Saints ban reporters outside ground!

[DT]

http://gu.com/p/3db5a/tw

Ludicrous. Heavy handed. And embarrassing.

[Matty's Caddy]

Whatever

[ToreSF]

Wasn't that just for the Everton game? In that case, old news. Still embarrassing.

[Saint Charlie]

Pretty sure this was just for the game the other day.

[Thedelldays]

Everyone out.

[Scummer]

It's not new. They've never allowed it.

[Sour Mash]

Pretty sure this was just for the game the other day.

Think we can assume it'll be for any game where the club think they might get bad press.

[tajjuk]

Is this really a big deal? Fans are known for having outlandish or stupid opinions that don't necassarily reflect general views or even the truth. Interview the wrong fan and the media get a crazy story to run with.

[Tom28]

Who really cares? If you care about this, you have too much time on your hands.

[The9]

Even if it was true, Sky Sports managed to get a bunch of talking heads for Monday Night Football so they clearly weren't very good at enforcing it, and any reporter worth his salt would have just pitched up in the nearest pub if they wanted some rentaquotes about the situation.

 

So in short, Saints crap at PR and not good at allowing free speech, ban ineffective and pointless.

[The9]

Who really cares? If you care about this, you have too much time on your hands.

 

Thin end of the wedge, if you tolerate this then your children will be next, etc.

[dubai_phil]

TBH it says something about the level of intelligence of the Press in the UK if they are incapable of walking 20 metres into the Industrial Estate to ask for opinions of fans.

 

And of course it was a Health & Safety issue at the Everton game.

 

1) It ensured that the reporters didn't get kicked to pieces by NC's Blackshirts

2) It protected the reporters from the possibility of catching man flu from a used hankie

3) It saved US from RSI having to first listen to and then type thousands of words about our Glorious Protest Organising Fans Spokespeople

[Turkish]

It's bad because clearly the media were interested in fans views on the sacking as it was a major talking point. However, taking the postitives the fans they interview outside stadiums are usually total lemons so at least we didn't have them embarassing us. It deciding which is the lesser or two evils on this occasion.

[trousers]

http://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/2013/news/football-club-bans-journalists-from-vox-pops-at-ground/

 

Southampton Football Club spokesman Jordan Sibley said the restriction on where vox pops could be carried out had been in force for a long time.

He said this was down to the stadium’s health and safety guidelines because the club would be liaible if a photographer with a camera injured someone on its land.

 

But he added there was public land at the front of the stadium where journalists could carry out vox pops.

And every cloud has a silver lining....

 

Last year, the club denied claims by the chief sports reporter at Portsmouth’s The News, Neil Allen, that he was refused entry to the press box for a match between Portsmouth and Southampton.

Edited 25 January, 2013 by trousers

[Sour Mash]

Is this really a big deal? Fans are known for having outlandish or stupid opinions that don't necassarily reflect general views or even the truth. Interview the wrong fan and the media get a crazy story to run with.

You've got to be joking? You don't see a problem with the media being banned from talking to fans around the ground? And when, ever in the history of the world, has a "crazy story" been run from interviewing a fan outside a football ground?

[Frank's cousin]

You've got to be joking? You don't see a problem with the media being banned from talking to fans around the ground? And when, ever in the history of the world, has a "crazy story" been run from interviewing a fan outside a football ground?

 

Er - think this is a non story.....

 

''But he added there was public land at the front of the stadium where journalists could carry out vox pops''

So not sure what the big deal is is probably correct

[Hatch]

They only seem to interview our most retarded supporters anyway, this seems like a good move by the club.

[CB Fry]

Er - think this is a non story.....

 

''But he added there was public land at the front of the stadium where journalists could carry out vox pops''

So not sure what the big deal is is probably correct

 

...doesn't that make the club look more petty? That's the story here, the sheer pointlessness of it.

[Frank's cousin]

...doesn't that make the club look more petty? That's the story here, the sheer pointlessness of it.

 

Fair enough, but untimately does it really matter? Journo still able to get there sound bites.

[Turkish]

Southampton Football Club spokesman Jordan Sibley said the restriction on where vox pops could be carried out had been in force for a long time.

 

He said this was down to the stadium’s health and safety guidelines because the club would be liaible if a photographer with a camera injured someone on its land.

