doddisalegend Posted 11 August, 2011 Share Posted 11 August, 2011 Picked this up on the beeb. You may have noticed when you picked up the papers over the last few days that pictures and copy from football league matches has been a bit thin on the ground. Your eyes do not deceive you: It's because of a dispute over the terms and conditions for coverage of live matches that newspapers, websites and wire agencies have been asked to sign up to. The clubs like the publicity their sponsors get via the papers and websites reportage of matches, and the brilliant eye catching pictures that draw us in. What they don't want is their commercial revenues being hit by the availability of free content, like live text updates, interactive services and photos that compete with their own offers, and those of their partners. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/gordonfarquhar/2011/08/locked_out.html Looks like the football league clubs and press are at loggerheads over a new press deal including photos. looks like all the stick we got last year (south coast club etc) was becuse we were 12 months to early. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asaint4ever Posted 11 August, 2011 Share Posted 11 August, 2011 Yup they was talking about this on talk sport yesterday. And NC got a mention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 11 August, 2011 Share Posted 11 August, 2011 think the clubs are being over the top on this. German teams often get bigger shirt sponsorship deals because the large amount of terrestrial coverage including a prime-time highlights show means that their sponsor get lots of exposure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markr27 Posted 11 August, 2011 Share Posted 11 August, 2011 I did notice that most of the Championship game reports in the Sun on Monday had screen grabs of the BBC highlights as their feature images. The blurred still of Lallana's left foot shot was a particular highlight... Brighton's game seemed to get decent coverage tho' (understandable given its debut). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 11 August, 2011 Share Posted 11 August, 2011 One less thing to beat NC over the head about, then... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 11 August, 2011 Share Posted 11 August, 2011 Henry Winter wrote an amusing piece in the Telegraph at the weekend. He went to the Forest game - had to queue for 30 mins to buy a ticket and then got himself a manky pie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry the Badger Posted 11 August, 2011 Share Posted 11 August, 2011 To be honest. It doesn't make much difference to my viewpoint, I now just think there are lots of clubs that are wrong instead of it just being us :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 11 August, 2011 Share Posted 11 August, 2011 Henry Winter wrote an amusing piece in the Telegraph at the weekend. He went to the Forest game - had to queue for 30 mins to buy a ticket and then got himself a manky pie. Poor lamb, haha. How will the sun do match reports now? South Coast Club #3 2-1 East Midlands Club 30 or so miles S/E of Birmingham Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This Charming Man Posted 11 August, 2011 Share Posted 11 August, 2011 Great vision and business sense from NC. He saw this coming and thought he'd get in there early. Slight problem though was nobody cared about us enough to stump up the cash for the images. Be interesting to see what happens. The media have the upper hand here, IMO. Let's face it, if they don't print a picture of one of our players or some other lower league club, it's not going to really harm their sales. Do Man Utd and the like charge the press for image rights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
positivepete Posted 11 August, 2011 Share Posted 11 August, 2011 Do Man Utd and the like charge the press for image rights? Yes they do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This Charming Man Posted 11 August, 2011 Share Posted 11 August, 2011 Yes they do Thought as much. The media quite frankly have to have a picture of Rooney or Lampard on the back of their rag after a big game. But when there is a tiny square tucked away on the 3rd page in with a 5 line write up of Doncaster v Watford, a picture just isn't as essential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 11 August, 2011 Share Posted 11 August, 2011 To be honest. It doesn't make much difference to my viewpoint, I now just think there are lots of clubs that are wrong instead of it just being us :-) Yes, but that is entirely subjective. The fact is that NC saw the way the wind was blowing first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pedro Posted 11 August, 2011 Share Posted 11 August, 2011 Maybe some of NC is rubbing off on Arsenal, see they won't let Nasri go on staged payments, want majority up front. If most clubs follow Nicola's stance then can't see Poopey getting many in, is that why the Paterson deal fell through. Agree Alpine, NC ahead of the game, shrewd, tough, focused and ambitious imho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doddisalegend Posted 11 August, 2011 Author Share Posted 11 August, 2011 Yes, but that is entirely subjective. The fact is that NC saw the way the wind was blowing first. yes but he would have been better off waiting 12months and then he would have had the rest of the football league backing him up against the press. