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

[DT]

Bad decision that looks like paranoia. Cortese should understand that you can't control the media (in this country).

[fish fingers]

This seems a sensible decision to make.

[stevegrant]

Just a quick Google and your see man city decided to do the samething after the adebyor incident

Your "quick Google" must have been incredibly quick, as you obviously didn't read any of the linked articles.

 

Here's one: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1221168/Emmanuel-Adebayor-celebration-leads-Manchester-City-ban--photographers.html

 

The photographers who got the Adebayor celebration shots were banned from positioning themselves in front of the away section, not the ground, and not forced to pay the club for a pre-screened selection of images.

[Big Bad Bob]

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.

 

Thanks for clearing that up for me Minty, is the accreditation fee payed for annually or on a performance by performance basis?

 

And how much of a cut of the DataCO fee do the clubs get?

 

Have the press bothered to see how much it's going to cost and whether it's cheaper than the DataCO fees. NC seems shrewd enough to have done the maths himself to make it so that it is!

[Thedelldays]

at the end of the day...will this have any effect on the matter of gaining 3 points..?

 

ummmmmm

[Alain Perrin]

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.

 

I don't doubt about the £0. However the flip side is they won't have to pay a press photographer to come to Southampton (hotel), have a sandwich at Membry Services or pay his/her fuel costs.

 

In fact it's a great example of Southampton FC helping the battle against climate change.... and, by reducing the cars on the road, making fans journeys easier.

 

How's that for spin?

[stevegrant]

I don't doubt about the £0. However the flip side is they won't have to pay a press photographer to come to Southampton (hotel), have a sandwich at Membry Services or pay his/her fuel costs.

 

In fact it's a great example of Southampton FC helping the battle against climate change.... and, by reducing the cars on the road, making fans journeys easier.

 

How's that for spin?

Warne-esque

[Andy_Porter]

Cortese is really coming across as one of the most egotistical and arrogant men in football.

[Andy_Porter]

at the end of the day...will this have any effect on the matter of gaining 3 points..?

 

ummmmmm

 

That may be all that matters to you, but for me and many others football is about far more than just getting three points every Saturday

[Minty]

Have the press bothered to see how much it's going to cost and whether it's cheaper than the DataCO fees. NC seems shrewd enough to have done the maths himself to make it so that it is!

Sorry, I have actually misled you there... clubs will still have to pay Football DataCo for their licence to print photos, all that's happening is SFC are restricting where media can buy photos from... meaning they are the beneficiaries of all photo sales for games at St Mary's.

 

So, basically, maximising profit by exploiting the fact that he can control who enters SMS.

 

And DellDays... there's a match build up thread for that discussion.

[NickG]

Do you have any evidence of that?

 

yes

[SW11_Saint]

http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?24319-SFC-Ban-Press-Photographers

 

Not sure why my thread was closed - this is a much wider issue than the title of this thread suggests. At least The Guardian picking up on it will widen the debate.

 

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

[Thedelldays]

That may be all that matters to you, but for me and many others football is about far more than just getting three points every Saturday

 

what is it then..? the catering..? the pictures..? the car park..? the kit man..? winning..?

[NickG]

do have concerns about content control.

[Minty]

what is it then..? the catering..? the pictures..? the car park..? the kit man..? winning..?

 

Delldays, seriously, if YOU'RE not interested in this particular piece of news, then so be it, but don't belittle those who feel it is important and worthy of discussion.

[Mr-G]

bunch of whiners.. one day you will respect every decision NC has made. He's ambitious and very professional. something we have missed in our club for a very long time.

[hypochondriac]

This message is hidden because Thedelldays is on your ignore list.

View Post

Remove user from ignore list

 

Bliss

[Wilko]

This seems a sensible decision to make.

 

I agree. Very sensible.

[Thedelldays]

Delldays, seriously, if YOU'RE not interested in this particular piece of news, then so be it, but don't belittle those who feel it is important and worthy of discussion.

 

seriously...I am asking

 

for years we wished we never had to talk about non footballing stuff...we dreamt of that day...now, it seems that is what people can only really talk about..it is almost like we are "conditioned"....

 

seriously...on the grand scheme of things..this is not really an issue..it has no effect on the team, manager or even going to a game

 

for years football clubs have had issues with the media..or infact what parts of the media the interact with..