 

But he added there was public land at the front of the stadium where journalists could carry out vox pops.

 

:lol:

 

That is the most pathetic excuse i've ever heard! Why not ban all photographers then?! Oh we tried that didnt we. :lol:

[The9]

The Sky talking heads were done on the pavement in front of the stadium. I dare say if they had drifted onto a paver there would have been a sniper on standby.

[Barry Sanchez]

Is this really a big deal? Fans are known for having outlandish or stupid opinions that don't necassarily reflect general views or even the truth. Interview the wrong fan and the media get a crazy story to run with.

 

???

[CB Fry]

Fair enough' date=' but untimately does it really matter? Journo still able to get there sound bites.[/quote']

 

 

 

You asking me or the club?

[Frank's cousin]

Ok as excuses go its up there with the 'dog ate my homework' but seriously who cares? So we have a 'mad' chairman, doing 'mad' things - makes it kinda interesting and keeps us arguing.... meanwhile in important matters he is spending money on infrastructure (a lesson to our pals down th road) and looking to bring in aditional talented younger players... having supported the last two managers to ensure we had year on year progress...

[The9]

Southampton Football Club spokesman Jordan Sibley said the restriction on where vox pops could be carried out had been in force for a long time.

 

He said this was down to the stadium’s health and safety guidelines because the club would be liaible if a photographer with a camera injured someone on its land.

 

But he added there was public land at the front of the stadium where journalists could carry out vox pops.

 

:lol:

 

That is the most pathetic excuse i've ever heard! Why not ban all photographers then?! Oh we tried that didnt we. :lol:

 

Meanwhile, 30 photographers gathered next to the tunnel on the pitch to get a photo of Pochettino emerging for his first match, apparently not a problem.

[trousers]

[tajjuk]

You've got to be joking? You don't see a problem with the media being banned from talking to fans around the ground? And when, ever in the history of the world, has a "crazy story" been run from interviewing a fan outside a football ground?

 

Well this 'piece of journalism' exists despite the fact sky clearly interviewed a half dozen fans just outside the stadium. Plus you could go anywhere in the city and interview a Saints fan.

 

I don't see this as an issue because it's a non-story.

 

SSN spent all day before the Everton game talking about a fans protest with white hankies that never happened because they talked to one representative of a supporters group which was then repeated in several papers.

[Patrick Bateman]

"Southampton Football Club spokesman Jordan Sibley said the restriction on where vox pops could be carried out had been in force for a long time.

He said this was down to the stadium’s health and safety guidelines because the club would be liaible if a photographer with a camera injured someone on its land.

But he added there was public land at the front of the stadium where journalists could carry out vox pops."

 

It's a sad state of affairs when the club are probably only doing this to ensure they don't get fined by some numpty who wants to blame someone and get a "no win no fee" solicitor to get him money for the cut on his head. But personally, I don't want to hear the opinion of some chubby fan frothing at the mouth, neither would I give mine.

I'd also manage to steer clear of a camera and not injure myself.

 

What a sad country this is.

 

[trousers]

Funny how neither the club nor media cared about this when we were playing the likes of Dagenham at home a couple of years ago....

[trousers]

"Southampton Football Club spokesman Jordan Sibley said the restriction on where vox pops could be carried out had been in force for a long time.

He said this was down to the stadium’s health and safety guidelines because the club would be liaible if a photographer with a camera injured someone on its land.

But he added there was public land at the front of the stadium where journalists could carry out vox pops."

 

It's a sad state of affairs when the club are probably only doing this to ensure they don't get fined by some numpty who wants to blame someone and get a "no win no fee" solicitor to get him money for the cut on his head. But personally, I don't want to hear the opinion of some chubby fan frothing at the mouth, neither would I give mine.

I'd also manage to steer clear of a camera and not injure myself.

 

What a sad country this is.

 

 

MLG - fancy doing some research into whether other clubs have similar health and safety restrictions? (regardless of whether they adhere to them or not)? Cheers

[Frank's cousin]

You asking me or the club?

 

Both... So we have crap PR... crap chairman, crap ticketing policy, crap program policy, crap parking... makes you wonder why anyone would be happy with the good two promotions, academy investmnet, player investment and ambition, realistic or otherwise. Sure I would love both, the ideal chairman who can give us the success, be the best mate to all fans, is loved by the media, the envy of every other club , cures diseases, solves world hunger etc... lovely, but that aint the case - we have who we have, warts and all and as the vast majority used to say when Lowe was in charge 'it means feckall if you dont get the results on the pitch' - and we seem to be doing alright in that department.

