alpine_saint Posted 6 April, 2009 Author Share Posted 6 April, 2009 60-70% of people on the database are one time buyers? Do you just make things up to suit you? Seriously, and honestly, who really gives a **** about paintings? I'd say a lot more people in Southampton care about the club, or the benefit the club has on the community, such as catering, local shops, pubs, and the general area on match day, than they care about a ****ing art gallery. Spoken like a true webmong. You reckon there are 200,000 active ticket buyers on the database then, do you ? Get lost on Saturday afternoons on the way to the ground, do they ? :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffo Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 Didn't say they are active, did I? Just there's 200,000 people who are on the database, and I reckon a fair few of them, as I'm sure you'd expect would be Southampton fans. In excess of 100,000 of them, anyway. Could you honestly say that you think more people in Southampton care more about the art gallery than support the club? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victor Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 I 100% agree with alpine. Bloody Hell, did I really say that?! (I am, though) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_saints Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 Sounds like a bit of a sketchy plan to me. But then again, Saints need the monet alot more than the council do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 Erm, one who likes art and football ? Does that make me a pooftah like Graeme Le Saux then ??? I dunno what your sexuality has got to do with it but I've been to a fair few art galleries, went to art school for 2 years and studied it as part of my degree course but still would rather have a football club than a few old paintings gathering dust somewhere. It might actually encourage art in Southampton if new young artists get more of a chance to showcase their work instead of a load of old crap. Anyway it was your spoiling for a fight I was pointing out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 6 April, 2009 Author Share Posted 6 April, 2009 Didn't say they are active, did I? Just there's 200,000 people who are on the database, and I reckon a fair few of them, as I'm sure you'd expect would be Southampton fans. In excess of 100,000 of them, anyway. Could you honestly say that you think more people in Southampton care more about the art gallery than support the club? Then what's your point ? You say they are not necessarily active but pull me up for saying "one-time buyer". What are they then, two-time buyers ? As for your question about how many care for what more, I couldnt care less what the current percentages are. And I find it embarassing that you, a fellow Southampton boy, would argue to break up a fine art collection that has taken decades to collect for the people for the city, in order to bail out a private business that has f**ked up, and to pay theives like BWP and incompetents like Rupert Lowe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hughieslastminutegoal Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 The art works are almost entirely in storage, as there is nowhere to display them - so who will miss them ? Also, some would say that for the city to have this amount of money salted away in this manner is itself an obscenity. You also make statements about "a minority of 20,000" residents - the fanbase is much bigger than the number attending SMS, and the impact on the city of the club completely disappearing is likely to be far more detrimental than a few paintings, that nobody gets to see, being deleted from the catalogue. Shouldn't the question be "why can't the public actually see publicly-owned works of art", not "why can't the Council flog off some of the collection to save a football club that private enterprise ran into the ground"? If we were going to flog off artworks, I'd rather spend it on a decent music venue, or a decent alternative theatre to the boring Mayflower. The way professional football is currently structured, it has to be the province of private capital, not public investment. Do you really want public money used to support the greediest industry there is (banking excepted, of course, already a bottomless pit for public subsidy). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 6 April, 2009 Author Share Posted 6 April, 2009 It might actually encourage art in Southampton if new young artists get more of a chance to showcase their work instead of a load of old crap. Wow, sounds like Rupert Lowe... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
londonsaint1604 Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 I first moved to Southampton in 2004 and although I moved back to london a couple of years ago I have been back regularly since then. I have to say I didn't even know this art even existed. Ok so that is just me and is due to my own ignorance but I'm sure the same applies to many other people. What is the point in having all of this art especially if most of it is gathering dust in storage somewhere as may people claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 6 April, 2009 Author Share Posted 6 April, 2009 I first moved to Southampton in 2004 and although I moved back to london a couple of years ago I have been back regularly since then. I have to say I didn't even know this art even existed. Ok so that is just me and is due to my own ignorance but I'm sure the same applies to many other people. What is the point in having all of this art especially if most of it is gathering dust in storage somewhere as may people claim. I believe you have answered your own question... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
