The paper ban

[Minty]

Saints - and every other club - have always had the freedom to decide which pictures get released and which don't....

The Football DataCo agreement means newspapers cannot sell any images they take inside football grounds, without the express permission of the home club. Most clubs have their own facility to sell photos, anyway - saintsfcpics.com was Saints' one. Don't know if it still exists or not. I imagine so.

 

Yet another reason why it's such a silly decision.

[Weston Super Saint]

To a degree absolutely nothing BUT lets just have a look at the facts here.

Apart from The Echo how many or how often do you see match photos of Saints in a newspaper these days ?

In League 1 all the nationals give each league game in the division about 8 lines. You may very occasionally see a match action photo but its by no means a regular occurence.

 

So, looking at it like that tell me - why are newspapers going to pay to use an SFC sanctioned photo ?

If we were Premiership it would be completely different. If we were Campionship it might be a minor annoyance to them.

But we arent - we, or Cortese, are coming across as a bunch of big time Charlies in a league that the national press couldnt really give two hoots about.

There isnt a great deal of demand for the newspapers to sell on their photos of League 1 Southampton or Brentford or Orient.

 

So we now have the situation where nobody will buy the clubs official photos therefore SFC will not make a penny out of this arrangement and supporters who live away or cannot get to games will not get to read any sort of half decent match report, or any at all, in their morning national newspaper......and the benefit to Southampton FC is ??

 

Sweet F.A.

 

If Cortese wanted to do this then he should really have waited until or if we reach the Premiership.

And if his motivation is to make a bit more money then he has scored a spectacular own goal.

Just back down on this one Nicola, for the sake of the goodname of SFC.

 

The benefit comes from FUTURE revenues.

 

Look at Portsmouth to see how easy it is to survive financially in the prem. Not easy at all. Therefore maximising every revenue stream = more money to spend on players / wages.

 

At the moment, this is almost totally irrelevant, but we have an owner and chairman that have ambitions for us to get back to the premiership. Then we will see additional revenue.

 

Frankly, I'm quite happy that we've got an ambitious owner and chairman. I'm even happier that we appear to be trying to build that success on sound business principles which means the club will be sustainable in the future. Especially after last season when we came close to ceasing to exist!

[Danny]

You seem to think that 'selective photos' is a new thing. It isn't!

 

Saints - and every other club - have always had the freedom to decide which pictures get released and which don't....

 

Sorry, you seem to misunderstand me.

 

SaintsFCpics.com has nothing to do with newspapers - it was/is just a vehicle for the club to make a profit on their pictures by selling photos to the general public - something no newspaper is allowed to do with photographs they take inside football grounds.

 

It has no impact/control over what images the press used.

 

Edit: It seems the service still exists: http://www.saintsfcpics.com/

Edited 11 August, 2010 by Danny

[View From The Top]

You seem to think that 'selective photos' is a new thing. It isn't!

 

Saints - and every other club - have always had the freedom to decide which pictures get released and which don't....

 

Since we have professional photographers and sports journalists commenting on this thread forgive me if I consider them more knowledgeable.

In addition, we often had photos from AP being put up by .comsaint during matches. The club can hardly be controlling them!

[Lets B Avenue]

Who were the 10 or so blokes sat behind the Northam goal? About 4 of them walked round in front of us and went up the Chapel in the 1st half as Bompey looked like scoring.

 

They didn't seem to be carrying paper and coloured pencils, but rather cameras with long-lensey things.

 

What were they doing there? I think we should be told!!

[Weston Super Saint]

Who were the 10 or so blokes sat behind the Northam goal? About 4 of them walked round in front of us and went up the Chapel in the 1st half as Bompey looked like scoring.

 

They didn't seem to be carrying paper and coloured pencils, but rather cameras with long-lensey things.

 

What were they doing there? I think we should be told!!

 

Club photographers?

[Lets B Avenue]

Club photographers?

 

Hell of a lot of them. Must have had every incident covered.

 

Surely a service worth paying for?

