The9

I didn't say it was.

Were they all top 3 sides ?

You're missing the point, which is that paired clubs who ARE rivals can't play each other on opening day, and that the teams who don't have local rivals in the same division still must be paired with someone to fill out the "derby week" fixtures. They don't go "right, Arsenal v Spurs, Liverpool v Everton, Manchester derby, we've got Reading, Saints, Swansea left over without derbies, oh, it doesn't matter who they play this week". They'd still pair us with someone.

I am aware of that, having posted the link to "how the fixtures are calculated" on here a number of times over the past 3 years. It is however, a very decent estimate of how likely it is.

On the eve of the release of the Premier League fixtures, I'd just like to ask Brighton if they can keep up with us.

I saw him play for the Dev squad a couple of times, he was fairly industrious, bit of flair, not exactly quick but didn't look out of place (which you couldn't say for Poolis) and probably would have been ok for League One with 10 of the side that got us promoted, to be honest.

One year they were actually right though.

There are 3 promoted teams, and 3 top 3 teams, the probability of one promoted club playing a top 3 club is (3/19*3/19*3/19) = 9/19, so only slightly below a 50/50 chance. So it's basically as likely to happen as not. Unless my recall of probability is fcked of course.

Rubbish Photoshop, Lung.

Ignoring the possibility of being a "paired club" with Reading (and therefore not playing them on opening or closing weekends and bank holidays etc), there are 3 promoted clubs, each of whom has a 2/19 chance of playing one of the other promoted clubs. So if it's only happened once in 20 years, it's actually overdue.

Yikes, lets hope we haven't taken inspiration from this Shamrock Rovers away shirt.

We're not playing in the Carling Cup next season (despite what it says on our ST documentation).

Yeah, it's them primarily, I don't resent anyone choosing not to invest in the club in League One, just don't pretend you did.

Upson played in 10 Prem matches last season, 4 sub appearances. Featured heavily in Europa League and FA Cup though, so clearly not a starter for Stoke. As a contrast, the injury-prone liability (especially at right back) that is Jonathan Woodgate played in 16 Prem matches.

Can honestly say there was only about 1 match after Xmas when the stewards got as far back as row S in the Northam 41, it was pretty much all standing all the time.

I'm a very busy man. You'll note the 3 hour gap between posts today and lunchtime for the later ones, and the nine and a half hour gap here. Not that it's any of your concern, of course.

I thought Cork started excellently, dropped right off by the end of September, was pretty much "just there" until March and had nothing like the influence (and got dropped as a result) and then got good again for the rest of the season.

One of the best things about being in the Prem is that there will be readily available stats to support these kind of arguments next season. FWIW, I think both have a good first touch, Schneiderlin is better at long range passing, Cork is better at protecting the ball under pressure, and neither of them can shoot for toffee but Schneiderlin has at least shinned one decent one in and has vaguely competent technique compared to Cork, who isn't the best at moving a ball more than 15 yards in any way. Yes, that was one sentence. When considering the intangibles, Cork has shorter shorts, Morgan better facial hair and more resemblance to a Hollyoaks character - which is surprising when you think about it. Based on the 1993 FA Cup run for Sheffield United, Cork also has beard genetics so may surprise us next season.

Maybe so, but as manager of the club he should put youth player development ahead of proving any point. P Smith, M Cranie, D Kenton , M Mills, C Baird, N McCann, R Delap, Y Folly (T Walcott, 72), N Dyer, K Jones, D Blackstock (D McGoldrick, 81) Subs not used: S Gillett, M Tejera, A McNeil for the record. Not a bad side nowadays if you could get rid of the reserve players as opposed to the kids... and Folly, but none of the 5 Prem players (or Mills, who probably will be soon) are still at Saints.

If they could expand this to "ban all music at football" I'd be on board in a second.

The goals from a 3-0 win at Forest and a goal at home to Cardiff shouldn't take long to show if they don't have rights to the FA Cup.

I had assumed from the title that it would be a moving documentary about Carling's early sponsorship of the FA Premier League, and the subsequent transfer of the competition name to Barclays. No Hollywood ending though, as our eponymous hero gets dumped in favour of the term "Premier League" in 2007, NEVER TO BE MENTIONED AGAIN.

We were 1 point from safety when Redknapp took over after 16 matches, and in 18th. 2 points from safety at the end of the season, 22 matches later and bottom. Whatever is being blamed on the people who came before him, we had more than enough in the squad to get out of trouble. To claim Redknapp couldn't have done anything about it when he was in charge for more than half of the matches is ridiculous. His inability to improve the players we had (indeed with his Mansfield League Cup shenanigans he set some of the kids back years) and desire to bring in crap who didn't improve the squad or weren't up to the job were the two main problems. We played some great attacking football but couldn't defend, and that didn't improve at any point thanks to the use of two of his January signings, one (Bernard) of whom never played in the Prem again, the other (Davenport) somehow wangled his way to around 30 more Prem appearances after West Ham hilariously paid £3m for him from Spurs despite them having seen him play before.

I had a conversation with Skate Meringovian when I was working with him back in 2004 about Redknapp's success rate in signing players, we worked out he signed 3 reserves for every 1 starter. Everyone forgets the guff like Chalkias, Schemmel and Pasanen who he signed and barely played for that lot back then as they somehow scraped staying up in their first Prem season - and they were the ones who played just enough that I can remember them. His success rate with signings was appalling, and the ones he didn't like just sat around collecting money for 3 years. Anyone would think he had a preferred agent and was getting a significant cut of every transfer, or something.

None of the marketing factors are relevant because we don't have a polo shirt style with quarters. If we did have, fair enough, it might sell as a leisurewear item to a broader audience. But literally the only selling points for the new shirt is that it's a new shirt and Saints are in the Premier League so more people might be interested in buying it compared to when we were in League One. It's a missed opportunity, no matter how much people do or don't buy into the global marketing element. Of course, they might shift more of these in the UK than the "best selling" sash, but I'd be shocked if they do. The sash shirt is the match-wear leisure shirt of choice for pretty much anyone over the age of 35, many of whom simply don't usually buy football shirts. Just occurred to me the other factor in the club thinking that "stripes don't sell" could be the relatively poor sales of this season's shirt compared to the sash - Cortese saw the sash kit break records, and then last season was back to "normal", except that it was only the second time ever that Saints had changed home shirt in two successive seasons (the first time being the "nose breaker" final Friends Provident shirt of the first Championship season, and even then the shorts and socks lasted for 3 years when the first flybe kit came in). The "new kit every year" factor must be responsible for some decreasing sales.