londonsaint1604 Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 I believe you have answered your own question... Ok thanks for that smarty-pants. It's still a valid point though. The Saints mean a lot to the city, as you can see by the number of people in saints shirts out in town every matchday. Of all the people I know from southampton I've never heard any of them suggest going to look at the great works of art at the civic centre or wherever they keep them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wild-saint Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 A few points : I am not an art expert, but I doubt that the Ctiy's art collection has anything of serious-shiit value that could make a significant dent in the clubs debt Again, why should something that belongs to ALL southampton residents be used to keep the past time going on a small minority ? The database argument is not relevant, SFCs attendance is ca. 20,000 on average. Using the art collection to reduce council tax load for all residents has a justifiable air about, it, but dammit, its a short-term, superficial almost neanderthal-like thing to consider. I am of the opinion that this is only being suggested because art-gallery visitors and football match attendees are almost mutually-exclusive; it may also be an extension of the "class-war" thing people were accused of in their opposition to Lowe, only that battle has now lost its chief protagonist. After all, art is considered to be a "toff" thing. Jesus, the more I think of it the more bizarre this is. Its like taking Shakespeare off the GCE English Literature exam and replacing him with JK Rowling.. ok the c20,000 average attendance wokrs out at 10% of the population. I moot that we sell the 10% of the collection that we have indirectly paid for. In partiuclar i would sell the central point of each painting representing 10% of the canvas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hughieslastminutegoal Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 Ok thanks for that smarty-pants. It's still a valid point though. The Saints mean a lot to the city, as you can see by the number of people in saints shirts out in town every matchday. Of all the people I know from southampton I've never heard any of them suggest going to look at the great works of art at the civic centre or wherever they keep them. Well, it isn't exactly something you go down the pub to say to a bloke wearing a Saints shirt is it? "I see you're off to the match, me, I'm off to the gallery to have a gander at 'The Church at Vertheuil'. I hope to find it was painted with a touch of french ultramarine down both sides and a little viridian mixed with lead white at the the back, with some ochre broken with naples yellow in the middle". "Barman, can you help me extricate this bottle of pils from my face". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hughieslastminutegoal Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 ok the c20,000 average attendance wokrs out at 10% of the population. I moot that we sell the 10% of the collection that we have indirectly paid for. In partiuclar i would sell the central point of each painting representing 10% of the canvas. Well we don't play football with any width, so why would you want the sides of the paintings? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
londonsaint1604 Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 Fair point. I would be interested to know how many people visit the art gallery each week. As it means so much to Alpine perhaps he can tell us, and also I'd be interested to hear about which paintings they have in there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffo Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 Then what's your point ? You say they are not necessarily active but pull me up for saying "one-time buyer". What are they then, two-time buyers ? As for your question about how many care for what more, I couldnt care less what the current percentages are. And I find it embarassing that you, a fellow Southampton boy, would argue to break up a fine art collection that has taken decades to collect for the people for the city, in order to bail out a private business that has f**ked up, and to pay theives like BWP and incompetents like Rupert Lowe. The club is the thing I care about. The history, the fans, the matchday experience. The club and fans will be here when odd individuals have gone. I'm sure a great deal more people in Southampton support the club that care about an art gallery. Surely you must agree with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 A lot of these things have been bequeathed to the city. It makes it difficult for the council to sell them off.I personally would love them to sell some of these thigs as they are not on show and deteriorating and will be lost long term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wild-saint Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 Fair point. I would be interested to know how many people visit the art gallery each week. As it means so much to Alpine perhaps he can tell us, and also I'd be interested to hear about which paintings they have in there. I think he has been to the gallery more times than SMS I think but not Krap Notarf (awaiting incoming from Austria) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hughieslastminutegoal Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 The club is the thing I care about. The history, the fans, the matchday experience. The club and fans will be here when odd individuals have gone. I'm sure a great deal more people in Southampton support the club that care about an art gallery. Surely you must agree with that? The art gallery is crap (just as the football club has been this year). But its crap partly because it never changes. That's a problem - the majority of the stock never sees the light of day. But why, exactly, should the City of Southampton subsidise the football experience for the majority of Saints fans who live (i hazard a guess) outside the city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horley CTFC Saint Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/4269776.Saints_fans_call_for_council_to_sell_art_to_help_save_the_club/ Not everyone is a football fan - this will bring the curse of the washed masses down upon the club, mark my words! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crab Lungs Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 ****, no, don't sell the artwork - we won't be able to afford to pay our hardworking councillors their salaries - and let's face it, they are ever so deserving of their money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintbletch Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 Principles are important and I can understand the principles you appear to be defending. That said, principles are really tested in extreme times and we live in extreme times. I would frame the question another way.... If the alternative is no Southampton football club, would you back the council cashing in some art-based investments, thereby allowing more people to have access to these pieces that have no direct connection with the city? This artwork does not cease to exist once it is sold, it presumably just becomes easier to access (assuming it doesn't go into a private collection). If we don't