[docker-p]

The benefit comes from FUTURE revenues.

 

Look at Portsmouth to see how easy it is to survive financially in the prem. Not easy at all. Therefore maximising every revenue stream = more money to spend on players / wages.

 

At the moment, this is almost totally irrelevant, but we have an owner and chairman that have ambitions for us to get back to the premiership. Then we will see additional revenue.

 

Frankly, I'm quite happy that we've got an ambitious owner and chairman. I'm even happier that we appear to be trying to build that success on sound business principles which means the club will be sustainable in the future. Especially after last season when we came close to ceasing to exist!

 

We won 't see additional revenue in years to come, if our 'brand is so toxic no advertiser wants to be associated with it. And how can you ask top dollar from potential shirt and perimeter advertisers if their name is never seen in newspapers.

AS i have said before, any football club from a humble league 1 side to Man United needs the press more than the other way around. If we ban photographers from the nationals what do they care they've got another 91 league clubs to take pictures of.

This is a very short sighted policy, and one that shows the current CEO's naivety. I hope ML takes appropriate action.

[NickG]

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/8324655.Daily_Echo_comment_on_Southampton_FC_photographs/

 

believe echo were going to go along with it as wanted the pics but felt under considerable pressure from the industry to make a stance. They were not happy as its easy for others to take this stance, without losing money, the echo feel they are likely to lose money over this

[JonnyLove]

Can I ask. How is this any worse than say Fergie refusing to speak to the BBC because of something they broadcasted about his son. He still won't talk to them and that what 5 years at least. However their fans still get the bit of information from MUTV or their website or what ever.

 

so at the end of the day who the feck gives a ****e if photographers are baned from SMS if we still get the information direct from the club itself. I don't care if the news papers don't print them and in the case of the SUN not printing match reports is fine. I never buy the paper but I do look on-line however soon they will be charging for that right so whats the difference there? (they also charge for other agencies to use their news stories so double standards there me thinks).

 

I don't care if it's a money thing or a way to mediate the flow of media coverage. if this is the worst thing that will be bestowed upon us this season then thank god for that.

[Secret Site Agent]

To a degree absolutely nothing BUT lets just have a look at the facts here.

Apart from The Echo how many or how often do you see match photos of Saints in a newspaper these days ?

In League 1 all the nationals give each league game in the division about 8 lines. You may very occasionally see a match action photo but its by no means a regular occurence.

 

So, looking at it like that tell me - why are newspapers going to pay to use an SFC sanctioned photo ?

If we were Premiership it would be completely different. If we were Campionship it might be a minor annoyance to them.

But we arent - we, or Cortese, are coming across as a bunch of big time Charlies in a league that the national press couldnt really give two hoots about.

There isnt a great deal of demand for the newspapers to sell on their photos of League 1 Southampton or Brentford or Orient.

 

So we now have the situation where nobody will buy the clubs official photos therefore SFC will not make a penny out of this arrangement and supporters who live away or cannot get to games will not get to read any sort of half decent match report, or any at all, in their morning national newspaper......and the benefit to Southampton FC is ??

 

Sweet F.A.

 

If Cortese wanted to do this then he should really have waited until or if we reach the Premiership.

And if his motivation is to make a bit more money then he has scored a spectacular own goal.

Just back down on this one Nicola, for the sake of the goodname of SFC.

 

I take on board what you are saying, and can see the merit in your argument.

 

BUT

 

When we DO get to the Premiership and we say to them they can only buy our offical sanctioned photos which is best?

 

Option a) We only introduce it when we get to the premiership and cause us a lot more pain and anger, especially as they say that we are a big headed little team and look at the big 4 who DON'T do it

 

Or

 

Option b) When they winge we say, 'Hey. this is what we have always done.Been doing it for 3/4/5 years now' And maybe find that the big 4 are already doing it.

[stevegrant]

Can I ask. How is this any worse than say Fergie refusing to speak to the BBC because of something they broadcasted about his son. He still won't talk to them and that what 5 years at least.

