The refusal to sell a season ticket at Southampton FC

[EastleighSoulBoy]

SAINTS Trust chairman Nick Illingsworth has been “discriminated against and victimised” by the club, the Independent Football Ombudsman has found.

 

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/8830210.Saints__victimised__lifelong_fan_Nick/

 

Even in this latest article he's using his title like he's been made a life peer of The Saints Trust.

 

Once again you are trying to rewrite history or maybe you could show me on that article where it says hat Nick Illingsworth composed, edited and produced that article?

 

Thought not.

 

While being prudent with my 3 posts I'll take this opportunity to reply to CapitalSaint who said

 

 

CapitalSaint said:

as far as i'm concerned, makes little difference to my life or my support of my team. to think that this puts a downer on our win is laughable.

 

Nick's name was used because this thread is actually about Nick AND the club. If you read the thread you'll see one person has stated that Nick helped them when they felt they had a problem with the club. I never quoted you as saying eff you Nick, I said that you had said it in a polite way but I believe that the sentiment is there. I actually said that Nick might say that but I suspect he'd help you. What if it did affect you? What if it was you? Of course one man cannot sway the club, or another single person for that matter but I feel that there are enough voices raising a question about the whole thing and, in an effort to try and at least appear reasonable, the club would contact Nick to try and resolve the issue. As I previously stated, should that happen and Nick made no more of a comment apart from 'The club and I have resolved our differences' then we would realise that the club and Nick may have learned a valuable lesson. Supporting the team and club is not a one way affair and it does not place either party, fans or club, above question.

 

Why should Nick not be able to have the same choice as you or I regarding match tickets? The club should, at the least, have told him why then, maybe, he might have understood and took it on the chin?

[dune]

Once again you are trying to rewrite history or maybe you could show me on that article where it says hat Nick Illingsworth composed, edited and produced that article?

 

Thought not.

 

Get real. Nick could quite easily have asked them not to give him this false title long ago. Anyone with an ounce of integrity would have seen to that. It is the same as Chorley bigging himself up with all that SISA b0ll0cks.

 

I've got no issue with NI, RC, or PM giving their personal opinions like any other fan can, but when you get these people lording their views with false titles through non existent fans groups it's wrong.

Edited 3 February, 2011 by dune

[EastleighSoulBoy]

Get real. Nick could quite easily have asked them not to give him this false title long ago. Anyone with an ounce of integrity would have seen to that. It is the same as Chorley bigging himself up with all that SISA b0ll0cks.

 

Perhaps that may be the truth but it amy also be the cas that the Echo add this when editing? That they may even refuse to remove it?

 

It might pander to Nick's ego, I don't know but to say that Nick calls himself by that title is not necessarily true.

 

P.S. I've left in your bit about Rich Chorley although how it's appeared I do not know!

[Thedelldays]

what the hell are the trust these days anyway...?

what are they that allow itself to be used as a title to give extra credibility to anything..?

 

serious question..

[dune]

Perhaps that may be the truth but it amy also be the cas that the Echo add this when editing? That they may even refuse to remove it?

 

It might pander to Nick's ego, I don't know but to say that Nick calls himself by that title is not necessarily true.

 

P.S. I've left in your bit about Rich Chorley although how it's appeared I do not know!

 

If he had anything about him he'd have realised that by going by this title it goes against the whole point of a supporters trust. It should be about democracy and giving the little people a voice, but what he has done is turned a democracy into a dictatorship. It really does beggar belief that he can happily do this. And he clearly does happily do it otherwise he'd have put the Echo straight and if they'd refused he would ceased speaking to them. For a few months after the Trust effectively folded I could have excused this, but not after this long.

 

If Nicola took his stance because of this then I say good on him.

[The9]

Yeh, sorry about that The9, I was in the toilet having a C-rap. I'll speak out for you now.

 

And I clarified that I wasn't comparing NI to Hitler, so you should clarify that you're not comparing the club to the nazis.

 

That's some specious reasoning, even though the original quote was derived from that.

 

The quote's just used to illustrate what happens if everyone leaves protesting to everyone else.