find a financial solution to our problems then we could quite easily cease to exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hughieslastminutegoal Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 Not everyone is a football fan An observation for which you shall be excomunicated. No football fan could ever accept such blasphemy. But I think many had better get used to watching it on telly, because the game is under more pressure than ever to "consolidate". And at least football is on telly. Not much room for art in between Big Brother and American Idol, Wife Swap and Kiss My Mini-Celebrity Maxi-Arse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topcat Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 So, that means selling off ca. 20% of it. Unacceptable. Alpine, all that is needed is for the Council to raise less than £10m to buy SMS. SMS is now a fire sale item and the price is very low. Some say it could be bought for as little as £5m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daren W Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 Spectacular. Really.... Makes you proud to hail from Southampton :rolleyes: A private venture gets into trouble, and the lunatic fringe call for the city's art gallery to be looted... You might do well to make note of Hull and how they financed their stadium. I do believe that the council owned their own telecommunications business. They sold it for about £250 million so I'm told and used the money for the stadium, some for schools and other community based projects. The middle ground might try selling off some of the paintings and with the money finance the buying the stadium and perhaps some community projects as you can't expect the council to bail out Rupert Lowe's mistakes.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 6 April, 2009 Author Share Posted 6 April, 2009 The middle ground might try selling off some of the paintings and with the money finance the buying the stadium and perhaps some community projects as you can't expect the council to bail out Rupert Lowe's mistakes.. Lest we forget how the stadium actually got built in the first place.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 6 April, 2009 Author Share Posted 6 April, 2009 Alpine, all that is needed is for the Council to raise less than £10m to buy SMS. SMS is now a fire sale item and the price is very low. Some say it could be bought for as little as £5m. Look, I could possibly be swayed, if say Aviva would accept 5-7m, and the new owner of the articles would allow them to come back on loan occasionally. IF the stadium were owned by the council, that for me means we will always have a football team representing the city, however many Rupert Lowes come along with tin-pot dictator mentalities to balls things up. However, its a seriously f**king slippery slope. Before you know it, every minority interest group is clamouring for a painting to be sold to enable financing of its goals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micky Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 I'd sell the bleedin' Crown Jewels if it meant survival for us - once a Saint always a Saint.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 6 April, 2009 Author Share Posted 6 April, 2009 I'd sell the bleedin' Crown Jewels if it meant survival for us - once a Saint always a Saint.... I refer you to the thread title. Why must everything else come below your tastes on the priority list ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoozer Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 For the record, Southampton City Art Gallery has numerous pieces that are worth a mint. It is classed as one of the best regional galleries in the UK outside of London. In theory, the collection is worth more than Saints by a long shot and does have pieces that could dent Saints' financial problems quite easily. However, this isn't about liking or appreciating art over football. The collection belongs to the City and it is the job of the Council to protect it for future generations. As I stated on the echo website I despair at the very idea that we sell one part of our heritage to help another. The idea is short sighted and populist. Just becasue we lack the facilities to show all the pieces in one place doesn't mean we should try to sell them to make a quick buck and help a football club, even if that football club is our beloved Saints. I'm not sure some on here realise the prestige that the collection and gallery brings to Southampton. They are both jewels in the Southampton crown and should both be appreciated for what they are - part of our heritage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 6 April, 2009 Author Share Posted 6 April, 2009 For the record, Southampton City Art Gallery has numerous pieces that are worth a mint. It is classed as one of the best regional galleries in the UK outside of London. In theory, the collection is worth more than Saints by a long shot and does have pieces that could dent Saints' financial problems quite easily. However, this isn't about liking or appreciating art over football. The collection belongs to the City and it is the job of the Council to protect it for future generations. As I stated on the echo website I despair at the very idea that we sell one part of our heritage to help another. The idea is short sighted and populist. Just becasue we lack the facilities to show all the pieces in one place doesn't mean we should try to sell them to make a quick buck and help a football club, even if that football club is our beloved Saints. I'm not sure some on here realise the prestige that the collection and gallery brings to Southampton. They are both jewels in the Southampton crown and should both be appreciated for what they are - part of our heritage. Thankyou for explaining in much more eloquent and less provocative words than I managed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eurosaint Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 Thankyou for explaining in much more eloquent and less provocative words than I managed. I suppose at least you realise it !!