Saints up against the clock

Daily Echo: Alexander Büttner Alexander Büttner

SAINTS are facing a race against time to recruit new faces for their Premier League opener against Manchester City on Sunday.

Nigel Adkins has been busy working on bringing in new transfer targets but with only four players signed so far this summer and the season so close there is an increased sense of urgency.

There are two wingers very much on the radar with the club chasing deals for Gaston Ramirez and longtime target Matt Phillips, pictured.

The latter has reportedly been the subject of a £6m offer from Saints but his club, Blackpool, are considering their options.

They are loath to lose Phillips, and are unlikely to be desperately keen to sell to Saints after a spat over a possible illegal approach, something Adkins has denied, with Everton also interested.

Saints are understood to have made enquiries over Ramirez, who plays for Italian side Bologna and there is also talk of Saints resurrecting a move for left back Alexander Buttner.

The 23-year-old’s on-off switch has been an on running saga this summer with Saints initially agreeing a deal with Vitesse Arnhem before a third party demanded an extra payment, which saw the move stall.

However, Vitesse are still understood to be keen to sell, so if Saints do bid again and Buttner could this time agree terms then he could yet be a new face.

Comments (17)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:33pm Fri 17 Aug 12

bully0046 says...

NONE of these signings will be available to play on Sunday anyway... as ManU had to sign VanP before the 12:00 deadline today so he can play for them on Monday!

So get it RIGHT ECHO!!!!

Clueless again!
NONE of these signings will be available to play on Sunday anyway... as ManU had to sign VanP before the 12:00 deadline today so he can play for them on Monday! So get it RIGHT ECHO!!!! Clueless again! bully0046
  • Score: 0

2:01pm Fri 17 Aug 12

Dan Kerins says...

bully0046 wrote:
NONE of these signings will be available to play on Sunday anyway... as ManU had to sign VanP before the 12:00 deadline today so he can play for them on Monday!

So get it RIGHT ECHO!!!!

Clueless again!
This story was written last night for this morning's paper, which comes out around 6am.

The time on the story reflects when it was last updated, to include the link to the (newer) story from this morning about Ramirez.

I added the link to try and show that things had moved on from this story.
[quote][p][bold]bully0046[/bold] wrote: NONE of these signings will be available to play on Sunday anyway... as ManU had to sign VanP before the 12:00 deadline today so he can play for them on Monday! So get it RIGHT ECHO!!!! Clueless again![/p][/quote]This story was written last night for this morning's paper, which comes out around 6am. The time on the story reflects when it was last updated, to include the link to the (newer) story from this morning about Ramirez. I added the link to try and show that things had moved on from this story. Dan Kerins
  • Score: 0

2:25pm Fri 17 Aug 12

Saint. says...

Dan Kerins wrote:
bully0046 wrote:
NONE of these signings will be available to play on Sunday anyway... as ManU had to sign VanP before the 12:00 deadline today so he can play for them on Monday!

So get it RIGHT ECHO!!!!

Clueless again!
This story was written last night for this morning's paper, which comes out around 6am.

The time on the story reflects when it was last updated, to include the link to the (newer) story from this morning about Ramirez.

I added the link to try and show that things had moved on from this story.
Then up date the story for online version.
[quote][p][bold]Dan Kerins[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bully0046[/bold] wrote: NONE of these signings will be available to play on Sunday anyway... as ManU had to sign VanP before the 12:00 deadline today so he can play for them on Monday! So get it RIGHT ECHO!!!! Clueless again![/p][/quote]This story was written last night for this morning's paper, which comes out around 6am. The time on the story reflects when it was last updated, to include the link to the (newer) story from this morning about Ramirez. I added the link to try and show that things had moved on from this story.[/p][/quote]Then up date the story for online version. Saint.
  • Score: 0

2:35pm Fri 17 Aug 12

AdrianSmith says...

Perhaps Saint., you should just be less rude and apologise for a petulant outburst.

He didn't have to come and explain the story to you just because you didn't pay attention.
Perhaps Saint., you should just be less rude and apologise for a petulant outburst. He didn't have to come and explain the story to you just because you didn't pay attention. AdrianSmith
  • Score: 0

2:48pm Fri 17 Aug 12

Dan Kerins says...