[The9]

If he had anything about him he'd have realised that by going by this title it goes against the whole point of a supporters trust. It should be about democracy and giving the little people a voice, but what he has done is turned a democracy into a dictatorship. It really does beggar belief that he can happily do this. And he clearly does happily do it otherwise he'd have put the Echo straight and if they'd refused he would ceased speaking to them. For a few months after the Trust effectively folded I could have excused this, but not after this long.

 

If Nicola took his stance because of this then I say good on him.

 

I agree with you up to the point where you've assumed that's Cortese's reasoning, when the club could easily have clarified it but haven't.

[St Chalet]

There are always two sides to any story, but in this instance the clubs' silence draws a natural conclusion. From reading the report I can only assume that the club have made a point of principle to make life awkward for Nick. They may have their reasons, it is a shame that they have not been able to tell Nick or this group the reasons why.

 

I'd like to think that if the club banned me from buying a season ticket, they'd have the decency to tell me why. They have a right to sell tickets to whoever they want, but this right still should be used fairly and sparingly. More importantly I'd prefer it if fellow supporters judged my banning on the facts available, not who I was.

 

I haven't been arsed to compare the threads but I wonder how many of the people slagging off Nick were standing up for Le Tissier for his ticketing problem?

[Colinjb]

There are always two sides to any story, but in this instance the clubs' silence. From reading the report I can only assume that the club have made a point of principle to make life awkward for Nick. They may have their reasons, it is a shame that they have not been able to tell Nick or this group the reasons why.

 

I'd like to think that if the club banned me from buying a season ticket, they'd have the decency to tell me why. They have a right to sell tickets to whoever they want, but this right still should be used fairly and sparingly. More importantly I'd prefer it if fellow supporters judged my banning on the facts available, not who I was.

 

I haven't been arsed to compare the threads but I wonder how many of the people slagging off Nick were standing up for Le Tissier for his ticketing problem?

 

I'm sorry, but if you had your ability to buy a season ticket removed you will surely know why.

 

The club are staying quiet, that's their perogative. While Illingsworth himself stays quiet he can plead ignorance until the cows come home.

 

He should be grateful, the club are sparing his blushes.

 

(This my take on the situation.... not fact, just my reasoned opinion. You do not get stopped from buying a season ticket unless there is a good reason!)

Edited 3 February, 2011 by Colinjb

[The9]

8 pages for this numpty?

 

 

Not really, more like 8 pages discussing the club's attitude to fans, the validity of the existence of the Saints Trust, the mistakes the club has made in this process and discovering that there's a football ombudsman and what Chatham House rules are.

 

As well as the unpleasant personal attacks.

[dune]

I agree with you up to the point where you've assumed that's Cortese's reasoning, when the club could easily have clarified it but haven't.

 

I haven't assumed this was the reason, only said that if this was the reason then Cortese did the right thing IMO. If I was Cortese and there was some nobody that represented nobody passing off his views as if they were the views of many fans i'd be hacked off. Especially if said views were against me or a decision i made/supported.

 

Take the installment issue. Nick could rabble rouse and decieve people into thinking his personal views were the views of all his members and cause Cortese a lot of problems over and above the level of problems if nick had been giving a personal view. That isn't on and as chief executive NC has a duty of care to protect the club from such devious and potentially damaging behaviour.

Edited 3 February, 2011 by dune

[The9]

I'm sorry, but if you had your ability to buy a season ticket removed you will surely know why.

 

The club are staying quiet, that's their perogative. While Illingsworth himself stays quiet he can plead ignorance until the cows come home.

 

He should be grateful, the club are sparing his blushes.

 

WTF ? There has been a process of formal independent investigation and STILL the club hasn't said anything, why do you think the club would have told him ?

[Viking Warrior]

Thanks Ron I appreciate the explanation from you . A voice of reason I'm now better informed. I know nick and he has met me a few times I think he has been wrongly pillorised in the past and I bare him no malice . I hope in future he gets a season ticket he can share mine next season if I get one . Thanks again Ron

[St Chalet]

I'm sorry, but if you had your ability to buy a season ticket removed you will surely know why.