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 For the record, Southampton City Art Gallery has numerous pieces that are worth a mint. It is classed as one of the best regional galleries in the UK outside of London. In theory, the collection is worth more than Saints by a long shot and does have pieces that could dent Saints' financial problems quite easily. However, this isn't about liking or appreciating art over football. The collection belongs to the City and it is the job of the Council to protect it for future generations. As I stated on the echo website I despair at the very idea that we sell one part of our heritage to help another. The idea is short sighted and populist. Just becasue we lack the facilities to show all the pieces in one place doesn't mean we should try to sell them to make a quick buck and help a football club, even if that football club is our beloved Saints. I'm not sure some on here realise the prestige that the collection and gallery brings to Southampton. They are both jewels in the Southampton crown and should both be appreciated for what they are - part of our heritage. Correct, and Alpine is absolutely spot on here on this thread. You mongs going on about "who cares about paintings gathering dust" want to get yourselves an education. Southampton City Art gallery is ace, and better than is available in many cities, including Nottingham and Derby whose galleries are appalling. Although there is a new one in Nottingham coming later in the year which is shaping up to be very good. Not that you lot care - far better to spend a couple of million on a frigging left back. Hey, if we sold all the library books in the city for kindling maybe we'd make enough to buy a holding midfielder. Just a load of old books aint it? What about grinding the bargate into dust and selling it on as shingle. Might pay six weeks wages for Alan Pardew to take over. Just a load of old building aint it? Welcome to dinlow Britain. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
londonsaint1604 Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 CB Fry I take your point but we're not talking about raising money to buy a player, we're talking about the possibility of selling some of the art if it meant saving the club. It's not as thought the art would no longer exist, it would just mean some of it no longer belonging to Southampton which, in my opinion, would be worth it if it meant still having a football club next season. It's academic really because there's no way it will happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topcat Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 Alpine and CB Fry All that is proposed is to sell a few of those paintings that cannot be on show because there is no effing room to display them. Dinlows! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snopper Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 What have we got Toulouse? After all, we need the Monet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 Alpine and CB Fry All that is proposed is to sell a few of those paintings that cannot be on show because there is no effing room to display them. Dinlows! No art gallery on earth shows their entire collection all at once, all the time. Some are in storage, some are on display. It's not about "effing room". It's called "curation". And secondly, the art gallery is one of the best provincial art galleries in the country - ie doing its job very well. SFC is not doing its job very well. Why on earth should a success story be forced to prop up a failure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 I'm almost going to sit on the fence here. Part of me thinks that if the Council can get the stadium on the cheap from a desperate buyer, then it could actually be a sensible purchase. Set it up as a real community asset and it might even pay for it's self. Two problems though. Firstly, I'm not overly comfortable that the Council should be bailing out someone elses mistakes (particularly when they were made by a commercial organisation) and I also don't agree with selling off the family silverware to bail out a failed Club (after all we've been selling the family silverware ourselves for years now and look where that got us). If the council was flush with money following a blinding investment (as Daren mentions was the case at Hull), then I think it might be up there with some other decent shouts for a legacy pay out, but considering we are in the midst of a recession/depression and there are a myriad of other competing causes, then I think the idea of cashing in our heritage to prop us up is asking too much IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beatlesaint Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 Seeing as the City Council bailed out the club (yes Lowe and Co.) when they blew the Stoneham project by offering them the old gasworks land I think the Council would have every justification to say that they have done their bit for the football club............. However...is there local elections this May in Southampton ? Could be a wee bit of a vote winner if there is : - ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 Could be a wee bit of a vote winner if there is : - ) Or maybe even a vote loser!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 What have we got Toulouse? After all, we need the Monet. A Constable should arrest you for that poor play on words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintBobby Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 Personally, I don't think government should have any financial investments in sport or art. We've seen governemnt expenditure balloon - in part because of a whole range of pet projects. To some extent, I agree with alpine in that the 20,000 (or whatever it is) Saints supporters should not expect their lifestyle preference/hobby to be subsidised by the taxpayer. BUT: If you start from accepting that local councils do have a budget for culture and community projects (I don't think they should - but reluctantly accept that they do), then it strikes me that bailing out the city's football team is, potentially, a reasonable use of funds. 1. There may well be some indirect economic benefits to the city of sustaining the football team (I come down from London for nearly every home game, buy food and drink in Southampton, sometimes stay over in a hotel etc etc) 2. There may be some more "esoteric" community value in having a major football club in the city. If investing in parks, art, architecture or whatever is deemed to be of benefit to the life of the city, then it's not obvious to me why the city's football club should be automatically excluded from council aid. 3. Investing in sports infrastructure is accepted at national level (look at the huge spending on Wembley, the Olympics etc). I don't condone this colossal expenditure, but - again - it doesn't strike me that people should get under the collar about a puny £20m to save Southampton Football Club unless they have gone utterly and totally ballistic about the billions being sp*nked up the wall on the 2012 games. 