Do SISA or The Trust speak for you, yes or no

[Marsdinho]

People should write into the echo about this... I have

 

Here..... dan.kerins@dailyecho.co.uk

 

Me too.

[saintjay77]

Dear Danny

 

You are intelligent, so you obviously know that these people in no way speak for the vast majority of FANS

 

It is all very well to alluding that everyone having an equal right to Free Speech etc, we ALL know that

 

But, to anyone coming in from Planet Zog, reading the Echo, WOULD get the immediate impression that SISA/ Trust ARE the Fans mouthpeice, and I am equally certain that you are intelligent enough to KNOW that

 

If you were to put at the top of each of their Statements, the fact that "the Echo would like to make clear that this is a view held by a Minority", then fair enough

 

But you don't and won't will you ?, because it would not sell so many hard copies would it

 

Yet another reason why the Echo is BAD journalism IMHO

 

PS. Any inference that Echo readers come from Planet Zog, is purely accidental

 

Dear Danny,

 

If you were to print the above would you use so many capitol letters?

[SaintRichmond]

 

FFS, you could be describing any of the print media here, we all know what to expect from the media and work within those expectations. The point is that Cortese has made an error of judgement by alienating the echo and other media and has been getting the inevitable results. His trip to the Sun shows that he realises this and is trying to repair the damage. His problem is that negative reports in the media encourage others to think negatively about him, and this in turn means that people can get away with gratuitous Cortese bashing in the media more generally.

 

But I am NOT, I am describing the Echo, and my response was re SISA representing MY views

 

I'm not on about Cortese

 

What I am on about is the Echo giving space to SISA, and, by inference, making them out to be speaking on MY behalf

 

They DON't, but , thanks to the Echo, they are come across as such, they are deliberately witholding the fact that SISA are SMALL, and do not speak for the Majority of Saints Fans.

 

That, IMHO, it is a DELIBERATE ploy by the Echo

 

IMHO, THAT is not rational journalism, THAT vindictive journalism

[SaintRichmond]

Dear Danny,

 

If you were to print the above would you use so many capitol letters?

 

or, dear danny, any reponse to my post ???

[alpine_saint]

NO f**king way.

[saintjay77]

 

But I am NOT, I am describing the Echo, and my response was re SISA representing MY views

 

I'm not on about Cortese

 

What I am on about is the Echo giving space to SISA, and, by inference, making them out to be speaking on MY behalf

 

They DON't, but , thanks to the Echo, they are come across as such, they are deliberately witholding the fact that SISA are SMALL, and do not speak for the Majority of Saints Fans.

 

That, IMHO, it is a DELIBERATE ploy by the Echo

 

IMHO, THAT is not rational journalism, THAT vindictive journalism

 

Often the use of Capitol words are to express shouting. When ever I read your posts I find myself going from talking voice to shouting voice (all in my head fortunatly) and back again losing concentration often after the 1st line or so.

 

Try reading your post in the same way and you will get what I mean. lol

[Castro 1]

I used to go to most of the meetings back when they 'were' a voice but now they just seem to churn out the same stuff all the time no matter what the situation. (I wonder sometimes if they only did one interview and the Echo & Solent just re-edit it!!)

[dune]

Can we have a poll "Does Alpine Speak for you?"

[SaintRichmond]

 

Often the use of Capitol words are to express shouting. When ever I read your posts I find myself going from talking voice to shouting voice (all in my head fortunatly) and back again losing concentration often after the 1st line or so.

 

Try reading your post in the same way and you will get what I mean. lol

 

SSHHH !!!! It is my way of emphasising something

 

Perhaps the slant button is better ???

[Sour Mash]

While I agree that SISA etc don't speak for me and I certainly don't agree with everything they say, if a media outlet want the opinion of a fan/fans, who else or where else can they go to?

[Charlie Wayman]

I do not understand why the Echo should continue to seek and publish the ill-informed views of the publicity seeking SISA ranter Illingsworth who poses as the voice of the people but in fact is the voice only of one lonely poorly informed ranter who has zero access to the club and no public audience beyond his own living room.

 

Time to "Shut Up!" Illingsworth and get yourself a real job that might occupy all your apparently well hidden talents.

[The Kraken]

 

SSHHH !!!! It is my way of emphasising something

 

Perhaps the slant button is better ???

