Relationship with the press

[Panda]

club chairman Nicola – you have a woman’s name m’lord – Cortese

 

Read More http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/coventry-city-fc/coventry-city-fc-news/2011/11/09/andy-turner-why-the-press-and-football-clubs-must-work-together-92746-29745295/?#ixzz1dD6qcVa9

 

Sums Mr Turner up if he can't accept (or perhaps understand) that the Italians do not put an 's' on the end of Nicolas. What a pitiful comment, then what a pitiful article. Hardly an original and well researched piece of journalism, just one-sided, opinionated hearsay in the press box from the Daily Echo reporter. Sad, but then, as he says, he has a sad job!

[trousers]

More cr*p from the press...

 

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/coventry-city-fc/coventry-city-fc-news/2011/11/09/andy-turner-why-the-press-and-football-clubs-must-work-together-92746-29745295/?

"I'M often asked, usually after a disappointing result, how I manage to muster the enthusiasm to write my Coventry City match reports.

And I have to admit there are occasions when the thought of traipsing back to Telegraph Towers and sitting in front of my computer for the next few hours to write about it on a Saturday night fills me with dread.

I suppose, after ten long-suffering years of covering the club in the Championship, I have got somewhat battle-hardened and used to it.

Wouldn’t it be lovely to follow a club like Southampton – flying high at the top of the league, beating everyone in sight and looking to be heading back to the Premier League. Well, no actually.You see my opposite numbers at the Southampton Echo have been banned from St Mary’s for the last 18 months and have to cobble their home match reports together from listening to local radio commentary and by sneaking a spy into the stands.

"

 

I thought the Echo "ban" had been lifted yonks ago....? *confused*

[Marsdinho]

But it's all completely true - which part is unaccurate? On one side you moan the Echo gets rumours off football websites then you back the club when they print factual, relevant information (good news story too) about training ground redevelopments without the clubs say so?

 

I suppose you also think the back page article in today's Echo where they interview the England U17 manager and he sings the praises of our academy is another example of the Echo running negative stories about the club?

 

Jeez, sometimes you just have to use common sense, put your hands up and say fair enough, 99% of the way SFC is run is great but they could do a tiny bit better in the PR stakes.

 

Your post doesn't make any sense at all !!! I think you have me confused with someone else.

Where have I moaned about the echo getting stories off of forums, please show me an example. can you also re read the bit in bold and explain yourself further, other than it not making sense, I have never done this, are you sure you have the right person.

 

Jeez, sometimes you just have to use your brain, put your hands up and say "fair enough, i f*cked right up there and confused Marsdinho with someone else and wrote a rather poorly worded post on a saints forum"

 

FWIW, this is the bit that i think is cr*p "You see my opposite numbers at the Southampton Echo have been banned from St Mary’s for the last 18 months and have to cobble their home match reports together from listening to local radio commentary and by sneaking a spy into the stands."

 

The journalist also deleted the section where it said that the echo had to buy an anonymous season ticket and go undercover as NC had instructed stewards to throw them out.

[Graffito]

Which is what?

 

I'll answer that with a question. Why do you think organisations invest in PR? Do they do it because they think it's a waste of time and money? Two questions. Sorry.

[um pahars]

Which is what?

 

Perhaps that question could be directed at those who have been critical of the lack of exposure we seem to be getting in the national press?

[JackanorySFC]

Your post doesn't make any sense at all !!! I think you have me confused with someone else.

Where have I moaned about the echo getting stories off of forums, please show me an example. can you also re read the bit in bold and explain yourself further, other than it not making sense, I have never done this, are you sure you have the right person.

 

Jeez, sometimes you just have to use your brain, put your hands up and say "fair enough, i f*cked right up there and confused Marsdinho with someone else and wrote a rather poorly worded post on a saints forum"

 

FWIW, this is the bit that i think is cr*p "You see my opposite numbers at the Southampton Echo have been banned from St Mary’s for the last 18 months and have to cobble their home match reports together from listening to local radio commentary and by sneaking a spy into the stands."

 

The journalist also deleted the section where it said that the echo had to buy an anonymous season ticket and go undercover as NC had instructed stewards to throw them out.

 

My mistake, confused your comment at the bottom of the article with the others that accused the Echo of being anti Saints.

[Puddings and Monkeys]

I'll answer that with a question. Why do you think organisations invest in PR? Do they do it because they think it's a waste of time and money? Two questions. Sorry.

