Plymouth rag annoyed at SFC - non-SFC photographers refused entry to SMS

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

He's a clever bloke is old Nic. Liking his entrepreneurial spirit.

[Thedelldays]

I can understand this if we where in the Premiership but not in league 1 this just creates resentment.

would it not create resentment in the premierleague...?

 

 

also, do most clubs allow us to film the game...?

if not, why not..?

[corky morris]

Not criticised NC before, but on this issue I think he is wrong!

[Brussels Saint]

This is not new and has been in place since the time of Lowe. Amazing how anything can be turned into Anti Cortese.

 

I know this as years ago my girlfriend took a long lense camera into the hospitality area and I sent her outside to take some photos of the pitch. She was immediately jumped on by security as they wanted to know which paper she works for and whether they had paid for the rights to take photos.

 

I think seriously we need to get a grip re. the Cortese stuff. Nothing wrong with genuine constructive critiscm, but this is nuts.

Edited 6 August, 2010 by Brussels Saint
spelling

[Thedelldays]

This is not new and has been in place since the time of Lowe. Amazing how anything can be turned into Anti Cortese.

 

I know this as years ago my girlfriend took a long lense camera into the hospitality area and I sent her outside to take some photos of the pitch. She was immediately jumped on by security as they wanted to know which paper she works for and whether they had paid for the rights to take photos.

 

I think seriously we need to get a grip re. the Cortese stuff. Nothing wrong with genuine constructive critiscm, but this is nuts.

 

 

and there we have it.....

[Macey_J2]

Watch out for some large lenses poking out of the Plymouth end tomorrow!

[trousers]

Watch out for some large lenses poking out of the Plymouth end tomorrow!

 

I do like a good euphamism :-)

[buctootim]

Except on Saturday when the Plymouth Herald will be providing exactly £0 to SFC.

 

Local papers simply don't have the budget to pay extra for photos not taken by their own photographers, so the club will receive the square root of **** all from local newspapers. Expect many of the clubs themselves might take issue with it as well, and impose reciprocal charges specifically for our photographers.

 

You think its cheaper to send a staff photographer from Plymouth to take pics, or cheaper to buy them from the club?

[wireframebox]

Business in selling products of its organisation shocker...

[aintforever]

This is not new and has been in place since the time of Lowe. Amazing how anything can be turned into Anti Cortese.

 

I know this as years ago my girlfriend took a long lense camera into the hospitality area and I sent her outside to take some photos of the pitch. She was immediately jumped on by security as they wanted to know which paper she works for and whether they had paid for the rights to take photos.

 

I think seriously we need to get a grip re. the Cortese stuff. Nothing wrong with genuine constructive critiscm, but this is nuts.

 

I think you will find fans taking pics is a bit different to press.

[Brussels Saint]

I think you will find fans taking pics is a bit different to press.

 

But that was my point, they thought she was from the press and wanted to know if her paper had paid for the rights. (they did not see a security pass on her, which was why she was challenged)

 

Apologies if my OP was not clear.

[ohwhenthesaints]

I think you will find fans taking pics is a bit different to press.

 

But security assumed she was working for the press and asked if they had paid for the rights...

[Mr_Red]

You think its cheaper to send a staff photographer from Plymouth to take pics, or cheaper to buy them from the club?

 

I was thinking that - I don't know how much is charged for photos these days but the papers will only want a couple max. Surely buying from us will be cheaper than sending someone to St.Marys and paying them for the pleasure?

 

Also - the photos will surely be on the OS I would have thought so nothing for any Saints fans to worry about... Until NC starts charging to access the site ;-)

[Dynamo Naive]

I just noticed you tweeted this before I did Steve!

 

I'm cant see this working long term for the club. In theory its a sound idea, keep it all in house so you can releases the images you want for press use - but it is just not workable. As you say, local papers and fan media wont pay the club to use images.

 

It's not a sound idea at all, it's ridiculous and it makes the club look petty and grasping. It will result in less media coverage of Saints for the right reasons, ie what happens on the pitch, and more negative coverage of the club. The club might be able to throw its weight around with The Echo, but do you really think the nationals and agencies are going to meekly put up with this?

[The9]

Let the Cortese bashing commence....

 

Cheers, but I'm not sure we need your permission.

 

Another "p1ss off the establishment in the interests of making money" initiative.