4. A reasonably sizeable chunk of the Southampton tax-paying electorate (of which i'm not one) might well conclude that they would prefer a slightly diminished city council arts collection and a more robust future for the club. This is just speculation - but even just 5,000 or 10,000 people wanting council cash on their pet project is a pretty big part of the Southampton electorate. Many cultural/community projects with massively less support/traction do get council funding. If I was a Southampton taxpayer, I'd certainly favour the council flogging off part of their art collection and bailing out St. Mary's with the proceeds as an okay second-best option (my "first best" option would be just to cut the bloody tax bill). All that said, I think it's unlikely to happen and the story is media-self-generated. The Echo's story does, however, help to focus attention on what people's priorities really are. I suspect saving Saints is quite high up that list for quite a large number of Echo readers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atticus Finch of Maycomb Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/4269776.Saints_fans_call_for_council_to_sell_art_to_help_save_the_club/ i completely disagree with you, alpine. i think its a terrible idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcjwills Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 (edited) Southampton City Council represent the interests of ca. 200,000 Southampton residents. A helluva lot more than ca. 20,000 of it residents from one minority interest group. The fact that you find merit in this idea says all it needs to for me... So the 20,000 supporters represent about 10% of the residents, therefore just sell 10% of the artwork that belongs to them 350 items that should be enough to raise the appropriate finances to buy the ground, that will be rented back to the club and thus generating funds to reduce the council tax, what with the city council renting out their ground for pop concerts at a possible £1m per annum they would get a good return on their monies better than at a blinkin Icelandic bank !!!!! Edited 6 April, 2009 by mcjwills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Block 5 Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 It's very rarely that I agree with Alpine Saint but today I do. During recession, the art market is traditionally one of the first to suffer. To sell art now would be absolutely foolhardy. It would not realise it's true worth at market. Here's a crap analogy for you....... If the England team started having trouble due to the current economic climate, would you be happy to see the contents of the Tower of London sold off to pay Ashley Cole, Fat Frank, John Terry and Rio Ferdinand's wages? Would you ****! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShirleySaint Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 Fair point. I would be interested to know how many people visit the art gallery each week. As it means so much to Alpine perhaps he can tell us, and also I'd be interested to hear about which paintings they have in there. Why don't you go along and have a look. Incidentally, most of the argument on here seems to assume that everybody who attends St Marys comes from Southampton. Prior to moving from the Dell 40% of season ticket holders came from areas outside Southampton ( before anyone asks, I know this because I did the analysis as a researcher for the Council at the time). I dont know what the figure is now, but why should only Southampton CT payers be asked to help the club out at this time, why not all the other LAs where supporters come from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoozer Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 It's not "their" collection to sell. It's ours and the generations that follow. The people who left the pieces in the collection left them to the people of Southampton not the council to flog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Bognor Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 Why don't you go along and have a look. Incidentally, most of the argument on here seems to assume that everybody who attends St Marys comes from Southampton. Prior to moving from the Dell 40% of season ticket holders came from areas outside Southampton ( before anyone asks, I know this because I did the analysis as a researcher for the Council at the time). I dont know what the figure is now, but why should only Southampton CT payers be asked to help the club out at this time, why not all the other LAs where supporters come from. That's more of a reason to do it - if I want to visit an art gallery, I'll go to London; I don't shop in Ikea and I tend to cruise in the caribbean or med. So take away the club, what other reason do I have to visit Southampton? I spend my money in and around the town every other week. I bet the collective spend of those coming to games (a specific reason to visit the city) will be far greater than the collective spend of those specifically coming to Soton's art gallery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robsk II Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 The daftest, most self-centred and most myopic rescue proposal would surely be my suggestion that we force all Young Saints into prostitution? That's hardly an appropriate post for the main bored. If you're serious, you're a sick pervert. It's people like you who have sent the club this way, disgusting paedophiles who think nothing of culture. I expect you want to replace the paintings sold off to be replaced with paintings of your foul suggestion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1976_Child Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 To answer the original Echo article: not really. If there are any Monets et cetera which are collecting dust in a dusty council archive somewhere then two things should happen: first, the bloke in charge of the City's art should be taken out side and shot, and second, the paintings should be exhibited in Southampton or lent out - at interest - to national galleries. Real art (into which category I do not include the 'works' of self-aggrandising non-artists which hang on the walls of the Tate modern. Alas, more a spectacle would be to see the actual artist hanging from a gibbet outside the gallery..) should not be collecting dust! Nor should it be dragooned into service to bail out our club. We should do that. 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