 

I was always told at school that it's rude to answer a question with a question, so even ruder to answer one with 2!! (smiley thing here). Responding to a hack's request to spill the beans about a potential transfer does not equate to PR. PR is much broader than that and delivered through things like the work of the Saints Foundation as an example. Getting journos to like us is irrelevant; particularly in this case where it seems he only wanted the info to be able to have a "scoop" and sell more of his own papers. That's not PR at all is it?

[Sour Mash]

I was always told at school that it's rude to answer a question with a question, so even ruder to answer one with 2!! (smiley thing here). Responding to a hack's request to spill the beans about a potential transfer does not equate to PR. PR is much broader than that and delivered through things like the work of the Saints Foundation as an example. Getting journos to like us is irrelevant; particularly in this case where it seems he only wanted the info to be able to have a "scoop" and sell more of his own papers. That's not PR at all is it?

Of course. Apart from the fact that no-one has asked for information on our transfer targets. Just a fairly well known football journo wanting to do a piece on Saints' success and being blocked for whatever reason. Oh and our long-standing local paper not being given any access to the club. I don't care massively, but it should be such a straight forward thing to put right, it seems like almost all other clubs manage it.

[saintmatt]

Interesting to see one of the tweeters talking to the journo is our old friend Nineteencanteen. LOL.

 

Blast from the past! What happened to him? And Guided Missile for that matter?

[Sour Mash]

Your post doesn't make any sense at all !!! I think you have me confused with someone else.

Where have I moaned about the echo getting stories off of forums, please show me an example. can you also re read the bit in bold and explain yourself further, other than it not making sense, I have never done this, are you sure you have the right person.

 

Jeez, sometimes you just have to use your brain, put your hands up and say "fair enough, i f*cked right up there and confused Marsdinho with someone else and wrote a rather poorly worded post on a saints forum"

 

FWIW, this is the bit that i think is cr*p "You see my opposite numbers at the Southampton Echo have been banned from St Mary’s for the last 18 months and have to cobble their home match reports together from listening to local radio commentary and by sneaking a spy into the stands."

 

The journalist also deleted the section where it said that the echo had to buy an anonymous season ticket and go undercover as NC had instructed stewards to throw them out.

That is true I'm afraid.

[Son of Bob]

Oh how things have changed. My Dad was invited to travel to and from Wembley on the team coach in '76. Imagine that happening now!

[Marsdinho]

That is true I'm afraid.

 

Why has it been deleted then, if it was true they should have no problem printing it.

[Sour Mash]

Why has it been deleted then, if it was true they should have no problem printing it.

Probably because the journalist completely made it up, entirely randomly and is purely a figment of his imagination

[JRM]

Why has it been deleted then, if it was true they should have no problem printing it.

 

I can vouch for him, Sour Mash knows it IS true, whereas you are guessing based on implication of a news story

[stevegrant]

Why has it been deleted then, if it was true they should have no problem printing it.

Taking a completely wild guess, I'd suppose that he realised that publicising the Echo's "anonymous" season ticket purchase might compromise the whole thing and probably make the situation even worse, were that possible.

[Minty]

Couple of points:

 

1 - There have been, and no doubt will continue to be, very god articles about Saints in the media... Paul Fletcher has done a few on the BBC blog, Jeremy Wilson has done some good pieces for the Telegraph and I'm sure there have been and will be others. I have no idea how much they talk directly to the club about these, if at all, and how much assistance they get, but I would presume it depends on what they want to know. I would suggest any blanket suggestions of the club having poor PR, or not working with the media are a bit exaggerated, but if it's true there was no response at all then that would be unprofessional IMHO. As usual the truth is probably the uninteresting middle ground, and not the black or white extreme that many people encourage it to be.

 

2 - Twitter is just another platform for people to give their opinion - some of the comments about 'social media idiots' and things like that are ridiculous. It's the same when people criticise 'SaintsWeb Forum people' as though we're all one and the same. The journo is entitled to make the comment wherever and however he likes, as are the people that reply. They should be judged on what they write, not where they write it - there's crap posted on Twitter, crap posted on here, crap posted on SaintsList, crap posted everywhere, make your judgement on the substance not the medium.

 

3 - I'm guessing here, but I imagine most people would like the club to be fair but consistent in their approach, which probably means being professional and at least responding in the first instance and then replying according to whatever policy it decides to implement. That is up to the club, and no doubt some of us will agree with and some will disagree - however I think it would be good for the club to clarify it's policy to avoid these kinds of silly discussions and focus on the core business.

[pedg]

The journalist also deleted the section where it said that the echo had to buy an anonymous season ticket and go undercover as NC had instructed stewards to throw them out.

 

I assume the club have searched the season ticket database for a Mr D.Echo or A.Hack?

