Southampton Football Club bans Southern Daily Echo (From Daily Echo)

Seems a bit silly when the details were in the public domain on the NFDC website for over a week.

Ho ho ho

'nothing to say' is probably an Echo employee.

No sympathy from the majority of Saints fans i can assure you. You never acted in our interests over Lowe and Wilde. You instead gave them a platform of lies and spin.

I think thats really stupid

Oi Echo, that mush says that you employee me.... where's my bloody money!?!?!?
.
Right, I'm banning you forthwith from using my pearls of wisdom in your publication.

I detect that this story is just a touch bais to save face! I wonder what has really happened.

Maybe the SDE needs to put more stories about Pomp*y's demise, coz it is really funny!

Can't work this one out...perhaps they want fans forums to report on games, and represent no views apart from that of fans!
Soon they will have fans writing columns in the matchday programme unedited - nah it will never happen! Hang on I did a report after visiting the Rotherham Cup game last season - needless to say it went down like a lead balloon...

Saints v. Rotherham United…a fans view

Sheffield is an old stomping ground for me and I found myself outside the offices of a company I used to work for on Darnall Road, Attercliffe right next to The Don Valley Stadium. Their fortunes taken a bit of a down turn – about like ours. The drive from York took about 80-mins, and after parking the first task was to find a watering hole.

The pubs around Attercliffe are few and far between and not very inviting, although The Cocked Hat didn’t seem to mind serving away fans – or should I say fan! The Stadium offered a warm covered area for fans wanting a drink, and here I met with several supporters from Liverpool, Manchester & Harrogate.

The stadium itself was a little unreal, obviously not designed to host football matches with 3-sides completely empty, which kept the ball boys very busy. Not a bad turn out for a Tuesday in Sheffield, I remember going to Sheffield Wednesday in the 1980s and there were only 25/30 of us there in the Leppins Lane end!

The game itself seemed to pass me by. Saints gave away a sloppy goal from a corner in the first half, and then it was half time. The second half was no better, giving someone a shooting chance from 20-yards to make it 2-0. We huffed and puffed and tried to raise spirits with a “Oh When The Saints” but after Stern John had got us back into the game, the mix up in communications saw an easy tap in for 3-1.

Thankfully the group around me resorted to singing at the Rotherham fans, which were remarkably quiet seeing they were winning 3-1. It comes to something to say the highlight of the evening where the chants aimed at the home fans. The best chant of the evening for me was the “We’ve got more points than you” or the “We can see you sneaking out” aimed at Saints fans who’d had enough after 75-mins. The Woolston Ferry song rang around The Don Valley Stadium – surreal!

I used to think Saints sides were lazy, money grabbing journeymen – now with all the huff and puff of the youth we clearly aren’t good enough. Personally I’ve given my all as a fan for 40+ years, but I can’t do it any more. When at my age the game passes you by and you find singing at the home fans more entertaining than the game itself - it’s time to quit.

No anti-Lowe songs, although someone did try to start “Rupert Lowe’s Red & White Army” – it never caught on!

Boy how things have changed in the last 12-months! I go because I want to - I report on matches aas I see them...if the Echo want a reprter with an honest if not slightly biased view - I'll do it!

Some of us out-of-towners rely on this service to get a different angle on what is happening at SMS and to have a chat or read the opinions of other Saints

The Echo have always been fairweather friends anyway - it's up to the Football Club who they have in their facilities. Maybe this will give The Echo the impetus to be truly impartial and just report the facts without any spin and provide a proper service to their readership - unlike the era when they were the wagging tail to Lowe's dog!

There should just be an Echo Forum for Saints fans.
Why bother with the reports/stories? They are usually well behind the other fans forums for information - and well behind sources close to the club!
Most of the stories start with comments relating to it, but soon go off track about a more interesting Saints story not yet reported!
The power of t'internet - it's a mighty tool in the wrong hands!

I don't get it... the plans are on the official Saints website too so what's the problem?

Is it because the Echo released the story before Saints did it themselves? If so, I wouldn't worry Saints, the Echo very rarely get stories before everyone knows about it anyway!

Seem's a bit harsh, especially if it was already in the public domain and wasn't exactly detrimental news?? Is there possibly more to this, we know SMS staff monitor the forums and there has been nothing but positivity and support on here since July, very bizzare??

Echo has obviously done something they were asked not too.

Local papers and Football Clubs relationships have to work on complete trust.... or it all goes wrong.

I imagine a huge ammount of Echo sales are based on Saints News... so better start doing as they are told! :o)

About time.

Quote: Editor Ian Murray said:"We will continue to do what we do best – provide unbiased, balanced, well thought through, professional analysis"

All the Echo wants to do to this city in general is spin stuff to put it in the worst possible light. They have tried to ruin Ford's by putting spin on an already strained situation and now this trying to blacken the football club of our city.

It is about time some stood up to this stupid half cocked rag that they call the echo. Well done Southampton football club, just make sure that the echo is the last to hear any news you should wish to release in the future.

Maybe the Echo will attempt to get there facts straight in the future.

The moderators are out in force today!

Just go to show no one messes with Mr Cortese and the mighty Southampton anymore , next up for a **** kicking the lovely Lord Mawhinney

Cortese for prime minister

Ken Hutchinson wrote:
The moderators are out in force today!

I believe it is more a problem with a lag on the servers of this website, as comments on all stories are disappearing and then showing once again a few moments later.

Unless there is a comment you know for a fact has been deleted?

Let's face it the echo only ever copy articles of the official website anyway. All the quotes are taken directly off there. They don't do any 'reporting' anyway. The only good thing is the forum to gauge the opinions of the fans!

This is only speculation but it would not surprise me to discover that the ban is a result of a "Gentlemans Agreement" may have been breeched.
It would make sense to me that The Club would have liked the exclucivity on the story and not had its impact deminished by untimely publication.
If this is the case it seems a little naive,in todays imformation access by all via the internet on The Clubs behalf, to have assumed that the plans for the redevelopment of Staplewood were not readily accessible via the web.
Personaly I do not feel that the article by The C.E.O was at all diminished as a result.
Maybe once the Plans had been approved the O.S. could have been a bit quicker to have imformed the Fans of their intentions.
I dont think they should blame the Echo for trying to Scoop a story for the benefit of the said fans.
Hope they Kiss and make up as I for one would hate to have any bad feelings sour "THE FEELGOOD FACTOR" espescialy this close to Christmas!!!!
COYRAWAPM!! and if you have been
a naughty boy Mr Echo Editor: Just say Sorry :-)

Hi,

I posted the link in the forum on Monday. I got the story from Yahoo Eurosport who broke it on Monday.
Here's the link to their article:
http://bit.ly/8hJWHn


This is the first mistake the new regieme have made.