 

one of the greatest managers ever does not deal with the BBC..? so what..?

other restrictions have been in place at football for years..I challenge you to go to any ground and film the game..?

 

if by doing this we can gain extra revenue then fine by me...english football is hardly the shining light to hold up as an example...about time things started to change and with the UEFA ruling coming...seems we are starting

[stevegrant]

yes

Let's see it then.

 

You and others demanded that people revealed their sources for making statements like that, so now the boot's on the other foot. Practice what you preach.

[St Marco]

Your "quick Google" must have been incredibly quick, as you obviously didn't read any of the linked articles.

 

Here's one: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1221168/Emmanuel-Adebayor-celebration-leads-Manchester-City-ban--photographers.html

 

The photographers who got the Adebayor celebration shots were banned from positioning themselves in front of the away section, not the ground, and not forced to pay the club for a pre-screened selection of images.

 

They are banned from the corner right? How is that any different? A ban is a ban.... The point is limiting the media to what they can and can't do correct?. They can't take photos at man city (albeit in designated areas), they can't take them at Southampton unless they are apart of the group who won the right to do so. The principle is the same.

[Minty]

seriously...I am asking

Well, in that case, the answer to your question is: No, it doesn't directly affect the team or the possible 3 points.

 

But that's not why we're discussing it.

 

for years we wished we never had to talk about non footballing stuff...we dreamt of that day...now, it seems that is what people can only really talk about..it is almost like we are "conditioned"....

Careful... who is this 'we' you refer to? The bottom line is that *I* want to talk about anything I feel is important to me. The way our club behaves and conducts itself is important to me. I feel in this instance, like other recent instances, we're doing the wrong thing.

 

if by doing this we can gain extra revenue then fine by me...english football is hardly the shining light to hold up as an example...about time things started to change and with the UEFA ruling coming...seems we are starting

 

I fully agree that English football is no shining light, hence my comment earlier that I don't *blame* NC for this... it's simply what he feels is best to generate revenue. However I don't have to agree with it, or the other myriad of examples where money comes first in football these days.

[derry]

If one looked at all the Sunday and Monday nationals, we hardly get a mention, never mind a photo from the match we've just played. More often than not the Echo just shows an old picture of a player they are mentioning in the Pink and Monday's Echo. A total non event for me.

[stevegrant]

They are banned from the corner right? How is that any different? A ban is a ban.... The point is limiting the media to what they can and can't do correct?. They can't take photos at man city (albeit in designated areas), they can't take them at Southampton unless they are apart of the group who won the right to do so. The principle is the same.

It's not the same in any way, shape or form.

 

Photographers cannot sit in that area of the ground, but they are free to sit anywhere else around the pitch. That means they still have a view of the entire pitch, and they are in the ground. They're not being told they're not allowed into the ground even though they have the required accreditation, they're not being told that if they want images they'll have to apply to the club and receive a set of pre-screened images that the club have edited and deemed appropriate for them to distribute.

[Pancake]

*gives Minty a clap*

[hypochondriac]

Minty is IMO the best poster on here.

[Thedelldays]

Well, in that case, the answer to your question is: No, it doesn't directly affect the team or the possible 3 points.

 

But that's not why we're discussing it.

 

 

Careful... who is this 'we' you refer to? The bottom line is that *I* want to talk about anything I feel is important to me. The way our club behaves and conducts itself is important to me. I feel in this instance, like other recent instances, we're doing the wrong thing.

 

 

 

I fully agree that English football is no shining light, hence my comment earlier that I don't *blame* NC for this... it's simply what he feels is best to generate revenue. However I don't have to agree with it, or the other myriad of examples where money comes first in football these days.

 

fair points....

 

another thing..will be interesting to see if any other football league clubs follow suit in the future...saying that, we will probably never find out lol

[stevegrant]

fair points....

 

another thing..will be interesting to see if any other football league clubs follow suit in the future...saying that, we will probably never find out lol

Bristol Rovers tried it a few years ago, although they did still let in the local paper's photographer. No idea how long that lasted, but it's certainly not in place anymore.