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cat Posted 11 August, 2011 Share Posted 11 August, 2011 This is all due to a disagreement between the Football League and the Newspaper Publishers Association. The main sticking point appears to be with real-time updates. For some reason the clubs do not wish reporters to use twitter or minute-by-minute website updates during play. This seems a bit bizarre seeing as there's nothing stopping a fan doing the same on their phone from their seat in the ground. Brighton and Accrington were the only 2 clubs to give press accreditation last weekend. More details here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/aug/06/dispute-guardian-coverage-football-league Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Bob Posted 11 August, 2011 Share Posted 11 August, 2011 This is all due to a disagreement between the Football League and the Newspaper Publishers Association. The main sticking point appears to be with real-time updates. For some reason the clubs do not wish reporters to use twitter or minute-by-minute website updates during play. This seems a bit bizarre seeing as there's nothing stopping a fan doing the same on their phone from their seat in the ground. Brighton and Accrington were the only 2 clubs to give press accreditation last weekend. More details here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/aug/06/dispute-guardian-coverage-football-league Some/Most clubs have subscription services for realtime updates for their fans, the press services are free, the clubs see it as the press taking away one of their (potential) revenue streams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloridaMarlin Posted 11 August, 2011 Share Posted 11 August, 2011 Some/Most clubs have subscription services for realtime updates for their fans, the press services are free, the clubs see it as the press taking away one of their (potential) revenue streams. And the media see it as the erosion of one of their freedoms to report objectively and without fetters. We've had this argument before, and could continue to go around in circles. There are those who will say: "So what? We'll get our reports and information from the club website and other outlets." Fine, but the reports you will see on club websites are hardly likely to be objective. Why should they be? The club/league/football in general has a product to sell, and to do that they will always project it in as positive a light as possible, even if that positivity hides some damning truths. If you are an intelligent, thinking supporter who values a neutral, objective viewpoint, and prefers to read a match report which paints an accurate picture, instead of one who just wants his views reinforced and prefers to put his fingers in his ears and go "la la la" when confronted with something unpalatable, you will be concerned about this. I suppose football could (and no doubt will, when it suits its purpose) advance the argument that football is not news in the same way that riots are news, but is an activity, essentially carried out in private, among consenting clubs and fans who give theri consent by paying to come in, and that the media is only allowed to report on that activity with football's consent. Fact is, since the game first started to attract attention back in the 19th century, it has sought and needed the attention of the media to bring its activities to a wider audience. It has been a mutually beneficial arrangement because newspapers sold copies on the back of football coverage, something that has always gnawed away at the heart of football, which is a pretty small-minded business, really. The whole landscape and relationship has changed down the years, and some moght argue that football no longer needs newspapers. That argument probably applies to the top clubs in the Premiership, whose media operations are now geared almost exclusively towards TV with little or no regard to newspapers. Papers are given little or no access to interview players/managers which they need. Instead, the only access is at staged media conferences, where players/managers are stunted up on a stage to trot out the 30-second soundbites beloved of TV. The clubs and fans who will be most affected by this are those in the Championship and FL, who rely on their local papers for coverage. When the PL kicks off this Saturday the national papers' interest in anything below will be kicked towards touch. With the PL back in action national newspapers don't send staff reporters to FL games, but rely on agencies and freelances to provide reports. If Football Dataco are going to make it difficult for them to operate, national newspapers won't be bothered with FL reports. Deride the Echo all you like, but if you value unbiased, objective reporting over sanitised happy-clappy coverage that club websites are bound to provide, then be concerned about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy Diamond Posted 11 August, 2011 Share Posted 11 August, 2011 Henry Winter wrote an amusing piece in the Telegraph at the weekend. He went to the Forest game - had to queue for 30 mins to buy a ticket and then got himself a manky pie. Yes, unfortunately it's making my job a lot harder. By all accounts Henry enjoyed himself, but he's keen not to make a habit of buying tickets for every Football League game he attends in the future. Then again he doesn't go to FL games that often... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Bob Posted 11 August, 2011 Share Posted 11 August, 2011 Deride the Echo all you like, but if you value unbiased, objective reporting over sanitised happy-clappy coverage that club websites are bound to provide, then be concerned about this. Sorry Florida but you have missed the point completely, your long rant was meaningless in this context, although well constructed. The current argument is about *REALTIME* updates provided by the media, not about after the match images and report. The clubs feel that the media shouldn't be able to provide detailed realtime updates as this is a service (usually subscription) that they provide for their fans, think twitter feeds, facebook updates, the current social media de jour updates etc. You could probably point to radi ocommentary etc but I guess this is a service that BBC have to pay for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 11 August, 2011 Share Posted 11 August, 2011 yes but he would have been better off waiting 12months and then he would have had the rest of the football league backing him up against the press. A Chairman who doesnt give a flying-f*ck about image and does what needs to be done - even better..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This Charming Man Posted 11 August, 2011 Share Posted 11 August, 2011 yes but he would have been better off waiting 12months and then he would have had the rest of the football league backing him up against the press. Why be a follower when you can be a leader? I imagine half those simpletons didn't even think of it until Cortese tried it last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 11 August, 2011 Share Posted 11 August, 2011 A Chairman who doesnt give a flying-f*ck about image and does what needs to be done - even better..... I like the NEW Alps! ;-0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 11 August, 2011 Share Posted 11 August, 2011 Why be a follower when you can be a leader? I imagine half those simpletons didn't even think of it until Cortese tried it last year. You are aware that, while there are some similarities with the motives, there are massive differences between what Cortese was trying to achieve and what the clubs are trying to achieve this time round? Right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This Charming Man Posted 11 August, 2011 Share Posted 11 August, 2011 You are aware that, while there are some similarities with the motives, there are massive differences between what Cortese was trying to achieve and what the clubs are trying to achieve this time round? Right? Cortese wanted to stop the use of free content like photos, so do the FL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 11 August, 2011 Share Posted 11 August, 2011 You are aware that, while there are some similarities with the motives, there are massive differences between what Cortese was trying to achieve and what the clubs are trying to achieve this time round? Right? F*ck me, some people are determined to see the negative in a bloke who has delivered silverware, promotion, big money through patronage and transfers, and the most complete squad we have seen since the 80s, and I get accused of being a miserable negative b*stard... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 11 August, 2011 Share Posted 11 August, 2011 Cortese wanted to stop the use of free content like photos, so do the FL. The "free content" motive, yes. That's where the motive is similar I agree. The methods though are vastly different. The clubs are not looking to restrict incoming photographers such that only medium that is allowed out is one that is effectively controlled by the club. That's what Mr Cortese was trying to do, no other photographers were to be allowed in oher than ones employed by the club. The current situation seems to be almost an extension of the rule whereby you have to pay to be able to reproduce the fixture lists etc. There's no restriction on who can access the ground and publish the information, the clubs just seem to want to extract a fair charge for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 11 August, 2011 Share Posted 11 August, 2011 F*ck me, some people are determined to see the negative in a bloke who has delivered silverware, promotion, big money through patronage and transfers, and the most complete squad we have seen since the 80s, and I get accused of being a miserable negative b*stard... Please feel free to identify my negativity towards all those factors. I suggest you grow up a little if you're incapable of entering into a debate without throwing your toys out of the pram and polarising everyone into a pro-Cortese or anti-Cortese camp, which is a ridiculous notion in itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 11 August, 2011 Share Posted 11 August, 2011 Please feel free to identify my negativity towards all those factors. I suggest you grow up a little if you're incapable of entering into a debate without throwing your toys out of the pram and polarising everyone into a pro-Cortese or anti-Cortese camp, which is a ridiculous notion in itself. Is it ? you and a few others do nothing but slag the bloke off. Go and support someone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sambosa75 Posted 11 August, 2011 Share Posted 11 August, 2011 and I get accused of being a miserable negative b*stard... In fairness you usually are. Refreshing to see you aren't in this instance however! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 11 August, 2011 Share Posted 11 August, 2011 Is it ? you and a few others do nothing but slag the bloke off. Go and support someone else. F*ck off telling me who to support you clown! You're so clueless, do you really have to resort to making things up?! As I've said, please feel free to identify where I continually slag him off. Unlike you seem to be, I am capable of being very grateful and complimentary about the many things Mr Cortese has done for our club. He has made some mistakes, but they are far outweighed IMO by the good things he has and continues to do. You are clearly an idiot if you can't or won't do something similar, or indeed recognise it in others. Go and support someone else. Are you 10 years old? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This Charming Man Posted 11 August, 2011 Share Posted 11 August, 2011 The "free content" motive, yes. That's where the motive is similar I agree. The methods though are vastly different. The clubs are not looking to restrict incoming photographers such that only medium that is allowed out is one that is effectively controlled by the club. That's what Mr Cortese was trying to do, no other photographers were to be allowed in oher than ones employed by the club. The current situation seems to be almost an extension of the rule whereby you have to pay to be able to reproduce the fixture lists etc. There's no restriction on who can access the ground and publish the information, the clubs just seem to want to extract a fair charge for it. But at the time, that's the only way NC could implement his strategy. Where as, if the rules were to be changed and agreed upon by all, he'd be able to do as the FL are proposing it to be done now. He would've had to of come to an individual agreement with every media outlet to allow their photographers into the ground. Not much point in doing that when you can take the pictures yourself and sell them on to whoever would be interested. Though if there was a general rule put in place, like they're suggesting now, things would be far more simple. I don't agree with the whole thing anyway. Surely any publicity the games get are good? The clubs down here aren't exactly publicity magnets like Man Utd or Chelsea. How are they going to stop the live updates? People in the ground will still tweet and Facebook important moments in the game (not me personally, you have to be a bit of a berk to do stuff like that). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry the Badger Posted 11 August, 2011 Share Posted 11 August, 2011 F*ck off telling me who to support you clown! You're so clueless, do you really have to resort to making things up?! As I've said, please feel free to identify where I continually slag him off. Unlike you seem to be, I am capable of being very grateful and complimentary about the many things Mr Cortese has done for our club. He has made some mistakes, but they are far outweighed IMO by the good things he has and continues to do. You are clearly an idiot if you can't or won't do something similar, or indeed recognise it in others. Go and support someone else. Are you 10 years old? How dare you judge each situation on its merits!!! For god sake man, get a grip, decide whether you are pro or anti-Cortese and bloody well stick to it, even in the face of all evidence to the contrary! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 11 August, 2011 Share Posted 11 August, 2011 (edited) I don't agree with the whole thing anyway. Surely any publicity the games get are good? The clubs down here aren't exactly publicity magnets like Man Utd or Chelsea. How are they going to stop the live updates? People in the ground will still tweet and Facebook important moments in the game (not me personally, you have to be a bit of a berk to do stuff like that). There is that argument. All publicity is good publicity, and all that. I think this is more an exercise in control. In itself, the fixture list publication fee that I mentioned is utterly ridiculous. That you can't publish a list of teams next to a list of other teams without having to pay a huge amount of money is just a laughable idea. Yet there it is, in law. This is just the very next step along those lines, making all websites etc have to pay for publishing live scores or any information from the grounds. If it passes you can expect massive crackdowns on individuals and websites reporting from matches. Not a good thing. As for your second paragraph, all I'll say is that it smacks of censorship, and is the potential start of an erosion of free press. At least with this current situation, there are no potential censorship issues, it's just making various news outlets pay up for the privilege of distributing their own content. Edited 11 August, 2011 by The Kraken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 11 August, 2011 Share Posted 11 August, 2011 How dare you judge each situation on its merits!!! For god sake man, get a grip, decide whether you are pro or anti-Cortese and bloody well stick to it, even in the face