[trousers]

Well this 'piece of journalism' exists despite the fact sky clearly interviewed a half dozen fans just outside the stadium. Plus you could go anywhere in the city and interview a Saints fan.

 

I don't see this as an issue because it's a non-story.

 

SSN spent all day before the Everton game talking about a fans protest with white hankies that never happened because they talked to one representative of a supporters group which was then repeated in several papers.

 

Indeed, this smacks of journos throwing their toys out of the pram because a club stands up to their sh*t stirring for once...

[Sour Mash]

Well this 'piece of journalism' exists despite the fact sky clearly interviewed a half dozen fans just outside the stadium. Plus you could go anywhere in the city and interview a Saints fan.

 

I don't see this as an issue because it's a non-story.

 

SSN spent all day before the Everton game talking about a fans protest with white hankies that never happened because they talked to one representative of a supporters group which was then repeated in several papers.

Right, so you have no examples of "crazy stories" being run as a result of media talking to fans outside the ground before a game. I'd imagine, contractually, they could not tell Sky not to do the interviews - clearly health and safety wasn't a problem for them was it, so that was clearly a lie from Sibley.

[Turkish]

"Southampton Football Club spokesman Jordan Sibley said the restriction on where vox pops could be carried out had been in force for a long time.

He said this was down to the stadium’s health and safety guidelines because the club would be liaible if a photographer with a camera injured someone on its land.

But he added there was public land at the front of the stadium where journalists could carry out vox pops."

 

It's a sad state of affairs when the club are probably only doing this to ensure they don't get fined by some numpty who wants to blame someone and get a "no win no fee" solicitor to get him money for the cut on his head. But personally, I don't want to hear the opinion of some chubby fan frothing at the mouth, neither would I give mine.

I'd also manage to steer clear of a camera and not injure myself.

 

What a sad country this is.

 

 

Behave, it's just an excuse as they'd have got a bit of bad publicity.

[Sour Mash]

Indeed, this smacks of journos throwing their toys out of the pram because a club stands up to their sh*t stirring for once...

Yeah, the likes of Nabil Hussain from the BBC and the Guardian are famous for their "s**t stirring" regarding Saints aren't they?

[trousers]

Behave, it's just an excuse as they'd have got a bit of bad publicity.

 

I'm the first to laugh at how organisations hide behind ridiculous heatlh and safety legislation but just because its ridiculous and an "excuse" doesn't mean they are quite possibly correct (technically).

[Sour Mash]

"Southampton Football Club spokesman Jordan Sibley said the restriction on where vox pops could be carried out had been in force for a long time.

He said this was down to the stadium’s health and safety guidelines because the club would be liaible if a photographer with a camera injured someone on its land.

But he added there was public land at the front of the stadium where journalists could carry out vox pops."

 

It's a sad state of affairs when the club are probably only doing this to ensure they don't get fined by some numpty who wants to blame someone and get a "no win no fee" solicitor to get him money for the cut on his head. But personally, I don't want to hear the opinion of some chubby fan frothing at the mouth, neither would I give mine.

I'd also manage to steer clear of a camera and not injure myself.

 

What a sad country this is.

 

You're joking surely? Please don't tell me you actually believe it is anything to do with Health and Safety?

[trousers]

Yeah, the likes of Nabil Hussain from the BBC and the Guardian are famous for their "s**t stirring" regarding Saints aren't they?

 

The original article comes from neither of those two but, yes, apologies for generalising (something you wouldn't catch the media doing of course...)

[trousers]

You're joking surely? Please don't tell me you actually believe it is anything to do with Health and Safety?

 

Have you seen how daft health and safety rules can be?

[Turkish]

I'm the first to laugh at how organisations hide behind ridiculous heatlh and safety legislation but just because its ridiculous and an "excuse" doesn't mean they are quite possibly correct (technically).

 

So fan risks death by camera outside the ground but inside the ground taking pictures of our new manager, no problem.

[tajjuk]

Right, so you have no examples of "crazy stories" being run as a result of media talking to fans outside the ground before a game. I'd imagine, contractually, they could not tell Sky not to do the interviews - clearly health and safety wasn't a problem for them was it, so that was clearly a lie from Sibley.