Sorry for my part.

Comical.

Good to see the Spirit of the Sir Alex "Press Ban" lives on in the land of the Toblerone

Just read the whole article in the Echo and its nothing short of embarrasing on the Echo's part. Mr Murray will certainly be getting an e-mail from me. How he can ever EVER say we miss Rupert Lowe is bad enough itself, but to ask Cortese if they could run the story, be told to hold fire and then still run it speaks of arrogance to me. Most Saints fans are in agreement that the Echo has only ever stirred it up with the Club. Maybe now its getting its punishment. No-one should ever forget that Cortese (via Liebherr) helped to save our club - otherwise we wouldn't even have one and, I think, we wouldn't even have an Echo!!

"This ban will not affect our coverage of the Saints."

Is this confirmation - if it was needed - that the match reporter doesn't actually attend the games he reports on.?

I have now read the full story. I retract my previous post.

The club is perfect again.

The Echo is wrong!!!

hahahahahhahah that is well funny.i wonder if liebherr still reads the posts on here.what do you think liebherr?

No they attend games, they will just have to pay like anyone else. Either that or get the story from one of their fellow journalists.

The problem for the media is that the new set up is very tight lipped. hence many if the papers are way behind on their news.

Which is bad for the papers, frustrating sometimes for us. yet right, because how many times have we seen deals sabotaged when something has been leaked.

At the end of the day the paper and club need each other, for obvious reasons. yet their are rules to be followed and adhered to, no doubt in a week or so it will be smoothed over and the echo will have had their hand slapped.

The Echo could always make it up!
Saints after being starting on - 10 go on to get promoted and win the JPT. They also reached the semi-final of the FA Cup but put out a weakened team to protect their successful promotion bid! The club is amongst the top 5 richest clubs in the land and will soon have a state of the art training ground! Fans are coming back in their droves and the future is bright the future is red and white. See easy to make it up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We know for sure that the regime at SMS is a switched on modern high quality business with systems and policies in place.

We know Adam and his sports team have great regular access to Pards and the team.. Adam was glowing at the last on-line session.

I read the story on the Saints Website first but remember that the images on that site are subject to copyright.

Would someone like to post the reasons in here... or would that upset.

I'm happy to sit on the fence and hope it gets sorted soon. Sure it will as The Echo is only a little paper but they do a great job with a very personable team I love em to bits..

Editor Ian Murray said: "We will continue to do what we do best – provide unbiased, balanced, well thought through, professional analysis of the Saints….”

Yeah! Good luck with that!

I think the ban will improve results just by keeping matters behind closed doors.

I'm fully behind Saints sorry Echo.

Saints No 1 Fan wrote:
Let's face it the echo only ever copy articles of the official website anyway. All the quotes are taken directly off there. They don't do any 'reporting' anyway. The only good thing is the forum to gauge the opinions of the fans!

Completely agree!
When was the last time the 'Echo' ever interviewed the players after a match or provided some new insight? If newspapers want to survive in the digital age then they need to do more than just 'skim' articles from other websites. The name 'Echo' is truly deserved - nothing original!

The "Echo" like all other sections of the media has a lot of power ,and influence but is not answerable to anyone. The only interest in reporting is to have a or create a story to sell newspapers and if they have been banned I can only think they have stepped out of line.

In the past I have written to the Editor to suggest their reporting was irresposible, with attention grabbing headlines that did little to support the local Football Club.
What is written is closely followed by others, I give an exmple of what should NOT be written. When a player is doing well, the reporter writes and speculates as to how soon it will be before a "Big" Club makes an offer!

On a slightly different matter, "The Echo" has often stated that the Saturday edition includes a "Free" television giude, if it is free why does the Saturday edition cost more?
If the "Echo" wants to sell newspapers, get the "Football Echo" or "Pink" on sale by 6.00pm Saturday evening , who wants to pay an inflated price on a Sunday morning for old news in a paper full of adverts?
Why has no mention been made of the Supporters Charter that has just been sent out to all Season Tickets Holders? A very positive brochure!

So far since the new ownership of the Club, everything that has come out of St. Mary's has been so very positive.

lowemustgo wrote:

Saints No 1 Fan wrote: Let's face it the echo only ever copy articles of the official website anyway. All the quotes are taken directly off there. They don't do any 'reporting' anyway. The only good thing is the forum to gauge the opinions of the fans!

Completely agree! When was the last time the 'Echo' ever interviewed the players after a match or provided some new insight? If newspapers want to survive in the digital age then they need to do more than just 'skim' articles from other websites. The name 'Echo' is truly deserved - nothing original!

Er, they interview players after every match. I don't know if they put them online but if you pay for the paper they are in there.

What articles have they got which are just copied off the official site? I can't see anything which is even nearly the same?

Echo...... you look really silly... you evan state in the full article that Saints asked you to hold the story! Why annoy them, you have shot yourself in the foot!!!!!

I think you better get an extra Large Hamper ordered and send over as quick as possible.....

I have just read the article on the Official Saints site, regarding the application to renovate Staplewood, and the whole thing made me glow with pride and hope for the future.
Nicola Cortese said all the right things, including telling the locals, that are affected by traffic problems, that the plans include looking at access to improve things for THEM and not SFC.
He knows just how important PR is and is very good at it.
If you haven't read it, have a look now. There is one sentence that I read over and over again.
"We have the aim to be top of the pile."
I know he is talking in terms of the training facilities, but I can't help feeling that he is talking about the team being "top of the pile" as well.
Christmas will never be better than this.

I cants say that it will be too much of a loss to fans. There are always a number of papers running saints related stories.

TBH i have always found the attitude of the echo a little nit of a duel standard anyway.