 

The club are staying quiet, that's their perogative. While Illingsworth himself stays quiet he can plead ignorance until the cows come home.

 

He should be grateful, the club are sparing his blushes.

 

Do you really believe, if the club had told him the reason he would have a) got the IFO involved b) not told anyone?

[Colinjb]

WTF ? There has been a process of formal independent investigation and STILL the club hasn't said anything, why do you think the club would have told him ?

 

I don't for a second think he needs to be told.

 

This story does not add up. Cortese is not an idiot, he wouldn't allow the revokation of a season ticket holders ability to buy unless there is reason to.

 

Equally, Illingsworth pleads ignorance and is claiming to be victimised.

 

Something must have happened to trigger this. If Illingsworth really doesn't know or at the very least have an inkling I would be absolutely gobsmacked.

Edited 3 February, 2011 by Colinjb

[The9]

I haven't assumed this was the reason, only said that if this was the reason then Cortese did the right thing IMO. If I was Cortese and there was some nobody that represented nobody passing off his views as if they were the views of many fans i'd be hacked off. Especially if said views were against me or a decision i made/supported.

 

Ok, so maybe you need to construct it like you're suggesting hypothetically that this might be one reason but equally it could be many others, rather than proposing one reason and then saying "if it was that then fair enough". Because it does come across that you think that is the reason.

 

Frankly I haven't yet seen one reason on this thread that I wouldn't say "fair enough" to if the club had said it. But they haven't.

[The9]

I don't for a second think he needs to be told.

 

This story does not add up. Cortese is not an idiot, he wouldn't allow the revokation of a season ticket holders ability to buy unless there is reason to.

 

Equally, Illingsworth pleads ignorance and is claiming to be victimised.

 

Something must have happened to trigger this. If Illingsworth really doesn't know I would be absolutely gobsmacked.

 

I'm sure he has some theories, but he doesn't know or he wouldn't bother to go through all this hassle to try and find out.

 

The club, being characteristically stubborn, have put their heads in the sand and refused to accede to even this minor demand.

[Colinjb]

I'm sure he has some theories, but he doesn't know or he wouldn't bother to go through all this hassle to try and find out.

 

Unless he wanted to appear innocent of something?

 

The club may have already agreed not to comment to allow a gracious saving of face. Or they may be continuing their stated policy of not responding to every idle rumour/story.

 

The club's consistency of behaviour could be working absolutely to Illingsworth's advantage.

 

I would rather believe the club then a chairman of a meaningless entity that claims to represent those that it painfully obviously doesn't.

[um pahars]

I'm sorry, but if you had your ability to buy a season ticket removed you will surely know why.

 

You might have a hunch and your hunch may be spot on or a million miles off.

If you knew, then perhaps you could review the reasons why and perhaps apologise, explain yourself, try and make amends, try and get a mutual resolution or take it on the chin, or alternatively you could counter the reasons.

But to not be told, not to tell the Independent Ombudsman and to string someone along is somewhat unprofessional, maybe unethical and certainly not up to what I would expect from my Club, indeed, it is not what the Club says it can expect from them.

As the IFO stated,

"this complaint has revealed clear and stark evidence that the Club was remiss in handling the complaint"

combined with

"It is patently obvious that Southampton failed to fulfil its Charter pledges, ............ in explaining the reasons for its actions. The way it handled this complaint hardly reflects the statement on the Club website that “listening to our supporters is vital…and we are taking this process very seriously”. The IFO finds that the Club was in breach of its Charter in the handling of this complaint and recommends that the Club apologises to the complainant and explains to the Football League how it proposes to uphold its Charter in the future. "

[um pahars]

I would rather believe the club then a chairman of a meaningless entity that claims to represent those that it painfully obviously doesn't.

 

To be honest, in a dispute between two parties who are probably entrenched in their own views, I would rather believe an Independent Third party whose whole raison d'etre

is to investigate and rule on these kinds of disputes.

[Fitzhugh Fella]

I think this thread is one of the most depressing ones I have read on this forum and some of the criticism of Nick to be grossly unfair. I am not a big friend of Nicks other than a couple of pints at away matches. Whenever I go away he always seems to be there, which marks him down as an active fan other than an armchair one. That means something in my book.