 

Too much EMPHASIS though Richmond. It only works when you emphasis a maximum of one word per sentence; sometimes that's too much. When you do it empahising almost every other word it just reads as a complete jumbled mess. But I digress.....

[The Kraken]

I do not understand why the Echo should continue to seek and publish the ill-informed views of the publicity seeking SISA ranter Illingsworth who poses as the voice of the people but in fact is the voice only of one lonely poorly informed ranter who has zero access to the club and no public audience beyond his own living room.

 

Time to "Shut Up!" Illingsworth and get yourself a real job that might occupy all your apparently well hidden talents.

 

Having had a discussion with Dan about it yesterday, both on here and by email, I accept that the Echo do try as provide balanced reporting of fans views. However, he and I will continue to differ on the fact that I believe they use SISA and Saints trust titles for interviewees as it gives them more gravitas. Dan would argue that, although they are a small group, they are a group nonetheless and warrant news space. I would argue that, were that the case, any collection of 5 or 10 people could club together, call themselves a group and bombard the sports desk with news.

 

The solution is, as dune is organising on another thread, to organise other ways in which a "majority opinion" can be sourced and sent to the Echo more rgularly. The poll is a very, very good way to do this as it can be done so quickly. Then all it takes is a brief statement accompanying the poll.

 

The Echo print SISA / Saints Trust stories because they need to fill space, and more than often the Echo are contacted by SISA rather than the other way round. If we want to see a change then its up to us to organise something better; otherwise we'll continue to get served up the usual mouthpieces.

[Wurzel]

Having had a discussion with Dan about it yesterday, both on here and by email, I accept that the Echo do try as provide balanced reporting of fans views. However, he and I will continue to differ on the fact that I believe they use SISA and Saints trust titles for interviewees as it gives them more gravitas. Dan would argue that, although they are a small group, they are a group nonetheless and warrant news space. I would argue that, were that the case, any collection of 5 or 10 people could club together, call themselves a group and bombard the sports desk with news.

 

The solution is, as dune is organising on another thread, to organise other ways in which a "majority opinion" can be sourced and sent to the Echo more rgularly. The poll is a very, very good way to do this as it can be done so quickly. Then all it takes is a brief statement accompanying the poll.

 

The Echo print SISA / Saints Trust stories because they need to fill space, and more than often the Echo are contacted by SISA rather than the other way round. If we want to see a change then its up to us to organise something better; otherwise we'll continue to get served up the usual mouthpieces.

 

It's not difficult either. A a "spokesperson" for want of a better description for a different supporters group about 5 years ago I found the Echo always printed anything sent to them (sometimes heavily edited to suit their agenda) as well as sometimes phoning for quotes. Radio and Tv was different, they rely more on immediate responses and would regularly phone for interviews/quotes, either live or recorded, (sometimes before I was even aware of a story, as was the case recently following ML's sad passing away despite me not being involved for over 4 years, ). So if you want your views heard then start contacting media outlets and give them your details.

[georgeweahscousin]

Certainly not.

 

Militant, union style idiots in my opinion.

[Wes Tender]

Having had a discussion with Dan about it yesterday, both on here and by email, I accept that the Echo do try as provide balanced reporting of fans views. However, he and I will continue to differ on the fact that I believe they use SISA and Saints trust titles for interviewees as it gives them more gravitas. Dan would argue that, although they are a small group, they are a group nonetheless and warrant news space. I would argue that, were that the case, any collection of 5 or 10 people could club together, call themselves a group and bombard the sports desk with news.

 

The solution is, as dune is organising on another thread, to organise other ways in which a "majority opinion" can be sourced and sent to the Echo more rgularly. The poll is a very, very good way to do this as it can be done so quickly. Then all it takes is a brief statement accompanying the poll.

 

The Echo print SISA / Saints Trust stories because they need to fill space, and more than often the Echo are contacted by SISA rather than the other way round. If we want to see a change then its up to us to organise something better; otherwise we'll continue to get served up the usual mouthpieces.

 

The solution is simplicity itself. At most times when a newsworthy story breaks, if that story happens during normal office hours, there are inevitably normal fans attending the ticket office or the shop. All it requires is for a journalist to get his arse in gear and wander along to the ground to interview half a dozen such random fans to ask for their opinion. That way they are far more likely to get an accurate picture of what the ordinary Saints fans feel on almost any matter. The vox populi will have spoken, which must be better than some agenda-ridden organisation

[Spudders]

I dislike the thought of any group thinking they speak for me.