Removing their threads off of Newsnow and publishing part articles and asking people to by the paper copy are very obstructive steps that have shown that the echo are trying to retain control of a situation that they don't really own

One thing is for sure. The echo obviously think that its in their best interests to publish this story.

Unfortunalty for them they are only local press. Publishing a story saying that the club has been unnecessarily mean to them isn't going to impress anyone

Obviously handbags by the look of it, my only thought for the Saints is that if there is good news, get it to us as soon as possible and the Echo is as good an outlet as any. a thought to the Echo, if you want to be the first with the stories, obey the wishes of the Club, we will all respect you for it.

A lot of you seem to be saying that the Echo should have respected the club's wishes and waited until the press conference to report the training ground plans..... but it had already been reported by Sky Sports News.
If anything, the Echo had already been scooped and the story was well and truly in the public domain.
Have Sky Sports been banned? Of course not! So why is the Echo banned?

UTS wrote:
Ho ho ho

'nothing to say' is probably an Echo employee.

No sympathy from the majority of Saints fans i can assure you. You never acted in our interests over Lowe and Wilde. You instead gave them a platform of lies and spin.

Thankyou,Thankyou, Thankyou, what you reap you sow. Shame really because some of the reporting is pretty good,just the jumping on the bandwagon stuff the riles me,but be warned some dont like the echo being critisised.But like me you probably dont give a stuff and will continue to voice your opinions,well said UTS.

I've some sympathy with the Echo here. What will have happened is that Saints put out a press release but embargoed it so it couldn't be written about before a certain date. But it's standard journalistic practice that if someone else breaks the embargo then it's ok to write about it as otherwise you end up looking daft and late as you'll be the only ones playing by the rules. But that obviously didn't wash with the Saints. I'm guessing the ban will be lifted fairly shortly, however, and that this is more a warning shot to stop it happening again.

Personally think the Club have been somewhat heavy handed with their response here, particularly as it was already in the public domain.

After all, there was no way it was going to be put back in the bottle.

However, I don't have much sympathy for The Echo following their cosying up to Lowe last time around and being no more than his unofficial mouthpiece.

If Murray really has said we miss Lowe, then just like when he and Adam Leitch used to spout rubbish last season, he is somewhat out of touch with the Saints fanbase.

The Watcher wrote:
Personally think the Club have been somewhat heavy handed with their response here, particularly as it was already in the public domain. After all, there was no way it was going to be put back in the bottle. However, I don't have much sympathy for The Echo following their cosying up to Lowe last time around and being no more than his unofficial mouthpiece. If Murray really has said we miss Lowe, then just like when he and Adam Leitch used to spout rubbish last season, he is somewhat out of touch with the Saints fanbase.

Well I've got it here in front of me and he hasn't said that.

He said Lowe never banned the paper despite hating a number of stories they printed. It also says Rupert would probably find this whole thing quite funny.

Quite different from saying "We miss Rupert"

AdrianSmith wrote:

lowemustgo wrote:

Saints No 1 Fan wrote: Let's face it the echo only ever copy articles of the official website anyway. All the quotes are taken directly off there. They don't do any 'reporting' anyway. The only good thing is the forum to gauge the opinions of the fans!

Completely agree! When was the last time the 'Echo' ever interviewed the players after a match or provided some new insight? If newspapers want to survive in the digital age then they need to do more than just 'skim' articles from other websites. The name 'Echo' is truly deserved - nothing original!

Er, they interview players after every match. I don't know if they put them online but if you pay for the paper they are in there. What articles have they got which are just copied off the official site? I can't see anything which is even nearly the same?

If you want to see how it works, just set up an alert on Google for say a player or manager and see how the same 'stories' about them circulate between BBC 'rumours', Sky news, the Saints website, the Echo, etc, in a couple of hours. Its not journalism its plagiarism.

AdrianSmith wrote:

The Watcher wrote: Personally think the Club have been somewhat heavy handed with their response here, particularly as it was already in the public domain. After all, there was no way it was going to be put back in the bottle. However, I don't have much sympathy for The Echo following their cosying up to Lowe last time around and being no more than his unofficial mouthpiece. If Murray really has said we miss Lowe, then just like when he and Adam Leitch used to spout rubbish last season, he is somewhat out of touch with the Saints fanbase.

Well I've got it here in front of me and he hasn't said that. He said Lowe never banned the paper despite hating a number of stories they printed. It also says Rupert would probably find this whole thing quite funny. Quite different from saying "We miss Rupert"

Indeed it is, hence the caveat in my original post.

Lowe however did ban other sections of the media (including Meridian at one point).

And like I said, the problem I have with The Echo and my lack of sympathy towards them is very much due to the bed they made last season, when they made their cosy deal with Lowe and ended up in his pocket.

Upon Lowe's disatrous comeback their reporting lacked objectivity, was out of touch with the majority of the fanbase and seriously glossed over the ridiculous (and long term damage) Lowe and co were doing to the Club.

Instead of telling it how it was, they instead chose to be Lowe's tooge in return for a cosy relationship.

The Watcher wrote:

AdrianSmith wrote:

The Watcher wrote: Personally think the Club have been somewhat heavy handed with their response here, particularly as it was already in the public domain. After all, there was no way it was going to be put back in the bottle. However, I don't have much sympathy for The Echo following their cosying up to Lowe last time around and being no more than his unofficial mouthpiece. If Murray really has said we miss Lowe, then just like when he and Adam Leitch used to spout rubbish last season, he is somewhat out of touch with the Saints fanbase.

Well I've got it here in front of me and he hasn't said that. He said Lowe never banned the paper despite hating a number of stories they printed. It also says Rupert would probably find this whole thing quite funny. Quite different from saying "We miss Rupert"

Indeed it is, hence the caveat in my original post. Lowe however did ban other sections of the media (including Meridian at one point). And like I said, the problem I have with The Echo and my lack of sympathy towards them is very much due to the bed they made last season, when they made their cosy deal with Lowe and ended up in his pocket. Upon Lowe's disatrous comeback their reporting lacked objectivity, was out of touch with the majority of the fanbase and seriously glossed over the ridiculous (and long term damage) Lowe and co were doing to the Club. Instead of telling it how it was, they instead chose to be Lowe's tooge in return for a cosy relationship.