Fergie will be forced to talk to the BBC from the end of August (although I was always under the impression it was a contractual obligation anyway) - failure to comply will result in ever-increasing fines, apparently.

[Secret Site Agent]

Not really Nick.

 

I'm sure you've been around the business world long enough to know that when a new management structure is put in place a lot of the 'old guard' will be upset with the new policies and procedures, especially if it means their 'cushy' job role is changed - I expect there were quite a few 'cushy' roles under the previous regimes....

 

I would take the post for exactly what it is, one ex-employee disgruntled with his/her previous employer.

 

Case in point. Four years ago and Contracts manager left us and took 8 highly paid members of staff to work for a local south coast outfit. The said outfit was then bought by a BIG international construction company. Of the 8 staff that left to go there, 6 were laid off, the 7th transfered to the the Big Parent and the 8th has just come back to work for us, (as my boss of all things). Never stops moaning about how it all changed and how **** it was even though:

a) He left to go there of his own volition

b) for **** loads of money

c) he's come back into a better position that he had when he was here first, or that he would ave been promoted into in the time

d) He don't work for them any more.

 

Remember, the sqeekiest wheel gets the grease. we only hear the moans of the two disgruntled employees, not the silent contentment of the two thousand.

 

philosopher in a former life

 

Even I have missed my calling as a writer of greeting cards, or I was a Chinease Philosopher in a former life

[Secret Site Agent]

hang on a minute. So by banning photographers from the SMS we are stopping the advertsing in the press of a sponsor on our shirts that we ahven't got anyway because we don't need one.

 

Okay.

[Secret Site Agent]

How can there be a good time to introduce a scheme that is doomed to failure which will result in an embarrassing climb down?

 

Or be brave enough, a maverick if you will, to pioneer something that everyone will be doing in a few years.

 

After all, who introduced shirt sponsorship?

[SaintDonkey]

I do think Cortese has mishandled this. While I agree it's an infringement of press liberty it is a potential revenue stream for the club and as such why not explore it. However the way he's gone about it has alienated the potential customer base, a simple PR move such as offering selected photos for free to local papers (while charging the nationals) along with some kind of guarantee of editorial independence such that photos won't be censored and the jobs a good 'un. Instead he's just put everyone's back up.

 

Now he's dug himself into a hole and to be honest I don't want him to back down as then the ****ing Sun would hail it as their victory.

[Matthew Le God]

Shock! Horror!

 

The Daily Echo...

 

1) Doesn't know what the word ironic means...

 

"Ironically, for a number of years and until recently, the Daily Echo gave the Club’s management free photographs of away matches for use on the Club’s website, to avoid the Club having to pay for expensive away photographic coverage. It was the Club’s management that brought this generous arrangement to a close."

 

That isn't ironic ffs, did they actually do journalism degrees?

 

2) Thinks what Saints are doing is "unprecedented" even though Celtic and Bristol Rovers have done it before.

 

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/8324655.Daily_Echo_comment_on_Southampton_FC_photographs/

Edited 11 August, 2010 by Matthew Le God

[Saints foreva]

I don't think this is as serious as the papers are making it out.

 

The national newspapers usually do a small match report for League One games, these usually have no pictures of the action.

 

There are far bigger stories in football, like the growing number of clubs who are not paying their taxbills.....

[itchen]

I'm not sure it's a good move for the club to be the first (I'm sure other clubs are watching with interest) to try to benefit from the value of the images created at its premises. But, as I can't remember seeing any pictures from any game in the papers since we were relegated from the Premiership, it's all a bit academic. I'm not even sure there were any "action" as opposed to library shots when we were struggling in the top level.

 

We're rarely reported in the national press. That's fair enough. We're in the third division and aren't based in London so, to most of the media, we don't exist. But our crowds exceed some Premiership and many Championship clubs. And, as long as the crowds are happy and keep coming, I don't see how the club will suffer from a media that largely ignored it anyway. We don't have a shirt sponsor, apparently by choice, this year and so are not beholden to any outside party.