Saint. wrote:
Dan Kerins wrote:
bully0046 wrote:
NONE of these signings will be available to play on Sunday anyway... as ManU had to sign VanP before the 12:00 deadline today so he can play for them on Monday!

So get it RIGHT ECHO!!!!

Clueless again!
This story was written last night for this morning's paper, which comes out around 6am.

The time on the story reflects when it was last updated, to include the link to the (newer) story from this morning about Ramirez.

I added the link to try and show that things had moved on from this story.
Then up date the story for online version.
I'm afraid I don't understand what you are talking about - as you can clearly see, this is the online version and this is the version that was updated (at 12.49pm) to include a link to the newer Ramirez story, so people could see things had moved on since this was written.

This article has been online for a number of hours - long before 12pm, hence why it is far down the list of Saints stories from today.

I see little point in rewriting an article to reflect changes that are covered in great detail already in another, newer story on the site.
[quote][p][bold]Saint.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Kerins[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bully0046[/bold] wrote: NONE of these signings will be available to play on Sunday anyway... as ManU had to sign VanP before the 12:00 deadline today so he can play for them on Monday! So get it RIGHT ECHO!!!! Clueless again![/p][/quote]This story was written last night for this morning's paper, which comes out around 6am. The time on the story reflects when it was last updated, to include the link to the (newer) story from this morning about Ramirez. I added the link to try and show that things had moved on from this story.[/p][/quote]Then up date the story for online version.[/p][/quote]I'm afraid I don't understand what you are talking about - as you can clearly see, this is the online version and this is the version that was updated (at 12.49pm) to include a link to the newer Ramirez story, so people could see things had moved on since this was written. This article has been online for a number of hours - long before 12pm, hence why it is far down the list of Saints stories from today. I see little point in rewriting an article to reflect changes that are covered in great detail already in another, newer story on the site. Dan Kerins
  • Score: 0

2:53pm Fri 17 Aug 12

Saint. says...

AdrianSmith wrote:
Perhaps Saint., you should just be less rude and apologise for a petulant outburst.

He didn't have to come and explain the story to you just because you didn't pay attention.
I think you miss the point!

Many knew this before the DE, and this is again lazy journalism, and not at all clear and differently a play on words.

My comment was not petulant outburst Adrian Smith, just stating the facts! Bully0046 is correct, and for the record Adrian, this article has only just popped up late the day, plenty of time to corrcect what Sky sports and others have been say all morning!

Lastly Adrian, may be you owe me an apologies for your petulant out burst to me! As he did not come on (if you refer to Dan) to me to explain the/his story to me, which is also his mistake/ oversight! Check your facts first Adrian Smith.
[quote][p][bold]AdrianSmith[/bold] wrote: Perhaps Saint., you should just be less rude and apologise for a petulant outburst. He didn't have to come and explain the story to you just because you didn't pay attention.[/p][/quote]I think you miss the point! Many knew this before the DE, and this is again lazy journalism, and not at all clear and differently a play on words. My comment was not petulant outburst Adrian Smith, just stating the facts! Bully0046 is correct, and for the record Adrian, this article has only just popped up late the day, plenty of time to corrcect what Sky sports and others have been say all morning! Lastly Adrian, may be you owe me an apologies for your petulant out burst to me! As he did not come on (if you refer to Dan) to me to explain the/his story to me, which is also his mistake/ oversight! Check your facts first Adrian Smith. Saint.
  • Score: 0

3:00pm Fri 17 Aug 12

Saint. says...

Dan Kerins wrote:
Saint. wrote:
Dan Kerins wrote:
bully0046 wrote:
NONE of these signings will be available to play on Sunday anyway... as ManU had to sign VanP before the 12:00 deadline today so he can play for them on Monday!

So get it RIGHT ECHO!!!!

Clueless again!
This story was written last night for this morning's paper, which comes out around 6am.

The time on the story reflects when it was last updated, to include the link to the (newer) story from this morning about Ramirez.

I added the link to try and show that things had moved on from this story.
Then up date the story for online version.
I'm afraid I don't understand what you are talking about - as you can clearly see, this is the online version and this is the version that was updated (at 12.49pm) to include a link to the newer Ramirez story, so people could see things had moved on since this was written.

