The9

For me rock bottom was the Swindon away match, we improved after that even before we won a match against Yeovil.

Just for info, Saints' web page on PremierLeague.com currently has the home and away kits, but a grey blank for third kit : http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/clubs/profile.overview.html/southampton . Norwich, who have never had a third kit, have the same grey blank, so do Liverpool, who definitely have a third kit, but haven't officially unveiled it yet. Newcastle have 3 kits listed already. Oh, and the Premier League Handbook 2012/13 will be available in "July 2012", so they'll have to confirm the colours in the next week or 2 (also as the rules are for teams to confirm their colours 4 weeks before the start of the season). http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/fans/faqs/how-can-i-acquire-a-premier-league-handbook.html

PS, anyone got any more opinions on the Prem subs bench ? I hear it's the same as last season...

Oh, and for a further delicious irony, the Skates have now been deducted 10 points for next season. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18816436 " the League have told both potential owners the club must agree to certain conditions to play this season. As well as a 10-point deduction, these include paying all football creditors in full and strict financial controls. The deduction would leave Portsmouth, who only have eight senior players on the books following Tuesday's departure of Aaron Mokoena, facing a battle to avoid a second successive relegation before the new season even gets under way. But in a statement the Football League said the conditions of membership offered to Portsmouth "seek to ensure the sporting integrity of league football and the financial viability of the club going forward"." Sooooo, they're definitely doing them a load of favours because Portsmouth have something on the FL then... the FL haven't even considered the CVA question yet either, which could possibly be another -10... and then there's that punishment for multiple admins, and whether the punishment for being in 2 admins in 2 years is applicable... etc. Has any one person spoken more tangibly proven wrong crap in a few paranoid mental posts than alpine has managed here ?

Because I was being sarcastic in the last message.

Was that the one with the empty seats being banged by people in the Northam? Pretty sure it's the only match I've ever left early too, a mate decided to antagonise the stewards to get chucked out and we all left with him... any excuse at the time!

And we had to travel 300 miles more than they did, so it doesn't compare...

Anyway, back to the facts from last year's 2011 FL EGM : "Hard-up Football League clubs will hold an emergency meeting this week to scrap the seven substitutes’ rule. Many clubs find it difficult to name that many and want to revert to five subs." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2015810/Football-League-revert-substitutes.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/jul/21/football-league-five-substitutes "The League had followed the Premier League in naming seven substitutes for matches last season, but clubs frequently struggled to muster 18 players for a matchday squad when injuries hit. With most struggling to fund large squads, it was expected it would be an issue again this season" And the FL statement : http://www.football-league.co.uk/footballleaguenews/20110721/league-clubs-to-reduce-subs-from-7-to-5_2293334_2398424 "Football League clubs have voted to reduce the number of substitutes that can be named on the teamsheet for matches in the npower Football League from 7 to 5. The vote was taken at an EGM at Leicester City's King Power Stadium. A Football League spokesman said: "This was felt to be a sensible and prudent step given the financial challenges facing many football clubs and the commitment made earlier this summer to adopt UEFA's Financial Fair Play framework." " Here's the return to 7 for the forthcoming season, with the proposal named as raised by Derby and Birmingham with the justification given by the clubs as "The move to reduce bench sizes to five last summer came in a bid to bring down costs, with many teams struggling to fund large squads. However, the decision proved unpopular among many managers, as it limited options from the bench as well as denying some youth team players the chance to gain exposure in the first team." http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/18297359 And hey, look at THIS craziness, here's Portsmouth's manager SUPPORTING the change to seven subs : http://www.chichester.co.uk/sport/football/pompey-latest/appleton-applauds-sub-switch-proposals-1-3900033 which also includes comments about "In Cyprus last summer clubs voted in favour of granting Burnley’s suggestion in a bid to reduce costs. At the time it was heavily criticised by managers across the league, among them then-Pompey boss Steve Cotterill." The change to 5 was proposed by Burnley, "many" clubs were expected to struggle and both the then- and current- Skate managers prefer the 7 sub configuration. So based on that, I'd suggest the term "paranoid mentals" is probably about right for people who think it was a ploy to benefit Portsmouth alone.

You were talking about the football authorities, unless you mean that those involved legal process were bothered about cancelling football results, which of course you didn't. The football authorities can stop them playing any time they like - within their rules. Insolvency means there is no company to complete the fixtures, but the FL can't act until after that and are not responsible for it. They can however prevent any team from starting a season if they don't think they'll be able to complete their fixtures. You have suggested they didn't kick Portsmouth out because they were scared of cancelling fixtures (a provision which is taken care of within the rules) but also suggested they kept them going by ignoring their rules (supported by no evidence at all).