 

The spat with the Echo is largely because the paper has been in decline for many years and seeks to boost its flagging circulation by sensationalising and exaggerating stories about Saints that may or may not have any basis at all in fact. Many of these stories are lifted (without, ironically, any acknowledgement or payment) from fans' websites like this one. Against this, the club is trying to drive traffic to its own website by making sure that news appears there first (for example, by announcing player signings only after the deadline for the Echo has passed). I believe that this is driven by both commercial reasons and the fact that Cortese has simply had enough of the self-righteous preening of the local editor even when the stories he has published have been shown to be entirely without foundation.

 

Having said all that, I still think the club has made the wrong decision though.

[Dave Benson Phillips]

Shock! Horror!

 

The Daily Echo...

 

1) Doesn't know what the word ironic means...

 

"Ironically, for a number of years and until recently, the Daily Echo gave the Club’s management free photographs of away matches for use on the Club’s website, to avoid the Club having to pay for expensive away photographic coverage. It was the Club’s management that brought this generous arrangement to a close."

 

That isn't ironic ffs, did they actually do journalism degrees?

 

2) Thinks what Saints are doing is "unprecedented" even though Celtic and Bristol Rovers have done it before.

 

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/8324655.Daily_Echo_comment_on_Southampton_FC_photographs/

 

Right, allow me to use my only other post of the day to once again prove your halfwit blind Cortese loving posts. I will spell out the differences in simple terms, for people like yourself.

 

It is ironic that SFC used to rely on the Echo to get snaps for matches, now the club are forcing the Echo to rely on Saints to get snaps of the games so they can make some money.

 

I would call that VERY ironic.

 

Also... it is unprecendented. Because Celtic AND Bristol Rovers done it in a completely different way.

 

Bristol Rovers banned agencies, but still allowed local press of home and away team into the stadium. Link? http://www.epuk.org/News/669/bristol-rovers-ban

 

Celtic allowed photographers in, but wanted to retain the copyright of any pictures taken in the stadium, meaning they could not be sold on without Celtics permission, for local papers it was to be business as usual ( although all press stuck together and Celtic were forced to back down )

 

Link? http://www.epuk.org/News/212/newspapers-united-1-celtic-0

 

and on to Saints...

 

... who are banning every local, national and agency photographer in the land from entering the stadium. Nobody can avoid paying SFC for the photos and no publications can enter St Marys with a camera. At both Celtic and Bristol Rovers, local press reporting was not affected. So.... I think we can safely say the move was indeed 'unprecendented' by Saints... NOBODY has EVER had the neck to try and impose a complete press blackout of photography.

 

So Matthew Le God, I hope you now realise how daft and blindly in love with Cortese you look. If you are going to stick up for him, at least do some research other than trying to shout down anyone who opposed with your view with rubbish.

[Matthew Le God]

Stu, are you related to Alanis Morrestte?

 

That isn't at all ironic.

[stevegrant]

Stu, are you related to Alanis Morrestte?

 

That isn't at all ironic.

I'll tell you what IS ironic... that you continually bleat on about the Echo failing to do research and then when trying to prove a point, you fail to do even the most basic of research.

 

You ->

[Matthew Le God]

I'll tell you what IS ironic... that you continually bleat on about the Echo failing to do research and then when trying to prove a point, you fail to do even the most basic of research.

 

Nope, even that wouldn't be ironic. Nor am I a professional journalist writing editorials that may influence the views of many Saints fans that might not know what is going on.

 

The Echo also said "refusing all photographers access to home matches" and then went on to contradict itself by saying club photographers were present. The whole editorial is littered with errors.

[Smirking_Saint]

Don't the prem clubs already do something like this ??

 

Just a question before i get shot down.

[Lets B Avenue]

Don't the prem clubs already do something like this ??

 

Just a question before i get shot down.

 

No.

 

BANG!!

[stevegrant]

Nope, even that wouldn't be ironic.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irony

–noun, plural -nies.

