The9

Didn't he bring in Hammill and Guthrie on loan, who are both now fairly regular Prem players ?

Actually it's 18 matches left to play from February, which makes a bit of difference about injuries and cover, but I completely agree with you agreeing with me (obviously) about buying Prem quality players to improve the squad - or at least those with the potential to be. When you look at the players we've been linked to, they're all Championship players, mostly under 25 with a bit of form already. Maynard, Jutkiewicz, Rodriguez could all POTENTIALLY be top level players, based on what they've done so far - but there's also a case for bringing in the 25-29s who have that experience, if we can get it.

If we had a sausage train we'd sell out every week.

The free-kick routine that ended with Hooiveld's goal a few weeks back (against Peterboro?) is a further example of why we don't have to hit long shots.

Apart from the 9 they were deducted in the Premier League, albeit they'd have still been relegated even with those points. I was disappointed at the FL's acceptance of their CVA, they weren't league members the previous season and should have at least got -10 for being in admin when they joined the FL.

Complete failure to qualify for an ST discount next season ? Reading, when top of the Championship, sold out half season STs as it guaranteed everyone an ST for the following season. We just don't seem interested in getting the money up front, and would rather run the gamble of hoping our form holds up to get people through at a higher cost. Also, the arbitrary £5 booking fee is a complete joke, as ever.

It doesn't say, but they used the term "re-opened ballot" and provided a closing date, as opposed to explicitly saying it was first come first served, which it never has been previously when you've had to complete a form. So my money's on them pulling pieces of paper out of a hat (or Sammy Saint's inverted head) from Wednesday morning. As for the people who can't work out how to fill in the form...

He has to be worse than the first choice striker we should always be looking to bring in that makes him 5th choice not 4th. Who are these people who think teams sign players for backup ? EVERY signing should be a player who at least has the potential to improve the first team.

Most interesting thing in that clip is the example of whether the ball was over the line or not - firstly 95% of football fans would (wrongly) claim it was in to begin with, and secondly the (Sky) camera didn't actually show the only angle from which you could properly decide, which was directly overhead. They chose to deliberately show a less accurate angle, and then the same ball again from another, unclear angle. this is not about "how it appears", this is about "how it is when judged perfectly", and it might be nice if they started reporting it as such, what's the point of going to all the expense and trouble of installation when the press are still (literally) looking for the controversial angle ? I also have some doubts that the camera-based system sitting just behind the goalpost would work if the post was collided with, or if the ball hits the camera bank behind the line and it's natural flight/spin is affected... and what happens if it's faulty and just won't work ? You play with it switched off at both ends, but it's in use in every other match ? Where's the fairness in that ?

Presumably it's to allow players under a certain age, who are not members of the first team squad from being subject to the restrictions of the transfer window. Does raise the question about experienced but young first teamers (eg Oxlade-Chamberlain last season) potentially moving outside transfer windows under this premise, but whatever...

Brentford clearly have some problems with their youth side if they have to play players with serious injuries.

Which one (not that they're not both defenders)...? Ah, link is to Brentford, you meant Dean. Saville is also out on loan to Barnet as mentioned in the OS article.

"u-21"

"Those who have already been successful on application will be allowed to apply for one additional ticket, whilst we're also extending the offer of one seat to non-season ticket holders who have attended four or more away games from this season, which can include the trip to Doncaster Rovers on 3rd December." There isn't any more information than that. In fact the only thing I think you can assume that they haven't specifically said, is that ST holders who didn't apply the first time but do want to go are still able to apply as well as the two groups mentioned above. It's a ballot, therefore there is no "priority", and the fact that they're using the term "ballot" suggests to me that it ISN'T "first come, first served", but that they'll draw everyone's application out after the closing date.

I think scoring a lot of goals from close-in shows an ability of the team to keep possession well in the attacking third of the pitch and deliver the ball into the positions where goals are most likely to be scored from. The fact that long range goals are rare generally shows the probability of scoring from them is much lower than from closer in, and if we can shoot from 7 or 8 yards insted of 20, then all the better.

"We" - Southampton Football Club and a section of its associated supporters, though not necessarily the ones singing this song "'re" - contraction of the word "are" "Coming for you" : 1. proceeding in a temporal fashion, no physical or geographical measurements being considered, towards an implied fixture in the near future between the clubs of Portsmouth and Southampton, with the intention of securing the three points in said fixture. 2. (when sung prior to the teams being in the same division) intending on becoming promoted into the same division and then developing a team capable of restoring the status quo, viz. Saints above Pompey. 3. Literal : Every single person singing this song at this time is intending on travelling to Portsmouth on December 18th in order to collect Portsmouth Football Club and deliver it to an unspecified location. © Mr Logic, 2011 I think I know which of those 3 explanations is most accurate. And why yes, I will also be attending, thanks for asking.