[The Kraken]

The solution is simplicity itself. At most times when a newsworthy story breaks, if that story happens during normal office hours, there are inevitably normal fans attending the ticket office or the shop. All it requires is for a journalist to get his arse in gear and wander along to the ground to interview half a dozen such random fans to ask for their opinion. That way they are far more likely to get an accurate picture of what the ordinary Saints fans feel on almost any matter. The vox populi will have spoken, which must be better than some agenda-ridden organisation

 

But the problem is Wes, what the Echo currently have is a list of phone numbers, people that they can rely upon for a quote at very short notice. And then attach them with a title which makes it appear as a well-reserched and validated view. With time constraints or whatever, they'll always continue to use this method rather than send out a reporter for a few hours, then correlate various quotes. If the Echo were simply to be honest and actually contain a rider at the bottom of the article such as "SISA is a supporters association with 12 active members" it would display a sense of honesty; but it's simply not in their interests to do this.

[SaintRichmond]

 

Too much EMPHASIS though Richmond. It only works when you emphasis a maximum of one word per sentence; sometimes that's too much. When you do it empahising almost every other word it just reads as a complete jumbled mess. But I digress.....

 

Alas, there is so much to emphasise ...... as opposed to empathise

[Toomer]

As a Saints fan (man and boy) my sympathies are still with the family of Marcus following his sad death. I am utterly appalled that any group would demand anything from his family when his passing will still be so raw to them. Who do they think they are? Actions like this only further dissassociates them from being a representative of myself or as it seems most Saints fans.

 

NNC

BN3 Saints

"Keep Calm and Carry On"

 

Well said that man or woman

[St_Tel49]

I do not understand why the Echo should continue to seek and publish the ill-informed views of the publicity seeking SISA ranter Illingsworth who poses as the voice of the people but in fact is the voice only of one lonely poorly informed ranter who has zero access to the club and no public audience beyond his own living room.

 

Time to "Shut Up!" Illingsworth and get yourself a real job that might occupy all your apparently well hidden talents.

I think you are confusing Illingsworth with Chorley. Chorley is the (big) mouth of SISA.

[The Kraken]

I think you are confusing Illingsworth with Chorley. Chorley is the (big) mouth of SISA.

 

While Chorley is with SISA, it is Mike O'Callaghan who does all their public statements of late.

 

Nick Illingsworth hides behind the equally defunct Saints Trust.

[trousers]

If the Echo were simply to be honest and actually contain a rider at the bottom of the article such as "SISA is a supporters association with 12 active members" it would display a sense of honesty

 

Nail. Head.

 

It really is that simple....

[Wes Tender]

But the problem is Wes, what the Echo currently have is a list of phone numbers, people that they can rely upon for a quote at very short notice. And then attach them with a title which makes it appear as a well-reserched and validated view. With time constraints or whatever, they'll always continue to use this method rather than send out a reporter for a few hours, then correlate various quotes. If the Echo were simply to be honest and actually contain a rider at the bottom of the article such as "SISA is a supporters association with 12 active members" it would display a sense of honesty; but it's simply not in their interests to do this.

 

I agree with you that if the breaking news is outside of office hours it makes it easier for them to ring a number and get the response from rent-a quote. Otherwise it is just plain lazy for them not to expend half an hour to go to the stadium to ask fans in the vicinity for an opinion. I have emailed Dan suggesting that until SISA or the Saints Trust are much bigger or more relevant organisations, that they take heed of the poll on here, recognise that they don't speak on our behalf and withdraw any connection to SISA or Saints Trust from the comments from such as Nick Illingworth/ Rich Chorley/Mike O'Callaghan/Perry Macmillan.

[channonwindmill]

Where does Mike O'Callaghan fit into all this (if at all)? Another fairly regular Echo contributor.

 

Example here:

 

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/8360829.Pardew_s_sacking_a__crazy_decision_/

[The Kraken]

I agree with you that if the breaking news is outside of office hours it makes it easier for them to ring a number and get the response from rent-a quote. Otherwise it is just plain lazy for them not to expend half an hour to go to the stadium to ask fans in the vicinity for an opinion. I have emailed Dan suggesting that until SISA or the Saints Trust are much bigger or more relevant organisations, that they take heed of the poll on here, recognise that they don't speak on our behalf and withdraw any connection to SISA or Saints Trust from the comments from such as Nick Illingworth/ Rich Chorley/Mike O'Callaghan/Perry Macmillan.

