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

[Dynamo Naive]

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

 

Hear, hear. Like reputation, principles, community, family – all the things which Saints used to be recognised and admired for. It may not matter to you, but I don't like the fact that my club, which is already being referred to as "the Man City of League 1", (and that's not said as a compliment) is going to become synonymous with greed, ruthless business practices and relating everything to the bottom line.

 

I admire a lot of what Cortese has done, and disagree with some of it, but this is bad news. To ban the local and national press from entering the stadium is arrogant and akin to shooting ourselves in the foot. The club's reputation will suffer at best, and Cortese (and by extension the club) will become hate figures for the media at worst.

[Minty]

Hear, hear. Like reputation, principles, community, family – all the things which Saints used to be recognised and admired for. It may not matter to you, but I don't like the fact that my club, which is already being referred to as "the Man City of League 1", (and that's not said as a compliment) is going to become synonymous with greed, ruthless business practices and relating everything to the bottom line.

 

Dibden Purlieu Saint - this is exactly what I mean.

 

Fully agree Dynamo.

[Thedelldays]

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?

 

then football will never change...and not want to.

 

one of the greatest managers ever does not deal with the BBC...he gets along just fine

[CB Fry]

Hear, hear. Like reputation, principles, community, family – all the things which Saints used to be recognised and admired for. It may not matter to you, but I don't like the fact that my club, which is already being referred to as "the Man City of League 1", (and that's not said as a compliment) is going to become synonymous with greed, ruthless business practices and relating everything to the bottom line.

 

I admire a lot of what Cortese has done, and disagree with some of it, but this is bad news. To ban the local and national press from entering the stadium is arrogant and akin to shooting ourselves in the foot. The club's reputation will suffer at best, and Cortese (and by extension the club) will become hate figures for the media at worst.

 

 

Have to agree with this. If the current arrangement is good enough for Arsenal, Man United, Chelsea, Liverpool and the rest, what on earth makes us so special?

 

Really, really, really, pointless arrogance.

 

The people who say it isn't a big deal aren't wrong - it isn't, but it's Cortese making it a big deal. The decision isn't going to cost us three points, but letting in photographers just like every club in the country isn't going to cost us three points either.

 

Nicola - get over yourself.

[Wilko]

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?

 

There was nothing wrong with the past system, so why change it?

 

Moreover, there are now serious questions about Cortese's efforts to stifle the press. Firstly, there was the tantrum about the Echo writing a story based on public information. Then there was the resulting ban. Now there's this. If this is not a man trying to use his power to restrict the freedom of the press, I don't know what is. How long might it be before he bans all reporters, leaving all publications to purchase reports written by an SFC lackey? You may scoff at this suggestion now, but after the way he's acted over the past few months, it seems an entirely plausible outcome.

[hypochondriac]

Hear, hear. Like reputation, principles, community, family – all the things which Saints used to be recognised and admired for. It may not matter to you, but I don't like the fact that my club, which is already being referred to as "the Man City of League 1", (and that's not said as a compliment) is going to become synonymous with greed, ruthless business practices and relating everything to the bottom line.

 

I admire a lot of what Cortese has done, and disagree with some of it, but this is bad news. To ban the local and national press from entering the stadium is arrogant and akin to shooting ourselves in the foot. The club's reputation will suffer at best, and Cortese (and by extension the club) will become hate figures for the media at worst.

 

Got it in one. About bloody time

[Thedelldays]

Hear, hear. Like reputation, principles, community, family – all the things which Saints used to be recognised and admired for. It may not matter to you, but I don't like the fact that my club, which is already being referred to as "the Man City of League 1", (and that's not said as a compliment) is going to become synonymous with greed, ruthless business practices and relating everything to the bottom line.

 

I admire a lot of what Cortese has done, and disagree with some of it, but this is bad news. To ban the local and national press from entering the stadium is arrogant and akin to shooting ourselves in the foot. The club's reputation will suffer at best, and Cortese (and by extension the club) will become hate figures for the media at worst.

 

did you have an issue using said greed to sign league 1 star players..???

[Minty]

Got it in one. About bloody time

 

I could've saved myself a lot of time today, had I put it like that 2 pages ago...!

[.comsaint]

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...

 

Unless they nick mine!

 

[Minty]

Unless they nick mine!

 

lol, aren't yours just syndicated from Getty or somewhere anyway? Or you know someone who has access? I'm sure you mentioned it before...

[.comsaint]

lol, aren't yours just syndicated from Getty or somewhere anyway? Or you know someone who has access? I'm sure you mentioned it before...

 

Indeed Minty. To coin an old phrase: It's not what you know - it's who you know.

 

[Dynamo Naive]

did you have an issue using said greed to sign league 1 star players..???

 

Not entirely sure what you mean. "Greed" isn't a currency. Most of our star players were signed using ML's money. I realise that the club has to become self-sufficient and not rely on him to fund more signings, and that clearly involves finding new revenue streams. But if we can afford to forego a shirt sponsor for a season, then things clearly aren't so bad that we need to try and wring a few extra quid from selling photographs.