of all evidence to the contrary! Aaaah b*ll*cks. If you cant see there is a contingent on here that want NC hung, drawn and quartered because he dared not to introduce a rip-off scheme...er...installment plan last season and has introduced small fees for the use of the car parking at the ground, then you are hardly one to be sermonising about objectivity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 11 August, 2011 Share Posted 11 August, 2011 Aaaah b*ll*cks. If you cant see there is a contingent on here that want NC hung, drawn and quartered because he dared not to introduce a rip-off scheme...er...installment plan last season and has introduced small fees for the use of the car parking at the ground, then you are hardly one to be sermonising about objectivity. Unfortunately there are a minority of people like that on here; I'll thank you for not insulting my intelligence or willingness for rational debate by ranking me alongside them. Its a cheap and ignorant shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan The Flames Posted 11 August, 2011 Share Posted 11 August, 2011 Its probably been said elsewhere in this thread but what NC did last year, wanting to be the sole distributor of Saints images, is different to this argument about real time text and image updates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloridaMarlin Posted 11 August, 2011 Share Posted 11 August, 2011 Sorry Florida but you have missed the point completely, your long rant was meaningless in this context, although well constructed. The current argument is about *REALTIME* updates provided by the media, not about after the match images and report. The clubs feel that the media shouldn't be able to provide detailed realtime updates as this is a service (usually subscription) that they provide for their fans, think twitter feeds, facebook updates, the current social media de jour updates etc. You could probably point to radi ocommentary etc but I guess this is a service that BBC have to pay for. I'm fully aware of what the issue is, thanks. But as I tried to point out in my long, meaningless rant, these things are usually the thin end of the wedge. The sticking point, as you correctly point out, is the provision of realtime updates. I fully understand and appreciate why clubs and Football Dataco would want to limit them, the whole idea is to direct fans to club websites, and drive traffic through them. That's a commercially-driven initiative that's hard to criticise as they attempt to utilise what they have, and I don't really have a problem with that. But it's where this whole thing eventually goes that is the issue. Both sides are avid envelope-pushers and having won one ' victory' they'll see how far they can take it. What comes next after telling papers they can't update in real time? An embargo on match reports appearing less than 24 hours after the game, to give club websites a clear run? Copy control, with all match reports submitted to Football Dataco for approval before publication? Vetting of pictures to ensure they all carry positive portrayals, and nothing that might harm the image of the product (remember that picture of wild-eyed, open-mouthed Roy Keane howling at a terrified Andy D'Urso? That didn't do the image of English football any good at all)? It doesn't need a quantum leap to see that what is essentially a piffling local dispute over twitter updates could develop into a major conflict over control of the media agenda. Look what Gavrilo Princip did when he took a pop at Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo. It's not just football or sport. Wherever you look, organisations are doing battle with the media over who controls the agenda. Every organisation has a media operation whose task is to strictly control what is said about them. As a young reporter, police, fire and ambulance calls were an essential part of your job. You called in every day, looked through the incident books, chatted with the station sergeant/fire officer and built up a relationship which provided you with tip-offs for stories. Now, there are no incident books, no cosy chats with desk sergeants, who are forbidden to talk to the media as any official line has to come from the media department. The result is that all the media freedoms the UK holds dear are being eroded and denuded. Yes, even the freedom to abuse the freedoms by hacking phones (which patently hasn't done the industry any good). Investigative journalism is a dying art, which could fall under greater threat if MPs decide to introduce controls and privacy laws. One of the media's finest recent hours was the exposure of MPs fiddling their expenses, and this is exactly the sort of thing a free press in a democratic society should be doing. And it's exactly the sort of thing that will be halted if privacy laws are brought in by MPs who might just have a vested interest in doing so. So what's this got to do with football? Depends on what sort of coverage of their sport fans want. Last weekend provided some prime examples. With no first-hand reports, newspapers were forced to cobble together reports, mainly from club websites and other sources. OK, it was risible that the Sunday Mirror had Andy Lonergan making his Saints debut in goal. But because reports were culled from club sites, there was no mention that a David James howler gifted