1.

the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning: the irony of her reply, “How nice!” when I said I had to work all weekend.

2.

Literature .

a.

a technique of indicating, as through character or plot development, an intention or attitude opposite to that which is actually or ostensibly stated.

b.

(esp. in contemporary writing) a manner of organizing a work so as to give full expression to contradictory or complementary impulses, attitudes, etc., esp. as a means of indicating detachment from a subject, theme, or emotion.

3.

Socratic irony.

4.

dramatic irony.

5.

an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.

6.

the incongruity of this.

7.

an objectively sardonic style of speech or writing.

8.

an objectively or humorously sardonic utterance, disposition, quality, etc.

Although come to think of it, that's probably wrong, because I did expect you to come out with a load of guff that didn't actually address any of the points made.

 

Nor am I a professional journalist writing editorials that may influence the views of many Saints fans that might not know what is going on.

What's that got to do with anything? If you're going to point out "inaccuracies", you could at least get them right yourself.

 

The Echo also said "refusing all photographers access to home matches" and then went on to contradict itself by saying club photographers were present. The whole editorial is littered with errors.

Club photographers are employees of the club, so it stands to reason that they would have access

[Smirking_Saint]

No.

 

BANG!!

 

Cheers

 

TBF, in a way i agree with the club making profit, however i don't agree with media muzzling which could occur as the club could, in essance release whatever photos it wants, which would be funny if say a certain south coast club won here and we didn't allow them the piccy's but all in all very wrong.

 

Lets just admit it as a bad idea, Celtic tried it, Brizzle tried it, we tried it and it won't work.

[Smirking_Saint]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irony

 

Although come to think of it, that's probably wrong, because I did expect you to come out with a load of guff that didn't actually address any of the points made.

 

 

What's that got to do with anything? If you're going to point out "inaccuracies", you could at least get them right yourself.

 

 

Club photographers are employees of the club, so it stands to reason that they would have access

 

Tad harsh

 

You still have a PM btw

[Wes Tender]

To a degree absolutely nothing BUT lets just have a look at the facts here.

Apart from The Echo how many or how often do you see match photos of Saints in a newspaper these days ?

In League 1 all the nationals give each league game in the division about 8 lines. You may very occasionally see a match action photo but its by no means a regular occurence.

 

So, looking at it like that tell me - why are newspapers going to pay to use an SFC sanctioned photo ?

If we were Premiership it would be completely different. If we were Campionship it might be a minor annoyance to them.

But we arent - we, or Cortese, are coming across as a bunch of big time Charlies in a league that the national press couldnt really give two hoots about.

There isnt a great deal of demand for the newspapers to sell on their photos of League 1 Southampton or Brentford or Orient.

 

So we now have the situation where nobody will buy the clubs official photos therefore SFC will not make a penny out of this arrangement and supporters who live away or cannot get to games will not get to read any sort of half decent match report, or any at all, in their morning national newspaper......and the benefit to Southampton FC is ??

 

Sweet F.A.

 

If Cortese wanted to do this then he should really have waited until or if we reach the Premiership.

And if his motivation is to make a bit more money then he has scored a spectacular own goal.

Just back down on this one Nicola, for the sake of the goodname of SFC.

 

You are normally a poster who uses well reasoned arguments, but here as far as I can see, you have shot yourself in the foot.

 

If the bit highlighted is true and I think it is, then although the revenue that might accrue to the club is not great, then on the other hand you are not talking about a good reason why the press are getting in such a huff about it are you? It is pure hypocrisy for the Nationals to go harping on about it when they hardly print much about our matches, let alone print any photographs either.

 

The reason that they are making a story about this non-event is to sell copy, nothing else. At the same time, as astutely observed by Deppo, the club's profile is also considerably raised in the public consciousness. Who knows whether the reasoning behind the whole thing wasn't to achieve exactly that objective?