The thing is, I have been reading the Echo for a number of years, and I don't remember it EVER cosying up to Lowe.

Lowe and Murray hated each other, and I imagine they still do.

Much like how many fans were labelled "Lowe Luvvies" if they weren't seen to hate Lowe enough, I imagine the Echo also suffers from trying to be impartial - like a newspaper should - when it comes to Lowe, as people only ever wanted to read bad things about him.

And in response to lowemustgo, I know what plagarism is. My point is, it doesn't seem to exist with regards the Echo and the Saints official website, likeyou initially claimed.

St Retford wrote:
I've some sympathy with the Echo here. What will have happened is that Saints put out a press release but embargoed it so it couldn't be written about before a certain date. But it's standard journalistic practice that if someone else breaks the embargo then it's ok to write about it as otherwise you end up looking daft and late as you'll be the only ones playing by the rules. But that obviously didn't wash with the Saints. I'm guessing the ban will be lifted fairly shortly, however, and that this is more a warning shot to stop it happening again.

I think that's a pretty shrewd shout St R. There's more sensitive stuff likely to be floating about in January and the Echo will absolutely toe the line now. This ban will be quietly lifted in 10 days or so.

GX Saint wrote:

St Retford wrote: I've some sympathy with the Echo here. What will have happened is that Saints put out a press release but embargoed it so it couldn't be written about before a certain date. But it's standard journalistic practice that if someone else breaks the embargo then it's ok to write about it as otherwise you end up looking daft and late as you'll be the only ones playing by the rules. But that obviously didn't wash with the Saints. I'm guessing the ban will be lifted fairly shortly, however, and that this is more a warning shot to stop it happening again.

I think that's a pretty shrewd shout St R. There's more sensitive stuff likely to be floating about in January and the Echo will absolutely toe the line now. This ban will be quietly lifted in 10 days or so.

Totally agree. This was an opportunity for Big Nic to set his stall out regarding leaking news early. A bit of a slap on the wrist for not much, Echo has a moan, we speculate as to what is going on and a week later the ban is lifted and everyone is friends again. However, The Echo know where they stand and keep their gob shut come transfer window.

Yet again, the new regime acting shrewdly. Love it.

Despite some of the silly stuff on this Forum, my view is that the Echo has always presented news stories in a balanced way and that Hampshire people have a higher regard for your newspaper that of Southampton Football Club. Perhaps those with influence within the club will bang a few heads and mend fences with the best local paper in the country. And no, I have no connections with your paper. I only read it!!!

Must be a protocol issue. Maybe others inquired through club channels and there was a sore spot somewhere. Otherwise this makes no sense.

Must be a protocol issue. Maybe others inquired through club channels and there was a sore spot somewhere. Otherwise this makes no sense.

Editor Ian Murray said:"We will continue to do what we do best – provide unbiased, balanced, well thought through, professional analysis of the Saints – while wishing our team all the success it deserves. “
Meaningless, and bot even funny Mr Murray.
I don’t think Messrs Cortese or Liebherr have any illusions about the Echo, they will have done a good deal of solid research before buying Southampton FC, and be well aware of what a perfidious operation Ian Murray is running. His organ’s coverage of the Saints has been an utter disgrace since 2003.
I think that's as much as I can get away with. When it comes to free speech the Echo has a blind spot when it comes to anyone drawing attention to its own lack of integrity.

Forest John wrote:
Despite some of the silly stuff on this Forum, my view is that the Echo has always presented news stories in a balanced way and that Hampshire people have a higher regard for your newspaper that of Southampton Football Club. Perhaps those with influence within the club will bang a few heads and mend fences with the best local paper in the country. And no, I have no connections with your paper. I only read it!!!

With all due respect John, and I do appreciate what you are saying, but this story is only available within the sport/saints section of this website, therefore the article is only a relevance to Saints fans and not as you say for the rest of Hampshire's population. Therefore the higher regard comment is a tad condescending and irrelevant, mainly because it is of no interest to you and you can ignore it. The vast majority of posters on this site are Southampton fans, so do have an interest and are entitled to their opinions. The Echo are the ones who need to bang a few heads, and realise that the biggest club in the entire South East, Central, and South West of England will not tolerate a regional paper breaking any agreement it has put in place with them, regardless of it being the best local paper or not. Hopefully this is not taken out of context, just an opinion and I do not work for Saints, thanks.

Tye-Dye wrote:

Forest John wrote:
Despite some of the silly stuff on this Forum, my view is that the Echo has always presented news stories in a balanced way and that Hampshire people have a higher regard for your newspaper that of Southampton Football Club. Perhaps those with influence within the club will bang a few heads and mend fences with the best local paper in the country. And no, I have no connections with your paper. I only read it!!!

With all due respect John, and I do appreciate what you are saying, but this story is only available within the sport/saints section of this website, therefore the article is only a relevance to Saints fans and not as you say for the rest of Hampshire's population. Therefore the higher regard comment is a tad condescending and irrelevant, mainly because it is of no interest to you and you can ignore it. The vast majority of posters on this site are Southampton fans, so do have an interest and are entitled to their opinions. The Echo are the ones who need to bang a few heads, and realise that the biggest club in the entire South East, Central, and South West of England will not tolerate a regional paper breaking any agreement it has put in place with them, regardless of it being the best local paper or not. Hopefully this is not taken out of context, just an opinion and I do not work for Saints, thanks.

The problem with your post is that it would seem there was no agreement for the Echo to break.

The club has simply took exception to the Echo publishing a story that was already reported elsewhere.

That is a shame and personally I think the club are using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut, to use what I believe is common venacular.

This is ridiculous - though not unknown.

As a former journo, I know of other clubs who have banned the local newspaper over some trifling article that upset the Chairman and eventually its all been smoothed away. The club needs the newspaper and the newspaper needs the club. Newspapers are all having a very tough time of it with the recession and online blogging and media outlets offering 'news' free. Its our City newspaper and they have a right to publish anything they find out, whether we like to read it or not.

The club seemed to be acting in a very childish way. If other outlets ran the story then ban them too. Don't make the Echo suffer on its own. Journos have long memories and in better times its nicer to have friends than enemies.