More misinformation and illogic. I didn't say anything about it being "wrong" (and actually said the complete opposite in a response to adrian just now). There is also no "apparently", they have definitely changed the rules to 7 subs in the FL, not that we need to be bothered about that now. I can't even begin to wonder how you think it HAS got anything to do with any of the promoted teams, either. Especially West Ham, who have a ridiculously large squad and would have significantly benefited from being able to name 7 of their strikers and no keeper (probably).

Which of course ties in perfectly with them not just closing them down at the end of last season. More utter illogic.

It's up to the clubs to decide the rules anyway, so there's nothing wrong with it if that's what the majority decide. The issue then is that the smaller clubs would probably feel marginalised, with the larger clubs able to choose from far more tactical options and actually use their depth to tangible benefit. The limitation to a smaller number of subs removes that benefit slightly because once the subs are named the options are already limited. The higher the number of subs, the greater the benefit to clubs with bigger squads of a high standard - although I'd also suggest that the marginal benefit to having an additional sub decreases by each sub - having 17 subs instead of 15 is a much less benefit to bigger clubs than having 7 instead of 5.

I am not in the same galaxy as you for thread spamming, and again, only your warped logic looks at having a genuine interest in a subject on one thread as being "repetitive". From this I can summarise that your interests are sh!1t-stirring, being miserable, paranoid and argumentative, trying to find the negative in every single thing, and generally ruining other people's discussion with irrelevances. I suspect you will now respond with a whine about being the recipient of personal attacks, despite having just changed the discussion from being about how likely it was that the entire of the football league clubs voted for a substitution change purely to benefit Portsmouth Football Club, to you having a pop at me about sharing information a fair few people were interested in about the kit.

Having been to both as well, I think we were miles worse at Swansea where we barely got a kick against a side that didn't even get near being promoted (but obviously liked the possession and built on it to become what they are now), than away to Huddersfield where we just got quite outplayed. For me Huddersfield was already being saved by signs of improvement (Lambert header, a few new signings). Also, my surrounding day was way better in Huddersfield than in Swansea, so it wasn't always the on-pitch stuff that ruined a day. Just as well given that we're back in the Prem. Was that Watford defeat the first match under Burley when Niemi was mysteriously absent and then left a few days later? Or one of the myriad other Watford defeats?

This is what the ignore button is for. Though when the forum upgraded I took everyone off it. Considering changing that again for the repetitive ones.

A "widely held belief" amongst paranoid mentals, the same people who are convinced the media have it in for Saints when actually most of them couldn't give a toss about us as we're not newsworthy. The "widely held belief" around football outside Saints fans was that FL clubs who voted for it were better off not having to waste kids who weren't ready just to fill their benches and they'd be better playing reserve/dev football - the opposing belief being that similar more ready kids weren't getting on the smaller benches thus restricting their chances. Nothing to do with Portsmouth in particular, and also ignoring the complete lack of motive for any other club to vote to help one of their rivals. And much as they should be put down, the Skates are being dealt with exactly according to the same rules as applied to the likes of Bournemouth and Luton. The only possible criticism that can come the FL's way regarding this is if they fail to deal with the written off first CVA with an additional deduction, and none of that will be meted out until their next CVA approval (or otherwise). Beyond that it's up to the law of the land to identify if they're insolvent, and (somehow) they haven't. You're also showing quite a lot of ignorance of the detail of the AFCB and Luton cases, in which there were extra punishments for irregular payments due to direct testimony. Only you are making this about Portsmouth in any way.

Hypothetical, and as it was they took fewer than we did there.

Didn't it ? I don't know. Have you got any attendance figures for that ?

Also interesting to note how few away attendance figures available from Portsmouth, anyone would think they had an interest in hiding true attendances from the taxman or didn't have the staff to work them out or something...

Worth noting that our "disappointing" following at Middlesbrough (our furthest away match) was more than any other Championship side took, including Leeds and Hull, who are two of the nearest teams to Boro.

No, THEN we'd been in the same division for 25+ years and a lot of people had been to places over and over again. Not much validity to your argument without the attendance figures.

I was pretty much nonplussed by it at the time, turned out to be 2 points that would have kept us up... but 7 years later we look a lot better off, so...

Seems to me that rising transport costs and the recession have as much to do with that as anything. That and SWT multibuy tickets not applying outside the south and London.

We didn't even lose that though, and yeah, Prutton missed from inside the 6 yard box from a low cross when it was easier to score. 0-0.

Bit harsh, we don't need your sort here. BTW, that 15% on the poll up there, that's the number of people who aren't interested enough to have an opinion but are interested enough to vote on a poll saying they're not interested. Work that one out.