Ipswich their first goal at Bristol City. Small beer, perhaps, but you can see where this is leading. Do fans really want to read the club website version of their club's 5-0 defeat that they were really unlucky, dominated the game throughout but were undone by five lucky goals on the break? Or would they prefer a more objective view, that the team were defensively frail, lacked any offensive creativity and appeared to be poorly motivated? Dunno. Perhaps it might come down to what Jack Nicholson said in A Few Good Men; "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth." Then again, this might be just another meaningless rant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 11 August, 2011 Share Posted 11 August, 2011 FloridaMarlin, can't fault the effort!! I'm not sure if I agree with you though. You seem to be suggesting that the motive of the clubs is to restrict access to only club websites that can give out score information etc. Which is a similar motive to what SFC tried to do with the photo thing. I really don't think that's the issue here. i think the clubs are all saying that any website will still be free to post the information they currently provide, with no form of censorship or otherwise. It's just that a hefty charge will now be incurred. Your concerns are all perfectly valid, I just don't see that they're entirely relevant in this particular situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
labibs Posted 11 August, 2011 Share Posted 11 August, 2011 think the clubs are being over the top on this. German teams often get bigger shirt sponsorship deals because the large amount of terrestrial coverage including a prime-time highlights show means that their sponsor get lots of exposure. Barring Bayern, I would be surprised if any of the big German clubs have deals better than the big English clubs (E.g. Liverpool £20m a year from standard chartered). Terrestrial coverage is relatively insignificant when compared to overseas markets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Bob Posted 11 August, 2011 Share Posted 11 August, 2011 Barring Bayern, I would be surprised if any of the big German clubs have deals better than the big English clubs (E.g. Liverpool £20m a year from standard chartered). Terrestrial coverage is relatively insignificant when compared to overseas markets. And that £20m is small change in comparison to the £300m deal City have got from their owner's brother's company!! (allegedly) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry the Badger Posted 12 August, 2011 Share Posted 12 August, 2011 Aaaah b*ll*cks. If you cant see there is a contingent on here that want NC hung, drawn and quartered because he dared not to introduce a rip-off scheme...er...installment plan last season and has introduced small fees for the use of the car parking at the ground, then you are hardly one to be sermonising about objectivity. I'm sure there are. What I was commenting on is that it's apparently impossible to question Cortese on anything without being accused of being 'anti-Cortese'. It is possible to think he's doing a good job but still question certain decisions. Shades of grey Alps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doddisalegend Posted 12 August, 2011 Author Share Posted 12 August, 2011 I'm sure there are. What I was commenting on is that it's apparently impossible to question Cortese on anything without being accused of being 'anti-Cortese'. It is possible to think he's doing a good job but still question certain decisions. Shades of grey Alps. Not on here. Apparently you either support everything the club does without question ........or you have some big anti saints agenda. Shades of grey are over the heads of some posters on here. I sometimes wonder if everything in their lives is so black and white? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 12 August, 2011 Share Posted 12 August, 2011 This is all due to a disagreement between the Football League and the Newspaper Publishers Association. The main sticking point appears to be with real-time updates. For some reason the clubs do not wish reporters to use twitter or minute-by-minute website updates during play. This seems a bit bizarre seeing as there's nothing stopping a fan doing the same on their phone from their seat in the ground. Brighton and Accrington were the only 2 clubs to give press accreditation last weekend. More details here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/aug/06/dispute-guardian-coverage-football-league Actually if you read the details in the fine print of either the Season Ticket or Match Ticket (can't remember which) it specifies that as a ticket holder you agree not to use your mobile phone for any digital updates (or for anything other than "being a phone"), which implies accessing the web to read OR send information - so "officially" they can chuck you out for it, just as they can prevent a media person doing so. Don't ask me why I was reading this, I just was. This is nevertheless NOT the same argument as Cortese was having last year, it's another one which also involves the media and rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minty Posted 12 August, 2011 Share Posted 12 August, 2011 ... it's apparently impossible to question Cortese on anything without being accused of being 'anti-Cortese'. It is possible to think