 

He's either a business genius or an egotistical a55hat who's going to find out the hard way what English football likes and doesn't like...

[Chez]

is this idea just to prevent (or make it more difficult/expensive) the Echo from getting photos from the othernewspaper photographers?

Would the Plymouth Herald (or any other paper for that matter) be able to make use of photos sent to them by supporters (who have sneaked a half decent camera in?)

[Thedelldays]

is this idea just to prevent (or make it more difficult/expensive) the Echo from getting photos from the othernewspaper photographers?

 

imo it is quite clear..he see other parts of the media paying for someone to come and take pictures...so he is saying they can buy them from SFC instead...

[Pancake]

But that was my point, they thought she was from the press and wanted to know if her paper had paid for the rights. (they did not see a security pass on her, which was why she was challenged)

 

Apologies if my OP was not clear.

 

Completely different issue. Press need press passes to be allowed to take professional shots at SMS (if the shots are going to be used for profit or not). I've been stopped about this at various places over the years when carrying an SLR. They are within their rights to do that.

 

What the club is saying now is that only their own photographers will be allowed to shoot games, meaning that all newspapers, websites, magazines... need to buy the shots from SaintsFC rather than from freelance or contract photographers.

[Jez]

Not that I'm too bothered either way. As long as we win the League I don't care if Cortese ****es off every single football club and local media outlet around the country.

 

Nice to see you living up to your user name

[Barry the Badger]

I really don't see the big problem here.

[the saint in winchester]

Couple of stories ...

Took my 14 yo son to Staplewood for a reserve match last season. As soon as he got this camera out, a steward jumped in front of him and growled 'no photos, not allowed to take photos'. He's 14. He likes to print out his pics for his bedroom wall. Is that so bad? Were our reserves worried about image rights?

My daughter was in a ballet show at the local theatre. I wasn't allowed to take photos of my own daughter on stage, as a photographer had the rights to the show. I was told I would have to buy pics from him. Do you think I did? I just took some pics of her when we got home.

On the title of this thread, I don't know what to make of it.

[trousers]

Until NC starts charging to access the site ;-)

 

Sshhhhh..... ;-)

[boxosponge]

.......... that Cortese is not familar with football and how it is run in this country at these levels.

 

I don't agree. This is his second season in charge in this league: he knows exactly what he is doing and why.

If it happens to be a mistake is another matter

[Chez]

imo it is quite clear..he see other parts of the media paying for someone to come and take pictures...so he is saying they can buy them from SFC instead...

 

so have the Echo and NC made up then? If not then I'd suggest its just to **** them off further.

 

Do Saints have a photographer on staff?

[sfc4prem]

Don't see why so many are making such a fuss...

 

... Bring on the football.

[Chez]

What the club is saying now is that only their own photographers will be allowed to shoot games, meaning that all newspapers, websites, magazines... need to buy the shots from SaintsFC rather than from freelance or contract photographers.

Saints have a photographer on staff? I doubt it. We will pay a freelancer to take shots for us.

[Thedelldays]

Couple of stories ...

Took my 14 yo son to Staplewood for a reserve match last season. As soon as he got this camera out, a steward jumped in front of him and growled 'no photos, not allowed to take photos'. He's 14. He likes to print out his pics for his bedroom wall. Is that so bad? Were our reserves worried about image rights?

My daughter was in a ballet show at the local theatre. I wasn't allowed to take photos of my own daughter on stage, as a photographer had the rights to the show. I was told I would have to buy pics from him. Do you think I did? I just took some pics of her when we got home.

On the title of this thread, I don't know what to make of it.

]

 

 

you speak of image rights...you only have to look down the road and the web of image rights that has come to light...utaka got soemthing like £1m....£1m ffs

[SaintDonkey]

It's not a sound idea at all, it's ridiculous and it makes the club look petty and grasping. It will result in less media coverage of Saints for the right reasons, ie what happens on the pitch, and more negative coverage of the club. The club might be able to throw its weight around with The Echo, but do you really think the nationals and agencies are going to meekly put up with this?

 

The nationals have picked up on it and they don't sound too enamoured of the idea

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/aug/06/southampton-fc-bans-press-photographers

[toofarnorth]

http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/news/Pictures-ban-insult-supporters/article-2497239-detail/article.html

 

"Southampton Football Club is refusing to allow access inside the ground to photographers from local papers, the national press or news agencies. Instead, they expect print outlets to buy 'official' pictures from their in-house photographer."