Bugger, it jumped me to page 1100-and something. What about the 800 pages I haven't read yet ?

I honestly cannot believe that thread is still going AND it's expected to be where we look. I'm going over there to click on the little arrow thing and find out how many hunndred pages behind I am... though I suspect I'll crash the forum.

That'll make them a few quid in car parking...

Also worth considering how many more chances Lambert will have had than Jutkiewicz to get to that total.

Ban him.

Barnsley away we were absolutely astonishing until 10 minutes before Chaplow was sent off, I'm guessing better than the halves of excellence I've heard we had at Ipswich and Leicester which were undone a bit by conceding goals, and we've never come close to that fluidity at home all season other than against Middlesbrough at the start and Peterboro when they had 11. Leeds was definitely not one of our best matches, Barnsley was a hundred times better than that performance, and even though we ended up clinging on, we utterly dominated and created chance after chance after chance before Chaplow was sent off and even then we were solid at the back to hold on. The only 3 games I'd completely rule out were Burnley away where we were gash until the 70th minute (and then dominated), Cardiff away when we were gash until the 75th minute (and then dominated), and Reading away where we didn't even start (and still got a draw). Every other game had significant spells of our pressure. I should point out that I didn't go to Leicester, Ipswich, Derby or Coventry, nor any of the League Cup games, and missed home matches against Millwall and Birmingham. Given the expectation and the comfort of the performance, it's between Boro home and Barnsley away for me. We were more effective against Boro but we played the best football at Barnsley.

I'm always bemused at people buying a one season kit as a Xmas gift, it's already had half of its run by then, you can guarantee the price will drop within 2 months and it's out of date within 4 months more. The exception is the sash kit, which was never reduced - and not restocked in October for retro sales as was suggested. That's another revenue stream being passed by, I'm sure a fair few people would have bought a commemorative Liebherr / League One promotion season shirt with some cheap embroidery on it at a premium cost if they were the only authentic Umbro sashes left that you could get. Just for the record, the club still doesn't have any away socks for sale either - even the Man City goalkeeper ones aren't the same as they have no Umbro logo, so there is literally no way of buying them. Oh, and the home socks are now 2 pairs for £8 on the JJB Sports website, provided you don't mind that they're also Wales home socks. Same goes for the GK socks. It'll be interesting to see whether our "Saints shops only" business model changes when the new kit deal gets signed next season, which is the last we're currently contracted to Umbro for.

Just something to remember the next time someone uses the "Cortese is running the club as a PROPER BUSINESS" argument to justify raising charges on something that inconveniences customers.

What Brazil kits on show ? If you're referring to the other pic [below] (guessing that was taken at the same time) which had Saints playing against a team in yellow shirts, blue shorts and light blue socks, that's Sheffield Wednesday's away kit circa 91/2 - you can even see Carlton Palmer. The number "2" on what is probably Mel Sterland's back is iconically Umbro-shaped as well as the flash of colour on the side of the shorts - the Palace (Tulip-sponsored) away kit had plain blue shorts, and why would they have had blue socks to change into when their home kit was red and their away was white ? As others have said, the Admiral shirt in the "Upper Milton" pic with the people going out up the road didn't exist until summer 1991. I vaguely recall the Wednesday away kit of this season having the Football League circular logo on the sleeves, so it would have been 1991/2 not 1992/3 which was the first season of the Prem. Oh, and according to this http://www.historicalkits.co.uk/Sheffield_Wednesday/Sheffield_Wednesday.htm Wednesday didn't have a sponsor between Aug-Dec 1991, and there's one clearly visible on the shirt, so... if it's one of these 3 matches : 1991/1992 English League Cup We 20Nov 1991 Southampton 1 - 0 Sheff Wed English Div 1 (old) Sa 18Apr 1992 Southampton 0 - 1 Sheff Wed Premiership Mo 28Dec 1992 Southampton 1 - 2 Sheff Wed I'd be going for April 18th 1992, not least because it's daylight and the other two were midweek evening games. Note to Turkish, there are times when having a ridiculously anal knowledge of football kits is useful.