[Minty]

another thing..will be interesting to see if any other football league clubs follow suit in the future...saying that, we will probably never find out lol

 

Indeed. If it sticks, (and as Steve points out, BR's similar plan didn't last) then I can see others doing it, but I do wonder what the Football League would have to say if more clubs followed suit, because of the implications for the collective rights and licensing agreements they have through DataCo. That goes beyond my knowledge...

[buctootim]

Cortese is really coming across as one of the most egotistical and arrogant men in football.

 

lol. Perhaps you would care to rank him in order with Askham, Lowe, Wilde and Crouch. Then you could go wider and add in Ken Bates, Abramovich and Ridsdale and 100 other football club chairmen who we dont know about, but local fans will tell you are "one of the most egotistical and arrogant men in football".

[derry]

Some of the papers plus the Echo have been quite anti Cortese. He doesn't need them and is just giving them the bird. Southampton don't sell national newspapers, so who cares except the nationals, who don't cover us anyway, because it is a restriction they don't want.

[Synergy]

Sigh

 

[Minty]

It's worth saying IMO, that I don't think it's fair to label Cortese as arrogant or egotistical. Definately not egotistical infact. He is simply doing what he feels is right for the club. I don't think anyone is qualified to make such judgements unless they've met him. Unfortunately, things like this will always give rise to people making judgements about him.

[hypochondriac]

It's worth saying IMO, that I don't think it's fair to label Cortese as arrogant or egotistical. Definately not egotistical infact. He is simply doing what he feels is right for the club. I don't think anyone is qualified to make such judgements unless they've met him. Unfortunately, things like this will always give rise to people making judgements about him.

 

He impressed me when I met him and seemed very receptive to fans. At the fans forum he listened to what everyone had to say and seemed eager to sort out any problems that people had. It's why I feel so disappointed at some of the decisions over the past 6 months.

[70's Mike]

It's worth saying IMO, that I don't think it's fair to label Cortese as arrogant or egotistical. Definately not egotistical infact. He is simply doing what he feels is right for the club. I don't think anyone is qualified to make such judgements unless they've met him. Unfortunately, things like this will always give rise to people making judgements about him.

 

Agreed but my fear is that we had a recent Chairman who tried to do things different than others going against football conventions and traditions and he came unstuck

[hasper57saint]

*gives Minty a clap*

 

I'm so glad you prefixed the 'clap with an 'a'! perhaps 'Big Hand' may be more appropriate. Incidentally well done Mints!

[docker-p]

Yet again Cortese shows a poor grasp of business management, short term gain at the expense of long term planning. Thats what you get from bankers running business and this little jerk in particular, who has set a management structure where everyone is too scared to offer good council to him on how things work. Hey-ho, he'll learn eventually.

[Redondo Saint]

I think we will know very quickly if this is a good or bad decision by NC. If the media decide to boycott SFC then the income generated by this plan will probably not be worthwhile, however, if may be a groundbreaking piece of business with other clubs set to follow.

 

Curious as to how Man City, Utd, and Chelsea handle their photos.

 

My initial reaction is that it is not a good idea to alienate the press corps - with the exception of the Echo and its editor which I couldn't care less about..

[Fitzhugh Fella]

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.

 

Wise and sane words Minty.

I think this is NC's way of ensuring the Echo can't get hold of Saints images from away matches and use them in their home write-ups. The feud is ongoing it seems!

[Nolan]

http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?24319-SFC-Ban-Press-Photographers

 

Not sure why my thread was closed - this is a much wider issue than the title of this thread suggests. At least The Guardian picking up on it will widen the debate.

 

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

 

That Guardian link has an image accredited to "Christopher Lee/Getty Images". I think it's fair that if they want to print an Image that is to do with Saints then money should come to the club. With the amount of money that isn't going into football at the moment (see Portsmouth, Preston, Southend, Cardiff) what's wrong with trying something new? will it really alienate that many people?

[Wes Tender]

And the response would have been if Lowe had pulled this stunt? NC sounds like a bit of a control freak to me and is certainly not out to make friends. Oh well....

 

Does everything that is done by our current Chairman have to be referenced against how we would have reacted if the past Chairman had done the same? You're beginning to sound a bit like Dalek constantly sounding off about Hoddle whenever the subject of the manager is discussed.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

Do you know what, I had heard that if women spent a lot of time together then their cycles sync up together. I never believed it until this thread. Let me know when your collective period is over will you?