[shurlock]

Taking a completely wild guess, I'd suppose that he realised that publicising the Echo's "anonymous" season ticket purchase might compromise the whole thing and probably make the situation even worse, were that possible.

 

Some Echo journalists have spoken quite openly about going to games/having STs. Whether they are doing this in a private or professional capacity is another matter (though is largely irrelevant if we're talking about 'spies').

[shurlock]

Couple of points:

 

1 - There have been, and no doubt will continue to be, very god articles about Saints in the media... Paul Fletcher has done a few on the BBC blog, Jeremy Wilson has done some good pieces for the Telegraph and I'm sure there have been and will be others. I have no idea how much they talk directly to the club about these, if at all, and how much assistance they get, but I would presume it depends on what they want to know. I would suggest any blanket suggestions of the club having poor PR, or not working with the media are a bit exaggerated, but if it's true there was no response at all then that would be unprofessional IMHO. As usual the truth is probably the uninteresting middle ground, and not the black or white extreme that many people encourage it to be.

 

2 - Twitter is just another platform for people to give their opinion - some of the comments about 'social media idiots' and things like that are ridiculous. It's the same when people criticise 'SaintsWeb Forum people' as though we're all one and the same. The journo is entitled to make the comment wherever and however he likes, as are the people that reply. They should be judged on what they write, not where they write it - there's crap posted on Twitter, crap posted on here, crap posted on SaintsList, crap posted everywhere, make your judgement on the substance not the medium.

 

3 - I'm guessing here, but I imagine most people would like the club to be fair but consistent in their approach, which probably means being professional and at least responding in the first instance and then replying according to whatever policy it decides to implement. That is up to the club, and no doubt some of us will agree with and some will disagree - however I think it would be good for the club to clarify it's policy to avoid these kinds of silly discussions and focus on the core business.

 

Best, balanced post on this thread amongst some of the more outlandish stuff.

 

Who knows the nature of Hayward's request - the Club has been pretty open with some outlets (lets not forget it made its peace with the Sun only for it to put words in the clubs mouth). Like anyone, they're happy to have their fair share of banal and harmless puff pieces. I'd suggest that Hayward probably wanted more and it cut closer to the bone than he's letting on.

Edited 9 November, 2011 by shurlock

[Wes Tender]

Really, who cares? All this tweeting sounds like the sort of stuff that kids indulge in in the playground, rather than proper journalism. So the Coventry journo supports his oppo in our local rag, the Echo and there are dark mutterings that their journos here aren't given a cosy warm berth in the Press Room and might have to watch the match surreptitiously posing as ordinary fans like you and I. That might actually be beneficial to them and give them a perspective they might otherwise not have had. Perhaps the Coventry journo would have been better off writing about the match than poking his nose into matters that are of no interest to their fans and only of passing interest to a small faction of ours.

 

An excellent summary by Minty, by the way.

[aintforever]

The way the club deals with the media does seem retarded. Spats with the press are always pointless, futile and counter productive.

 

Every time a paper prints a positive story about the club it's like a free ad to SFC's target market, anyone with half a brain can see that a good relationship will only help the club make more of that lovely money.

[up and away]

You do realise he was being sarcastic don't you

 

And as someone else has posted, some of the Twitter responses are cringetastic. Fortunately, there are a couple of people on there that display a more mature, thoughtful and reasoned response.

 

As for the actual thrust of his Tweet, then whilst I sort of understand our reluctance to engage with the press, like the Photo Ban I do think it is something we might want to reconsider.

 

I am struggling to understand exactly what position he was taking. The press has had good access to Adkins in recent times so I can't believe they have just shut up shop on that one. If Adkins feels he has given out enough and wants some me time, I see no problems. If I were to take a guess it would be that he wanted access to Cortese, but after the Sun put words in his mouth starting up the McM and Tiss freebies again, he is well advised to just let the football do the talking. He can still write his piece, get access to St Mary's, Staplewood and staff, so what exactly is his gripe? The way he has thrown this little hissy you can't even be sure it's sarcasim, because there is just no logic here!

[up and away]

Taking a completely wild guess, I'd suppose that he realised that publicising the Echo's "anonymous" season ticket purchase might compromise the whole thing and probably make the situation even worse, were that possible.

 

I did notice that the Echo had unrestricted access to the Coventry match photo's on their site. They did ask you not to copy them, some barrier! As Dataco act for the football league in these matters and highlighted the Echo's infringement in these areas previously, the Echo does not do itself any favours.