I really do not think he seeks to be known as a spokesman for Saints fans but with the local media as lazy as they are down here they get one phone number and look no further. If someone from the Echo ring you up and ask for an opinion my guess is most on here would give it?

 

The fact that Nick has had to resort to getting the IFO to adjudicate is incredibly sad - why are SFC that vindictive against one man? It makes no sense whatsoever.

To always blindly assume that whatever SFC do must be right - because we all support them - is quite frightening.

Tbh although I will probably get into trouble for saying it I do believe the current owners of this club to be bang out of order in this particular incident.

 

What is the point of turning on your own fans? I will say it again - this episode is incredibly sad and totally avoidable. I would ask all fans how they would feel if they were in Nick's place?

Edited 3 February, 2011 by Fitzhugh Fella

[Colinjb]

To be honest, in a dispute between two parties who are probably entrenched in their own views, I would rather believe an Independent Third party whose whole raison d'etre

is to investigate and rule on these kinds of disputes.

 

I see your point.

 

The problem is though, while this entity can rule on the ethical grounds of which we are all aware it doesn't tackle to route cause of the issue... just suggests the solution which is obvious to everyone. In short, it's not worth the paper it's printed on.

 

Only when the reason is known will we be able to say who was 'wrong.'

[Thedelldays]

Thing is though fitzhugh.. There are plenty of us that can't see the point in having.. Or should I say NEEDING to be heard in the local rag.. So to say most of us would give our opinion to the echo is wrong... He could quite easily say NO, just like many of us would do... Or say no till they remove the false layer of credibilty he uses known as the saints trust

 

Again, can anyone tell me and any others wondering, what the fluck is the saints trust these days that warrants it's name being thrown about to add credibilty to anything?

[Colinjb]

What is the point of turning on your own fans? I will say it again - this episode is incredibly sad and totally avoidable. I would ask all fans how they would feel if they were in Nick's place?

 

Therein lays the key point.

 

We will not be in his position.

 

You only lose the ability to buy a season ticket if you have done something wrong. What did he do wrong and why are the club resisting to comment?

 

The club not commenting is consistent behaviour. (Even if it is viewed as distasteful right now.)

 

So, He did something wrong.

Edited 3 February, 2011 by Colinjb

[Gemmel]

If Illingsworth really doesn't know or at the very least have an inkling I would be absolutely gobsmacked.

 

Well be ****ing gob smacked then you sanctimonious excuse for a Saints fan

[Thedelldays]

Well be ****ing gob smacked then you sanctimonious excuse for a Saints fan

 

That is so typical of this place when someone does not agree with you.

 

What a poor response to someone basically sitting on the fence on this and open to both possibilities..

 

Poor effort gemmel

[rocknrollman no2]

What ever the rights and wrongs of this,surely the best thing to do was for the club and Nick to settle this away from the media and to come to some sort of arrangement.Personally i think the Saints Trust was the biggest waste of time ever and it annoys me that Nick is perceived to talk for us all,but that said i think its sad that a longtime fan of Southampton fc cant buy a ST to watch the club he loves.

The only time the club can ban a fan is if they commit a crime and as far as i know,Nick has not done anything against the law or the rules set out by the club.

[Chez]

Do people REALLY get upset when he is called 'Voice of the Fans' or whatever?

not at all. If he said "I speak for all fans" then that would be annoying, but he doesn't. Its blood obvious he speaks as an individual, or at most as the Chairman of a small fans group.

 

By the way the club is the fans, not the owners, and certainly not a CEO that is merely EMPLOYED by the owners.

[Colinjb]

Well be ****ing gob smacked then you sanctimonious excuse for a Saints fan

 

No need for that Gemmel. My personal feelings about Illingsworth are obvious but the fact remains he must have done something wrong to provoke this. To provoke a reaction like this it must have been something serious. When you do something of this nature it would be highly unlikely that you wouldn't be aware of it.

 

I have stated that this is my personal opinion. Challenge it as you wish, this is after all a forum. We're all adults here arn't we? But to react like that is frankly offensive. Apologise.

[sfc4prem]

To be honest the Club look like idiots in this.

