CB Fry

Who is "they"?

Quite an odd article, with big old words like "almost intolerable conditions" but no real feel for what is so intolerable. Which could possibly be interpreted as "she won't give me no more money off to the Mail I go". Anyway. We do our business "the right way", don't we everyone?

At least it's a bit of full blooded offensiveness. Not like the stuff that SFC go squinnying to the FA about these days, like some old maid from a Jane Austin novel. Lord knows what our delicate souls in the SFC boardroom would make of that. I guess they'd openly weep.

On the contrary. Resident forum genius Wes Tender proclaimed our actions has forced the FA to seriously review the standard of refereeing across the country. Yes, our letter has done that. Not any other complaint about refs made by any other club in the past decade. Our one. The new dawn of refereeing started this week. Well done us.

Newcastle, with a City win today, will only be three ahead, and they are more than capable of going on a barren run like us. Eighth is still on!

This is one of the games we will play in the next few months where the opposition will want/need to win more than we will. If they have anything about them they should make it hard for us. MP's biggest challenge for the rest of the season is fighting against complacency. Luckily we're miles better than Sunderland and the pressure is all on them so 1-1 sounds about right.

So if MP takes us to fifth in the table, that's "dire" is it?

Couple of mentions of "safety" being "assured". What is wrong with you people? 30 points at the end of the first full week of January. We are safe. Right now. Safe. We're not going down. We're not going for a European slot either - 8th or 9th is us - so lets hope we have a good go at the cup.

At least two of those opening quotes are from Dalek, possibly more. Seriously, if you can't recognise the single most blatant wind-up troll on the forum by now, god help you.

I know precisely who made the complaint. Despite this, Lallana looked like an absolute plum. Like I say, deal with facts.

Scotty, you're calling Kelvin Davis a liar, then? http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11700/9109804/premier-league-england-midfielder-adam-lallana-hurt-by-clattenburg-criticism http://www.itv.com/sport/football/article/2014-01-10/southampton-forward-adam-lallana-annoyed-by-criticism-over-his-complaint-against-mark-clattenburg/ Like I say, facts.

He did, unless you've been living under a rock for the last week.

Your little routine is all jolly sweet and clever but avoids the painfully obvious point that it's you and Whitey that are speculating, not me. More to the complaint? Total speculation, especially as Saints set the terms of the investigation with their letter. Anything "more to it" the club were too gutless to put in the letter. Saints changing the face of refereeing? Total speculation, and laughable. Look forward to you affording the same compliments to Norwich or Spurs or Leicester City next time they bellyache about a referee. So remember, I'm dealing in the facts of the case while you're making stuff up because you don't like the facts.

Not crying about bullying today then? Well done.

The response from media/pundits/phone ins - "unconnected people" in WG's words - was that Lallana came out looking in the wrong. We all knew he didn't make the complaint but that didn't stop the response that happened. He was at the centre of the story and he came out of it badly. And WG is not right. There was nothing else to it. Just because you want to believe it doesn't make it true.

The only people saying "there is more to it than suggested" are nutcases like you. Saints didn't bother to say there was "more to it" , so why would anyone else "suggest" it. What "unconnected" people "concluded" was that the club were wrong and Lallana personally came in for criticism from many quarters. I know you avoid facts in favour of your own bonkers theories but that's what happened.

With the only collateral damage is our captain looking like a total mug. Considerable aplomb indeed.

Dear, sweet little Strawlock. Spectacular how pathetic you can be.

Nicely put, as ever.

I've got to say, you are an absolute master of your craft. Brilliant.

No one, apart from those under 20 on here, needs any book to know that Ken and Claus were signed as centre banks and played as centre backs. Good old David In Sweden.

Nah, he's not going to Spurs. Not big enough, not successful enough. If Sherwood fails they'll get some old hand in. Could see him at somewhere like Porto, build his reputation with a tilt at a league title and some guaranteed European action. Either that or second tier Spanish club. (by second tier I mean like Villareal, not second division).

It's unlikely he was going to stay for years and years but I would like to think he would still be here this time next season. But I think it makes massive sense for managers to jump when their stock is high rather than hang around to get sacked. So if he goes in the summer he's likely to get a decent job elsewhere (not an amazing job - he ain't going to Real Madrid on the back of a midtable finish with Saints). What will be will be. If Cortese wants to turnover managers quickly, as he has done since day one then he can only expect to be turned over himself one day.

Me neither.

Yeah, maybe but that's a fairly meaningless interpretation. They have to put "under the FA's rules" because if they'd just put "does not constitute misconduct" it's just an opinion. "under the FA's rules" makes it a judgement call. Which is what it is. If people on here want to complain about the rules, fine. But they are the rules and MC hasn't broken any. That is not "getting off on a technicality" as WG says, or some cover up or whatever it was that Dubai Phil was saying it is.