This article has been online for a number of hours - long before 12pm, hence why it is far down the list of Saints stories from today.

I see little point in rewriting an article to reflect changes that are covered in great detail already in another, newer story on the site.
If your article was on before 12pm, then I feel this to be strange as it was online then, it only arrived hence your first response was at 1.33pm, and on a big day lots of Saints are looking closer to the news!

I accept your point of when you actually wrote for the early papers version, but this online version did not come on at 6am or morning.
[quote][p][bold]Dan Kerins[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Saint.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Kerins[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bully0046[/bold] wrote: NONE of these signings will be available to play on Sunday anyway... as ManU had to sign VanP before the 12:00 deadline today so he can play for them on Monday! So get it RIGHT ECHO!!!! Clueless again![/p][/quote]This story was written last night for this morning's paper, which comes out around 6am. The time on the story reflects when it was last updated, to include the link to the (newer) story from this morning about Ramirez. I added the link to try and show that things had moved on from this story.[/p][/quote]Then up date the story for online version.[/p][/quote]I'm afraid I don't understand what you are talking about - as you can clearly see, this is the online version and this is the version that was updated (at 12.49pm) to include a link to the newer Ramirez story, so people could see things had moved on since this was written. This article has been online for a number of hours - long before 12pm, hence why it is far down the list of Saints stories from today. I see little point in rewriting an article to reflect changes that are covered in great detail already in another, newer story on the site.[/p][/quote]If your article was on before 12pm, then I feel this to be strange as it was online then, it only arrived hence your first response was at 1.33pm, and on a big day lots of Saints are looking closer to the news! I accept your point of when you actually wrote for the early papers version, but this online version did not come on at 6am or morning. Saint.
  • Score: 0

4:03pm Fri 17 Aug 12

Dan Kerins says...

Saint. wrote:
Dan Kerins wrote:
Saint. wrote:
Dan Kerins wrote:
bully0046 wrote:
NONE of these signings will be available to play on Sunday anyway... as ManU had to sign VanP before the 12:00 deadline today so he can play for them on Monday!

So get it RIGHT ECHO!!!!

Clueless again!
This story was written last night for this morning's paper, which comes out around 6am.

The time on the story reflects when it was last updated, to include the link to the (newer) story from this morning about Ramirez.

I added the link to try and show that things had moved on from this story.
Then up date the story for online version.
I'm afraid I don't understand what you are talking about - as you can clearly see, this is the online version and this is the version that was updated (at 12.49pm) to include a link to the newer Ramirez story, so people could see things had moved on since this was written.

This article has been online for a number of hours - long before 12pm, hence why it is far down the list of Saints stories from today.

I see little point in rewriting an article to reflect changes that are covered in great detail already in another, newer story on the site.
If your article was on before 12pm, then I feel this to be strange as it was online then, it only arrived hence your first response was at 1.33pm, and on a big day lots of Saints are looking closer to the news!

I accept your point of when you actually wrote for the early papers version, but this online version did not come on at 6am or morning.
It came on after the stories about Nigel Adkins and Danny Fox but before the one about Ramirez - about 8.40am if memory serves.

At 12.49pm I updated the article to add the link and the photos of Buttner and Phillips - this then caused the site to send out links on Facebook and Twitter.

You'll note that there are also no comments on the Danny Fox story, (which has been up since 8.30am) so that is no indication of how long a story has been online.

It would be a bit pointless to upload an out-of-date story after an article with all the new information is right beside it on the site.