 

Don't get me wrong, I completely agree with you, and have contacted the echo previously myself with similar requests. However, as my discussions with Dan Kerins yesterday proved, they are unwilling to move away from the SISA/Saints Trust monikers as, they believe, it is perfectly valid for inclusion. I disagree.

[The Kraken]

Where does Mike O'Callaghan fit into all this (if at all)? Another fairly regular Echo contributor.

 

Example here:

 

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/8360829.Pardew_s_sacking_a__crazy_decision_/

 

The second paragraph gives it away....!

 

"Those are the words of Southampton Independent Supporters Association chairman Mike O'Callaghan"

[OldNick]

could we not set up SSISISA . Southampton Supporters Independent of SISA

[channonwindmill]

The second paragraph gives it away....!

 

"Those are the words of Southampton Independent Supporters Association chairman Mike O'Callaghan"

 

I find myself feeling somewhat embarassed... Ahem.

[Wes Tender]

Where does Mike O'Callaghan fit into all this (if at all)? Another fairly regular Echo contributor.

 

Example here:

 

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/8360829.Pardew_s_sacking_a__crazy_decision_/

 

A great example!

"It's a crazy decision, and a crazy wrong decision as well."

 

Typically of those who went off at half-c ock, he decides that the decision is not only crzy but wrong without having in his possession any of the relevent facts that brought the decision about.

 

"I would say 90 per cent of the fans would not agree with Pardew's sacking and will be sad that he's gone."

 

Well, we had a poll on this after it happened and AFAIR, the number against his dismissal only managed to hit about 50% or so. The more intelligent position adopted was that until all of the facts were known, then "I don't know" was the sensible option to vote for. Obviously Mr "Shoot from the Lip" O'Callaghan doesn't fall into that category.

 

But I admire the bravado that he adopts of being able to communicate the opinions and feeelings of 90% of the fans. You're truly a man of the people, Mike.

 

With the passage of a bit of water under the bridge, his comments look faintly ridiculous in hindsight.

 

Perhaps we ought to give him the benefit of the doubt; perhaps he said "in my opinion", "it seems to me", "on the face of it", "the way it looks to me" or some such qualification. Maybe the journo decided to leave out those caveats. With the Echo, that wouldn't surprise me.

[Red&White]

Absolutely not !

[dune]

lol at the 17.

 

Everyone should email SFC and tell them to use this polls result in any rebuttal they make to the SISA rabble.

[Foxstone]

lol at the 17.

 

Everyone should email SFC and tell them to use this polls result in any rebuttal they make to the SISA rabble.

 

I wonder how the Tubthumpers feel with an approval rating lower than Rupert !!

[BridgnorthSaint]

No. No. No.

 

And another No from me too!

[Blandford saint]

No from me as well. These few self-important individuals lost their relevance when we got rid of Branfoot, and that was a very long time ago. Anybody know how many members they are claiming to have?

[CanadaSaint]

Don't get me wrong, I completely agree with you, and have contacted the echo previously myself with similar requests. However, as my discussions with Dan Kerins yesterday proved, they are unwilling to move away from the SISA/Saints Trust monikers as, they believe, it is perfectly valid for inclusion. I disagree.

 

I have defended the Echo in the past because I've felt they were only doing their job and because I feel that the argument that "they only do it (deliberately print inaccuracies) to sell more papers" is weak.

 

However, that viewpoint will change completely if they are now saying that they will continue to include the SISA/Saints Trust monikers even though they now know them to be completely misleading.

 

Here’s the nub of it:

 

The acronym SISA is often printed in its full form and so the impression given to readers is that the opinions printed are those of a spokesperson representing a large body of fans. Their opinion is therefore perceived to carry more weight than one offered up by other individuals.

 

So, despite my past support for them, my question to the Echo would be this:

 

Why are you willfully misleading readers with regard to the views of everyday fans?

[The Kraken]

CanadaSaint; just so there's no confusion and to ensure I'm not misquoting him, here are the actual comments from Dan Kerins on the matter.

 

As for the "fans' chief" comment - they are in charge of organisations (relatively small ones, admittedly) of fans. A headline is often limited to about twenty characters, so to explain the nuances of their position in the big scheme of things is not appropriate - that is what is done in the article, by saying something like "Joe Bloggs, secretary of the Fan club". People often assume that the word "fans" means all fans. I've never understood why.