The club wouldn't dare ban that bastion of state sponsored journalism, the BBC!

The club seems to need a Communications Office that can say to the current Saints management that they have made wrong move here. Lets continue to laugh at the Muff Brigade, not fall out amongst ourselves.

I hope this spat will pass soon and Ian Murray is invited back for drinks at the Stadium before Christmas.

How about the Echo taking over the shirt sponsorship if and when Flybe drop out!

AdrianSmith wrote:

The Watcher wrote:

AdrianSmith wrote:

The Watcher wrote: Personally think the Club have been somewhat heavy handed with their response here, particularly as it was already in the public domain. After all, there was no way it was going to be put back in the bottle. However, I don't have much sympathy for The Echo following their cosying up to Lowe last time around and being no more than his unofficial mouthpiece. If Murray really has said we miss Lowe, then just like when he and Adam Leitch used to spout rubbish last season, he is somewhat out of touch with the Saints fanbase.

Well I've got it here in front of me and he hasn't said that. He said Lowe never banned the paper despite hating a number of stories they printed. It also says Rupert would probably find this whole thing quite funny. Quite different from saying "We miss Rupert"

Indeed it is, hence the caveat in my original post. Lowe however did ban other sections of the media (including Meridian at one point). And like I said, the problem I have with The Echo and my lack of sympathy towards them is very much due to the bed they made last season, when they made their cosy deal with Lowe and ended up in his pocket. Upon Lowe's disatrous comeback their reporting lacked objectivity, was out of touch with the majority of the fanbase and seriously glossed over the ridiculous (and long term damage) Lowe and co were doing to the Club. Instead of telling it how it was, they instead chose to be Lowe's tooge in return for a cosy relationship.

The thing is, I have been reading the Echo for a number of years, and I don't remember it EVER cosying up to Lowe. Lowe and Murray hated each other, and I imagine they still do. Much like how many fans were labelled "Lowe Luvvies" if they weren't seen to hate Lowe enough, I imagine the Echo also suffers from trying to be impartial - like a newspaper should - when it comes to Lowe, as people only ever wanted to read bad things about him. And in response to lowemustgo, I know what plagarism is. My point is, it doesn't seem to exist with regards the Echo and the Saints official website, likeyou initially claimed.

If you don't remember it cosying up to Lowe then you need to go back and read the copy from last June/July when Leitch and Murray took word for word the propaganda eminating from the Club regarding the Dynamic Dutch Duo!!!

What was reported in The Echo during that season was an alomost exact replica of the Club's line despite many supporters pointing out the obvious flaws.

The Echo chose to kow tow to Lowe during this period and lost alot of respect as a direct result.

Hey, you morons, remember, it was the Echo that championed Michael Wilde’s putsch assuring as all that all that stood between Saints and European domination was Rupert, and that as soon as he was gone multi-millionaires would be fighting to take Saints over.
Don’t take my word for it, check out back copies.
Bottom line was that the Echo was wrong in every respect. The line under that was: they pushed Wilde’s anti-Rupert cause to flog newspapers. Seriously dumb, short term thinking.
As for supporting Rupert’s return: only a half wit could believe that the Echo were supportive. The only mitigation factor they admitted – between the lines – was that Ian Murray (and possibly Simon Carter) realised that Saint wouldn’t have survived until last Christmas if Leon Crouch had been left in charge – plunging Echo sales even lower.
Now check out the posts on this website, the majority are on the Saints. That’s what brings the advertising in. And as we all know, most of the Saints articles published on this site are trite in the extreme. It is my humble opinion that the reason given for the Echo’s ban indicates the tip of an iceberg, but I think it’s safe to say that the present Saints’ administration are clued up on the Echo’s perfidy over the last six years, and are, with great deliberation, publically humiliating them.
If they’d have consulted me I would have told them to do that on day one!

I can't see how the Echo can be prevented from reporting on Saints games unless the Club decided to try to enforce this via civil law and tring to restrict this when 3rd party news feeds are being used would be interesting. it would be understandable to say they could not use paid for media feeds provided by SAINTS without permission and ban their reporters from the ground but just how much negative hearsay coverage are the Saints looking for in return for this POLICY?

Curious Captain Swing what is your business connection you seem remarkably anti-Echo far more so than an ordinary football fan.

Captain Swing wrote:
Hey, you morons, remember, it was the Echo that championed Michael Wilde’s putsch assuring as all that all that stood between Saints and European domination was Rupert, and that as soon as he was gone multi-millionaires would be fighting to take Saints over. Don’t take my word for it, check out back copies. Bottom line was that the Echo was wrong in every respect. The line under that was: they pushed Wilde’s anti-Rupert cause to flog newspapers. Seriously dumb, short term thinking. As for supporting Rupert’s return: only a half wit could believe that the Echo were supportive. The only mitigation factor they admitted – between the lines – was that Ian Murray (and possibly Simon Carter) realised that Saint wouldn’t have survived until last Christmas if Leon Crouch had been left in charge – plunging Echo sales even lower. Now check out the posts on this website, the majority are on the Saints. That’s what brings the advertising in. And as we all know, most of the Saints articles published on this site are trite in the extreme. It is my humble opinion that the reason given for the Echo’s ban indicates the tip of an iceberg, but I think it’s safe to say that the present Saints’ administration are clued up on the Echo’s perfidy over the last six years, and are, with great deliberation, publically humiliating them. If they’d have consulted me I would have told them to do that on day one!

The Echo were indeed on the side of Wilde when he was pushing to oust Lowe, but if you don't think they were supportive second time around then I'm afraid your insults and descriptions of others might be more apt for yourself.

Murray, (aided by Leitch), struck up a cosy deal with Lowe to support the new guard and work together on many issues.

As a result The Echo became an almost unofficial version of Lowe's Official Site. Despite the team and Club crumbling, Leitch and Murray refused to break this cosy agreement and instead, like Lowe, tried to make us believe that everything would come good.

From the outset when Leitch repeated Lowe's gushing praise for this Dutch Revolution (almost word for word), through the dark Poortvliet days, the protests, the falling gates, Wotte and administration, the Echo lost its objectivity and position of independence and instead towed Lowe's line.