 

It's a self-defeating and disappointing move in my view.

[Faz]

So, Its Ok for Getty images to take loads of photos and be paid for them by other organisations, but not ok for Saints to exploit that market? Guardian are upset, but take their pics from Getty.

 

Crack on NC.

[NickG]

not sure why when an administrator posts a lie about me (stating I have posted something I haven't) and I point that out - I get an infraction?

 

Suggest no-one disagrees with stevegrant.

[Minty]

So, Its Ok for Getty images to take loads of photos and be paid for them by other organisations, but not ok for Saints to exploit that market? Guardian are upset, but take their pics from Getty.

 

If you read through the thread you'll realise it's not that simple, hence why some of us are concerned.

[eurosaint]

not sure why when an administrator posts a lie about me (stating I have posted something I haven't) and I point that out - I get an infraction?

 

Suggest no-one disagrees with stevegrant.

 

Steve is never wrong !!

[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.

 

as I do not recall ever demanding people reveal and therefore dispute the rest of this post, could you kindly remind me when I said that?

 

I believe you have got it wrong and therefore should recind the heavy handed punishment given out for disagreeing with your statement.

 

If I have said that but forgotten then will happily apologise for getting it wrong - will you do the same?

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

After everyone complained about Lowe, supported the Wilde bunch etc, perhaps its a case of 'be careful what you wish for'.

[NickG]

Steve is never wrong !!

 

lol!

 

Most I can ever recall is commenting that I reserve judgement on some of these rumour as I haven't seen the facts - clearly happy for others to view my posts in the same way.

[sadoldgit]

I have just read the comments on The Guardian web page following the article. I am not sure how much money we will make from this and maybe it is a good idea, but I can't help feeling that we have made a huge PR gaffe with this.

 

As a previous poster said, I don't want SFC to be viewed as a L1 "Manchester City." As a London born Saints supporter if was the family club image that drew me to Saints in the first place. Whilst I accept that football is a business now it is still possible to run that business with family values.

[aintforever]

Bet we don't make a penny from this, the nationals wont give a **** if they have a picture of a Saints player in or not. Local papers will not buy any out of principle.

 

This is probably just all about Princess Nicola's tiff with the Echo, he probably expects their photographer to get banned from away games. I expect it annoys him that there is nothing he can do to spite the Echo at away games.

 

I agree with the Plymouth article, it's an insult to football fans.

[jam]

then football will never change...and not want to.

 

one of the greatest managers ever does not deal with the BBC...he gets along just fine

 

And he comes across as a complete arse for doing so. Sadly he was already established at the pinnacle of European football when he started his boycott so he's allowed to get away from it.

[St Marco]

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.

 

That is nice Steve

 

But a ban is a ban no?

 

As i said before, i don't see the problem. Who is going to lose out from this, us? Nope. The media companies who take the photos to in turn charge you to look at them? yep.

[EastleighSoulBoy]

Hear, hear. Like reputation, principles, community, family – all the things which Saints used to be recognised and admired for. It may not matter to you, but I don't like the fact that my club, which is already being referred to as "the Man City of League 1", (and that's not said as a compliment) is going to become synonymous with greed, ruthless business practices and relating everything to the bottom line.

 

I admire a lot of what Cortese has done, and disagree with some of it, but this is bad news. To ban the local and national press from entering the stadium is arrogant and akin to shooting ourselves in the foot. The club's reputation will suffer at best, and Cortese (and by extension the club) will become hate figures for the media at worst.

 

I agree, I don't like this situation at all.

 

Next we'll have the stewards advising us not to take pictures with our camera phones or, not to miss an opportunity, ushering us to a viewing platform where, for £1 we can take one picture.

[musesaint]

Four pages on this nonsense so far

 

FFS!

[FloridaMarlin]

Bloody hell!

 

It took a page and a half of trash before Minty came up with sense.

 

I'm not sure Cortese might not get a bollicking from the Football League for this.

 

As Minty points out, the PL and FL formed Football DataCo to control the licencing of football coverage.

 

I'll say that again slowly, just in case anyone missed it. That's the...licencing...of...football...coverage.

 

They did this for two reasons, one to make the media pay for something they previously enjoyed a free access to, and to control the coverage.

 

Thanks to Football DataCo, football is now an officially licenced product, and every media outlet that wants to report on football - from the Premier League to League Two - has to pay for a licence to do so.

 

That will include the Plymouth Herald who would have paid a not inconsiderable sum for their reporters' and photographers' licences in order to do what local papers have long done; provide coverage on their local team for their readers, who just happen to be fans as well.

 

Strangely enough, that's exactly what The Echo does, and those patting Cortese on the shoulder for this misguided stance might wish to think again when the only pictures available of Rickie Lambert scoring the promotion-clinching goal is a thumbnail on the website.

 

If I was the editor of the Plymouth Herald, I would report Saints to the Football League for being in breach of the League's collective agreement on licencing - an agreement Saints would have signed up to.

