Southampton FC ban press photographers

I hope the National/Local press boycott them and stick a news blackout on the club
 
I would have thought media access was part of the deal to be part of the Football League (and Premier League), but obviously not.


Certainly an unusual move by Southampton FC. :eek:

I find the 'press freedom' argument amusing. We don't have access, so you're limiting our freedom. :LOL:

It would be interesting to see whether the agency they are favouring, Digital South, has any direct financial links with the club. :shrug: ;)

The way for the media to handle the situation is to not run any images of Southampton FC, you'll only be missing the Home games after all. :shrug: The local papers in Southampton may 'need' to run images, but does the rest of the media? :shrug: But if the local media also make a stand, would they continue with the policy. :shrug:
 
It is not lunacy it is only like dataco and their license with the premier league.

It is one step further in nailed coffin of the freelancer though.

The clubs want a bigger share for their assets and this is an obvious way of doing it.

Not sure how quickly it will spread but I reckon in 10 years all professional sporting clubs that have 'image rights' will follow suit.
 
It's been tried several times by different clubs...nothing ever changes, but it's usually because the agency preferred has a financial dealing with the club. That's what happened with Leeds Utd and before that, Bristol Rovers.
 
Seems ridiculous to me, the whole point is to get lots of press to publicise your club more!
 
Exactly Darren...when the nationals boycott Southampton, the sponsors will probably kick up a bit of a stink, as will the fans (though how many clubs care what the fans think these days). Thats when Southampton realise it's unmanageable.

Tom (Tiler65)...it's not at all like DataCo. DataCo are allowing photographers who have the required insurance and qualifying criteria access, that's just good sense. It stops the sidelines from being over-crowded and keeps it relatively competitive.
 
Who are Southampton's main sponsors? I would email their top few sponsors and point out how much this is going to affect THEM. That might have more of an affect as there will no doubt be a point in the contract between Southampton and the sponsor about Southampton not doing anything which might reduce the sponsor's exposure.
 
jamesb84 said:
Tom (Tiler65)...it's not at all like DataCo. DataCo are allowing photographers who have the required insurance and qualifying criteria access, that's just good sense. It stops the sidelines from being over-crowded and keeps it relatively competitive.
Click to expand...

Maybe so, but is it not like buying a license off MS for windows it is after all their 'image rights' they are trying to fleece protect.
 
cowasaki said:
Who are Southampton's main sponsors? I would email their top few sponsors and point out how much this is going to affect THEM. That might have more of an affect as there will no doubt be a point in the contract between Southampton and the sponsor about Southampton not doing anything which might reduce the sponsor's exposure.
Click to expand...

Hooooooooo...No chance am I opening that can of worms. There's a whole bunch of people at my employers who are paid to complain about these sorts of things...I'm not one of them.

Personally, Southampton was always a chore to get to for me...halfway to London on the M4 and then a similar distance on the A34 and M3 down there.
 
tiler65 said:
Maybe so, but is it not like buying a license off MS for windows it is after all their 'image rights' they are trying to fleece protect.
Click to expand...

What would you rather!? Appalling photos printed because they're free...or a licence that enables quality to remain in place.

To be honest, their image rights are for sale, but you have to pay a fee. Again to ensure that there is a decent reason for licencing the images.
 
jamesb84 said:
What would you rather!? Appalling photos printed because they're free...or a licence that enables quality to remain in place.

To be honest, their image rights are for sale, but you have to pay a fee. Again to ensure that there is a decent reason for licencing the images.
Click to expand...


Yeah but what they want is an image agency (Digital South in this case) who have accredited toggers on their books then sell the images just like a stock agency does, simples.

I am not saying I agree with it just saying what I would do if I was an owner of a n image rights plaything like a footie club.
 
tiler65 said:
Yeah but what they want is an image agency (Digital South in this case) who have accredited toggers on their books then sell the images just like a stock agency does, simples.

I am not saying I agree with it just saying what I would do if I was an owner of a n image rights plaything like a footie club.
Click to expand...

The issue is, that by being a member of the Football League they are bound by the DataCo rules (As far as I know)...which means they have to agree to having their players image distributed by accredited members of the press.
 
Footbore is a massive commercial operation these days I suspect the pressure is on to find a way for clubs to have as much control over what is made available - and then leverage as much income from it as possible.

Once one club succeeds (and if Southampton doesn't, someone soon will) others will follow.
 
Bristol rovers tried due to Jeff 'i like to shoot drunk' Davis having family on the board.

The embargo did not last long.
 
cowasaki said:
Who are Southampton's main sponsors? I would email their top few sponsors and point out how much this is going to affect THEM. That might have more of an affect as there will no doubt be a point in the contract between Southampton and the sponsor about Southampton not doing anything which might reduce the sponsor's exposure.
Click to expand...


they don't have a sponsor this year - it's their 125th anniversary and they've decided to go back to their roots.

I think there may have been a bit of a 'to do' with the local paper last year & the Pardew situation.... maybe the'yre taking a harder line with the press to get more control? :shrug:
 
Don't see this as a problem - it is there ground and they can do what they want. Makes sense if they want to have more control over the images.
 
When Leeds United tried a similar tack most nationals refused to run photographs with the reports. Not sure if LUFC still refuse access as most agencies/freelances decided not to bother appling anymore. I'm sure some similar ban will be implimented by the nationals if they are refused passes.
 
cowasaki said:
Seems ridiculous to me, the whole point is to get lots of press to publicise your club more!
Click to expand...