 

I understand where the article is coming from but they are blowing their own trumpets somewhat. Yes the media is the lifeblood of football but thats Sky and the BBC who pay large amounts of money for access to grounds and the ability to cover the matches, not the piddly little local rag in Plymouth. I'm sur i'm not alone in getting 95% of my football related information from either user generated info, such as here, official club sites or from media outlets that have paid for access such as the beeb.

[Chez]

I was thinking that - I don't know how much is charged for photos these days but the papers will only want a couple max. Surely buying from us will be cheaper than sending someone to St.Marys and paying them for the pleasure?

 

would it not be cheaper for the media to buy them from the usual freelance photographers that take them (who then sell nationally)? We have effectively just become a middle man putting up the cost for everyone. Certainly that means income for us (if we sell pics to anyone) which is a good thing, but would it not be better to get our clubs image splashed across as many news pages as possible? League 1 sides don't tend to get that much coverage, but any publicity is good publicity.

 

I suppose its a good job that NC hasn't got a shirt sponsor this season, prefering to charge fans more to cover the loss of income (forgive me for that cheap dig). If I'd sponsored the Saints shirt and then found out the club was restricting access to press photographers, thereby limiting exposure of my advertisement, I'd be ****ing narked.

[Chez]

I'm sur i'm not alone in getting 95% of my football related information from either user generated info, such as here, official club sites or from media outlets that have paid for access such as the beeb.

 

Will SKY and the BBC not have to pay for the photos for their own websites etc from this selected company?

[Gingeletiss]

Why are so many on here, so quick to see the negative side of this? It is standard practise in many areas outside of football, and even tha national papers buy alot of their pictures from freelancers. All NC is doing, is protecting the image rights of SFC, hey, if it's good enough for cheats fc, then it has to be good enough for us.

[Minty]

A few points on this.

 

This IS new. All grounds in the country are covered by the similar set of rules as fixtures, i.e. permission for access, photography and subsequent use of images/fixtures, or anything deemed to be property of the FA/Football League, must be applied for by bona fide organisations only, and a fee paid, to Football DataCo Limited, who control it on behalf of the teams and leagues. Once accredited, they apply in writing for each game and get their names on the list to attend. Each club can control who they admit, but in all the time I've been going or taking photos, Saints have never done this. So this IS new. Fans with professional looking camera equipment, or what looks like it (or sometimes not, but the steward is having a bad day), will be stopped, because of the potential to take images which could be sold on, infringing the above agreements etc. That's never changed.

 

I fully understand that some fans don't care about the business side of things and just want us to do as well as possible, but doing so like this could cause us problems. By denying direct access to ALL local and national media, they are indirectly going to be ******ing off an awful lot of people, and fans, and to what end? Revenue streams are important, but this kind of thing also risks LOSING revenue through the loss of goodwill from people who use those newspapers and media outlets, like other sponsors.

 

Some fans seem to think that anything NC does which they perceive to be 'running the club more like a business' is a good thing. But there are good business decisions and bad business decisions. There are also decisions which appear to be good for the bottom line in the short term, but the longer term effects might be negative. If the pursuit of profit starts to blind the management from the original purpose and place of football clubs, then I can see it backfiring.

 

To me, good business sense is creating new revenue streams that add variety, quality and value, whilst also creating a sense of loyalty and respect for a brand that people want to buy or invest in. All of the revenue streams that NC has created recently strike me as being nothing more than exploitation. Exploiting a fanbase through ticket charges and car park fees because the fans can't go anywhere else. Exploiting media who have no choice but to pay for images, or go without. Exploiting an aflluent area of the country by attracting more people who can pay upfront for a product, and denying those who find it hard to do so, and without any warning or time to adjust. And all the time, it leaves resentment about the brand and destroys loyalty and respect for the brand.

 

But football is different, because most fans will always be loyal to their club, and will always do whatever they need to do to watch their team play. As a result sponsors, media and other associated companies will do what they need to do to benefit from that kind of blindly loyal customer base, because there is no other alternative for them. Fans or sponsors may complain, but with no other alternatives, they have to get used to it. NC and others in football rely on that.