 

That is all.

[stevegrant]

Therein lays the key point.

 

We will not be in his position.

 

You only lose the ability to buy a season ticket if you have done something wrong. What did he do wrong and why are the club resisting to comment?

Good to see we're not being at all hypocritical by being judge, jury and executioner with an assumption (because that's what it is) that Nick must have done something wrong. For all we know, any one of us could be in his position at any time.

 

I believe - but I have no facts to back this up - that due to the timing of Nick being refunded his season ticket payment and being told he would not be allowed to possess one (within a week or two of the discounted prices finishing in the summer), it is his comments relating to the withdrawal of the ST payment plan that has led to this situation.

 

That being the case, do you believe it is right that a supporter (regardless of whether they've been to 3 Saints games in their lifetime or 3000) who voices his/her opinion about a controversial club policy - that affected 10% of last season's season ticket holders - is told that they are not allowed to buy a season ticket for daring to have an opinion? It sets one hell of a worrying precedent. Where does the line get drawn?

 

As for the club's silence, perhaps they know that if they did actually reveal the reason and it turned out to be a pathetic one, they would lose a fair bit of credibility and goodwill among the fans, and that by keeping quiet, they'll have enough people who will assume everything they say is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and it'll all blow over.

[um pahars]

The problem is though, while this entity can rule on the ethical grounds of which we are all aware it doesn't tackle to route cause of the issue...

 

I think only the Club can tackle the route cause of the issue and they appear to have failed to do that.

 

just suggests the solution which is obvious to everyone.

 

What obvious solution are you alluding to?

 

In short, it's not worth the paper it's printed on.

 

Will be interesting to see what happens next if the Club refuses to adopt the suggestions from the IFO (namely an apology and a reinstatement of NI as a season ticket holder). The FA, Premiership and League back the IFO, so it may be that Clubs are asked to abide by their rulings (in a gentlmenly way as opposed to mandatory way).

 

Only when the reason is known will we be able to say who was 'wrong.'

 

In which case I have to say the Club has a duty (as the IFO points out in reference to their own standards) to let him know the reason and the IFO are fairly critical of the Club over this.

[Colinjb]

Good to see we're not being at all hypocritical by being judge, jury and executioner with an assumption (because that's what it is) that Nick must have done something wrong. For all we know, any one of us could be in his position at any time.

 

I believe - but I have no facts to back this up - that due to the timing of Nick being refunded his season ticket payment and being told he would not be allowed to possess one (within a week or two of the discounted prices finishing in the summer), it is his comments relating to the withdrawal of the ST payment plan that has led to this situation.

 

That being the case, do you believe it is right that a supporter (regardless of whether they've been to 3 Saints games in their lifetime or 3000) who voices his/her opinion about a controversial club policy - that affected 10% of last season's season ticket holders - is told that they are not allowed to buy a season ticket for daring to have an opinion? It sets one hell of a worrying precedent. Where does the line get drawn?

 

As for the club's silence, perhaps they know that if they did actually reveal the reason and it turned out to be a pathetic one, they would lose a fair bit of credibility and goodwill among the fans, and that by keeping quiet, they'll have enough people who will assume everything they say is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and it'll all blow over.

 

Maybe so. But please, Steve. I'm just trying to reason why this may happen. If I'm wrong I am wrong.

 

We do not know why this has happened.

 

All we say about this is speculation but seemingly it is easier to side with a fellow fan rather then reason that it may actually have been something they have done to provoke the reaction. I can understand that, we are all fans.... we would hate to be in that situation.

 

Just because I am theorising that maybe Nick Illingsworth is not as innocent as first appears it doesn't mean that I should be called 'judge jury and executioner.'

 

This is a forum, a debate. Not everything in life is kittens and roses.

Edited 3 February, 2011 by Colinjb

[dune]

Well be ****ing gob smacked then you sanctimonious excuse for a Saints fan

 

Surely he must realise that by spouting off in the name of a non existant fans group against the club it's going to wind up Nicola Cortese.

 

Not saying this is the reason btw, but clearly it would really annoy NC.