 

and...

 

As for correcting the reading that fans means all fans, that's what why we say exactly who they are. As for the earlier suggestion of just naming them rather than giving them a title, the title places them in context. For example, the inclusion of the word SISA has instantly made many on here know exactly who you are talking about (and also why I assume there has been no comment on the other fan's comment in the paper - he is not a person known in wider circles as I assume he has no affiliation to any groups. Had he been a member of the Trust, SISA, whatever, I imagine his comment would have garnered a lot more attention.

 

 

In other words, it backs up the accusations that the titles are used, despite being defunct orgainisations, because the reader will recognise the title and therefore associate more gravitas towards the position. I do and will continue to believe that this is absolutely wrong. In terms of balance, perhaps the Echo should conduct a "Who are you" piece on SISA; they are in print all the time, so lets hear about you. How many members do you have? How often do you meet? How can I become a member? Can I be elected to the board? Etc. Etc.

[trousers]

Where does Mike O'Callaghan fit into all this (if at all)? Another fairly regular Echo contributor.

 

Example here:

 

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/8360829.Pardew_s_sacking_a__crazy_decision_/

 

 

What's that in the background? One of these.....? :-

 

[dune]

He even looks like a shop steward.

 

[CanadaSaint]

CanadaSaint; just so there's no confusion and to ensure I'm not misquoting him, here are the actual comments from Dan Kerins on the matter.

 

As for the "fans' chief" comment - they are in charge of organisations (relatively small ones, admittedly) of fans. A headline is often limited to about twenty characters, so to explain the nuances of their position in the big scheme of things is not appropriate - that is what is done in the article, by saying something like "Joe Bloggs, secretary of the Fan club". People often assume that the word "fans" means all fans. I've never understood why.

 

and...

 

As for correcting the reading that fans means all fans, that's what why we say exactly who they are. As for the earlier suggestion of just naming them rather than giving them a title, the title places them in context. For example, the inclusion of the word SISA has instantly made many on here know exactly who you are talking about (and also why I assume there has been no comment on the other fan's comment in the paper - he is not a person known in wider circles as I assume he has no affiliation to any groups. Had he been a member of the Trust, SISA, whatever, I imagine his comment would have garnered a lot more attention.

 

 

In other words, it backs up the accusations that the titles are used, despite being defunct orgainisations, because the reader will recognise the title and therefore associate more gravitas towards the position. I do and will continue to believe that this is absolutely wrong. In terms of balance, perhaps the Echo should conduct a "Who are you" piece on SISA; they are in print all the time, so lets hear about you. How many members do you have? How often do you meet? How can I become a member? Can I be elected to the board? Etc. Etc.

 

It seems to me that you have made a strong case for the monikers to be dropped, and thank you for doing that.

 

What I find very troubling is that the Echo is continuing to resist the very point being made - that the use of the monikers is misleading with regard to the "weight of opinion" standing behind the people it quotes.

 

So, if the Echo is still resisting that point when the poll demonstrates its validity, the only conclusion I can draw is that the Echo is deliberately misleading its readers.

 

What other alternative is there?

 

That's not only disappointing to me (because I've defended the Echo in the past). It's bloody infuriating.

 

It's also extremely dangerous when there's a somewhat impulsive guy like Cortese in the picture, when the links to our owners are somewhat tenuous, and when those owners are unlikely to appreciate nastiness and negativity aimed in their direction.

[The Kraken]

I've just seen a copy of the Echo, and to be fair to them, they've printed in full my letter to them yesterday regarding the SISA statement. Here it is, for anyone interested...

 

SISA don't speak for most fans

 

I would like to comment on your article in yesterday’s Echo titled “Fans want Liebherr family assurances”, whereby you report on Southampton Independent Supporters Association (SISA) calling for the Liebherr family to make a public statement regarding their ownership of the club.

 

Firstly, I think your readership need to fully understand the significance of SISA. While they may be titled a "supporters’ group", their actual membership figures (while clouded in mystery) are believed by some to be in single figures, and certainly not enough to be considered a significant figure. Therefore they simply do not offer the cross section of opinion that a typical supporters’ association would. A subsequent poll was initiated yesterday on the Saints Web Forum (the most popular online Southampton supporters website), titled “Do SISA speak for you”. Currently over 95% of those polled have replied in the negative, that SISA do not speak for them. Given the amount of space your newspaper gives to SISA, I feel it is very important that this point is made clear to your readers.