 

Sadly, it's all just another inevitable step for football as a whole. Profit comes before inclusiveness, co-operation, community and accessibility. It has done since Sky's massive injection in the 90's, and long before that too, and whilst most fans just want to see a successful football team on the pitch, and don't care enough to change what happens behind the scenes, why should the owners and management have a conscience about how that happens?

 

As a result, my concerns in the previous paragraphs about what would *normally* happens in business if a company starts to exploit it's customers, will probably not happen in football. I personally think it stinks, but it's football (and life) as we know it.

 

So, all-in-all, a pretty pointless rant to most people, that will no doubt attract the usual responses. I had hoped NC and ML might be a bit different and start to make the club more sustainable in ways that might set an example for football, and leave fans with some hope that the game was being returned to them. But no.

[Goalie66]

This decison has wider implications. Freedom of the Press is a democratic right in this country and as others have pointed out has no commercial benefit to the club and the repercussions are more likely to alienate other clubs as well as the press. I would not be surprised that anyone taking photos or videos in the ground will be ejected and possibly banned.

[dune]

I think this is another silly move from Cortese. For the sake of a few pounds he's making a real trouble for himself and negative publicity for the club. If and when we rise through the leagues and become more newsworthy journalists are going to have field day with Cortese. When he first came in I thought that he was all against the antagonistic ways of Rupert Lowe, but as far as I can see he's doing his level best to mirror his predecessors bombasity.

[Thedelldays]

. I had hoped NC and ML might be a bit different and start to make the club more sustainable in ways that might set an example for football, and leave fans with some hope that the game was being returned to them. But no.

you use the past tense...is that hope gone..?

 

football is changing in his country...it really is. ALL levels are going through the mill and I guess we have to get used to it

[Frank's cousin]

Come, do you honestly give a flying feck about this non-story... well 'supose 50 posts and all that, thank feck teh footie starts tomorrow...missed it, even though i must be one of about 5 brits, 60mil Spanish and about 85 mil Germans who actually enjoyed the WC...

[Frank's cousin]

I doubt this has anything to do with the few quid it might raise in revenue and more to do with a control over how the club is portrayed in the media. Some see this as 'control freakish' others will see it as focusing on all the details - and getting them right... just depends on your perspective...said it before, will say it again... time to judge the man is in 4 years - thats the ambitious timetable he has set and so thats the time to see how well his strateggy and tactics have worked...

[Minty]

you use the past tense...is that hope gone..?

I never lose hope. I'm an optimistic person, as you know from matchday thread

[Minty]

One further point on this... Saints have a freelancer under contract to be their official photographer, same arrangement (or very similar) to when I worked for them. If it was ME who had that contract, I would be VERY nervous about this policy, because I would also rely on work from other places like the very same newspapers etc who've been banned from SMS. And knowing how that industry works, Saints' photographer could well find himself losing a lot of work on principle as the industry closes ranks on this.

[Dave Benson Phillips]

My 10 pence worth.

 

Not a big issue that affects me, although I do have an opinion on it. A member of my close family actually is an ex-Plymouth player/coach/radio matchday commentator/ columist for the Herald... now doubt when I find out some more info Dulldays will tell me my source is rubbish.

 

It's yet another example of the pettyness and arrogance of our club. There is absolutely no reason, either commercial or morally why they should ban photographers from St Marys. The club, or more than likely, Mr Cortese, seems to think he can manipulate and bully the British press and media.

 

How many people have gone to war with the British press and won? Not many, if any. The nationals are picking up on this and various local rags from around the land are finding it newsworthy enough to be commenting on the ban, even clubs not in our division and affected by it like Norwich City's local paper.

 

It is another example ( yes another ) of what an arrogant and petty little club we have become under Cortese. No news agencies are going to waste money buying Saints matchday pictures.

 

People knocked posters for mentioning Hitler and Cortese in the same term. A bit of a wild comparison to say the least, but they do share one interest, their love of propaganda. By restricting all forms of media, Cortese believes he can manipulate what is talked about in the press.

 

Unless you allow the press in to the club and show them facts, they will simply make things up. Which is what will happen. Not just that, but look for the papers trying to find absolutely anything they can to tarnish Cortese with - he is a marked man now.

 

All in all, it's just fookin retarded. And for all of you that think it is a great business decision. We are League 1 ffs and not worthy in most newspapers eyes of paying money for photo's - so expect alot less national coverage next season.