[Chez]

Thing is though fitzhugh.. There are plenty of us that can't see the point in having.. Or should I say NEEDING to be heard in the local rag.. So to say most of us would give our opinion to the echo is wrong... He could quite easily say NO, just like many of us would do... Or say no till they remove the false layer of credibilty he uses known as the saints trust

 

you are seriously trying to tell us that someone that posts over 18,000 times on here wouldn't jump as high as the Echo asked should they call asking for your opinion?

[um pahars]

Not saying this is the reason btw, but clearly it would really annoy NC.

 

Enough to revoke your season ticket??

 

I hope he doesn't read this forum given the ferocity of opinions that sometimes permeate on here.

[Colinjb]

I think only the Club can tackle the route cause of the issue and they appear to have failed to do that.

 

What obvious solution are you alluding to?

 

As you say. For the club to speak.

[dune]

Enough to revoke your season ticket??

 

I hope he doesn't read this forum given the ferocity of opinions that sometimes permeate on here.

 

Personal opinions are very different to what Nick gives. He speaks as Chairman of the Saints Trust. You could do the same I suppose - American presidents are still refered to as Presidents after they've left office.

[Chez]

Surely he must realise that by spouting off in the name of a non existant fans group against the club it's going to wind up Nicola Cortese.

 

Not saying this is the reason btw, but clearly it would really annoy NC.

shouting his mouth off? I thought he just questioned the club over the removal of the payment scheme? Either way it worries me that the `management' now feel it appropriate to place sanctions on a long term supporter.

Edited 3 February, 2011 by Chez

[um pahars]

Personal opinions are very different to what Nick gives. He speaks as Chairman of the Saints Trust. You could do the same I suppose - American presidents are still refered to as Presidents after they've left office.

 

So are you saying that because Nick states/or is quoted as being a representative of the fans, then that is sufficient reason to get his season ticket revoked?

[Colinjb]

shouting his mouth off? I thought he just questioned the club over he removal of the payment scheme? Either way it worries me that the `management' now feel it appropriate to place sanctions on a long term supporter.

 

Both things that happened back in the summer. Now 6-7 months ago.

 

But yes, the PR policy is still in something of a hangover. Staying quiet though appears to be the way of things. (Not saying it's right..... before anyone jumps on me...)

[Gemmel]

No need for that Gemmel. My personal feelings about Illingsworth are obvious but the fact remains he must have done something wrong to provoke this. To provoke a reaction like this it must have been something serious. When you do something of this nature it would be highly unlikely that you wouldn't be aware of it.

 

I have stated that this is my personal opinion. Challenge it as you wish, this is after all a forum. We're all adults here arn't we? But to react like that is frankly offensive. Apologise.

 

So far you've told us your glad about the situation.

 

That he must have done something wrong

 

And you'd be gobsmacked if he didn't know what it was.

 

For all anbody knows he might deserve it (******* strange punishment though) but to not be told is a disgrace and then it turns out youve turned judge and jury all on the basis that you think the bloke has known along.

 

Apologise my arse.

 

Hope you get banned from St Mary's and no one tells you why.

[Gemmel]

. Staying quiet though appears to be the way of things. (Not saying it's right..... before anyone jumps on me...)

 

Staying quiet is against the club charter that cortese wrote...... So ultimately it must be wrong then?????????????????????????????????

[stevegrant]

Maybe so. But please, Steve. I'm just trying to reason why this may happen. If I'm wrong I am wrong.

 

We do not know why this has happened.

 

All we say about this is speculation but seemingly it is easier to side with a fellow fan rather then reason that it may actually have been something they have done to provoke the reaction. I can understand that, we are all fans.... we would hate to be in that situation.

 

Just because I am theorising that maybe Nick Illingsworth is not as innocent as first appears it doesn't mean that I should be call 'judge jury and executioner.'

 

This is a forum, a debate. Not everything in life is kittens and roses.

Indeed it isn't.

 

However, for all the theorising about Nick not being as innocent as first appears, the only facts we are aware of in this whole situation is that:

1. Nick was quoted in the Echo during the month existing ST holders had to renew at discounted prices, giving his opinion that the withdrawal of the payment plan was both a mistake and should have been warned of in advance - nothing particularly controversial there, I don't think?

