trousers Posted 25 January, 2013 Share Posted 25 January, 2013 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. We've got a contractor coming onsite to re-line the drains under our office this weekend. Our insurance company insisted that they provide evidence of their own public liability insurance as they wouldn't be covered under our general office policy. I guess the club have turned a blind eye to this in the past but it wouldn't surprise me if they are technically correct in playing the H&S card. Arguably a bit of a "tit for tat" move but I guess they might cite that the media started it by perpetuating stories of a mass protest that didn't actually exist. Who knows....6 of one and half a dozen of the other as per usual... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Give it to Ron Posted 25 January, 2013 Share Posted 25 January, 2013 Last time we were in the Prem there were cameras on the bridge by the Alfred and they were interviews by the Baggie fan whose name escapes me used to do MOTD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 25 January, 2013 Share Posted 25 January, 2013 Agreed. Bizarre the club would make such a big issue from something so small. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 25 January, 2013 Share Posted 25 January, 2013 More pointless bad PR. You have to have the mental age of a 3 year old to believe the H&S reasons given. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Sanchez Posted 25 January, 2013 Share Posted 25 January, 2013 If that mountain/molehill is to scale thats one hell of a mole..................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beatlesaint Posted 25 January, 2013 Share Posted 25 January, 2013 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: It didnt seem to be a problem at the final game of last season when the guy from the Football League Show - Clem I think his name is - was walking past the Megastore and speaking into camera, a camera that was being carried and used by a man walking backwards through a crowd of people !!! Its all bull**** ! The only reason they didnt want it Monday night is in case some silly sod actually had the cheek to mention the name Nigel Adkins. Now he has been erased from the club history by NC nobody is permitted to utter his name within a 2 miles radius. Its a bloody disgrace, its bloody pathetic and for all the good he has done if NC cannot or will not see that this is all making SFC look rather stupid and petty then he really does need a friendly word in his ear from someone, maybe a member of the Liebherr family, who he respects and trusts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minty Posted 25 January, 2013 Share Posted 25 January, 2013 'Health and Safety' is a bit of a bo!!ocks excuse for this but technically true if those filming aren't doing so with the permission of the club. If media want to work at SMS, they need the permission of the club to do so... part of that permission will include a requirement for public liability insurance and to sign appropriate documents to say that the club are not liable for any incident arising by their being on the premises. I had it when I was a photographer there, so the club knew that if I did injure someone with my equipment, they weren't liable, and my insurance would cover it. It's no different for ANY third party working there, be it a contractor, catering outlet, media, drainage repair etc, etc... but if someone is on their land without their knowledge, and having NOT signed something, then it could be a bit of a legal minefield if that person were then to cause injury. Now, all legitimate media outlet would have public liability insurance, but if the club haven't got a disclaimer or given explicit permission for them to be there, as it is happening on private land, it could lead to the club being implicated. I'm no legal expert, but it will be along those lines I'm pretty certain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintBobby Posted 25 January, 2013 Share Posted 25 January, 2013 Another irritating example of the club's pettiness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 25 January, 2013 Share Posted 25 January, 2013 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. I think you're getting confused, they clearly haven't been applying it for years have they. It wasn't a "crazy story" just a rubbish idea for a protest and one that didn't come from reporters doing Vox Pops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeBenali Posted 25 January, 2013 Share Posted 25 January, 2013 I hoped the January transfer window would stop boring stories like this being turned into a massive frenzy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadgerBadger Posted 25 January, 2013 Share Posted 25 January, 2013 Whenever I look for a club to support its always the smaller things that I ensure are all to my liking before I proceed; free valet parking, reporters on tap access all areas and a big cuddly chairman that invites me to afternoon tea and makes me feel all cozy and loved Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goalie66 Posted 25 January, 2013 Share Posted 25 January, 2013 Interesting I notice that Police often use cameras around the ground.Does that they must be banned for the same "health and safety" issues? We all know