Many will never forget how they supported and propped up a regime that almost wiped this Club off of the map.

Watcher and Captain Swing, you seem to be confusing quoting people in a news story with agreeing with what they say.

Murray and Lowe have hated each other since Strachan was here.

To think they 'struck up' a deal is naive in the extreme. Just because the paper printed a story about something you didn't like does not mean there is a 'cosy deal' or conspiracy.

Next you'll be telling me we've never been to the Moon or that you know who was on the grassy knoll.

Besides, all the stories are available to read on this site. Search for them and read them again. NOTHING suggests what you two are insinuating.

AdrianSmith wrote:
Watcher and Captain Swing, you seem to be confusing quoting people in a news story with agreeing with what they say. Murray and Lowe have hated each other since Strachan was here. To think they 'struck up' a deal is naive in the extreme. Just because the paper printed a story about something you didn't like does not mean there is a 'cosy deal' or conspiracy. Next you'll be telling me we've never been to the Moon or that you know who was on the grassy knoll. Besides, all the stories are available to read on this site. Search for them and read them again. NOTHING suggests what you two are insinuating.

Whilst Murray and Lowe may not be on each others Xmas card lists, they certainly came to an agreement last season that The Echo would not rock the boat in return for certain favours and access from the Club.

Lowe knew how useful The Echo could be in his propaganda war, whilst Murray knows full well how Saints are a main driver for sales of his paper. Personal feelings aren't the main drivers in a business relationship.

From the very start of last season (and even before that with the farcial appointment of Poortvliet & Wotte)Leitch and Murray played ball and agreed to tow the line with regards what Lowe wanted.

It's not about disagreeing with one or two stories, it was watching a supposed independent local newspaper failing to report accurately on their team, for fear of breaking a cosy arrangement.

You should indeed go back through the copy on this website for last season and you will find a continual sycophantic and apologist line from The Echo whilst the Club slipped slowly in to the abyss.

The opening gambit was Leitch & others reporting of the appointment of the Dynamic Duo. It was an almost word for word replica of what Lowe had put up on the Official Site, complete with some extra gushing and fawning for good measure.

Last season was a disaster form start to finish, yet if you read the Echo during that period you could be forgiven for thinking it was the start of a bright new future.

I assume you have evidence for your claims?

I have read the stories - hence why I suggested you do the same - and it remains to me that you can't tell the difference between reporting what someone is saying and a conspiracy theory.

Let me spell it out. Writing "Rupert said this is a great new era" is not the same as saying "I think this is a great new era".

See the difference?

Indeed there is a difference between just reporting what someone has said/written and coming up with a line yourself, but if you go back throughout last season, then The Echo, and Leitch in particular, was continually telling us how great things would be and how great the Dynamic Duo were.

Whilst the Club slipped closer to oblivion on and off the pitch, the Echo was deathly silent on these matters, instead they were too busy trying to reassure us that things would be turned around.

I'm all for positive reporting and trying to lift the spirits of Club and City, but The Echo went further than that last season and lost their objectivity and independence.

The Watcher wrote:
Indeed there is a difference between just reporting what someone has said/written and coming up with a line yourself, but if you go back throughout last season, then The Echo, and Leitch in particular, was continually telling us how great things would be and how great the Dynamic Duo were. Whilst the Club slipped closer to oblivion on and off the pitch, the Echo was deathly silent on these matters, instead they were too busy trying to reassure us that things would be turned around. I'm all for positive reporting and trying to lift the spirits of Club and City, but The Echo went further than that last season and lost their objectivity and independence.

Well I can't find any such articles.

I trust you can help me and provide links to them?

There was no cosy deal between Murray and Lowe, and I can’t see how anyone could claim the Echo demonstrated any serious enthusiasm for Rupert’s return. I merely became more circumspect, knowing that the alternative to Rupert would be no Saints, and plummeting sales.
The Echo’s attitude to Rupert was became obvious with the long running row, fuelled by the Echo’s indignation, over Lawrie McMenemy’s portrait being removed from boardroom. This year, Lawrie’s been removed from St Mary’s entirely (in his estimation) and the Echo don’t believe the story is newsworthy. Ironic or what?
If you remain inclined to believe the Echo covers the Saints objectively and honestly, I suggest you check out the “Untold Stories” on this website, ask yourself why much of the material was not in the public domain before. Then ask yourself: does this narrative make any sense?
Does this information explain why a relatively successful, well run economically stable club ends up at the bottom of the Championship, in unsustainable debt, with a bigger wage bill than many Premiership clubs? Then ask yourself: at the time, did the Echo ever draw attention to the fact, given that it was blatantly obvious? Further, at the time of Rupert’s return, did you ever come across an honest, balanced assessment of the financial mess he’d taken on?
Then ask yourself: was the Echo’s coverage of the mooted return of Hoddle and the recruitment of Sir Clive Woodward handled in a detached, honest and candid manner?
If the answer to these questions is: yes! Please contact me immediately, I have some terrific time share opportunities available on Zimbabwe’s Pacific coast.

You can start on the 30th May with Leitch and co's gushing announcement of Poortvliet (conveniently forgetting to do any homework on his past managerial record and taking for gospel the line peddled by Lowe and co.).

More than happy to go through the archive after todays game for more stories from Leitch and co about how positive things are, whilst of course it failing to recognise the calamities that befell us last season.

You can start on the 30th May with Leitch and co's gushing announcement of Poortvliet (conveniently forgetting to do any homework on his past managerial record and taking for gospel the line peddled by Lowe and co.).

More than happy to go through the archive after todays game for more stories from Leitch and co about how positive things are, whilst of course it failing to recognise the calamities that befell us last season.

Does the Echo Editor think we have all forgotten the hysteria the Echo tried to whip up a couple of years back? "We will continue to do what we do best – provide unbiased, balanced, well thought through, professional analysis of the Saints..." - Yeah right! The Echo seemed to revel in all the problems and dramas and tried their best to build up the issues and now the club is recovering and on the up, they want to be associated favourably. Well done Saints, you dont need "supporters" like that!