 

As to the poor fans unable to attend the matches because they lived far away, then that is a total red-herring. You said yourself that the nationals were unlikely to give us more than a few lines. And you only have to read the match reports from on here to know that any two posters have a different view on whether a player was good or bad. Who is therefore to say that a Sports Journalist's opinion of how the match was played is accurate? People unable to attend the match have any number of better places to visit to get an idea of how the match panned out and they could do worse to read several posts on our forum to gain some idea of balance and also to see the odd photo or two posted by fans at the match if they want pretty pictures.

[Wes Tender]

Matthew Le God:

The Echo also said "refusing all photographers access to home matches" and then went on to contradict itself by saying club photographers were present. The whole editorial is littered with errors.

 

Steve Grant:

Club photographers are employees of the club, so it stands to reason that they would have access

 

So what the Echo meant to say but didn't, was "refusing all photographers access to home matches with the exception of the club's photographers".

 

So MLG was right; it was a reporting error.

 

I wouldn't be such a pedant about it if you had not used the

[The Kraken]

You are normally a poster who uses well reasoned arguments, but here as far as I can see, you have shot yourself in the foot.

 

If the bit highlighted is true and I think it is, then although the revenue that might accrue to the club is not great, then on the other hand you are not talking about a good reason why the press are getting in such a huff about it are you? It is pure hypocrisy for the Nationals to go harping on about it when they hardly print much about our matches, let alone print any photographs either.

 

The reason that they are making a story about this non-event is to sell copy, nothing else. At the same time, as astutely observed by Deppo, the club's profile is also considerably raised in the public consciousness. Who knows whether the reasoning behind the whole thing wasn't to achieve exactly that objective?

 

As to the poor fans unable to attend the matches because they lived far away, then that is a total red-herring. You said yourself that the nationals were unlikely to give us more than a few lines. And you only have to read the match reports from on here to know that any two posters have a different view on whether a player was good or bad. Who is therefore to say that a Sports Journalist's opinion of how the match was played is accurate? People unable to attend the match have any number of better places to visit to get an idea of how the match panned out and they could do worse to read several posts on our forum to gain some idea of balance and also to see the odd photo or two posted by fans at the match if they want pretty pictures.

 

This is a large part of it, for sure. Rather than just ignoring the club, The Sun in particular with their "South Coast Club" nonsense are trying to escalate the row and make it into a big story, presumably for printing when they have less news to fill the back pages.

 

However, it doesn't stop them being right in principle. It's just yet another small step from the club in trying to manipulate and control all editorial content and news coming out of St Mary's, which is quite a worrying approach in my view. What next; a ban on selected national journos in the ground? We've already seen an Echo ban, so it wouldn't surprise me in the least.

[Matthew Le God]

Yep Wes, that is something which Steve overlooked.

[up and away]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irony

–noun, plural -nies.

1.

the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning: the irony of her reply, “How nice!” when I said I had to work all weekend.

2.

Literature .

a.

a technique of indicating, as through character or plot development, an intention or attitude opposite to that which is actually or ostensibly stated.

b.

(esp. in contemporary writing) a manner of organizing a work so as to give full expression to contradictory or complementary impulses, attitudes, etc., esp. as a means of indicating detachment from a subject, theme, or emotion.

3.

Socratic irony.

4.

dramatic irony.

5.

an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.

6.

the incongruity of this.

7.

an objectively sardonic style of speech or writing.

8.

an objectively or humorously sardonic utterance, disposition, quality, etc.

 

 

When you are lining up behind the asbo warrrior for a Oxford English definition, you really are crawling out onto thin ice. About as daft as those who try to save their dogs on frozen ponds, falling through the ice and drowning, whilst the dog buggers off to safety.

 

Saints are allowing photographers into St Marys from the opposition club for their own domestic use. I imagine so that can be reciprocated for the Saints in house photographers. Many top clubs charge a small fortune for the entry of photographers, along with very restricted clauses on use, such as area, time period and it would not surprise me for certain players.