 

But there's also a far more insidious side to this, and one I've alluded to before, and that's the issue of press freedom.

 

Those who say they don't care about press freedom as long as Saints win should be thankful they have the freedom of expression to be able to say so.

 

I mentioned at the top of this post about control of coverage, and I think Minty touched on it as well.

 

A significant driving force for the foundation of the licencing of football coverage was a desire to be able to control what is published.

 

Remember that picture of a few years ago of a bewildered and terrified referee Andy D'Urso surrounded by the wolf pack of Man Utd players led by the lycanthropic Roy Keane holwing in rage in his face (yeah, I know, some dimwit will appear and say D'Urso is a crap referee who deserved it)?

 

That was a partial trigger. That picture went all around the world, and like the vile cold sore called pompey, did not portray the PL in the sort of positive light it needs to be able to sell its wares to the Far East.

 

The PL never wanted to see that sort of thing again, so they introduced its licence system. Any photographer taking a similar picture and getting it published can expect to have his licence revoked. Has it worked? Maybe the threat has. Just ask yourself if you have seen a similar picture in the past couple of years.

 

It can also apply to reporters. They run the risk of having their licence and livelihood removed if they write something contrary to the PL/FL's wishes.

 

So big ups to those who think Cortese has done the right thing with this. May you enjoy reading your massaged, sanitised match reports.

 

When Saints get stuffed 5-1 at a bleak northern outpost on a forbidding midwinter evening, I would like an objective explanation of why it happened. But I've no doubt there are those who stick their head in the sand, only emerging to accept an anodyne, manufactured whitewash job that Saints were all over them and conceded five fluky long-range efforts (some people will know what I'm referring to!)

 

And while I'm here, I'm not liking the hypocrisy on this board.

 

For the last year, culminating in the farce that was yesterday's High Court hearing, we have been correctly chastising the scabious pirates for the way in which they habitually stuck two fingers up to all and sundry.

 

Yet when we start to flip the bird to a few select people, it's somehow OK.

 

I thought we were better than pompey as a club, and our supporters a cut above the blue few when it came to being objective and fair-minded, and not self-centered inbreds who only see things through team-coloured blinkers.

[EastleighSoulBoy]

Bloody hell!

 

It took a page and a half of trash before Minty came up with sense.

 

I'm not sure Cortese might not get a bollicking from the Football League for this.

 

As Minty points out, the PL and FL formed Football DataCo to control the licencing of football coverage.

 

I'll say that again slowly, just in case anyone missed it. That's the...licencing...of...football...coverage.

 

They did this for two reasons, one to make the media pay for something they previously enjoyed a free access to, and to control the coverage.

 

Thanks to Football DataCo, football is now an officially licenced product, and every media outlet that wants to report on football - from the Premier League to League Two - has to pay for a licence to do so.

 

That will include the Plymouth Herald who would have paid a not inconsiderable sum for their reporters' and photographers' licences in order to do what local papers have long done; provide coverage on their local team for their readers, who just happen to be fans as well.

 

Strangely enough, that's exactly what The Echo does, and those patting Cortese on the shoulder for this misguided stance might wish to think again when the only pictures available of Rickie Lambert scoring the promotion-clinching goal is a thumbnail on the website.

 

If I was the editor of the Plymouth Herald, I would report Saints to the Football League for being in breach of the League's collective agreement on licencing - an agreement Saints would have signed up to.

 

But there's also a far more insidious side to this, and one I've alluded to before, and that's the issue of press freedom.

 

Those who say they don't care about press freedom as long as Saints win should be thankful they have the freedom of expression to be able to say so.

 

I mentioned at the top of this post about control of coverage, and I think Minty touched on it as well.

 

A significant driving force for the foundation of the licencing of football coverage was a desire to be able to control what is published.

 

Remember that picture of a few years ago of a bewildered and terrified referee Andy D'Urso surrounded by the wolf pack of Man Utd players led by the lycanthropic Roy Keane holwing in rage in his face (yeah, I know, some dimwit will appear and say D'Urso is a crap referee who deserved it)?

 

That was a partial trigger. That picture went all around the world, and like the vile cold sore called pompey, did not portray the PL in the sort of positive light it needs to be able to sell its wares to the Far East.

 

The PL never wanted to see that sort of thing again, so they introduced its licence system. Any photographer taking a similar picture and getting it published can expect to have his licence revoked. Has it worked? Maybe the threat has. Just ask yourself if you have seen a similar picture in the past couple of years.

 

It can also apply to reporters. They run the risk of having their licence and livelihood removed if they write something contrary to the PL/FL's wishes.

 

So big ups to those who think Cortese has done the right thing with this. May you enjoy reading your massaged, sanitised match reports.

 

When Saints get stuffed 5-1 at a bleak northern outpost on a forbidding midwinter evening, I would like an objective explanation of why it happened. But I've no doubt there are those who stick their head in the sand, only emerging to accept an anodyne, manufactured whitewash job that Saints were all over them and conceded five fluky long-range efforts (some people will know what I'm referring to!)

 

And while I'm here, I'm not liking the hypocrisy on this board.