Exactly how any of this makes it "lazy journalism" I do not know. If you don't like the stories we publish, you are under no obligation to read them.
[quote][p][bold]Saint.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Kerins[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Saint.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Kerins[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bully0046[/bold] wrote: NONE of these signings will be available to play on Sunday anyway... as ManU had to sign VanP before the 12:00 deadline today so he can play for them on Monday! So get it RIGHT ECHO!!!! Clueless again![/p][/quote]This story was written last night for this morning's paper, which comes out around 6am. The time on the story reflects when it was last updated, to include the link to the (newer) story from this morning about Ramirez. I added the link to try and show that things had moved on from this story.[/p][/quote]Then up date the story for online version.[/p][/quote]I'm afraid I don't understand what you are talking about - as you can clearly see, this is the online version and this is the version that was updated (at 12.49pm) to include a link to the newer Ramirez story, so people could see things had moved on since this was written. This article has been online for a number of hours - long before 12pm, hence why it is far down the list of Saints stories from today. I see little point in rewriting an article to reflect changes that are covered in great detail already in another, newer story on the site.[/p][/quote]If your article was on before 12pm, then I feel this to be strange as it was online then, it only arrived hence your first response was at 1.33pm, and on a big day lots of Saints are looking closer to the news! I accept your point of when you actually wrote for the early papers version, but this online version did not come on at 6am or morning.[/p][/quote]It came on after the stories about Nigel Adkins and Danny Fox but before the one about Ramirez - about 8.40am if memory serves. At 12.49pm I updated the article to add the link and the photos of Buttner and Phillips - this then caused the site to send out links on Facebook and Twitter. You'll note that there are also no comments on the Danny Fox story, (which has been up since 8.30am) so that is no indication of how long a story has been online. It would be a bit pointless to upload an out-of-date story after an article with all the new information is right beside it on the site. Exactly how any of this makes it "lazy journalism" I do not know. If you don't like the stories we publish, you are under no obligation to read them. Dan Kerins
  • Score: 0

4:17pm Fri 17 Aug 12

WAPA PIE GO says...

Dan Kerins wrote:
Saint. wrote:
Dan Kerins wrote:
Saint. wrote:
Dan Kerins wrote:
bully0046 wrote:
NONE of these signings will be available to play on Sunday anyway... as ManU had to sign VanP before the 12:00 deadline today so he can play for them on Monday!

So get it RIGHT ECHO!!!!

Clueless again!
This story was written last night for this morning's paper, which comes out around 6am.

The time on the story reflects when it was last updated, to include the link to the (newer) story from this morning about Ramirez.

I added the link to try and show that things had moved on from this story.
Then up date the story for online version.
I'm afraid I don't understand what you are talking about - as you can clearly see, this is the online version and this is the version that was updated (at 12.49pm) to include a link to the newer Ramirez story, so people could see things had moved on since this was written.

This article has been online for a number of hours - long before 12pm, hence why it is far down the list of Saints stories from today.

I see little point in rewriting an article to reflect changes that are covered in great detail already in another, newer story on the site.
If your article was on before 12pm, then I feel this to be strange as it was online then, it only arrived hence your first response was at 1.33pm, and on a big day lots of Saints are looking closer to the news!

I accept your point of when you actually wrote for the early papers version, but this online version did not come on at 6am or morning.
It came on after the stories about Nigel Adkins and Danny Fox but before the one about Ramirez - about 8.40am if memory serves.

At 12.49pm I updated the article to add the link and the photos of Buttner and Phillips - this then caused the site to send out links on Facebook and Twitter.

You'll note that there are also no comments on the Danny Fox story, (which has been up since 8.30am) so that is no indication of how long a story has been online.

It would be a bit pointless to upload an out-of-date story after an article with all the new information is right beside it on the site.

