Re: Handover : Wed Oct 26, 2011 12:24 pm  

Dux wrote:

My feeling is that this is the council getting their publicity out of it. I'm sure in due course Saints will have all sorts of publicity coming out.

As we should. We should keep the fat cat's out though when we do. I personally dont like the idea of any scummy Labour politician (especially one that did there best to stop this happening)basking in Saint's glory.

Re: Handover : Wed Oct 26, 2011 12:26 pm  

Cragganmore Kid wrote:

they don't really constitute a political party, do they?

Like it or not they do, just as the Communist party exists. Equally a bad idea

Re: Handover : Wed Oct 26, 2011 12:29 pm  

Be careful about calling the council we still have a cladding application pending.

Re: Handover : Wed Oct 26, 2011 12:41 pm  

Father Ted wrote:

This is a marketing opportunity like no other for your club so why hasn't a real big deal been made about it.

Because the local Labour politicians decided to go for their own misdirected glory and tweeted that picture ahead of Saints making any announcement. Hopefully, though, by the time whatever publicity Saints have organised gets out into the real world, everybody will have forgotten or will be made to forget about a couple of naff Labour politicians trying spoil the party for the sake of their own egos.

Re: Handover : Wed Oct 26, 2011 12:43 pm  

No1 Saint wrote:

As we should. We should keep the fat cat's out though when we do. I personally dont like the idea of any scummy Labour politician basking in Saint's glory.

Your opinions are fine by me as they are opinions. However, the folowingis just not true. And I guarrantee you'll find no evidence to support it because it is not true.

No1 Saint wrote:

(especially one that did there best to stop this happening).

Re: Handover : Wed Oct 26, 2011 12:49 pm  

Donkey OTay wrote:

Your opinions are fine by me as they are opinions. However, the folowingis just not true. And I guarrantee you'll find no evidence to support it because it is not true.

That would depend on what is meant by 'trying to stop it'. There are ways and means of doing that. I remember the days when the (Labour run) council wanted very little to do with the stadium project, offering paltry sums to support the idea and putting up stupid ideological barriers to its progress. Thankfully, we got a hung council at the opportune time.

Re: Handover : Wed Oct 26, 2011 2:07 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

Because the local Labour politicians decided to go for their own misdirected glory and tweeted that picture ahead of Saints making any announcement. Hopefully, though, by the time whatever publicity Saints have organised gets out into the real world, everybody will have forgotten or will be made to forget about a couple of naff Labour politicians trying spoil the party for the sake of their own egos.

Do we know whether Saints actually requested first dibs on the publicity or whether they were happy for the council to tweet/release it?

Like them or not, this stadium couldn't have been built without council support so I see no harm in them trying to get some positive publicity from it. At the end of the day, who gives two hoots?

Re: Handover : Wed Oct 26, 2011 2:30 pm  

FearTheVee wrote:

Do we know whether Saints actually requested first dibs on the publicity or whether they were happy for the council to tweet/release it?

Nope. I did direct Saints to the councillor's tweet though. He'd tweeted the world and his wife.

Like them or not, this stadium couldn't have been built without council support

I think the point is that a goodly part of that support was given by the hung/coalition council and not Rimmer's labour council.

so I see no harm in them trying to get some positive publicity from it.

So long as they weren't detracting it from Saints, which it certainly looks like they were or else why not come out with a statement on the council website or direct to the paper? Tweeting looks more like drip feeding.

But at the end of the day if Saints don't care then I don't care.

Re: Handover : Wed Oct 26, 2011 3:56 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

I think the point is that a goodly part of that support was given by the hung/coalition council and not Rimmer's labour council.

That's only the point if you make it so.

The real point is the wealth that was transfered by the people of St Helens to this project was by the doing of the council. Our representatives. So our representatives should be there to see the fruits. The fact that the people of St Helens decided to change the individuals involved is the priviledge of the people. It does not change the fact that they are our representatives and they should be there to see what we spent the town's wealth on.

As a point of order I wish to point out that when it came to a vote the Council Labour vote in favour was unanimous.

Re: Handover : Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:14 pm  

Donkey OTay wrote:

The real point is the wealth that was transfered by the people of St Helens to this project was by the doing of the council.

The Council transferred money but not Council Tax payers' money. The money was taken from the capital budget rather than the revenue budget. So 'not really' would be my response to your point.