 

For the last year, culminating in the farce that was yesterday's High Court hearing, we have been correctly chastising the scabious pirates for the way in which they habitually stuck two fingers up to all and sundry.

 

Yet when we start to flip the bird to a few select people, it's somehow OK.

 

I thought we were better than pompey as a club, and our supporters a cut above the blue few when it came to being objective and fair-minded, and not self-centered inbreds who only see things through team-coloured blinkers.

 

Spot on!

[benjii]

I can't imagine anything more trivial and piffling than this.

[modern matron]

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."

 

Why? We will become hated or thought ridiculous with stunts like this. I hope common sense prevails..

[sadoldgit]

Bloody hell!

 

It took a page and a half of trash before Minty came up with sense.

 

I'm not sure Cortese might not get a bollicking from the Football League for this.

 

As Minty points out, the PL and FL formed Football DataCo to control the licencing of football coverage.

 

I'll say that again slowly, just in case anyone missed it. That's the...licencing...of...football...coverage.

 

They did this for two reasons, one to make the media pay for something they previously enjoyed a free access to, and to control the coverage.

 

Thanks to Football DataCo, football is now an officially licenced product, and every media outlet that wants to report on football - from the Premier League to League Two - has to pay for a licence to do so.

 

That will include the Plymouth Herald who would have paid a not inconsiderable sum for their reporters' and photographers' licences in order to do what local papers have long done; provide coverage on their local team for their readers, who just happen to be fans as well.

 

Strangely enough, that's exactly what The Echo does, and those patting Cortese on the shoulder for this misguided stance might wish to think again when the only pictures available of Rickie Lambert scoring the promotion-clinching goal is a thumbnail on the website.

 

If I was the editor of the Plymouth Herald, I would report Saints to the Football League for being in breach of the League's collective agreement on licencing - an agreement Saints would have signed up to.

 

But there's also a far more insidious side to this, and one I've alluded to before, and that's the issue of press freedom.

 

Those who say they don't care about press freedom as long as Saints win should be thankful they have the freedom of expression to be able to say so.

 

I mentioned at the top of this post about control of coverage, and I think Minty touched on it as well.

 

A significant driving force for the foundation of the licencing of football coverage was a desire to be able to control what is published.

 

Remember that picture of a few years ago of a bewildered and terrified referee Andy D'Urso surrounded by the wolf pack of Man Utd players led by the lycanthropic Roy Keane holwing in rage in his face (yeah, I know, some dimwit will appear and say D'Urso is a crap referee who deserved it)?

 

That was a partial trigger. That picture went all around the world, and like the vile cold sore called pompey, did not portray the PL in the sort of positive light it needs to be able to sell its wares to the Far East.

 

The PL never wanted to see that sort of thing again, so they introduced its licence system. Any photographer taking a similar picture and getting it published can expect to have his licence revoked. Has it worked? Maybe the threat has. Just ask yourself if you have seen a similar picture in the past couple of years.

 

It can also apply to reporters. They run the risk of having their licence and livelihood removed if they write something contrary to the PL/FL's wishes.

 

So big ups to those who think Cortese has done the right thing with this. May you enjoy reading your massaged, sanitised match reports.

 

When Saints get stuffed 5-1 at a bleak northern outpost on a forbidding midwinter evening, I would like an objective explanation of why it happened. But I've no doubt there are those who stick their head in the sand, only emerging to accept an anodyne, manufactured whitewash job that Saints were all over them and conceded five fluky long-range efforts (some people will know what I'm referring to!)

 

And while I'm here, I'm not liking the hypocrisy on this board.

 

For the last year, culminating in the farce that was yesterday's High Court hearing, we have been correctly chastising the scabious pirates for the way in which they habitually stuck two fingers up to all and sundry.

 

Yet when we start to flip the bird to a few select people, it's somehow OK.

 

I thought we were better than pompey as a club, and our supporters a cut above the blue few when it came to being objective and fair-minded, and not self-centered inbreds who only see things through team-coloured blinkers.

 

Post of the day.

[Nolan]

Bloody hell!

 

It took a page and a half of trash before Minty came up with sense.

 

I'm not sure Cortese might not get a bollicking from the Football League for this.

 

As Minty points out, the PL and FL formed Football DataCo to control the licencing of football coverage.

 

I'll say that again slowly, just in case anyone missed it. That's the...licencing...of...football...coverage.

 

They did this for two reasons, one to make the media pay for something they previously enjoyed a free access to, and to control the coverage......

 

If it was arranged in an way at all similar to the unfair distribution of monies from the Premier League being distributed down the ladder, then I probably ain't a jump to work out why NC is doing this.

[Pilchards]

What's the big fuss, find a tree and take some photo's from there :-)

[EastleighSoulBoy]

What's the big fuss, find a tree and take some photo's from there :-)

 

We're not at the Dell now mate, so also no nice front room in a flat to rent!

[Deppo]

If Cortese hadn't got rid of the payment scheme on season tickets, nobody would have batted an eyelid at any of this stuff. He's p*ssed people off with that and everyone is using anything else he does to take a strip off him.