he's doing a good job but still question certain decisions. Shades of grey Alps. Absolutely. It seems the issues being debated become secondary to needing to pigeon hole individual poster in certain camps. How refreshing it would be if we could stick to the subject and judge it on it's own merits. Anyway, I won't (and can't) go into the same level of detail as Florida Marlin, but agree with the majority of his sentiments. From my point of view, it's quite simply about just how much of 'Football Inc', the brand, the clubs want to allow media and others access to, and therefore how much they want to retain solely for themselves, to extract as much income from. I'm not usually so cynical, but that's the bottom line IMO. Football is not a sport, it's a business. In the eyes of many clubs (not all, although most are happy for Football DataCo to act on their behalf and extract as much money as possible), the more they can control and charge for, the better. However, the implications can often be reduced sponsorship income, not to mention general willingness to work with clubs by other companies etc, because of the exposure. So, to sum up: it's commercial exploitation. And the more fans who think it will be 'better for their club', and back this kind of thing, IMO, means football dies just a little bit more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 12 August, 2011 Share Posted 12 August, 2011 Not on here. Apparently you either support everything the club does without question ........or you have some big anti saints agenda. Shades of grey are over the heads of some posters on here. I sometimes wonder if everything in their lives is so black and white? Spot on. Some of us would just like the petty charges and generally inconveniences that have suddenly raised their heads to go away so that we can completely enjoy the experience of what the club is achieving due to investing Markus' money on the pitch. I could also do without the Chairman slapping himself on the programme looking like he's after a fight because it's frankly a bit weird, but as long as his involvement leads to us having access to shedloads of cash I'll cope. It's the jumping through hoops to do the simple stuff and failure to spread the word and sell the empty seats that would negate the need for the stealth taxes that annoys me, especially as it's extremely arguable that the fans are funding the players we're getting in anyway - though of course the argument for the next 2 years will be that the Chamberlain money is paying for it. Even though paying 25 players at a conservative £5k per week annually is about £6.5m in wages alone, without transfer fees included. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 12 August, 2011 Share Posted 12 August, 2011 (edited) Absolutely. It seems the issues being debated become secondary to needing to pigeon hole individual poster in certain camps. How refreshing it would be if we could stick to the subject and judge it on it's own merits. Anyway, I won't (and can't) go into the same level of detail as Florida Marlin, but agree with the majority of his sentiments. From my point of view, it's quite simply about just how much of 'Football Inc', the brand, the clubs want to allow media and others access to, and therefore how much they want to retain solely for themselves, to extract as much income from. I'm not usually so cynical, but that's the bottom line IMO. Football is not a sport, it's a business. In the eyes of many clubs (not all, although most are happy for Football DataCo to act on their behalf and extract as much money as possible), the more they can control and charge for, the better. However, the implications can often be reduced sponsorship income, not to mention general willingness to work with clubs by other companies etc, because of the exposure. So, to sum up: it's commercial exploitation. And the more fans who think it will be 'better for their club', and back this kind of thing, IMO, means football dies just a little bit more. Your first paragraph, of course I completely agree. Yesterday I was branded a Cortese-hater, a Lowe-luvvie, and told to go support another club; all by the same poster!! I'd like to think I take a balanced view on all things Saints, but if one random nutcase needs to look at life that way then it's really not going to bother me, there are plenty of other good people on here who are capable of engaging in rational debate. I take slight issue with your second paragraph. There seems to be a way of thinking by some that this whole situation is designed to exert a level of control over the type of content that gets distributed by the media outlets at football grounds; a sort of censorship, if you will. I'm not sure (yet!) whether I go along with that. I think it really is, as you very rightly point out, commercial exploitation. IMO the clubs are not looking to restrict any media outlets from coming to grounds, and publishing match stats, information reoprts etc. They're just looking to make sure that they all pay the club to do it. So really the clubs are just trying to squeeze ever-more money out for themselves. And I wholeheartedly agree that it is not good for the game, because the costs will mean that the choice on offer will become vastly diminished. Edited 12 August, 2011 by The Kraken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now