Southampton ban photographers

[Lady Whistledown]

That is one of THE best kits I've seen for a while. Very, very classy and makes ours look cheap and nasty. (Laxk of a sponsor's logo obviously helps). Hope the back doesn't let it down.

Looks like a PE kit from a posh school IMHO.

 

[itszamora]

Looks like a PE kit from a posh school IMHO.

I agree, I think it's horrible.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

I don't have any particular feelings either way about it, only that it looks like something that would be worn by boys named Tarquin, Giles and Seb as they trot miserably out on to the rugger pitch in the rain and argue forlornly about whose turn it is to fag for the head boy that day.

 

[itszamora]

I don't have any particular feelings either way about it, only that it looks like something that would be worn by boys named Tarquin, Giles and Seb as they trot miserably out on to the rugger pitch in the rain and argue forlornly about whose turn it is to fag for the head boy that day.

Like Hurst College?

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Like Hurst College?

I have no idea, but their colours are red & white aren't they?

I don't think they have fags any more however.

 

[Aldo]

Who cares?

 

[churley1]

I seem to remember some of your lot having a rather illogical dislike of QPR; nothing to do with a totally average club trying to buy a division and thinking they are far better than anybody else because they were once in the Premiership, was it?

True to an extent, but they also stole our manager and constantly tried to snare Ambrose from us. Considering there weren't any other London clubs in the division last season, we had a bit of banter with them for sure.

I wont deny Southampton fans think they're better than the rest of the division, but so would Palace and/or Brighton if they had the squad and financial muscle that they have.

Feel free to hate them, I'm sure you're not the only ones but I suspect they don't give two hoots about Brighton.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

True to an extent, but they also stole our manager and constantly tried to snare Ambrose from us. Considering there weren't any other London clubs in the division last season, we had a bit of banter with them for sure.

I wont deny Southampton fans think they're better than the rest of the division, but so would Palace and/or Brighton if they had the squad and financial muscle that they have.

Feel free to hate them, I'm sure you're not the only ones but I suspect they don't give two hoots about Brighton.

We have previous with Pardew rather than Southampton.

 

[beorhthelm]

as somwhere above, who cares? as i recall, photography at football stadiums is already restricted to professionals/licenced photographers only. it *might* seem that its out of date with the modern world of cameraphones, but there we are. its what stops Sky from broadcasting live games at 3pm. it is after all private property, the clubs can set the rules. storm in a teacup, knickers in a twist, and makes not a blind difference for the ordinary fan.

 

[clapham_gull]

...its what stops Sky from broadcasting live games at 3pm.

That's an agreement (I understand) that televised games don't affect lower league attendances.

Nothing to do with copyright.

 

[£1.99]

Its not just Southampton FC banning Photographers. Southampton council are banning them as well
Council admits pool photography ban mistake; 82-year-old stopped over paedophile fears news - Amateur Photographer - news, camera reviews, lens reviews, camera equipment guides, photography courses, competitions, photography forums

 

[Lord Bracknell]

As far as I recall, the licence to take photographs at Football League games is issued by the Football League, not the home club.

Southampton should be docked 20 points for being in breach of Football League rules.

 

[itszamora]

As far as I recall, the licence to take photographs at Football League games is issued by the Football League, not the home club.

Southampton should be docked 20 points for being in breach of Football League rules.

It's not that though, is it? Southampton are not giving press accreditation, and thus use of their press facilities, to any photographers except their agency. So all they are doing is refusing certain people entry to their ground, which sadly they're entitled to do as operators of the stadium*.

*Or holding company or whatever, you know what I mean.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

It's not that though, is it? Southampton are not giving press accreditation, and thus use of their press facilities, to any photographers except their agency. So all they are doing is refusing certain people entry to their ground, which sadly they're entitled to do as operators of the stadium*.

*Or holding company or whatever, you know what I mean.

I don't agree.

This is a restraint of trade which, I suspect, is capable of being declared illegal by the Office of Fair Trading.

The OFT would certainly step in if the operator of, say, The American Express Community Stadium decided that the only plastic card allowed to purchase tickets was an Amex Card.

 

[El Presidente]

The OFT would certainly step in if the operator of, say, The American Express Community Stadium decided that the only plastic card allowed to purchase tickets was an Amex Card.

I suspect they wouldn't Lord B. You only have to look at the behaviour of FIFA at the last two World Cups in which they sold sole ticketing rights to Mastercard in 2006 and Visa in 2010.

 

[trueblue]

Premier League clubs have suggested things like this in the past and quickly back-tracked because of the opposition from the media. Quite why Southampton would think they're above all that goodness only knows. They should be pleased for the free publicity the photos provide for their product bearing in mind the costs other businesses have to stump up for space in newspapers.

Anyway, it's simple enough. I'm sure all the papers will boycott using any photos of Saints' games and possibly extend that to not reporting their games at all. And, of course, the 'papers can make sure that if they do run pictures then none are included which carry any sponsors' names or pitch-side advertising. Likewise, all sponsors' names can be excluded from all reports.

Incidentally, similar measures are already being suggested for the 2012 Olympics in protest at the organisers trying to charge journalists close on £200 each for a fortnight's internet access at the venue.

 

[Giraffe's Son]

I've been to a few away games where I have been told not to use my camera by the stewards. I cant remember which ones, but at a guess I'm sure Southampton, Southend and Walsall have had words before

Coincidentally I was told off by steward at norwich tonight for taking pictures. It really is ridiculous isn't it. It's not like I am going to publish the photos from my canon ixus is it?!

 

[Kazenga <3]

developing a style of play that is compelling to watch - a style that ultimately becomes known as the Southampton Style.

Hoof it up to a fat scouser at every opportunity?

 

[Aldo]

To be honest the less £ the press make the better

 

[itszamora]

To be honest the less £ the press make the better

Believe me the local press (which is who this will hit most) make very little money at all. One of the biggest local press companies in the UK is at least £90 million in debt, and rising.