[theyin]

this is not a good move AFAIC.

 

if this is about pulling in more cash then I seriously doubt selling rights like this would generate much more income than the previous system. This, as has already been mentioned, simply creates a bad feeling towards the club. I fear this is not all that NC has in store for the media, FL and other associated organisations this coming season. We have a rep as a club, needlessly trashing it like this is pointless.

[Wilko]

Bloody hell!

 

It took a page and a half of trash before Minty came up with sense.

 

I'm not sure Cortese might not get a bollicking from the Football League for this.

 

As Minty points out, the PL and FL formed Football DataCo to control the licencing of football coverage.

 

I'll say that again slowly, just in case anyone missed it. That's the...licencing...of...football...coverage.

 

They did this for two reasons, one to make the media pay for something they previously enjoyed a free access to, and to control the coverage.

 

Thanks to Football DataCo, football is now an officially licenced product, and every media outlet that wants to report on football - from the Premier League to League Two - has to pay for a licence to do so.

 

That will include the Plymouth Herald who would have paid a not inconsiderable sum for their reporters' and photographers' licences in order to do what local papers have long done; provide coverage on their local team for their readers, who just happen to be fans as well.

 

Strangely enough, that's exactly what The Echo does, and those patting Cortese on the shoulder for this misguided stance might wish to think again when the only pictures available of Rickie Lambert scoring the promotion-clinching goal is a thumbnail on the website.

 

If I was the editor of the Plymouth Herald, I would report Saints to the Football League for being in breach of the League's collective agreement on licencing - an agreement Saints would have signed up to.

 

But there's also a far more insidious side to this, and one I've alluded to before, and that's the issue of press freedom.

 

Those who say they don't care about press freedom as long as Saints win should be thankful they have the freedom of expression to be able to say so.

 

I mentioned at the top of this post about control of coverage, and I think Minty touched on it as well.

 

A significant driving force for the foundation of the licencing of football coverage was a desire to be able to control what is published.

 

Remember that picture of a few years ago of a bewildered and terrified referee Andy D'Urso surrounded by the wolf pack of Man Utd players led by the lycanthropic Roy Keane holwing in rage in his face (yeah, I know, some dimwit will appear and say D'Urso is a crap referee who deserved it)?

 

That was a partial trigger. That picture went all around the world, and like the vile cold sore called pompey, did not portray the PL in the sort of positive light it needs to be able to sell its wares to the Far East.

 

The PL never wanted to see that sort of thing again, so they introduced its licence system. Any photographer taking a similar picture and getting it published can expect to have his licence revoked. Has it worked? Maybe the threat has. Just ask yourself if you have seen a similar picture in the past couple of years.

 

It can also apply to reporters. They run the risk of having their licence and livelihood removed if they write something contrary to the PL/FL's wishes.

 

So big ups to those who think Cortese has done the right thing with this. May you enjoy reading your massaged, sanitised match reports.

 

When Saints get stuffed 5-1 at a bleak northern outpost on a forbidding midwinter evening, I would like an objective explanation of why it happened. But I've no doubt there are those who stick their head in the sand, only emerging to accept an anodyne, manufactured whitewash job that Saints were all over them and conceded five fluky long-range efforts (some people will know what I'm referring to!)

 

And while I'm here, I'm not liking the hypocrisy on this board.

 

For the last year, culminating in the farce that was yesterday's High Court hearing, we have been correctly chastising the scabious pirates for the way in which they habitually stuck two fingers up to all and sundry.

 

Yet when we start to flip the bird to a few select people, it's somehow OK.

 

I thought we were better than pompey as a club, and our supporters a cut above the blue few when it came to being objective and fair-minded, and not self-centered inbreds who only see things through team-coloured blinkers.

 

F'ing right. Very nicely put.

[Jimmy_D]

Best to wait and see how this is actually used methinks. There are a lot of things that, when they're announced, attract a lot of criticism because they could be used in some way... then they're not used that way and everyone forgets about them.

 

Yes it's possible this single company could be to control the images coming out of St Marys, Cortese is a control freak etc etc. It's also possible one company paid a lot of money, or at least more than we would have got otherwise, for exclusivity on Saints' photos, much like EA has exclusivity on Prem players' likenesses etc. which goes on all the time.

 

Heck, if it works for us, every other club will probably follow suit and do the same.

[Wes Tender]

You were doing OK until you got to the last part. Some seem to think that your whole post is spot on, but I find some of it to be contentious, so I've added my reasons.

 

Florida Marlin

It can also apply to reporters. They run the risk of having their licence and livelihood removed if they write something contrary to the PL/FL's wishes.

 

Really? So do the PL/FL tell reporters what they should or should not say? Do they vet the articles before they are published? I would seriously be interested to have examples of a reporter losing their livelihood because they lost their license to report freely. And you are worried about press freedom. So who is threatening press freedom then? Cortese or the PL/FL?