Exactly how any of this makes it "lazy journalism" I do not know. If you don't like the stories we publish, you are under no obligation to read them.
saint. feck off you boring mong . I bet you have no friends
[quote][p][bold]Dan Kerins[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Saint.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Kerins[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Saint.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Kerins[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bully0046[/bold] wrote: NONE of these signings will be available to play on Sunday anyway... as ManU had to sign VanP before the 12:00 deadline today so he can play for them on Monday! So get it RIGHT ECHO!!!! Clueless again![/p][/quote]This story was written last night for this morning's paper, which comes out around 6am. The time on the story reflects when it was last updated, to include the link to the (newer) story from this morning about Ramirez. I added the link to try and show that things had moved on from this story.[/p][/quote]Then up date the story for online version.[/p][/quote]I'm afraid I don't understand what you are talking about - as you can clearly see, this is the online version and this is the version that was updated (at 12.49pm) to include a link to the newer Ramirez story, so people could see things had moved on since this was written. This article has been online for a number of hours - long before 12pm, hence why it is far down the list of Saints stories from today. I see little point in rewriting an article to reflect changes that are covered in great detail already in another, newer story on the site.[/p][/quote]If your article was on before 12pm, then I feel this to be strange as it was online then, it only arrived hence your first response was at 1.33pm, and on a big day lots of Saints are looking closer to the news! I accept your point of when you actually wrote for the early papers version, but this online version did not come on at 6am or morning.[/p][/quote]It came on after the stories about Nigel Adkins and Danny Fox but before the one about Ramirez - about 8.40am if memory serves. At 12.49pm I updated the article to add the link and the photos of Buttner and Phillips - this then caused the site to send out links on Facebook and Twitter. You'll note that there are also no comments on the Danny Fox story, (which has been up since 8.30am) so that is no indication of how long a story has been online. It would be a bit pointless to upload an out-of-date story after an article with all the new information is right beside it on the site. Exactly how any of this makes it "lazy journalism" I do not know. If you don't like the stories we publish, you are under no obligation to read them.[/p][/quote]saint. feck off you boring mong . I bet you have no friends WAPA PIE GO
  • Score: 0

4:49pm Fri 17 Aug 12

Saint. says...

Dan Kerins wrote:
Saint. wrote:
Dan Kerins wrote:
Saint. wrote:
Dan Kerins wrote:
bully0046 wrote:
NONE of these signings will be available to play on Sunday anyway... as ManU had to sign VanP before the 12:00 deadline today so he can play for them on Monday!

So get it RIGHT ECHO!!!!

Clueless again!
This story was written last night for this morning's paper, which comes out around 6am.

The time on the story reflects when it was last updated, to include the link to the (newer) story from this morning about Ramirez.

I added the link to try and show that things had moved on from this story.
Then up date the story for online version.
I'm afraid I don't understand what you are talking about - as you can clearly see, this is the online version and this is the version that was updated (at 12.49pm) to include a link to the newer Ramirez story, so people could see things had moved on since this was written.

This article has been online for a number of hours - long before 12pm, hence why it is far down the list of Saints stories from today.

I see little point in rewriting an article to reflect changes that are covered in great detail already in another, newer story on the site.
If your article was on before 12pm, then I feel this to be strange as it was online then, it only arrived hence your first response was at 1.33pm, and on a big day lots of Saints are looking closer to the news!

I accept your point of when you actually wrote for the early papers version, but this online version did not come on at 6am or morning.
It came on after the stories about Nigel Adkins and Danny Fox but before the one about Ramirez - about 8.40am if memory serves.

At 12.49pm I updated the article to add the link and the photos of Buttner and Phillips - this then caused the site to send out links on Facebook and Twitter.

You'll note that there are also no comments on the Danny Fox story, (which has been up since 8.30am) so that is no indication of how long a story has been online.

It would be a bit pointless to upload an out-of-date story after an article with all the new information is right beside it on the site.

Exactly how any of this makes it "lazy journalism" I do not know. If you don't like the stories we publish, you are under no obligation to read them.
It seems that there is some cross lines here from what you are saying. All I shaw was this particular article on Butner was live on line after 12pm under the title " Saints up against the clock"! Which implys that Saints are trying to sign Butner for Sunday game? Therefore it is miss leading. So the headline should be changed at least. More over did you inquirer when the dead line was? As just me implying logic here, and not fact. If RVP is to sign by 12pm for Monday night, I would guess that Saints would need to sign Butner much earlier for Sunday afternoon match against Man city. If so this makes this article of yours even more irrelevant! Can you confirm the time and day Saints would need to register Butner for this coming Sunday afternoon game Dan?

Comments on Danny Fox playing for Scotland and new signings at this date so close to the start of the season. With all due respect to Danny Fox who is a quality player, it bears no mark against possible responses from Saints fans, who will be tuned in to new signings with this excitement building up at this time!