2. Shortly after the deadline, Nick found that he had a refund on his statement for his season ticket money (note: from what he told me, nobody from the club contacted him to inform him of this situation, he just happened to notice it). He contacted various people at the club to query it, and nobody was able/willing to provide an answer.

3. The IFO also tried and failed to obtain any sort of explanation or defence of the decision from the club.

4. The IFO produced its findings and recommendations this week.

 

Usually when an industry ombudsman investigates a case, they are provided with the version of the facts from both parties. For some reason, the club chose to ignore the ombudsman. If the club has made a perfectly reasonable decision, why would they not defend themselves, even in private? I think I'm right in saying that in civil legal cases, offering no defence is essentially an admission of guilt. Their silence, regardless of their "we don't respond to speculation (except on May 17th when we'll put out a statement which will then be removed a few months later when it turns out to have been nonsense)" mantra, is baffling on this occasion.

[rocknrollman no2]

Surely he must realise that by spouting off in the name of a non existant fans group against the club it's going to wind up Nicola Cortese.

 

Not saying this is the reason btw, but clearly it would really annoy NC.

 

But whatever he said about the club,this is a free country with free speech and whether or not Cortese agrees with it,it is not a good enough excuse to stop someone getting a ST.

[sotonian]

Good to see we're not being at all hypocritical by being judge, jury and executioner with an assumption (because that's what it is) that Nick must have done something wrong. For all we know, any one of us could be in his position at any time.

 

I believe - but I have no facts to back this up - that due to the timing of Nick being refunded his season ticket payment and being told he would not be allowed to possess one (within a week or two of the discounted prices finishing in the summer), it is his comments relating to the withdrawal of the ST payment plan that has led to this situation.

 

That being the case, do you believe it is right that a supporter (regardless of whether they've been to 3 Saints games in their lifetime or 3000) who voices his/her opinion about a controversial club policy - that affected 10% of last season's season ticket holders - is told that they are not allowed to buy a season ticket for daring to have an opinion? It sets one hell of a worrying precedent. Where does the line get drawn?

 

As for the club's silence, perhaps they know that if they did actually reveal the reason and it turned out to be a pathetic one, they would lose a fair bit of credibility and goodwill among the fans, and that by keeping quiet, they'll have enough people who will assume everything they say is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and it'll all blow over.

 

well said Steve, i really don't get this anti NI attitude that many have, i think its just some kind of jealousy, I've met him many times but can't say i actually know him, in my opinion, he is 100% saints and has the fans view in general at heart, and is prepared to speak out and do something whilst others just sit back & moan

[um pahars]

As you say. For the club to speak.

 

Then it's disappointing that the Club do not take up this obvious solution and even more disappointing that as the IFO point out, the Club appears to be prepared not to honour its pledge to its supporters.

[dune]

So are you saying that because Nick states/or is quoted as being a representative of the fans, then that is sufficient reason to get his season ticket revoked?

 

In my opinion Yes, for two reasons..

 

1. It wrong that he does it and it flies in the face of what the Trust should be i.e a democratic entity.

 

2. By using the title he can influence others who are unsuspecting of the truth by making them think Saints fans have influenced a given stance.

 

I'm really surprised that you don't see what is so wrong about what he's doing.

Edited 3 February, 2011 by dune

[Colinjb]

Staying quiet is against the club charter that cortese wrote...... So ultimately it must be wrong then?????????????????????????????????

 

A charter that didn't exist for this season until it was highlighted by this case, so at least it had some direct benefit.

 

Many thanks for the pleasantries by the way. I am fully aware that some of what I am saying is unpalatable, we would hate this to happen to ourselves but there must be a reason and you do not get stung by the hornets nest unless you provoke it.

 

Thank heavens the art of polite conversation isn't dead. We wonder why the forum is losing popularity....

[dune]

But whatever he said about the club,this is a free country with free speech and whether or not Cortese agrees with it,it is not a good enough excuse to stop someone getting a ST.

 

But it's not what he says, it's the fact he's saying what he's saying using a title that no longer has any mandate.