Does the Echo Editor think we have all forgotten the hysteria the Echo tried to whip up a couple of years back? "We will continue to do what we do best – provide unbiased, balanced, well thought through, professional analysis of the Saints..." - Yeah right! The Echo seemed to revel in all the problems and dramas and tried their best to build up the issues and now the club is recovering and on the up, they want to be associated favourably. Well done Saints, you dont need "supporters" like that!

Captain Swing wrote:
There was no cosy deal between Murray and Lowe, and I can’t see how anyone could claim the Echo demonstrated any serious enthusiasm for Rupert’s return. I merely became more circumspect, knowing that the alternative to Rupert would be no Saints, and plummeting sales. The Echo’s attitude to Rupert was became obvious with the long running row, fuelled by the Echo’s indignation, over Lawrie McMenemy’s portrait being removed from boardroom. This year, Lawrie’s been removed from St Mary’s entirely (in his estimation) and the Echo don’t believe the story is newsworthy. Ironic or what? If you remain inclined to believe the Echo covers the Saints objectively and honestly, I suggest you check out the “Untold Stories” on this website, ask yourself why much of the material was not in the public domain before. Then ask yourself: does this narrative make any sense? Does this information explain why a relatively successful, well run economically stable club ends up at the bottom of the Championship, in unsustainable debt, with a bigger wage bill than many Premiership clubs? Then ask yourself: at the time, did the Echo ever draw attention to the fact, given that it was blatantly obvious? Further, at the time of Rupert’s return, did you ever come across an honest, balanced assessment of the financial mess he’d taken on? Then ask yourself: was the Echo’s coverage of the mooted return of Hoddle and the recruitment of Sir Clive Woodward handled in a detached, honest and candid manner? If the answer to these questions is: yes! Please contact me immediately, I have some terrific time share opportunities available on Zimbabwe’s Pacific coast.

Your alternative to Lowe was exactly what Lowe achieved whilst he was at the helm, notably administration, relegation and plummeting sales.

As for being a successfully run Club, then you have a poor memory as we were in the mire the minute Lowe presided over three managers in a relegation season. That Xmas he even came out with the line that he didn't know where the next penny was coming from (hardly economically stable).

As for Hoddle and Woodward, then unless I'm mistaken then all occurred prior to the 2008 summer truce and pact between the Club and Echo (feel free to remind me of these happening last season LOL).

The Echo may have been forthright (even hostile) regarding some issues first time around under Lowe, but there was an obvious sea change last season with the Echo towing the line in return for "favours".

Leitch was the worst culprit throughout last season, continually failing to tell it how it was, and instead continually peddling the Lowe line that the Dynamic Duo would turn it around (I even remember the digs at supporters for staying away, spectacularly abusing the sympton and forgetting to look at the root cause).

The Watcher wrote:
You can start on the 30th May with Leitch and co's gushing announcement of Poortvliet (conveniently forgetting to do any homework on his past managerial record and taking for gospel the line peddled by Lowe and co.). More than happy to go through the archive after todays game for more stories from Leitch and co about how positive things are, whilst of course it failing to recognise the calamities that befell us last season.

Gushing? Really?

http://www.dailyecho
.co.uk/news/2307058.
Dutch_duo_fly_in_as_
Pearson_leaves/

It couldn't be more matter of fact. I'm sorry but you've clearly demonstrated that you have no idea what you are talking about. With your description I was expecting Poortvliet to be hailed in the story as a tactifcal genius. As it is, the best it says about him is that he played in a World Cup!

I suggest you let go of your little vendetta and start trying to look at things objectively.

Furthermore, one of the articles linked to that is the Echo REPORTING what Wilde said he wanted to do.

How in God's name is that Leitch getting into bed with Lowe?

As I've pointed out repeatedly, you are seemingly incapable of identifying the difference between a report of what someone has said and a statement of opinion from a reporter.

Try this one:

http://www.dailyecho
.co.uk/sport/saints/
news/2306973.Introdu
cing_new_Saints_head
_coach_Jan_Poortvlie
t/

Leitch's gushing tribute about Poortvliet's managerial past and coaching abilities that includes this line, almost lifted entirely from Lowe's propaganda machine:

"He has built a reputation for forging promotion-winning teams on a limited budget by playing and developing the club's young players - something that must have appealed to Saints."

Rather than take stuff as gospel, he would have been better off doing his own digging, not least with regards the last line of the article:

"He has paid his own severance fee to Helmand in order to move to England."

A line which was inaccurate as the later falling out with Helmond proved.

This was followed by more spin from both Saints and The Echo (notably Leitch) throughout the season.

Mr Watcher, it would appear you are trying to argue that black is white.

I suggest you simply admit you are wrong, as the evidence you are providing is actually harming your argument and reinforcing the claims of Mr Smith against you.

The articles you have cited are reports - not opinion from the correspondent writing them. This is a key fact with newspapers and your failure to appreciate this is making you seem a little bit, silly, I am very much sorry to say.

Ok, lets put it like this.....nobody really knows EXACTLY what happened. Everyone is speculating about this and that and mentioning the dark lord's name a little too much for my liking. Can we please A) Get back to the football and B)live in the now, stop dragging up the dark, gone by days, its over, move on. Saints are now a force to be reckoned with and the future is ooking great. I dont want to think about the past anymore.

I believe the arguments being posted today have been centred around one area of Mr. Murrays article, having read the editors article, I believe there are four contentious points,

1. The Echo asked if they could publish an article on the upgrading of the training facilities, at Staplewood, this was refused, but the Echo published any way and were banned from Saint Mary's Stadium. where was the trust abused and by whom.

2. The Echo was not invited to take photographs at the general hospital when players were doing their Christmas visit. Perhaps they should have asked if they could take photographs.

3. The Editor intimated that he did not want to use children in hospital in an argument with the football chaiman. That is exactly what Mr Murray has done in his article.

4. The Editor also gave the impression that he and Lowe were long standing friends (although they did not always agree), the jobsworth reporters were well aware of Lowe and Murray's friendship hence the poor reporting of the facts.

