The9

Lots of people in the UK thought plenty of the tenets of national socialism were a good idea in principle. It's just the whole ethnic cleansing bit and massive genocides that got a bit tricky for people to reconcile. Hardly surprising that an English paper took a view of conciliation to the Nazis rather than going back to war so soon after the horrors of the Great War, and especially when that nice Mr Hitler offered Britain the chance to keep its Empire in exchange for Germany getting control of Europe. It's also got bugger all to do with their methods of demonising anyone and anything to sell newspapers to the fearful and semi-stupid nowadays, half the time contradicting themselves on a daily basis.

Cos he's a wacky foreign businessman who doesn't adhere to English footballing convention and specialises in not bothering to manage expectations, so it might be nice to at least be able to deconstruct some excuses.

There's just too much irony, sarcasm, and too many moments which are likely to result in the repeated smashing of one's head against the wall for my liking.

Blayney left 05 Jan '06, Bart arrived 6 Jan 06. So you could possibly claim the two events were linked. http://www.soccerbase.com/players/player.sd?player_id=33709 - Blayney http://www.soccerbase.com/players/search.sd?search=Bartosz+Bialkowski&type=player - Bart Blayney played for Saints, Doncaster and Oldham permanently, with loans to Bournemouth, Rushden & Diamonds and Brighton (twice).

You are not wrong. It was also the first day that a load of the youth players who ended up comprising our team in the Championship relegation season got squad numbers in the high 30s due to the ridiculous "injury crisis" that Sturrock presided over - which turned out to be one of those "lost the dressing room" kind of injury crises, rather than one of those "training badly" injury crises. Oooh, Soccerbase has been redesigned, you can't link to an individual match any more ! Blayney played v Newcastle and then Charlton away (Niemi Day as noted above). http://www.soccerbase.com/teams/team.sd?team_id=2471#teamTabs=results Southampton A. Blayney, P. Telfer, F. Hall, D. Kenton, S. Crainey, F. Fernandes (L. Griffit, 85), D. Prutton , Y. Folly, A. Svensson (C. Baird, 13), B. Ormerod, J. Beattie Subs not used: D. Blackstock, M. Cranie, M. Poke Blimey, that team looks crap, no wonder we got relegated the season after.

How many Leon Bests do you think he's worth now ?

Gosh, this thread is setting all kinds of new internet records, mostly for self-harm.

He was talking about Ormerod.

Yeah, the ones that mean you have to decide which of your well-performing players to leave out.

The Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol) Act 1985 was entirely designed to prevent football fans from drinking at matches. For the first couple of years afterwards you couldn't have a drink in sight of the pitch - including numerous supporters' clubs with windows overlooking the pitch, which had to paint over / board up the windows or just close down. Funnily enough when corporate hospitality kicked off post-Hillsborough with the new stadia and middle-class interest in football from Italia '90, they tweaked the laws a little to allow the "compromise" you get in hospitality. The Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Act 1985 prevents:- drunken entry into a football ground (which, in practice, to be an arrestable offence includes disorderly behaviour); the consumption of alcohol within view of the playing area including, during the restricted period (15 minutes before the start of the event to 15 minutes after the end of the event), rooms within the ground from which the event may be directly viewed; the consumption of alcohol on certain coaches, trains and motor vehicles travelling to a designated football match; the possession of fireworks or flares. The Act applies to the following sporting events:- Association football matches in which one or both of the participating teams represents a club which is for the time being a member (whether a full or associate member) of the Football League, the Football Association Premier League, the Football Conference National Division, the Scottish Football League or Welsh Premier League, or represents a country or territory. Association football matches in competition the Football association Cup (other than in the preliminary or qualifying round). The Act only applies in England and Wales.

hanks.

Saints fans can take a massive sheet to collect some coins for the charity. Not sure what we'll do with the pieces of brick though.

I'd also like to blame Mackail-Smith, who was a bloody nightmare for Seaborne, and the ref, in particular, running around like a loon shoving people off the ball. Also, probably 3 of the penalties were dubious too.

Pff, I've had a running joke about being a "pendant" going since 2004 on Saints Forever, and I am one. But his thread is pathetic. It's not even funny.

Unlike in 1993.

Pretty much what I'm expecting too - the Premier League can't restrict broadcasting to just one specific country within the EU so they'll have to offer pan-EU rights which INCLUDE the UK to one broadcaster to ensure the broadcaster doesn't allow it to happen, instead. I'd suggest that as long as it's an open tender for the pan-EU business, the EU won't have a problem with there being only one supplier - there will still have to be local installers as well. More importantly, UK tv rights are dwarfed by the Overseas (£1bn) combined tv deal(s) and this doesn't stop international web-streaming from outside the EU which anyone could feed into a pub anyway, so it's really missing the point as far as stopping people seeing Prem matches for free goes. But it would be a Skate cheat pushing the boundaries of the law with their sense of entitlement, wouldn't it...?

Shielding the ball when moving, as long the ball is within playing distance, has been within the laws for as long as I've been playing, and I started in 1980. The only thing that's changed recently is the re-writing of the laws to make obstruction offences basically impossible, so all "obstruction" style fouls are now direct free-kicks (or penalties). I did once play a match for Southampton Uni on Soccer Tour in the US where due to some local zaniness, the obstruction law was being interpreted as it is in Basketball, meaning all on and off the ball obstruction was allowed. It was utterly insane, you'd just get bundled out of the way by a different player blocking your path every time you tried to do anything. We still won 1-0, somehow.

From the laws of the game, Law 12. http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/generic/81/42/36/lawsofthegame_2010_11_e.pdf There is no such thing as obstruction as a specific offence any more, the only way you can commit an "obstruction" indirect free-kick foul is by getting in the way of an opponent WITHOUT touching them, because as soon as you make contact it's now interpreted as a direct free-kick - as it says at the bottom. Impeding the progress of an opponent Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the path of the opponent to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction by an opponent when the ball is not within playing distance of either player. All players have a right to their position on the field of play, being in the way of an opponent is not the same as moving into the way of an opponent. Shielding the ball is permitted. A player who places himself between an opponent and the ball for tactical reasons has not committed an offence as long as the ball is kept within playing distance and the player does not hold off the opponent with his arms or body. If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be fairly charged by an opponent. Restart of play • Indirect free kick from the position where the offence occurred (see Law 13 – Position of free kick) • If there is contact, a different offence has been committed, punishable by a direct free kick or penalty kick

I'm sure he has some theories, but he doesn't know or he wouldn't bother to go through all this hassle to try and find out. The club, being characteristically stubborn, have put their heads in the sand and refused to accede to even this minor demand.

Ok, so maybe you need to construct it like you're suggesting hypothetically that this might be one reason but equally it could be many others, rather than proposing one reason and then saying "if it was that then fair enough". Because it does come across that you think that is the reason. Frankly I haven't yet seen one reason on this thread that I wouldn't say "fair enough" to if the club had said it. But they haven't.

WTF ? There has been a process of formal independent investigation and STILL the club hasn't said anything, why do you think the club would have told him ?

Not really, more like 8 pages discussing the club's attitude to fans, the validity of the existence of the Saints Trust, the mistakes the club has made in this process and discovering that there's a football ombudsman and what Chatham House rules are. As well as the unpleasant personal attacks.

I agree with you up to the point where you've assumed that's Cortese's reasoning, when the club could easily have clarified it but haven't.

That's some specious reasoning, even though the original quote was derived from that. The quote's just used to illustrate what happens if everyone leaves protesting to everyone else.