CB Fry

And the last of the grizzling whiners complaints about how terribly run our club is finally crumbles into the dust. What a mess we're in.

Unlikely to be the primary motivation. Any streaming rights would probably be packaged up in a similar way to the TV deals.

There are two clubs with the most to gain by pushing a change to this "patently unjust" situation through, and are probably the only clubs with a genuine chance of getting anywhere near selling 8,000 odd away tickets season in, season out. So why aren't Manchester City and Liverpool demanding their 8,000 rightful allocation at Old Trafford?

That's fine, because it's a lovely little solution that SFC need to change absolutely nothing, but other clubs have to change things which would impact their season ticket holders, their members and general fans. Of course because it seems to benefit Saints you conveniently interpret as fair. You're asking MUFC to take out 5,000 seats away from their season tickets and members to put on a hold until a month before a match when, quelle surprise, Burnley, West Brom say they don't want any more than 2,500 - 3,000. How that is fair to Man United or its fans I fail to understand. You seem to think they should be punished for having a bigger ground. It's their ground, not yours. But it seems "fair" if you view the world entirely through the lens of Southampton Football Club so that's all right then. Lastly, on logic. All Premier League Clubs offer the same away allocation for all matches - 3,000 - is perfectly logical. The same number for all travelling fans. Same number. Exactly the same. Logical. With a nice caveat for clubs with smaller grounds. Same number, for everyone, except for the handful of clubs with grounds a little too small. Adding ones own pointless percentage yardstick does not render that agreement illogical.

If it is so unfair, why are the biggest clubs not changing it? Liverpool and Man City would love to take 8,000 fans to Old Trafford but can't under the current "patently unjust" system. They are several times more likely to be able to take that number of fans too - more so than bloody Burnley anyway. So its so unfair, which you can see so they must be able to see it too. So why don't they change this unfair system? Any ideas?

What question did you ask?

That's your default position when your arguments have been proven nonsense. Answer my question any time you like.

It isn't required, that's the point. We don't need it and expecting Man United to bin off season ticket holders on the off chance that Burnley or West Brom are going to suddenly demand their 8,000 seat allocation is utterly ridiculous. The system in place is perfectly logical and fair.

A lovely hysterical reaction to a simple question you refuse to answer. But coming from someone who shrieks "patently unjust" at something so utterly harmless, logical and completely fair that's no great surprise. Feel free to answer the question any time.

Why aren't Manchester City and Liverpool demanding their 8,000 rightful allocation at Old Trafford?

Probably because you don't have a clue.

Your suggestion isn't remotely fair. The current system is fair and logical. The ridiculous nature of your suggestion and the assumptions behind it have already been torn apart on this thread by others so I am not going to bother again.

Pro rata that is extraordinarily good money if she's getting that.

Looks like the kind of abortion the Italian would have saddled us with.

Why aren't Manchester City and Liverpool demanding their 8,000 rightful allocation at Old Trafford?

Why aren't Manchester City and Liverpool demanding their 8,000 rightful allocation at Old Trafford?

Pretty sure you're the person who took this thread into the discussion about away allocation and brought up your outrage about the 8,000 tickets we should have at Old Trafford. So Liverpool not getting a 7/8,000 allocation at OT (when they could probably fill it most seasons) is just for them to sort out between themselves, but Saints not getting it (when we don't need it, at all) is "unfair". Good oh. Crystal clear.

All dreams and ambition went out the door about a year ago and has never been seen since.

Let me know when you have written to a the Premier League and the FA to take on this "patently unjust" situation. I am sure Manchester City and Liverpool will be desperate to support you, what with it being "patently unjust" and everything. They must be simply desperate to demand 10% allocation of Old Trafford, simply desperate. Because it is "patently unjust" isn't it? So patently unjust.

£75 a hour (sometimes way more than that) across a standard year would be £146k a year. So fair play to your missus for pulling that kind of wedge for nursing.

What about those millions of fans they gained in the far east? Will no one think of them?

Genuine LOL.

I've said the same thing throughout this thread, its crystal clear. You want me to "back up" the idea that some people in authority can write a set of guidelines? Now, I think I am right in saying that in British corporate, legal, sporting and governmental history there have been one or two instances when guidelines have been drawn up. Happy to be proven wrong.

Because you know full well why and it destroys your pointless argument. I accept your apology.

I'm not here to fuel your what-about-ery. Those convicted of crimes of sexual violence including rape and serious sexual assault should not be permitted to play professional league football, with the FA, PFA and the Leagues working together to devise the guidelines they sign up to, with inputs from people who understand the classification of the crimes involved. I think that is perfectly possible like all guidelines of this type which humanity have managed to draw up on lots of subjects for a good while now. I think it is perfectly possible. You don't. Fine.