I would suggest that the football club is being run in a very proffesional manner and not like in the past (old school tie brigade) this is what has upset Mr. Murray

Invidia wrote:
I believe the arguments being posted today have been centred around one area of Mr. Murrays article, having read the editors article, I believe there are four contentious points, 1. The Echo asked if they could publish an article on the upgrading of the training facilities, at Staplewood, this was refused, but the Echo published any way and were banned from Saint Mary's Stadium. where was the trust abused and by whom. 2. The Echo was not invited to take photographs at the general hospital when players were doing their Christmas visit. Perhaps they should have asked if they could take photographs. 3. The Editor intimated that he did not want to use children in hospital in an argument with the football chaiman. That is exactly what Mr Murray has done in his article. 4. The Editor also gave the impression that he and Lowe were long standing friends (although they did not always agree), the jobsworth reporters were well aware of Lowe and Murray's friendship hence the poor reporting of the facts. I would suggest that the football club is being run in a very proffesional manner and not like in the past (old school tie brigade) this is what has upset Mr. Murray

I have also read the article and dispute some of your points.

1. The Echo printed a story about public document, which had already been elsewhere. To not do so would have seen them criticised (rightly) by readers for being behind everyone else. It was a good news story and the club have thrown their toys out of their pram with the Echo but no-one else.

2. The Echo was refused to take pictures after asking.

3. Fair point.

4. The article says they had a 'robust' relationship, which is a polite way of saying a bad relationship. Murray has printed lots of columns saying how he and Lowe did not get along.

Well Mr. Suliaman, you have every right to dispute the points that I posted, but I would suggest to you even if other media outlet had reported the story, that having been asked not to print, then doing so is not very honourable, I do understand that the Echo is a business to make money but by the time the Echo got hold of the news it was well past it's newsworthyness (sorry about that word I made it up) as for point two I understood that the Echo was not invited. point four. A "robust" relationship maybe a bad relationship in your book but many would argue that. I do not recall any columns written by Mr. Murray saying he did not get along with Lowe, it is on record that he said he did not always agree with Lowe which is something completly different, anyway I must go, just in case some may not be aware we have a match and I am on my way to watch and support.

What else does Ian Murray expect.
The Echo often has incorrect or incomplete reporting data, not to mention the 'spellers'!. Why not wait, be invited to the 'PRESS CONFERENCE'... wonder why it is called that? And get the details the Saints whant to share with the community.

I feel Ian Murray is trying to invent another Rupert Lowe regime, just so he can sell papaers.

Sulaiman Al Fahim wrote:
Mr Watcher, it would appear you are trying to argue that black is white. I suggest you simply admit you are wrong, as the evidence you are providing is actually harming your argument and reinforcing the claims of Mr Smith against you. The articles you have cited are reports - not opinion from the correspondent writing them. This is a key fact with newspapers and your failure to appreciate this is making you seem a little bit, silly, I am very much sorry to say.

The article cited is presented as being written by Adam Leitch.

There are no quotations, nor are there any attributable quotes.

The story is embellished by Leitch's personal opinion.

Either the article was a straight lift from Saints Official Site, in which case Leitch has been incredibly lazy and somewhat disengenuous by not attributing the content, or he is more than happy to replicate what the OS has put out.

Either way it is poor showing from what is supposed to be an independent and objective local newspaper.

like it or loath it the echo is the main source of news and forum for fans especially exiles like me, it was even rumoured wolfgang liebherr decided to buy the club after reading comments of fans on the echo website, if i was wolfgang i'd be straight on the phone to sort this out-the club and paper need each other

WELL ABOUT TIME TOO.I CAN REMEMBER WHEN THE ECHO REPORTED ON SAINTS GAMES WHEREAS NOW ITS BECOME HEAVILY INVOLVED IN THE POLITICS OF THE CLUB,AND HAS A LOT TO DO WITH THE ITS RECENT DOWNFALL.THE TREATMENT OF LOWE,THE BACKING OF WILDE AND CROUCH AND ULTIMATELY ADMINISTRATION,WHICH UP TO 2006 WAS A SOLID BUSINESS.THE PETTINESS OF THE MONDAY AFTER LAST SEASONS FOREST GAME REGARDING LOWE AND CROUCH JUST ABOUT SUMS UP HOW POOR THE PAPER HAS BECOME.THE CHEEK TO CALL IT UNBIASED REPORTING NOW BORDERS ON IT BEING A COMIC ASWELL.
SORT YOURSELVES OUT AND GET SOME MATURE PEOPLE IN INSTEAD OF THE KID REPORTERS-BRING BACK BOB BRUNSKELL AND PEOPLE OF HIS TYPE AND WE'LL START BUYING IT AGAIN.

I agree with the others, The Watcher is making himself look sillier and sillier with each post he makes. Talk about flogging a dead horse... look out for his next link: the Echo's 1976 FA Cup final preview predicting a tough game for Saints. Proof positive that the Echo have always had it in for the club, in The Watcher's mind at least.
Also, I know Bob Brunskell very well. He was arguably the best Saints reporter the Echo ever had. He would be laughing heartily at this current nonsense and urging both sides to take a reality check, step down from their high horses and get this sorted out in an adult fashion. Saints and The Echo are both playing up like belligerent toddlers and the whole thing is, frankly, ridiculous

Can I just ask this.
When were Newspapers ever recognised as being the owners of The Truth?
Like all of us contributing to this site it all remains opinnion?
To amuse ourselves we speculate,debate on the odd occasion and make statements designed to help either ourselves or the future of "The Club".
Good aint It?!!!!!!!!!!!!
125th??????

St Retford wrote:
I've some sympathy with the Echo here. What will have happened is that Saints put out a press release but embargoed it so it couldn't be written about before a certain date. But it's standard journalistic practice that if someone else breaks the embargo then it's ok to write about it as otherwise you end up looking daft and late as you'll be the only ones playing by the rules. But that obviously didn't wash with the Saints. I'm guessing the ban will be lifted fairly shortly, however, and that this is more a warning shot to stop it happening again.

me too, and you are spot on about the breaking of embargo thing... it's hardly controversial news about the training ground is it FFS! The only 'losers' here (apart from those that spend ALL their time slagging off the Echo but seem to spend a great deal of time inhabiting their columns and pawing over every single detail of the paper lol) are the fans. The Club should meet with the Echo and thrash it out and come to an agreement and move on!! It has nuances of handbags at dawn as someone else already said. Grow up Saints! I'm sure the Echo will apologise and then let's get back to business??