options. If the Board Meeting passes by with no drama then we can likely assume it was a Commercial Mistake. If something else happens....... then.......
Scummer Posted 11 May, 2010 Posted 11 May, 2010 Got to say that's a pretty pathetic response from the club. Their silence is deafening, I'm assuming they think people will stop talking about it if they just try to ignore it... Especially as it doesn't say anything that wasn't already on the notices. Why say to contact the supporters charter email address if they are just going to give exactly the same information?
The9 Posted 11 May, 2010 Posted 11 May, 2010 Well, as it seems that Wednesday is the new Friday when something momentous is due to happen I guess by the end of today we are likely to at least narrow down the options. If the Board Meeting passes by with no drama then we can likely assume it was a Commercial Mistake. If something else happens....... then....... If it's a commercial mistake then where's the harm in saying "we put x advert in and it said y which we accept was incorrect, the programme was withdrawn to prevent legal issues". Rather than "ner-ner, not telling, go away". At some point in the future we might be referring to this and the training ground Echo ban as obvious warning signs that we should have seen, if Cortese turns out to be a megalomaniac and we're up sh111t creek again.
Sour Mash Posted 11 May, 2010 Posted 11 May, 2010 Got to say that's a pretty pathetic response from the club. Their silence is deafening, I'm assuming they think people will stop talking about it if they just try to ignore it... Agreed. I'm definitely a "supporter" of Cortese, but his communication and PR is poor at times to say the least.
Frank's cousin Posted 11 May, 2010 Posted 11 May, 2010 The 'commercial' rumour seems most plausible - possibly if the way images etc may have been used in ads? The reason for the legalese response from the club, is possible that maybe there will be some legal claims as a result and thus this is necessary to avoid compromising any future claim?
trousers Posted 11 May, 2010 Posted 11 May, 2010 I'm sorry I can't name the source but someone who is married to one of the footballing staff has a copy & has, with him, read it from cover to cover & is at a loss to see anything that could be construed as controversial in the editorial content. This lends credence to the theory (& it's fairly obvious by now that the Club are not going to comment officially) that it is a commercial issue that could have cost more to compensate than the loss of revenue created by the loss of sales & advertising revenue in one issue. I've never before posted as ITK & possibly will never again but in this instance I am 100%sure that what she has told me is accurate...interpretation is for this forum naturally - I've had my guess above. Cheers for the insight. I'd be inclined to focus on the 'bigger' advertisers...such as anything from Flybe or the outgoing caterers. I wonder if there were any 'parting shot' type message in there....? Conspiratorial I know but hey ho....
Saint_clark Posted 11 May, 2010 Posted 11 May, 2010 Cheers for the insight. I'd be inclined to focus on the 'bigger' advertisers...such as anything from Flybe or the outgoing caterers. I wonder if there were any 'parting shot' type message in there....? Conspiratorial I know but hey ho.... Despite people saying they have read it cover to cover and found nothing controversial?
trousers Posted 11 May, 2010 Posted 11 May, 2010 Despite people saying they have read it cover to cover and found nothing controversial? Yep
stevegrant Posted 11 May, 2010 Posted 11 May, 2010 If it's a commercial mistake then where's the harm in saying "we put x advert in and it said y which we accept was incorrect, the programme was withdrawn to prevent legal issues". Rather than "ner-ner, not telling, go away". At some point in the future we might be referring to this and the training ground Echo ban as obvious warning signs that we should have seen, if Cortese turns out to be a megalomaniac If?
AK Posted 11 May, 2010 Posted 11 May, 2010 If? NC makes Rupert Lowe seem easy going and laid back whilst always willing to take into account other people's opinions !
Jonnyboy Posted 20 May, 2010 Posted 20 May, 2010 my mate, newforest saint, was well gutted, he was in it as part of a feature on saints abroad apparently...the one time its cancelled, sods law
Saint in Paradise Posted 20 May, 2010 Posted 20 May, 2010 my mate, newforest saint, was well gutted, he was in it as part of a feature on saints abroad apparently...the one time its cancelled, sods law Ah Ha, there is the reason then GM must have "got at" Mr Cortese :D
OldNick Posted 21 May, 2010 Posted 21 May, 2010 my mate, newforest saint, was well gutted, he was in it as part of a feature on saints abroad apparently...the one time its cancelled, sods law all about his time in Afghanistan
Jonnyboy Posted 21 May, 2010 Posted 21 May, 2010 all about his time in Afghanistan hey, how u know??!
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 21 May, 2010 Posted 21 May, 2010 Got to say that's a pretty pathetic response from the club. Their silence is deafening, I'm assuming they think people will stop talking about it if they just try to ignore it... Like we did with all the kerfuffle about NC, AP, a meeting on Weds etc?
stevegrant Posted 21 May, 2010 Posted 21 May, 2010 People are still talking about that, it's not going to go away any time soon.
chrisobee Posted 21 May, 2010 Posted 21 May, 2010 Well I had forgotten about it...... then I saw this thread was still rumbling on
saintkiptanui Posted 21 May, 2010 Posted 21 May, 2010 People are still talking about that, it's not going to go away any time soon.Keep stirring it up Steve, some kind of internet geek agenda going on, weird.
suewhistle Posted 22 May, 2010 Posted 22 May, 2010 It could be something as simple as an advertiser using a copyright photo and being in dispute with the rights holder. Saints wouldn't want to aid and abet an offence which could certainly cost more in time, legal costs and licencing fees than would be made by selling the programme. Hence also the silence on the matter, although if it was of that nature a simple explanation "for commercial reasons" would stop a lot of the speculation.
hypochondriac Posted 23 May, 2010 Posted 23 May, 2010 Keep stirring it up Steve, some kind of internet geek agenda going on, weird. But reportedly there was something about this website in there because of the sponsorship thing. I would be a bit annoyed as well if I was Steve who at the very least deserves and explanation.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now