 

And in regards to the main issue, perhaps we should find out I'd Saints are ripping off these media outlets, or if they're presenting a viable, cost effective solution to the media, whilst opening a new revenue stream for SFC to take advantage of.

[Saint_clark]

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.

 

Surely you can't apply these charges to certain clubs/photographers? Has to be a blanket ruling or nothing at all.

[NickG]

Let's see it then.

 

You and others demanded that people revealed their sources for making statements like that, so now the boot's on the other foot. Practice what you preach.

 

admin should know better than trolling and lying

[Minty]

Do you know what, I had heard that if women spent a lot of time together then their cycles sync up together. I never believed it until this thread. Let me know when your collective period is over will you?

Is there any need for this kind of comment? Our 'collective period' is a valid concern. I fully expect some people not to agree, as is their right, but would it hurt to have a little respect for a different point of view?

 

And in regards to the main issue, perhaps we should find out I'd Saints are ripping off these media outlets, or if they're presenting a viable, cost effective solution to the media, whilst opening a new revenue stream for SFC to take advantage of.

That would be a fair point is this solely related to cost, however the issue is more about restricting access and choice, and effectively controlling the market, by restricting who can and can't take photos at St Mary's.

 

I fully accept that it is a valid revenue stream, and that deals for exclusivity are the norm in many areas of sport and business, but I just feel that are more constructive ways of creating revenue than working against the media in this way, and potentially restricting fans' access to matchday images.

[Wes Tender]

Yet again Cortese shows a poor grasp of business management, short term gain at the expense of long term planning. Thats what you get from bankers running business and this little jerk in particular, who has set a management structure where everyone is too scared to offer good council to him on how things work. Hey-ho, he'll learn eventually.

 

I bow to your superior knowledge of business practice. Perhaps Cortese ought to take you on in a consultancy basis, as your grasp of business is obviously so much better than his. Could you just refresh my memory as to what it is you do at the top of the local business tree and what qualifications you have gained along the way?

 

I'm presuming that you must be very high management running this very busy port of ours judging by your moniker. Am I correct?

[forever a red and white]

I personally think this is a good move in terms of increasing revenue. The chances are we are on the up, and the further we climb the more we can charge and the more demand there will be. Just becuase Libehher has money it doesn;t mean there won;t be extra measures to cover high costs.

 

Cortese is enabling the club to controls its own fortune more and make it less pre-determined. Good move? Time will tell. Back the manager, back the chairman.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

Is there any need for this kind of comment? Our 'collective period' is a valid concern. I fully expect some people not to agree, as is their right, but would it hurt to have a little respect for a different point of view?

 

 

That would be a fair point is this solely related to cost, however the issue is more about restricting access and choice, and effectively controlling the market, by restricting who can and can't take photos at St Mary's.

 

I fully accept that it is a valid revenue stream, and that deals for exclusivity are the norm in many areas of sport and business, but I just feel that are more constructive ways of creating revenue than working against the media in this way, and potentially restricting fans' access to matchday images.

 

I think that it us strange that people have such an issue with something so trivial. National press rarely take pictures from our games anyway, so if they do take the 1 picture, why not off us instead of freelancers? It seems to be such a non issue that people are just looking for an excuse to moan. Who genuinely believes the national press care enough to try a mass campaign against us? Surely it's the freelance photographers who suffer more?

[stevegrant]

admin should know better than trolling and lying

Answer the post.

 

By logic, I can only deduce that, as you consider my confirming of reports I've heard from trusted sources as "trolling and lying", and you've dressed your post up to be the same, you're just bull****ting. There's a surprise.

[Minty]

I think that it us strange that people have such an issue with something so trivial. National press rarely take pictures from our games anyway, so if they do take the 1 picture, why not off us instead of freelancers? It seems to be such a non issue that people are just looking for an excuse to moan. Who genuinely believes the national press care enough to try a mass campaign against us? Surely it's the freelance photographers who suffer more?

 

You think it is trivial, others do not. My concern, and that of others it seems, it not surrounding this specific action and the direct reaction, but the wider implications... the perception of the club for this and other recent decisions, that appear to put profit before anything else, and the potential ramifications if sponsors or fans or others involved with the club, feel they are acting in a manner which is exploitative or too selfish.

 

Can you not at least appreciate that concern?