Lastly I note you last remarks about not being obligised to read them! The only part which is clear and very classy.
[quote][p][bold]Dan Kerins[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Saint.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Kerins[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Saint.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Kerins[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bully0046[/bold] wrote: NONE of these signings will be available to play on Sunday anyway... as ManU had to sign VanP before the 12:00 deadline today so he can play for them on Monday! So get it RIGHT ECHO!!!! Clueless again![/p][/quote]This story was written last night for this morning's paper, which comes out around 6am. The time on the story reflects when it was last updated, to include the link to the (newer) story from this morning about Ramirez. I added the link to try and show that things had moved on from this story.[/p][/quote]Then up date the story for online version.[/p][/quote]I'm afraid I don't understand what you are talking about - as you can clearly see, this is the online version and this is the version that was updated (at 12.49pm) to include a link to the newer Ramirez story, so people could see things had moved on since this was written. This article has been online for a number of hours - long before 12pm, hence why it is far down the list of Saints stories from today. I see little point in rewriting an article to reflect changes that are covered in great detail already in another, newer story on the site.[/p][/quote]If your article was on before 12pm, then I feel this to be strange as it was online then, it only arrived hence your first response was at 1.33pm, and on a big day lots of Saints are looking closer to the news! I accept your point of when you actually wrote for the early papers version, but this online version did not come on at 6am or morning.[/p][/quote]It came on after the stories about Nigel Adkins and Danny Fox but before the one about Ramirez - about 8.40am if memory serves. At 12.49pm I updated the article to add the link and the photos of Buttner and Phillips - this then caused the site to send out links on Facebook and Twitter. You'll note that there are also no comments on the Danny Fox story, (which has been up since 8.30am) so that is no indication of how long a story has been online. It would be a bit pointless to upload an out-of-date story after an article with all the new information is right beside it on the site. Exactly how any of this makes it "lazy journalism" I do not know. If you don't like the stories we publish, you are under no obligation to read them.[/p][/quote]It seems that there is some cross lines here from what you are saying. All I shaw was this particular article on Butner was live on line after 12pm under the title " Saints up against the clock"! Which implys that Saints are trying to sign Butner for Sunday game? Therefore it is miss leading. So the headline should be changed at least. More over did you inquirer when the dead line was? As just me implying logic here, and not fact. If RVP is to sign by 12pm for Monday night, I would guess that Saints would need to sign Butner much earlier for Sunday afternoon match against Man city. If so this makes this article of yours even more irrelevant! Can you confirm the time and day Saints would need to register Butner for this coming Sunday afternoon game Dan? Comments on Danny Fox playing for Scotland and new signings at this date so close to the start of the season. With all due respect to Danny Fox who is a quality player, it bears no mark against possible responses from Saints fans, who will be tuned in to new signings with this excitement building up at this time! Lastly I note you last remarks about not being obligised to read them! The only part which is clear and very classy. Saint.
  • Score: 0

8:36pm Fri 17 Aug 12

Bitterne Park Tim says...

You guys really need to get lives!!!!
You guys really need to get lives!!!! Bitterne Park Tim
  • Score: 0

4:42am Sat 18 Aug 12

bobbeale53 says...

I can't believe that you have a whole thread dedicated to this, Don't you guys have a life.

When I read a story it takes only a few seconds to understand the content. This was an easy one. Short and speculative and just enogh for me to come back tomorrow and look for more updates. Keep it up Dan.

I don't know about lazy journalism I would it is lazy reading and understanding by Bully and Saint.
I can't believe that you have a whole thread dedicated to this, Don't you guys have a life. When I read a story it takes only a few seconds to understand the content. This was an easy one. Short and speculative and just enogh for me to come back tomorrow and look for more updates. Keep it up Dan. I don't know about lazy journalism I would it is lazy reading and understanding by Bully and Saint. bobbeale53
  • Score: 0

10:34am Sat 18 Aug 12

murfmeister says...

Yawn!
Yawn! murfmeister
  • Score: 0

10:35am Sat 18 Aug 12

murfmeister says...

Yawn!
Yawn! murfmeister
  • Score: 0

11:45am Sat 18 Aug 12

frenchvic says...

Dan, do you find it difficult being polite to kn**heads.
Dan, do you find it difficult being polite to kn**heads. frenchvic
  • Score: 0

4:47pm Sat 18 Aug 12

ShakeyWiffles says...