that this an attempt for Cortese to control the media so that emabarassing press from sacking Adkins can be "contained". This must be close to infringement of democratic rights of the press. We might not like what they print but they have to right to do so ,nevertheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 25 January, 2013 Share Posted 25 January, 2013 They only seem to interview our most retarded supporters anyway, this seems like a good move by the club. :) Soooooooooooo true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Village Saint Posted 25 January, 2013 Share Posted 25 January, 2013 http://gu.com/p/3db5a/tw Ludicrous. Heavy handed. And embarrassing. The story by the so called 'journalist' is indeed ludicrous; heavy-handed and indeed embarassing. The Saints cannot and indeed did not ban anyone from doing anything outside of the areas for which they are reponsible. But yes they do seem to take their reponsibility for customer's safety and comfort pretty seriously and I for one am glad we didn't have to manoeuvre our way through TV crews and the like who seem to think they have some divine right to get in people's way and cause maximum inconvenience. The club even seem to have gone out of their way to assist by pointing out convenient public ground where they could conduct interviews. It's a real struggle to see what the story is here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 25 January, 2013 Share Posted 25 January, 2013 The story by the so called 'journalist' is indeed ludicrous; heavy-handed and indeed embarassing. The Saints cannot and indeed did not ban anyone from doing anything outside of the areas for which they are reponsible. But yes they do seem to take their reponsibility for customer's safety and comfort pretty seriously and I for one am glad we didn't have to manoeuvre our way through TV crews and the like who seem to think they have some divine right to get in people's way and cause maximum inconvenience. The club even seem to have gone out of their way to assist by pointing out convenient public ground where they could conduct interviews. It's a real struggle to see what the story is here. The only thing embarrassing here is your post. Greenslade is an experienced journalist of some standing, and former editor of a national paper. So clearly not "so called" anything. And the article is not "heavy handed", its written in a pretty dispassionate matter of fact way. The only thing I can see that is "ludicrous" is the unbelievable preciousness of people on here when anyone, anywhere dares to pass any comment on the club. Just pathetic. Seriously mate - how much "maximum inconvenience" have you ever encountered from a TV camera crew. Even if you are in a wheelchair I still suggest the answer is none at all, ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DT Posted 25 January, 2013 Author Share Posted 25 January, 2013 The only thing embarrassing here is your post. Greenslade is an experienced journalist of some standing, and former editor of a national paper. So clearly not "so called" anything. And the article is not "heavy handed", its written in a pretty dispassionate matter of fact way. The only thing I can see that is "ludicrous" is the unbelievable preciousness of people on here when anyone, anywhere dares to pass any comment on the club. Just pathetic. Seriously mate - how much "maximum inconvenience" have you ever encountered from a TV camera crew. Even if you are in a wheelchair I still suggest the answer is none at all, ever. Agreed. Take care out there people. There may be a camera out there this weekend that might really, really hurt if it hit you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lets B Avenue Posted 25 January, 2013 Share Posted 25 January, 2013 Agreed. Take care out there people. There may be a camera out there this weekend that might really, really hurt if it hit you. Is it true that digital ones cause skin cancer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 25 January, 2013 Share Posted 25 January, 2013 @pn_neil_allen: RT @prodnose: How far round the bend are the puffed up dopes at Southampton? http://t.co/HIR86mQG (@prodnose = Danny Baker) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted 25 January, 2013 Share Posted 25 January, 2013 They only seem to interview our most retarded supporters anyway, this seems like a good move by the club. Nice comment! Not sure I read your opinion in the press. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted 25 January, 2013 Share Posted 25 January, 2013 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. **** me! Just think what could have happened if a camera had injuried one of the players! How serious is that, yet some on here think this trivial:rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 25 January, 2013 Share Posted 25 January, 2013 @pn_neil_allen: RT @prodnose: How far round the bend are the puffed up dopes at Southampton? http://t.co/HIR86mQG (@prodnose = Danny Baker) Fair play to the Candyman. Lets see if we get a mention in the morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bald Headed Jesus Posted 25 January, 2013 Share Posted 25 January, 2013 Another irritating example of the club's pettiness. Agree, bordering on power-crazed lunacy 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