Lee Blease

Quoted from Civvy at last

But it’s  absolutely fine for the owner to write articles in the Guardian proclaiming his views.
If the club don’t want to pay Lea for budget reasons that is absolutely fine. Their choice.
To not do it because of his social media absolutely stinks.
They didn’t have a problem with his social media when he was doing it for free !!!
If you don’t lean to the left you ain’t coming in ???
Bring on the red crosses guys

I don’t find the content of Stockwood’s copy in The Guardian ‘left’. If you read the comments below the articles, he usually gets accused of being Tory scum.

Add in a few words randomly in CAPITAL LETTERS and a couple of references to Diana and Jason’s pieces could be transplanted to the pages of The Mail, without stirring their comment trolls.

Quoted from pizzzza

So he got to pursue his hobby on club expenses then decided he wanted a wage too, got told no and spat his dummy out. See ya later pal.

Plenty of good photographers in the area that would love to have had the opportunities that the club has given Lee.

I think you will find if he was being paid expenses then it was only a recent offer, he has been doing it for a few seasons without expenses. Plus I don't think it could be classed as a real hobby if the club were profiting from it.

Surely being a volunteer for so many years is the point that, now he has decided he wants it changing. The club have said they can’t pay him, fair enough. He states now he’s profyhis gear and costs are more expensive but that’s not the clubs fault. His choice. Also I guess that Lee was lucky enough to go to every playoff game last season unlike thousands of us who couldn’t get a ticket. He certainly got some great perks volunteering in my eyes.

"Just a bit of casual abuse and total lack of understanding of the situation. Standard stuff."

People do not agree with the way you have handled the situation, so that means they lack of understanding of the situation does it?

No one has criticised you for asking to be paid. You've been criticised for your response i.e. the stirring on social media, effectively proving the club's point.

Quoted from Knut Anders Fosters Voles

I don’t find the content of Stockwood’s copy in The Guardian ‘left’. If you read the comments below the articles, he usually gets accused of being Tory scum.

Add in a few words randomly in CAPITAL LETTERS and a couple of references to Diana and Jason’s pieces could be transplanted to the pages of The Mail, without stirring their comment trolls.

Another classic example of people not really understanding politics but airing their views. That’s their right but you’d think folk would try and actually find out definitions etc before shouting their mouth off.

Seems these days that if you’re not right wing/conservative then you must be a left wing loon…all he’s ever done in the Guardian is state facts and offer his informed opinion…

As the old adage goes there's two sides to every story. In simple terms for me I far more trust our current custodian's to make a considered judgement than the last one. I do not know Lee personally but I have always thought of him as a great photographer and anyone who serves will get respect from me.
However I do hope the club don't feel the need to make a "statement" based on his twitter post. He made his point now lets move on.

Quoted from ska face

Hobby or not, the club have profited from his previously unpaid work either directly through selling programmes, calendars, kits etc. or indirectly through using his photos across their social media platforms for years. Out of order that he wasn’t getting paid for that in the first place - nobody should ever work for free.

Looks like there’ll be a different photographer and the reasons for that decision are for the club, but you can’t deny the club have benefited from the work of a talented photographer and not paid the going rate.

His choice to take photos of games and his hobby.

Stockwood's soft left at best. Very much of the Lisa Nandy 'capitalism is good actually' mould ([url=https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmregmem/200330/nandy_lisa.htm]which checks out given his £35k in donations towards her unsuccessful Labour leadership campaign[/url]). He's far closer to the centre than the left, but that doesn't stop some knuckle draggers implying he's the second coming of Corbyn simply because he writes a few columns for the Guardian.

Anyway don't think the club have done anything wrong here, nor has LB received anything like the sort of 'abuse' from posters on here that's he's now implying is the case. It's mild criticism at most and his toys out the pram reaction of not wanting to step foot in Blundell Park or give the current owners any money because they've declined to create a paid role for him proves their point.

Lee asked to be paid for his photography services, and the club have said no - fair enough on both sides in my eyes. Lee can now choose to continue taking pictures or can step back entirely - he appears to have chosen the latter.

Definitely could have been handled better by both sides though. Lee shouldn't have thrown his toys out the pram on twitter, as he's sort of proved the club's point.

The club probably shouldn't have even mentioned the social media factor, and focused on the position/budget aspect (which I imagine was the more important consideration), as all it has done is given the knuckledraggers an excuse to whinge about the "woke conspiracy" and "cancel culture".

Well I never! A thread on the fishy that started off as somewhat football/club related and should’ve lasted lasted about 2 pages, has now turned into a political battle and damning condemnation.

Anyone that knows Lee will know how passionate he is about the club and how much he loves it. Why shouldn’t he get paid for his services? After all, am sure photography kit isn’t the cheapest and it’s not like he turns up with a wedding table disposable camera.

If he’s not doing photography at games anymore, am sure he’ll be back supporting the club from the stands.