Saint. wrote:
Dan Kerins wrote:
Saint. wrote:
Dan Kerins wrote:
Saint. wrote:
Dan Kerins wrote:
bully0046 wrote:
NONE of these signings will be available to play on Sunday anyway... as ManU had to sign VanP before the 12:00 deadline today so he can play for them on Monday!

So get it RIGHT ECHO!!!!

Clueless again!
This story was written last night for this morning's paper, which comes out around 6am.

The time on the story reflects when it was last updated, to include the link to the (newer) story from this morning about Ramirez.

I added the link to try and show that things had moved on from this story.
Then up date the story for online version.
I'm afraid I don't understand what you are talking about - as you can clearly see, this is the online version and this is the version that was updated (at 12.49pm) to include a link to the newer Ramirez story, so people could see things had moved on since this was written.

This article has been online for a number of hours - long before 12pm, hence why it is far down the list of Saints stories from today.

I see little point in rewriting an article to reflect changes that are covered in great detail already in another, newer story on the site.
If your article was on before 12pm, then I feel this to be strange as it was online then, it only arrived hence your first response was at 1.33pm, and on a big day lots of Saints are looking closer to the news!

I accept your point of when you actually wrote for the early papers version, but this online version did not come on at 6am or morning.
It came on after the stories about Nigel Adkins and Danny Fox but before the one about Ramirez - about 8.40am if memory serves.

At 12.49pm I updated the article to add the link and the photos of Buttner and Phillips - this then caused the site to send out links on Facebook and Twitter.

You'll note that there are also no comments on the Danny Fox story, (which has been up since 8.30am) so that is no indication of how long a story has been online.

It would be a bit pointless to upload an out-of-date story after an article with all the new information is right beside it on the site.

Exactly how any of this makes it "lazy journalism" I do not know. If you don't like the stories we publish, you are under no obligation to read them.
It seems that there is some cross lines here from what you are saying. All I shaw was this particular article on Butner was live on line after 12pm under the title " Saints up against the clock"! Which implys that Saints are trying to sign Butner for Sunday game? Therefore it is miss leading. So the headline should be changed at least. More over did you inquirer when the dead line was? As just me implying logic here, and not fact. If RVP is to sign by 12pm for Monday night, I would guess that Saints would need to sign Butner much earlier for Sunday afternoon match against Man city. If so this makes this article of yours even more irrelevant! Can you confirm the time and day Saints would need to register Butner for this coming Sunday afternoon game Dan?

Comments on Danny Fox playing for Scotland and new signings at this date so close to the start of the season. With all due respect to Danny Fox who is a quality player, it bears no mark against possible responses from Saints fans, who will be tuned in to new signings with this excitement building up at this time!