[um pahars]

I am struggling to understand exactly what position he was taking. The press has had good access to Adkins in recent times so I can't believe they have just shut up shop on that one. If Adkins feels he has given out enough and wants some me time, I see no problems. If I were to take a guess it would be that he wanted access to Cortese, but after the Sun put words in his mouth starting up the McM and Tiss freebies again, he is well advised to just let the football do the talking. He can still write his piece, get access to St Mary's, Staplewood and staff, so what exactly is his gripe? The way he has thrown this little hissy you can't even be sure it's sarcasim, because there is just no logic here!

 

Let's be quite frank here, our relationship with the press, ranging from banning the local rag through to banning the national photographers, has been "different" to say the least. We do have a bit of previous here and whilst I accept that current journalism ethics aren't exactly at their highest, I'm not sure why a journalist from a pretty decent broadsheet with no axe to grind would make something up.

 

Rightly or wrongly, I'm more than willing to believe that this guy was attempting to write a positive piece, but for whatever reason (incompetence, oversight or a no talk policy) no one got back to him. Happy to accept that some people believe a tight rein on the media is a good thing (I can certainly see some merits), but I personally think we should be looking to cultivate positive relationships with the press. As the photographer ban showed, I don't think it's in our interests to try and take the press on.

[up and away]

Let's be quite frank here, our relationship with the press, ranging from banning the local rag through to banning the national photographers, has been "different" to say the least. We do have a bit of previous here and whilst I accept that current journalism ethics aren't exactly at their highest, I'm not sure why a journalist from a pretty decent broadsheet with no axe to grind would make something up.

 

Rightly or wrongly, I'm more than willing to believe that this guy was attempting to write a positive piece, but for whatever reason (incompetence, oversight or a no talk policy) no one got back to him. Happy to accept that some people believe a tight rein on the media is a good thing (I can certainly see some merits), but I personally think we should be looking to cultivate positive relationships with the press. As the photographer ban showed, I don't think it's in our interests to try and take the press on.

 

We are not taking the press on, that has all been sorted with one notable exception, the Echo. Dataco (who handle image rights for the football league) reported the Echo for giving unrestricted access to match photo's, that resulted in their photographer getting banned from St Mary's. As the Echo felt they were doing nothing wrong in this regard, it's natural this is extended to anyone working for the Echo wanting to attend St Mary's in an official capacity. The fact they see nothing wrong with this even up to last Saturday with Coventry's match photo's, clearly show they do not intend to change their ways. Ian Murray has been trying to make a crusade out of this but is even being shunned within the press. There is really no issue outside of the Echo, apart from the odd twitter.

 

Going back to those twitter remarks there is absolutely nothing there. A journalist wanted to do a nice peice about Saints but was denied access to information he would like to have had. Saints are very free with the information they give out and anyone can copy from OS articles, there are few restrictions. If you want specific inside details you are just not going to get any sort of a scoop until the club releases it to all alike. As shown with the Sun interview, the club is best restricting it's news to the OS or televised interviews that cannot be misinterpreted for any agenda. Nigel Adkins has done several one on one interviews with press, radio and TV. They may get a bit bored with his stock responses, but that is all they are going to get.

[St_Tel49]

Perhaps that question could be directed at those who have been critical of the lack of exposure we seem to be getting in the national press?

I am not aware of any lack of exposure in the national press. Our match is the one guaranteed to be reported on in the Sunday Telegraph these days, for instance, but that is because we are top of the league. I have also seen quite few articles in various rags - again because our success is attracting attention. Exposure in the press is pretty much proportional to success. The fact that Hayward wants to write an article is indicative of that. BTW I do think that the club press office should be more cooperative with journalists writing these kinds of routine articles - I cannot see the benefit of ****ing them off unnecessarily.

[Frank's cousin]

THink its in part a cultural thing to. The Swiss background in buisness is one of doing it in private - keeping things OUT of the media. I suspect that the club (ML and NC) will have known that it woudl be difficult to do this completely in a country obsessed with publication of any bit of gossip and rumour and also one in which when (as Journs see it) their right to print and dig what they please is challenged, will be vindictive. We saw the club try and build bridges with teh Echo when ML and NC arrived, but teh echo went ahead and printed the whole Staplewood piece despite the clubs request for a delay - so its not surprizing that any trsut has been difficult to reestablish.

 

On the whole photographer thing... well I suspect there are some more complex issues at stake here and that in future we may see other clubs look to do similar things... the reason? Potentially the tax liabilties clubs face for image rights - I know HMRC are still struggling to pin down a suitable and appropriate model, but it woudl not surprize me that in future publication of player pictures with sponsors logos, shirt and boot manufacturers logos etc will not be far more rigorously controlled so that clubs can provide an appropriate and reasonably quantifiable image right log for revenue purposes rather than the guess work that most use at the moment?