 

Secondly, in this particular instance, I must also register my dissatisfaction that you offered no balanced debate on the point of the article; the demands for a public statement from the Liebherr family. Speaking only for myself, I absolutely do not require a public statement from them, and I find it abhorrent that a supporters association seemingly with the best interests of the club at heart should seek to invade the privacy of a family who are clearly still grieving for their lost loved one. I find it particularly galling considering a public statement has already been offered on behalf of the family, stating that they are dedicated to continue with Markus’ wishes in supporting the club. I am therefore moved to question the motives of SISA’s request for a further statement, and suggest it is just an incendiary move designed to undermine the club’s management by Nicola Cortese.

 

I hope your readers can understand that, just because SISA (and indeed the equally moribund Saints Trust) appear regularly in print in your paper, they in no way speak on behalf of the vast majority of Saints fan in the city and beyond. That we as individuals do not align ourselves with now-defunct supporters groups should not detract from that fact.

 

Yours sincerely etc.

 

EDIT: There was also a nice picture of Markus, with the strapline Markus Liebherr: No family statement needed.

Edited 17 September, 2010 by The Kraken

[CanadaSaint]

Excellent. Just excellent.

[dune]

Nice one Kraken.

[trousers]

I've just seen a copy of the Echo, and to be fair to them, they've printed in full my letter to them yesterday regarding the SISA statement. Here it is, for anyone interested...

 

SISA don't speak for most fans

 

I would like to comment on your article in yesterday’s Echo titled “Fans want Liebherr family assurances”, whereby you report on Southampton Independent Supporters Association (SISA) calling for the Liebherr family to make a public statement regarding their ownership of the club.

 

Firstly, I think your readership need to fully understand the significance of SISA. While they may be titled a "supporters’ group", their actual membership figures (while clouded in mystery) are believed by some to be in single figures, and certainly not enough to be considered a significant figure. Therefore they simply do not offer the cross section of opinion that a typical supporters’ association would. A subsequent poll was initiated yesterday on the Saints Web Forum (the most popular online Southampton supporters website), titled “Do SISA speak for you”. Currently over 95% of those polled have replied in the negative, that SISA do not speak for them. Given the amount of space your newspaper gives to SISA, I feel it is very important that this point is made clear to your readers.

 

Secondly, in this particular instance, I must also register my dissatisfaction that you offered no balanced debate on the point of the article; the demands for a public statement from the Liebherr family. Speaking only for myself, I absolutely do not require a public statement from them, and I find it abhorrent that a supporters association seemingly with the best interests of the club at heart should seek to invade the privacy of a family who are clearly still grieving for their lost loved one. I find it particularly galling considering a public statement has already been offered on behalf of the family, stating that they are dedicated to continue with Markus’ wishes in supporting the club. I am therefore moved to question the motives of SISA’s request for a further statement, and suggest it is just an incendiary move designed to undermine the club’s management by Nicola Cortese.

 

I hope your readers can understand that, just because SISA (and indeed the equally moribund Saints Trust) appear regularly in print in your paper, they in no way speak on behalf of the vast majority of Saints fan in the city and beyond. That we as individuals do not align ourselves with now-defunct supporters groups should not detract from that fact.

 

Yours sincerely etc.

 

EDIT: There was also a nice picture of Markus, with the strapline Markus Liebherr: No family statement needed.

 

 

Amen.

 

And fair play to the Echo for printing it.

[St Marco]

457 vs 18 thus far. While they are only numbers the meaning behind them is important.

 

It means Nick Illingsworth and the others can no longer talk to the media as the self proclaimed voice of the fans. These numbers are embarassing for The Trust and Sisa. It shows the fans want nothing to do with them let alone have them speak on their behalf.

 

As others have mentioned they are more like a little fan club with a few friends then anything serious or note-worthy.

 

This forum is in a far better position to speak to the fans then any of those tiny groups are. This website can generate a far better indicator of fan feeling to certain events. We should deffinatly set up something here or nominate someone to speak on our behalf. This vote shows people want Sisa and The Trust to **** off basically.

[captainchris]

I've always replied whenever anyone has asked me a question like that, provided I have seen it. Apologies if I've missed it, but in future it may be best to contact me directly.

 

As I've said previously, they give their opinions and then they are printed. Simple as. Like I said last time this came up on here, if anyone else wants to give their opinion, PM me your mobile number and I'll pass it on to the sport editor (no-one did last time I made that offer).