 

Also expect for some clubs to hit back and ban the Echo and club photographers from the ground, so those of you that can't get to the games, don't expect to see any snaps of Saints on their travels this season.

 

It's a fookin stupid decision.

[holepuncture]

http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/news/Pictures-ban-insult-supporters/article-2497239-detail/article.html

 

"Southampton Football Club is refusing to allow access inside the ground to photographers from local papers, the national press or news agencies. Instead, they expect print outlets to buy 'official' pictures from their in-house photographer."

 

NC is an intraprenuer, revolutionising the business of football, from inside SMS... my god we are blessed!

 

These local rags, one of which im in negotiations with today, are happy to try and squeeze every last penny out of its clients... go for it NC, keep your entreprenuerial hat on, make every business unit within SFC as efficient as possible.

[buctootim]

I can see no reason why the club should let agency photographers in free of charge, who then make a very nice living selling their pics to the papers. It doesnt happen in theatres, concerts or any other kind of show. Why shouldnt the club make the money in-house?

[Minty]

Also expect for some clubs to hit back and ban the Echo and club photographers from the ground, so those of you that can't get to the games, don't expect to see any snaps of Saints on their travels this season.

I agree with much of what you say, but to be fair, I think the Echo will be ok as they find solidarity amongst other media and even if they can't get in themselves (clubs are unlikely to care too much) they will get shots from other local newspapers as they do currently and have done for years.

[Minty]

I can see no reason why the club should let agency photographers in free of charge, who then make a very nice living selling their pics to the papers. It doesnt happen in theatres, concerts or any other kind of show. Why shouldnt the club make the money in-house?

 

No agency photographers, nor indeed any photographer, are let in free of charge. As I mentioned above, any accredited media has to pay a significant amount just to be accredited, and to gain entry to a Football League or Premier League venue to take photos. End users ALSO have to pay a significant licence fee to be able to use any photos that either their own 'togs take, or that they buy from agencies, just like Steve and Baj do to publish the fixtures on this site.

 

Football DataCO do this ON BEHALF of clubs and the leagues... so effectively what NC is doing is removing SFC from that collective agreement, and entering into his own, which is a lot more restrictive, and could possibly (i don't know exactl how it is calculated) be to the detriment of other clubs by weakening Football DataCs's position. I'm no fan of Football DataCo either btw, as they have restrictions that make the Pentagon easy to get in and take photos, but at least it is a consistent agreement across all clubs.

 

And for the record, theatres and other entertainment venues all have very similar policies, depending on how big they are, for controlling access. However they tend to view things more from a point of view that allowing photos of performances etc is good for promotion and PR, and often work closely with local media who may take photos and then also allow the venue usage of those photos, or vice versa, distribute their own photos for use in the local media.

Edited 6 August, 2010 by Minty

[Badger]

NC: "Hi L1 or L2 club, I would like to buy your player for £500,000"

 

CHAIRMAN OF CLUB: "No, im going to have to refuse your offer as you wouldnt let our local paper print any images"

 

NC "OK, thanks"

 

Five minutes later NC calls back the chairman of Rochdale or wherever :

 

NC: "....and another thing don't bother coming to St Mary's expecting free hopitality in the Directors suite, you can contact our hospitality department to find out the cost of a package ...."

 

Opposite number : "you leave us with no choice but to reciprocate,and withdraw your invite to any pre-match fare here this season.."

 

NC : "fine, you keep your tripe and onions, and we'll serve our five star catering to more discerning clientelle...... afterall we've got the best catering in the Football League..."

 

Opposite number "yes, some bloke was telling me about this at the Rochdale Hockey festival the other week.."

[NickG]

update from press..

 

echo reasonably happy with this arrangement, but having pressure from other locals - who will only be effected once a year - not to agree.

[stevegrant]

update from press..

 

echo reasonably happy with this arrangement, but having pressure from other locals - who will only be effected once a year - not to agree.

Do you have any evidence of that?

[St Marco]

Just a quick Google and your see man city decided to do the samething after the adebyor incident. I am sure there are other sports that do the samething I.e tennis?

Personally i don't see the problem. Having local companies in to take the photos makes sense and in turn helps those companies make money by selling the pictures on. Picture selling has been happening since the dawn of printing. It will not change anything at all by just having one group of photographers. Every game is video recorded and put on tv so its not like your miss anything.

[Dr Octopus]

I hope he's charging the coppers using video cameras too!