 

..finally, when ever did we let journos know of any transfer targets....

[um pahars]

I am not aware of any lack of exposure in the national press. Our match is the one guaranteed to be reported on in the Sunday Telegraph these days, for instance, but that is because we are top of the league. I have also seen quite few articles in various rags - again because our success is attracting attention. Exposure in the press is pretty much proportional to success.

 

I'd probably agree with you, but there have been numerous posts on here complaining about the lack of media coverage of Saints (with some even going so far as suggesting there might even be an anti-Saints bias).

 

The fact that Hayward wants to write an article is indicative of that. BTW I do think that the club press office should be more cooperative with journalists writing these kinds of routine articles - I cannot see the benefit of ****ing them off unnecessarily.

 

And that's all I'm saying, in that I just don't see any benefit in p***ing off the press unnecessarily. We should be looking to try and cultivate a symbiotic relationship.

[The Kraken]

I am not aware of any lack of exposure in the national press. Our match is the one guaranteed to be reported on in the Sunday Telegraph these days, for instance, but that is because we are top of the league. I have also seen quite few articles in various rags - again because our success is attracting attention. Exposure in the press is pretty much proportional to success. The fact that Hayward wants to write an article is indicative of that. BTW I do think that the club press office should be more cooperative with journalists writing these kinds of routine articles - I cannot see the benefit of ****ing them off unnecessarily.

I very much agree with this; it takes very little to issue a "sorry, we have no comment". It's the likes of Jordan Sibley's job to speak (or not speak) on behalf of the club; he's all very eager to use his personal twitter to publicise SFC events and news. Yet far too coy/lazy/arrogant/something else to issue a very simple explanation as to why a respected member of the journalistic press cannot have the access or quotes he might require.

 

Of course, while we're riding high it's really not an issue; the fortunes of the team will ensure we attract a lot of positive publicity. But still, there's no reason a flunkie like Sibley or whoever else couldn't have just said "Sorry Paul, but it's not club policy to comment on any newspaper editorials at this time".

 

While we don't have to work with the press, I fail to see a positive result from working against them.

[um pahars]

On the whole photographer thing... well I suspect there are some more complex issues at stake here and that in future we may see other clubs look to do similar things... the reason?

 

The reason was quite simple, a miscalcualtion that the media would pay for shots supplied by one "Club Accredited" photography agency. Someone at the Club thought they could make money out of shots that were previously "free" and the media collectively said "no thanks".

 

In this instance someone got it wrong, the media weren't prepared to pay for something they were previously getting free and judged that the lack of exposure for Saints sponsors etc (as well as some negative press) would soon make the Club backtrack. We did.

[um pahars]

We are not taking the press on, that has all been sorted with one notable exception, the Echo. Dataco (who handle image rights for the football league) reported the Echo for giving unrestricted access to match photo's, that resulted in their photographer getting banned from St Mary's. As the Echo felt they were doing nothing wrong in this regard, it's natural this is extended to anyone working for the Echo wanting to attend St Mary's in an official capacity. The fact they see nothing wrong with this even up to last Saturday with Coventry's match photo's, clearly show they do not intend to change their ways. Ian Murray has been trying to make a crusade out of this but is even being shunned within the press. There is really no issue outside of the Echo, apart from the odd twitter.

 

Going back to those twitter remarks there is absolutely nothing there. A journalist wanted to do a nice peice about Saints but was denied access to information he would like to have had. Saints are very free with the information they give out and anyone can copy from OS articles, there are few restrictions. If you want specific inside details you are just not going to get any sort of a scoop until the club releases it to all alike. As shown with the Sun interview, the club is best restricting it's news to the OS or televised interviews that cannot be misinterpreted for any agenda. Nigel Adkins has done several one on one interviews with press, radio and TV. They may get a bit bored with his stock responses, but that is all they are going to get.

 

We took the press on with regards the photographer debacle and lost and it would appear whether intentionally or not, that we're not impressing some in the national media. I can't think of any reason why a journalist from a decent broadsheet would remark on such behaviour unless he felt it was somewhat strange. To me it just look slike another miscalculation on our part.

 

And if you think that either The Echos falling out with the Club is solely down to use of photos, or that the Echo are being shunned by the press then I think you are somewhat wide of the mark in both cases (that November piece does not demonstrate that at all).

 

The Club are well within their rights to manage their media profile however they see fit, be it attempting to sell syndicated photos or restricting access, I just don't think that they've always got it right (for me the photographer ban was an obvious miscalcualtion and I just don't see the benefit of being unhelpful to journalists trying to produce an upbeat story on the good times at the Club).