 

It really is a case of more the merrier. The paper prints the opinions of individual fans; if they have a title attached to them as part of some organisation, then so be it. It doesn't for a single second mean their opinion is worthy any more than anyone else's (for example, my column in the Pink/Echo site is no more important than what anyone else says - it's just a load of nonsense spouted by yours truly).

 

I'm not aware of the Echo ever referring to SISA as the voice of the fans (or the Trust for that matter). Steve Grant is regularly quoted in the paper too, and I don't see anyone (on here) complaining about that. We also print lots of comments taken from the Echo site. Being in the paper just means your opinion was considered interesting or relevant, or you have done (or are planning) something newsworthy.

 

Simply being published in the paper in no way implies endorsement of any kind.

 

As for the story in today's paper, if it was any other group of Saints fans organising a meeting in the city, then it would be published too (assuming the Echo is informed, which doesn't always happen). It's an event that is happening and that fact is reported. As I know from experience, people often tend to infer things that aren't there in articles (I've often been accused of favouring both sides of a debate in the same article).

 

I hope this sort of (hurriedly) explains the situation.

 

I really, really don't want to get drawn into more debates about the Echo on here (I spend all day getting abuse on the Echo's own site as it is, so don't want to start again on here, in my own time!) so will just say, if anyone doesn't like the people who give their opinions in the paper, then please send me a DM/email (dan.kerins@dailyecho.co.uk) with your real name and a mobile phone number and I'll get you added to the list of fans who are happy to give their own opinions, when I'm back in the office next week.

Dan I don't know you though I am a daily reader of the Echo.

I have to say my opinion - for what it's worth is that the so called fans representives the paper continues to publicise in shape of SISA and the 'Trust' is it,

are not representing anyone but their very small minority selves. As such the Echo should not be touting their opinions and giving them the completely out of proportion editorial space they do. Your excuses on this matter are excruciating and nausious. If you gave these people the one inch of space you gave other fans opinions your excuses would hold more water. My conclusion is you are stoking up issues and controversy where none exists in the main fan base and stroking the ego's of a couple of people nobody cares about or wants to be associated with.

The Echo loses so much credibilty when it prints such irrelevant nonsence written and quoted by nobodies with opinions that people are tired of seeing and are not representive.

Further more I would be hypocritical if I offered my own name and contact details for you to tout my opinions and results of silly meetings if I called one with my mates.

It's not news Dan so pretend it is !

[The Kraken]

457 vs 18 thus far. While they are only numbers the meaning behind them is important.

 

It means Nick Illingsworth and the others can no longer talk to the media as the self proclaimed voice of the fans. These numbers are embarassing for The Trust and Sisa. It shows the fans want nothing to do with them let alone have them speak on their behalf.

 

As others have mentioned they are more like a little fan club with a few friends then anything serious or note-worthy.

 

This forum is in a far better position to speak to the fans then any of those tiny groups are. This website can generate a far better indicator of fan feeling to certain events. We should deffinatly set up something here or nominate someone to speak on our behalf. This vote shows people want Sisa and The Trust to **** off basically.

 

No, I completely disagree with that part and would suggest that it exactly what we DON'T want. We already have that. This site should be used as a resource to gauge opinions only, with fair and impartial reporting of the outcomes. Having one person speak on behalf of hundreds is a recipe for disaster. As a consensus it is quite possible to summarise a set of poll results in a balanced format, but having a designated spokesperson is a step too far, and far too much like the SISA / Saints Trust recipe we're trying to get away from.

[saint_mears]

I think the most amsuing thing on here is the fact that SISA where 100% spot on regards Lowe from day 1.

 

The way Cortese is currently behaving whilst custodian of the club leaves alot to be desired.

[kpturner]

We should deffinatly set up something here or nominate someone to speak on our behalf....

Errr, no thanks. Completely impossible for more reasons than I have time to type.

[The Kraken]

I think the most amsuing thing on here is the fact that SISA where 100% spot on regards Lowe from day 1.

 

The way Cortese is currently behaving whilst custodian of the club leaves alot to be desired.

 

Just because you think they were right on an issue that happened 13 years ago, you think they should be given the benefit of the doubt for carrying on as an unelected, militant, incendiary "voice of the fans" despite only having the backing of 4% of fans to speak on their behalf? Ok then.