But Southampton are such a big club they don't need publicity! :LOL:
 
redhed17 said:
The Press can still report on the game, they just can't take pictures of it. ;) :LOL:
Click to expand...

:LOL:

Except i should think they will impose a blackout on them, whats the next stage? Papers will only be allowed to run reports from one reporter of the clubs choosing?

What will happen when there is a controversial decision that benefits Southampton? will images that may show the side in a bad light be allowed to go out?

(not a dig at you Redhed) just a general rant
 
How much coverage does a League One team get anyway? As one of the people commenting said papers like the Guardian devote more coverage to Serie A than League One.
 
POAH said:
Don't see this as a problem - it is there ground and they can do what they want. Makes sense if they want to have more control over the images.
Click to expand...

Rubbish.

They are a member of the Football League. They follow their rules, which include allowing the press in.

Personally, I'm not fussed (and nor would any of the other football togs on here - except possibly GDpics/Gareth) as it's always been a hassle for me (it's just close enough to be my area) and it's too far away for others on here.
 
Rovers_Andy said:
Papers will only be allowed to run reports from one reporter of the clubs choosing?
Click to expand...

How that could that ever be enforced I don't know. :shrug: I know it may be tongue in cheek (or at least I hope so ;) :LOL:) but stopping someone with a camera is one thing, and stopping people from just watching is another. ;)

With Southampton's recent up and downs, you would think they would try to appeal and attract as many people as possible. The chance of making money rules by the looks of it.
 
redhed17 said:
How that could that ever be enforced I don't know. :shrug: I know it may be tongue in cheek (or at least I hope so ;) :LOL:) but stopping someone with a camera is one thing, and stopping people from just watching is another. ;)

With Southampton's recent up and downs, you would think they would try to appeal and attract as many people as possible. The chance of making money rules by the looks of it.
Click to expand...

It's not stopping people from watching...it's stopping journalists being allowed in. Or making them submit copy to the media team before it gets submitted to their papers.

Can anyone say "chinese media strategy"...
 
Laudrup said:
How much coverage does a League One team get anyway? As one of the people commenting said papers like the Guardian devote more coverage to Serie A than League One.
Click to expand...

They can get a fair bit in some of the Football specific trade papers [such as the League Paper etc.], and online on certain websites, but if those papers aren't going to use Digital South [or whoever the agency is], then Southamptons presence in that area will be reduced to mere inches in a side column.
 
redhed17 said:
How that could that ever be enforced I don't know. :shrug: I know it may be tongue in cheek (or at least I hope so ;) :LOL:) but stopping someone with a camera is one thing, and stopping people from just watching is another. ;)

With Southampton's recent up and downs, you would think they would try to appeal and attract as many people as possible. The chance of making money rules by the looks of it.
Click to expand...


Very :D
 
jamesb84 said:
It's not stopping people from watching...it's stopping journalists being allowed in.
Click to expand...

Do Journalists stand out from the crowd in some way? :shrug: :LOL:

I don't know what the average gate is at Southampton, but do they have time to check everyone's occupation? :shrug:

Let's not have any Pompey fans having a dig about that, they should be more concerned with numbers of players, not numbers of fans. ;) :LOL:
 
cowasaki said:
Who are Southampton's main sponsors? I would email their top few sponsors and point out how much this is going to affect THEM. That might have more of an affect as there will no doubt be a point in the contract between Southampton and the sponsor about Southampton not doing anything which might reduce the sponsor's exposure.
Click to expand...
Southampton don't have a main sponsor. After last summers takeover by Marcus Liebherr, a Swiss billionaire, the club is in extremely good shape financially.

He cleared all the clubs debts, is investing significant money to redevelop a training facility that was already one of the best in the country and they spent more money in January than most Premiership teams.

They're in such good shape that they have decided not to have a shirt sponsor, something which would usually fetch at least half a million, big money in League 1.

The point is, the club can afford to do things like this, and who is really going to do a media blackout on the clearest favourites to win their division in the football league, featuring 2 of the top scorers from last year?
 
Benj said:
Southampton don't have a main sponsor. After last summers takeover by Marcus Liebherr, a Swiss billionaire, the club is in extremely good shape financially.

He cleared all the clubs debts, is investing significant money to redevelop a training facility that was already one of the best in the country and they spent more money in January than most Premiership teams.

They're in such good shape that they have decided not to have a shirt sponsor, something which would usually fetch at least half a million, big money in League 1.

The point is, the club can afford to do things like this, and who is really going to do a media blackout on the clearest favourites to win their division in the football league, featuring 2 of the top scorers from last year?
Click to expand...

Errr every picture agency that stands to loose out by not being able to get into Saint Mary's :cautious:
 
POAH said:
the press don't have freedom on private property which the football game is.
Click to expand...

But it could be argued that enough people are interested in football (even when Southampton try to play it) for it to be in the public interest and therefore Southampton have a moral duty to allow fair, free and unbiased reportage, including pictures.
 
goldenlight said:
But it could be argued that enough people are interested in football (even when Southampton try to play it) for it to be in the public interest and therefore Southampton have a moral duty to allow fair, free and unbiased reportage, including pictures.
Click to expand...
'Freedom of the Press' does not mean the press can do what it likes (although I'm sure that is what a lot of them would like to think it does mean!) - it means the press is free from state control.

What some sports organization chooses to do about photographic rights is not something that concerns press freedoms. Commercial sporting events are arguably not even news anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top