 

So big ups to those who think Cortese has done the right thing with this. May you enjoy reading your massaged, sanitised match reports.

 

Will the restricted reporting apply to match reports on here too? I thought that this thread was all about photographic restrictions. I didn't realise that it extended to reporting too.

 

When Saints get stuffed 5-1 at a bleak northern outpost on a forbidding midwinter evening, I would like an objective explanation of why it happened. But I've no doubt there are those who stick their head in the sand, only emerging to accept an anodyne, manufactured whitewash job that Saints were all over them and conceded five fluky long-range efforts (some people will know what I'm referring to!)

 

Again, I might read the OS, but I'll balance that by reading reports on here and in other publications.

 

And while I'm here, I'm not liking the hypocrisy on this board.

 

For the last year, culminating in the farce that was yesterday's High Court hearing, we have been correctly chastising the scabious pirates for the way in which they habitually stuck two fingers up to all and sundry.

 

Yet when we start to flip the bird to a few select people, it's somehow OK.

 

I do think that you are guilty of choosing entirely the wrong analogy if you wish to compare the extreme financial imprudence of the Skates with the way that this club is run, which is seemingly with a very astute eye to careful management of the finances. Quite how a charge of hypocrisy can be levelled at anyone who expresses support for the way this club is managed is totally incomprehensible.

 

I thought we were better than pompey as a club, and our supporters a cut above the blue few when it came to being objective and fair-minded, and not self-centered inbreds who only see things through team-coloured blinkers.

So by inference you choose to label those who agree with your viewpoint as objective and fair-minded and those who take an opposing view are self-centred and blinkered inbreds. Did I get the gist of that right?

[Dave Benson Phillips]

Right, let's get a few things clear. For all those saying " maybe he is going to change the way football works, he knows best " blah blah blah

 

Leeds tried it ( on a smaller scale, still allowing locals and nationals in but banning agencies ) and the press stuck together and stopped reporting on Leeds.

 

Celtic tried it and the papers in Scotland, allowing photographers in, as long as they could own the copyright, the Scottish nationals printed articles with blank spaces where the pictures were supposed to be and slated them nationally, forcing them to back down. ( Again, this is a few steps below what Cortese is doing, they still let the locals in )

 

Bristol Rovers banned all freelance photographers and agencies ( again, letting the locals and national who had their own men in, so a few steps below what Cortese has done ) , through protests and near on zero publicity from the papers, they were forced to backtrack.

 

These are the only three examples I can find of when something similar happened, and all failed in epic fashion, forcing the respective clubs to run back with their tails between their legs.

 

It is all very well saying it is only trivial and a small matter etc etc... this one is probably bigger than all of the rest in terms of the clubs reputation. In one hit SFC have p!ssed off every local and national press in the land... that means only one thing... bad publicity whenever the papers get the opportunity or a story... hardly a small matter.

 

I think the most ironic thing is what you can guarantee is the majority of clubs will mirror their own ban and pass it on to Saints... so the Echo alot of you say you hate and don't need, will be the place you rely on for pictures from Saints away games this season.

 

On a last note, it is not for commercial reasons, the nationals don't give a fook about us, we are League 1, and they won't be buying many pictures off SFC... we are local news now, not national. It's been done for no other reason than spite and propeganda. And the only people that are affected with this are the fans.

 

Well done, bravo, hooray!

 

On another note, it's matchday... COYSashes

[Matthew Le God]

I think the most ironic thing is what you can guarantee is the majority of clubs will mirror their own ban and pass it on to Saints... so the Echo alot of you say you hate and don't need, will be the place you rely on for pictures from Saints away games this season.

 

So you won't be able to see pictures of Saints away games in any other place apart from the Echo? Think that statement through again Stu! What about the other teams website? National and local papers? BBC and Sky highlights? Other websites? etc etc

[FloridaMarlin]

You were doing OK until you got to the last part. Some seem to think that your whole post is spot on, but I find some of it to be contentious, so I've added my reasons.

 

It can also apply to reporters. They run the risk of having their licence and livelihood removed if they write something contrary to the PL/FL's wishes.

 

Really? So do the PL/FL tell reporters what they should or should not say? Do they vet the articles before they are published? I would seriously be interested to have examples of a reporter losing their livelihood because they lost their license to report freely. And you are worried about press freedom. So who is threatening press freedom then? Cortese or the PL/FL?

 

So big ups to those who think Cortese has done the right thing with this. May you enjoy reading your massaged, sanitised match reports.

 

Will the restricted reporting apply to match reports on here too? I thought that this thread was all about photographic restrictions. I didn't realise that it extended to reporting too.

 

When Saints get stuffed 5-1 at a bleak northern outpost on a forbidding midwinter evening, I would like an objective explanation of why it happened. But I've no doubt there are those who stick their head in the sand, only emerging to accept an anodyne, manufactured whitewash job that Saints were all over them and conceded five fluky long-range efforts (some people will know what I'm referring to!)

 

Again, I might read the OS, but I'll balance that by reading reports on here and in other publications.

 

And while I'm here, I'm not liking the hypocrisy on this board.

 

For the last year, culminating in the farce that was yesterday's High Court hearing, we have been correctly chastising the scabious pirates for the way in which they habitually stuck two fingers up to all and sundry.

 

Yet when we start to flip the bird to a few select people, it's somehow OK.

 

I do think that you are guilty of choosing entirely the wrong analogy if you wish to compare the extreme financial imprudence of the Skates with the way that this club is run, which is seemingly with a very astute eye to careful management of the finances. Quite how a charge of hypocrisy can be levelled at anyone who expresses support for the way this club is managed is totally incomprehensible.

 

I thought we were better than pompey as a club, and our supporters a cut above the blue few when it came to being objective and fair-minded, and not self-centered inbreds who only see things through team-coloured blinkers.

So by inference you choose to label those who agree with your viewpoint as objective and fair-minded and those who take an opposing view are self-centred and blinkered inbreds. Did I get the gist of that right?

 

 

 

 

 

Florida Marlin

So by inference you choose to label those who agree with your viewpoint as objective and fair-minded and those who take an opposing view are self-centred and blinkered inbreds. Did I get the gist of that right?

 

I'm not as clever as you with the HTML, so you'll have to put up with me picking it up point by point.

 

1) The PL/FL do not tell reporters what to write, but the point of issuing licences is that by definition they are a control device that can be removed. I'll have to send out a few emails for details but there is at least one instance of a freelance reporter in the north of the country having his licence - and therefore his livelihood - removed at the request of a club. The club did not like what he had written about it, and complained to Football DataCo who upheld their complaint and revoked his licence. Thankfully, removal of licences has been a rare occurence, but the implied threat is always there.

 

2) While I agree this thread is principally about the issue of photographers, reporters also have to now be licenced, and therefore fall under the same conditions and with it the same possible restrictions and problems as photographers. If clubs are allowed to ban press photographers and insist media outlets take the club-provided pictures, how long before they decide to ban those pesky journalists so that the only match report you can see is the one provided by the club?

 

3) I think this is the very point I am trying to make. Thank goodness you are able to balance out official and sanitised versions by reading accounts from elsewhere. Long may that continue. Fear the day it ceases!

 

4) I've always been proud of the way Saints fans are rational, objective and intelligent enough to criticise their club when they see what they perceive to be a wrong. That has been what sets us above the blue few who, with few exceptions, have seen little wrong in what their armpit of a club has perpetrated over the last 18 months.

 

As I said, we have quite rightly chastised them for that myopic, blinkered attitude which has championed the way their club has stuck two fingers up.

 

Of course, in the scale of things, Cortese banning photographers does not compare to the wholesale, serial cheating that p***ey have carried out. But Cortese's actions have provided a cause-celebre for those Saints fans who like to indulge in a bit of "f**k everyone else" v-flicking.

 

That's their prerogative as well and I wouldn't deny them that (it's that freedom of expression thingy again). All I was saying was that those same people can hardly slam p***ey fans for doing it when they do it themselves. That's hypocrisy.

 

I think you might have misconstrued my last paragrpah and quite didn't get it right. The "self-centred inbreds who only see things through team-cloured spectacles" referred to the p***ey fans that we are supposedly a cut above, not those who disagree with me. I think you might have extrapolated a bit there.

 

I've run out of Post-It notes, so I'll leave you free to run riot with a thick pad of them and stick labels on whoever you feel should have one.

[Wes Tender]

I'm not as clever as you with the HTML, so you'll have to put up with me picking it up point by point.

 

1) The PL/FL do not tell reporters what to write, but the point of issuing licences is that by definition they are a control device that can be removed. I'll have to send out a few emails for details but there is at least one instance of a freelance reporter in the north of the country having his licence - and therefore his livelihood - removed at the request of a club. The club did not like what he had written about it, and complained to Football DataCo who upheld their complaint and revoked his licence. Thankfully, removal of licences has been a rare occurence, but the implied threat is always there.

 

2) While I agree this thread is principally about the issue of photographers, reporters also have to now be licenced, and therefore fall under the same conditions and with it the same possible restrictions and problems as photographers. If clubs are allowed to ban press photographers and insist media outlets take the club-provided pictures, how long before they decide to ban those pesky journalists so that the only match report you can see is the one provided by the club?

 

3) I think this is the very point I am trying to make. Thank goodness you are able to balance out official and sanitised versions by reading accounts from elsewhere. Long may that continue. Fear the day it ceases!

 

4) I've always been proud of the way Saints fans are rational, objective and intelligent enough to criticise their club when they see what they perceive to be a wrong. That has been what sets us above the blue few who, with few exceptions, have seen little wrong in what their armpit of a club has perpetrated over the last 18 months.

 

As I said, we have quite rightly chastised them for that myopic, blinkered attitude which has championed the way their club has stuck two fingers up.

 

Of course, in the scale of things, Cortese banning photographers does not compare to the wholesale, serial cheating that p***ey have carried out. But Cortese's actions have provided a cause-celebre for those Saints fans who like to indulge in a bit of "f**k everyone else" v-flicking.

 

That's their prerogative as well and I wouldn't deny them that (it's that freedom of expression thingy again). All I was saying was that those same people can hardly slam p***ey fans for doing it when they do it themselves. That's hypocrisy.

 

I think you might have misconstrued my last paragrpah and quite didn't get it right. The "self-centred inbreds who only see things through team-cloured spectacles" referred to the p***ey fans that we are supposedly a cut above, not those who disagree with me. I think you might have extrapolated a bit there.

 

I've run out of Post-It notes, so I'll leave you free to run riot with a thick pad of them and stick labels on whoever you feel should have one.

 

Your last sentence is a bit tetchy. I thought that my response was balanced and objective. I didn't misconstrue your point about the blinkered Skate fans, but you drew a comparison between us and them by insinuating that they weren't bright enough to be critical of those who have run them into the ground and that we would therefore be hypocrites if we didn't do the same to the people running our club. I just thought that the comparison was unfounded and a bit shrill at this stage, especially when it is arguable that we are at totally opposite ends of the scale regarding how well each club is run.

 

IMO, the same thing applies to your projection onwards that a ban on professional photographers would ultimately result in a ban on journalistic freedom. I suspect that even if you do manage to find an instance of a journalist losing his license, it will not be because the football club complained about him being critical about how their team played. I suspect that it would have more to do with whether the reporting was libellous or unprofessional in some way.

 

Licenses apply to all sorts of trades and professions, from pubs to dance halls and cinemas, right through to medicine, legal practice, the finance industry. So all of these are subject to control measures too and all have the power to withdraw those licenses thus affecting the livelihood of those employed in those businesses. In most cases, where peoples' livelihoods are affected, there is some avenue for appeal through a tribunal or through a court of law.

 

In view of the above, I'm not about to get over-excited about this little episode.

 

The season starts today, so happily we have other things to discuss that are much more important to most of us.

[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.

 

Let me get this straight mods, I have been infracted for this post? I didn't realise you could be infracted for calling someone a woman. Obviously I should rename myself to DBP or something, then you can say what I want without being infracted. And you mods like to say you don't infract people for disagreeing with you.

 

Seriously, it's pathetic. Sorry I've had to do this in the open but I've questioned my infractions before and never got a response.

Edited 7 August, 2010 by Dibden Purlieu Saint

[Starkers]

The whole attitude to local media has been a bit shoddy from NC which is fine - if the team are winning and the ground is full. He might regret that on a cold Tuesday night in November when the ground is half empty.

[Viking Saint]

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."

 

who gives a ****? We as a club don't make any money out of them so frankly, why should be in any way concerned or bothered?

[Viking Saint]

And he comes across as a complete arse for doing so. Sadly he was already established at the pinnacle of European football when he started his boycott so he's allowed to get away from it.

 

having just read Bobby Robson's autobiography and read what an unbelievable amount of crap from tabloids and papers one of the decent gentlemen of English Football had to put up with, it is entirely understandable if some managers such as Ferguson decline to be associated with the press....everything they say can very easily be misconstrued and contrived by sensationalist hacks....the managers don't have the opportunity to recant or explain their comments once an article has been written without it spiralling into a plot of cover-up and counter-comment....if they don't talk to the media, they can't be put in difficult positions- simple....

[dune]

The whole attitude to local media has been a bit shoddy from NC which is fine - if the team are winning and the ground is full. He might regret that on a cold Tuesday night in November when the ground is half empty.

 

Precisely. It's alright for NC to **** people of when the teams doing well, but when it isn't (and based on todays performance us not doing well is looking likely) his approach will backfire. Let's see how many people don't mind paying the booking fee or the match day surcharge for a midtable week night match against a northern noddy club.

[hypochondriac]

Let me get this straight mods, I have been infracted for this post? I didn't realise you could be infracted for calling someone a woman. Obviously I should rename myself to DBP or something, then you can say what I want without being infracted. And you mods like to say you don't infract people for disagreeing with you.

 

Seriously, it's pathetic. Sorry I've had to do this in the open but I've questioned my infractions before and never got a response.

 

I reported you because you resort to getting personal and you can't accept that someone else holds a different view to you.

[LGTL]

Good, everyone against us suits me just fine. Screw this stupid "friendly, family club" image. I couldn't care less that the Plymouth rag couldn't take photos.

[NickG]

Let me get this straight mods, I have been infracted for this post? I didn't realise you could be infracted for calling someone a woman. Obviously I should rename myself to DBP or something, then you can say what I want without being infracted. And you mods like to say you don't infract people for disagreeing with you.

 

Seriously, it's pathetic. Sorry I've had to do this in the open but I've questioned my infractions before and never got a response.

 

 

thats nothing stevegrant infracted me for pointing out he was lying about my posts! Asked him to find where I had said what he claimed, he searched for a while and gave up! Seems he can lie but if you point it out you get infracted??? Bizarre. But he backed up his mate posting with two user names at the same time??

 

Some inconsistency here needs sorting.