 

Sky speaks to representative of fans group (one guy) and suddenly we are doing a mass protest with white hankies at the game. They also spoke to him outside SMS before the Everton games and he was still saying the same thing, SSN continued to report we were going to do a mass protest with white hankies.

 

It never happened.

 

Good enough example?

 

No football club is also 'contractually' obliged to let sky do interviews with anyone they want. What are you on?

[Turkish]

You're joking surely? Please don't tell me you actually believe it is anything to do with Health and Safety?

 

Those sawn off zoom lenses are dangerous things fella.

[shurlock]

Funny how neither the club nor media cared about this when we were playing the likes of Dagenham at home a couple of years ago....

 

To be fair whenever mark 'clem' clemmit did an interview, it was always at the front of the stadium/just off the ticket office. Still...

[trousers]

So fan risks death by camera outside the ground but inside the ground taking pictures of our new manager, no problem.

 

Look, I'm with you on this....Health and Safety laws are often laughable and often inconsistently applied. And, yes, it sounds like SFC are using these daft laws as an "excuse". They won;t be the first company to cite H&S and they won't be the last.

[trousers]

Sky speaks to representative of fans group (one guy) and suddenly we are doing a mass protest with white hankies at the game. They also spoke to him outside SMS before the Everton games and he was still saying the same thing, SSN continued to report we were going to do a mass protest with white hankies.

 

It never happened.

 

Good enough example?

 

And then another esteemed media outlet (TalkSport) spend the next 48 hours reporting how rubbish our protest was (the same protest that was never actually organised in the way they reported in the first place).

[Sour Mash]

Sky speaks to representative of fans group (one guy) and suddenly we are doing a mass protest with white hankies at the game. They also spoke to him outside SMS before the Everton games and he was still saying the same thing, SSN continued to report we were going to do a mass protest with white hankies.

 

It never happened.

 

Good enough example?

 

No football club is also 'contractually' obliged to let sky do interviews with anyone they want. What are you on?

But that stiry hasn't came from doing Vox Pops outside the ground has it? So you are wrong on that, deal with it. And I thought the hanky idea was a rubbish protest, but that doesn't make it a "crazy story" does it? It's just a rubbish protest idea.

How do you know that part of Sky's contract to cover Premier League games doesn't involve a clause allowing them to do pieces with fans in and around the ground? They've got loads of clauses written in as to what the clubs have to allow and provide. And how is the Health and Safety argument correct if Sky were then allowed to do interviews?

[Sour Mash]

To be fair whenever mark 'clem' clemmit did an interview, it was always at the front of the stadium/just off the ticket office. Still...

 

Health and safety regs must have changed a lot in the last 6 months.

[trousers]

Health and safety regs must have changed a lot in the last 6 months.

 

Or inconsistently applied...

[The9]

Well this 'piece of journalism' exists despite the fact sky clearly interviewed a half dozen fans just outside the stadium. Plus you could go anywhere in the city and interview a Saints fan.

 

I don't see this as an issue because it's a non-story.

 

SSN spent all day before the Everton game talking about a fans protest with white hankies that never happened because they talked to one representative of a non-existent supporters group which was then repeated in several papers.

 

Fixed.

[tajjuk]

But that stiry hasn't came from doing Vox Pops outside the ground has it? So you are wrong on that, deal with it. And I thought the hanky idea was a rubbish protest, but that doesn't make it a "crazy story" does it? It's just a rubbish protest idea.

How do you know that part of Sky's contract to cover Premier League games doesn't involve a clause allowing them to do pieces with fans in and around the ground? They've got loads of clauses written in as to what the clubs have to allow and provide. And how is the Health and Safety argument correct if Sky were then allowed to do interviews?

 

I'm pretty sure when SSN first interviewed him he was outside SMS, he was then interviewed again outside SMS and it was then fuelled from further vox pops. It was a 'crazy story' because it was untrue, nothing happened yet SSN ran it for 3 days.

 

I don't but one, it's silly and two, as pointed out we have been doing it for years so you would have thought Sky might have made an issue about a long time ago or at the very least at the time.

 

They did the stories slightly off the 'footprint' of the ground which fits with the H&S argument as they aren't on SFC property and thus removes liability.