 

This is no direct financial barrier to the press, as not one has complained the price is too high. They are only arguing this point over a very weak ethical position, something that cannot stand up to scrutiny for even the most biased of Cortese haters. All the top clubs generate income from image rights, we are unlikely to do anything significant in the immediate future, but if you were looking to get the club geared up for full Premier, something along the lines would happen eventually.

 

You can argue about the timing of this with Cortese, why cause the small fuss now then a much larger fuss when we are far bigger? I have no opinion either way and can see either option having merits. But if you have decided to do this now as Cortese has done, the use of only in house photographers makes a lot of sense in policing the operation. At present there are only pennies involved and getting involved in actions with various parties and controlling rights would be expensive based upon the revenue. The manner in which he has done it makes it very cheap and an effective manner for a minor revenue stream.

 

What is unprecedented about this action is that it is being done at League 1 level, the thin edge of the wedge for newspapers in very declining readership, which will hurt their pockets should a majority of other clubs and organizations follow suit. Not a twinkle from the press about existing draconian image rights and payments at many top clubs, funny that? Only nasty Saints who have had the cheek to start the ball rolling at league 1 level. One thing Cortese does extremely well is keeping his mouth shut and should continue to do so and this will soon blow over.

 

You can argue this from a "freedom of press" perspective, but the minute inference this has from photography alone is laughable. Even an action such as Henry's against Ireland would be very difficult to prove decisively from a press still, there is no real smoking gun here on press freedom. You would still have he photo's available from the opposition source, plus everyone in the ground (even journalists), radio, cctv and the match cameras. The press are very good at crying wolf when they deliberately front ethics in front of finance.

[Wilko]

For those who haven't seen it, this is how the main media news website is reporting it:

 

http://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/photo/100811echopics.shtml

 

http://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/photo/100810photoban.shtml

 

http://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/photo/100809cartoons.shtml

 

http://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/photo/100806football.shtml

[JustMike]

i said it days ago and i'll say it again... so what!

[JustMike]

For those who haven't seen it, this is how the main media news website is reporting it:

 

http://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/photo/100811echopics.shtml

 

http://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/photo/100810photoban.shtml

 

http://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/photo/100809cartoons.shtml

 

http://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/photo/100806football.shtml

 

the quote from the 1st URL made me laugh..."If newspapers hate one thing, it is the greed of people like you "...funny that seeing as thats what all the red tops (and others) have done for years..now thats ironic ;-)

[Nolan]

I cant believe the Sports Journalist Association are screaming about possible censorship ( http://www.sportsjournalists.co.uk/blog/?p=2706 ) while all accredited photographers have to sign Terms and Conditions with Football Data Co that includes the following:- (http://www.football-dataco.com/documents/Regional%20Accreditation%20Agreement.pdf)

 

8.3 Photographs may not be used for any Photosale without the prior written approval of the relevant Club(s) that feature in the applicable Photograph.

[brett24]

Who cares, lets just talk about the team, thats what really matters.

[CityRanger]

liebherr dead can't start posts check official site peeps

[CityRanger]

liebherr dead

http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10280~2119026,00.html

[Northant Saint]

Our great owner has passed away. Somebody needs to start a thread.

[Deppo]

I'd be interested to see how The Sun report on the sad news of our owner's passing.

[wightman35]

Who cares, lets just talk about the team, thats what really matters.

 

Yes. Especially as the administrator seems to have forgotten that "Abusive behaviour is not welcome."

[Kingsland Nick]

The Sun has given in, and is calling us Southampton and Saints again http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/3091521/Southampton-owner-Markus-Liebherr-dies.html

[dune]

The Sun has given in, and is calling us Southampton and Saints again http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/3091521/Southampton-owner-Markus-Liebherr-dies.html

 

I'm pleased they are showing respect.

[CB Fry]

The Sun has given in, and is calling us Southampton and Saints again http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/3091521/Southampton-owner-Markus-Liebherr-dies.html

 

 

That's a bit of a churlish comment, of course they are going to be sensible and respectful reporting on a story like this.