Lastly I note you last remarks about not being obligised to read them! The only part which is clear and very classy.
If you're going to get all pedantic about so called "lazy journalism" I suggest you scrub up on your English first.
[quote][p][bold]Saint.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Kerins[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Saint.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Kerins[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Saint.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Kerins[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bully0046[/bold] wrote: NONE of these signings will be available to play on Sunday anyway... as ManU had to sign VanP before the 12:00 deadline today so he can play for them on Monday! So get it RIGHT ECHO!!!! Clueless again![/p][/quote]This story was written last night for this morning's paper, which comes out around 6am. The time on the story reflects when it was last updated, to include the link to the (newer) story from this morning about Ramirez. I added the link to try and show that things had moved on from this story.[/p][/quote]Then up date the story for online version.[/p][/quote]I'm afraid I don't understand what you are talking about - as you can clearly see, this is the online version and this is the version that was updated (at 12.49pm) to include a link to the newer Ramirez story, so people could see things had moved on since this was written. This article has been online for a number of hours - long before 12pm, hence why it is far down the list of Saints stories from today. I see little point in rewriting an article to reflect changes that are covered in great detail already in another, newer story on the site.[/p][/quote]If your article was on before 12pm, then I feel this to be strange as it was online then, it only arrived hence your first response was at 1.33pm, and on a big day lots of Saints are looking closer to the news! I accept your point of when you actually wrote for the early papers version, but this online version did not come on at 6am or morning.[/p][/quote]It came on after the stories about Nigel Adkins and Danny Fox but before the one about Ramirez - about 8.40am if memory serves. At 12.49pm I updated the article to add the link and the photos of Buttner and Phillips - this then caused the site to send out links on Facebook and Twitter. You'll note that there are also no comments on the Danny Fox story, (which has been up since 8.30am) so that is no indication of how long a story has been online. It would be a bit pointless to upload an out-of-date story after an article with all the new information is right beside it on the site. Exactly how any of this makes it "lazy journalism" I do not know. If you don't like the stories we publish, you are under no obligation to read them.[/p][/quote]It seems that there is some cross lines here from what you are saying. All I shaw was this particular article on Butner was live on line after 12pm under the title " Saints up against the clock"! Which implys that Saints are trying to sign Butner for Sunday game? Therefore it is miss leading. So the headline should be changed at least. More over did you inquirer when the dead line was? As just me implying logic here, and not fact. If RVP is to sign by 12pm for Monday night, I would guess that Saints would need to sign Butner much earlier for Sunday afternoon match against Man city. If so this makes this article of yours even more irrelevant! Can you confirm the time and day Saints would need to register Butner for this coming Sunday afternoon game Dan? Comments on Danny Fox playing for Scotland and new signings at this date so close to the start of the season. With all due respect to Danny Fox who is a quality player, it bears no mark against possible responses from Saints fans, who will be tuned in to new signings with this excitement building up at this time! Lastly I note you last remarks about not being obligised to read them! The only part which is clear and very classy.[/p][/quote]If you're going to get all pedantic about so called "lazy journalism" I suggest you scrub up on your English first. ShakeyWiffles
  • Score: 0

7:22pm Sun 19 Aug 12

montecristosaint says...

I know this will be unpopular but I am out clean out of patience with Cortese.His overall record over transfers at Saints looks a joke. He has screwed up one deal in Switzerland last year, and has followed that up by making a mess of the Buttner deal and to make matters worse the player is now joining Man U.The Davis deal also nearly did not happen as Cortese had not done his home work re the Rangers situation.He has now made the mother and father of a shambles of the Ramirez transfer which is all but lost because the player was misled into believing the clubs had agreed a fee. If I were the Liebherrs I''d be worrying about my investment as clearly Saints need to spend money in key areas if they are to stay up this season. And by money I dont mean a net 3M which in Premiership terms is laughable bearing in mind the club will receive fifty million just for going up to the Premiership. Too many fans that write here are complacent and have a blind faith in Cortese purely because of his connection with Liebherr.It is however doubtful that had Liebherr stayed alive that we would have seen such inertia from the Saints management. Would it be too much to ask for more transparency in their dealings as currently it looks as if the club is disinterested in public relations even though they must be aware of fans concerns. Why put the achievement of the last two years at risk?? sheer stupidity in my view and short sighted in the extreme. Apologies to the in NC and NA we trust brigade we will have to agree to disagree.
I know this will be unpopular but I am out clean out of patience with Cortese.His overall record over transfers at Saints looks a joke. He has screwed up one deal in Switzerland last year, and has followed that up by making a mess of the Buttner deal and to make matters worse the player is now joining Man U.The Davis deal also nearly did not happen as Cortese had not done his home work re the Rangers situation.He has now made the mother and father of a shambles of the Ramirez transfer which is all but lost because the player was misled into believing the clubs had agreed a fee. If I were the Liebherrs I''d be worrying about my investment as clearly Saints need to spend money in key areas if they are to stay up this season. And by money I dont mean a net 3M which in Premiership terms is laughable bearing in mind the club will receive fifty million just for going up to the Premiership. Too many fans that write here are complacent and have a blind faith in Cortese purely because of his connection with Liebherr.It is however doubtful that had Liebherr stayed alive that we would have seen such inertia from the Saints management. Would it be too much to ask for more transparency in their dealings as currently it looks as if the club is disinterested in public relations even though they must be aware of fans concerns. Why put the achievement of the last two years at risk?? sheer stupidity in my view and short sighted in the extreme. Apologies to the in NC and NA we trust brigade we will have to agree to disagree. montecristosaint
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

Get Adobe Flash player
About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree