CB Fry

We got played off the park by Blackpool. The only reason the scoreline didn't reflect that was because fundementally Blackpool aren't that good, just a lot better than us. And, when Kelvin Davies is Man of the Match in a 4-1 defeat, I call that something of a spanking too. And I wasn't there, but Ipswich didn't seem to be overly troubled with us, and we were fortunate to scrape a draw. We're getting worse. I was at Derby, I saw us turn them over in the second half, and I want it to work. But inexperienced manager plus inexperienced team is highly unlikely to work and we've got worse, not better, since Derby. The only thing that is being exaggerated is this idea that we are sitting on a load of wonderkids, when in fact most of them are just so-so reserve teamers promoted above their station. The key exaggeration is the notion that, say, Simon Gillet is some spectacular diamond overlooked by (about five) successive managers because they have some prejudice againsts young players. Maybe, just maybe, Gillet wasn't good enough at 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 and maybe he's still not good enough. We're not a very good team, and we need an excellent manager to sort it. Billy Davies (or someone like him) would be just the job.

That's odd, because we seem to be getting more disorganised and far less effective as the season goes on. The last three games have been our worst performances, suggesting far from progress on a learning curve and suggesting more a team that was keen but directionless to begin with to a team that has already run out of steam and already been worked out by the rest of the division. Let's see if all this wonderfull learning (also known as getting spanked) gets put into practice on Saturday. Davies in.

I think we could afford him (anyone who really thinks we couldn't afford Pearson really is deluded) and I think he would take the job if it was offered to him before Christmas (ie before we were too far gone). And he is exactly what a team of keen as mustard but disorganised youngsters need. He would be brilliant for us. And he'd work with Lowe, no problem. He likes a scottish bit of rough.

Oh, the ironing.

Says who? Le Tiss is just Shearer's mate. If you've never over-egged your salary, your house value, the adventurousness of your missus or your sexual conquests to your mates, then you're a better man than me. I got the jist of the original post - I took it to mean exactly how you have interpreted it. But the original poster didn't do himself any favours, by refusing to confirm that (pretty bloody obvious) link and then getting all uppity like he was the keeper of some grand secret. Shearer might or might not be Saints manager in the future, In fact I have written before on this forum why I think it likely he will be (his missus and her family, for a start). The original poster could have written "Shearer told MLT that he would take the managers job if this takeover goes through". No harm done, and he would have got no abuse from anyone. But he didn't - he couldn't resist sexing it up and then getting all abusive, which is typical of the wallies that post on here, I'm afraid and why this forum has a bad name of being full of bullsh it t ers. It takes some doing to post up a picture of yourself next to MLT and still end up looking like a bull sh itt ing plank. Bit of a pity, really.

What a fuc king hilarious thread. Straight from the horse's mouth means the person you are talking about told you themselves. It doesn't mean someone who knows that someone told you. I would expect a eight year old to know that. You pathetic back track (I didn't mean I heard it..LOL) and then resorting to abusing everyone is representative of all that is wrong with this forum. Next time you start a look at me attention seeking post, try not to lie in it for effect. Then you wouldn't have got any abuse. It's pretty simple.

LOL. Steve Claridge falls over himself to be nice about Saints every time I hear him on the radio. And there are still people who think he's "got it in for us". I am waiting for someone to say that Sky were biased against us yesterday, despite the fact the commentators were still raving about how great we were even when we were three down. It was only when we they hit the fourth the two commentators realised they were being a bit silly and started giving QPR some credit, and remembered that Kelvin had kept us in the bloody game. Blatant, blatant pro Saints bias yesterday on Sky, but it won't stop any of you wallies dribbling on about how Sky "don't like us" next time out.

Well, I can remember which club Hall went on to, and can remember how his towering defensive ability stabilised their defence and I remember their stunning fight against relegation. We did not "pay a huge price" for letting Fitz f u cking Hall go. We made a profit on a player who wasn't, and still isn't, Prem standard. But who cares, we've just lost again, so I'll leave you to mop up your lap.

Anyone who still goes on about Fitz Hall like his absense was the reason we got relegated clearly knows fu c k all about Saints, or football. Oh, hang on, this is Alpine. He knows fu ck all about Saints, or football.

You thinking I've contradicted myself shows your lack of understanding in percentages more than anything. You can't eat more than 100% of a single cake, but you can bake a bigger cake next time that represents 110% or 200% or whatever of the previous cake. So a master baker can say with my next cake I's going to be 200% of the last one. (Clumsy English, but not wrong). You can't measure "effort" as a cake with a finite size, so there is no such thing as 100% effort. In fact of all the percentages you can effectively use for effort, 100% is the one figure you shouldn't use. If you are managing people, you are either asking to perform above themselves (hence 110%), or you are asking for more from them ("we were 75% there today"). What manager says "that was just enough lads and we can't possible give any more ever again". So as a figure of speech (which is what this is, nothing more) then use any number you like 110%, 1000%, 200%, 50% just not 100%. The pedants thinking anything other than 100% is wrong are the people that are actually wrong. And that is my final dull contribution to this silly debate.

Well, you're wrong. If we're going to be completely pedantic, you cannot measure "effort" in terms of percentages - your capacity to try is not like a glass with a finite, measurable limit. How do you know the athlete who has just beaten his personal best has put in more of his % of "effort" compared to the person that finished sixth? You don't. So you can't measure "effort" in percentage terms of a whole. You can only measure effort in comparative terms (ie more effort than last week), and when you are talking about comparatives, then of course you can have more than 100%. 20 is 200% of 10. You can have 300%, 400% and 1,000% increases. So you could give 200% effort compared to previously. Meaning "we're going to give 200%" is a perfectly acceptable thing to say.

It's 2008, you silly old woman. When are you ever going to get over it?

Look, this is Alpine we're talking about. We need enough centre backs to stop him moaning about lack of centre backs, but as soon as we hit that number he'll start moaning about why we aren't playing so and so and moaning about what a "bloated squad" we have and why have we got so many players not playing, we can't afford this Lowe hasn't got a clue etc etc etc Alpine will just bleat, whinge and moan, whatever happens.

That one is quite good, actually, and is in the style that might work for us. Simple shape, one or maximum two key images/symbols, name of club, year. Nice, clean and contemporary but not horribly "modern" like Swindon or Bournemouth. And no mention of boys clubs.

Sorry MLG, I don't like your design at all. If there is a case for changing it then the last thing you would keep from the current badge would be the bloody scarf and ball. Your design takes thr worst bit from the old badge and adds in something "traditional" that doesn't actually mean anything to anyone apart from a couple of octogenerians who remember the boys club. SFC is not a boys club. SFC "tradition" started, like most football clubs, from the sixties onwards and only really got going under Ted. Boy's clubs from hundreds of years ago just do not feature as our "tradition" whether you like it or not. A new Southampton badge, if we need one at all, needs to look different otherwise what's the point. Your design is just the same badge but with a slightly different (and worse) middle bit. Of the current badge, the new forest tree, southampton water and city rose are probably the best bits and would be the elements to keep. Sorry, back to the drawing board.

We didn't have any fu cking choice in the matter. End of.

30,000 week in, week out? When was this then? Derby over the five seasons before they got promoted averaged between a low of 22,199 to a high of 25,944 each season (yes, that's 25,944 the season they were top of the league until Feb and got promoted). They got 30k plus in the Prem, but so would (did) we Someone give those Derby fans a cigar, they really are so super duper what with their average attendences in this division being exactly the same as ours.

Hang on a minute - don't you bleat on and on at every opportunity about how we never got "investment" while we were in the Prem? By investment, I believed you were referring to MONEY which in turn you wanted to help pay the "ridiculous astronomical salaries" etc etc you are moaning about above. So what exactly do you want, or do you just want to whinge about everything?

Funnily enough, I am starting to think that England should starting taking a leaf out of our book. Why don't we just play the younger players, the non-champs league players. After all, Croatia qualified and did pretty well without a single CL player in their squad (Eduardo horror tackle notwithstanding). I can't help thinking a team of Bullards, Ashtons, Agbonlayors, Ashley Youngs and Andrew Surmans () might show a bit more drive, interest and, crucially, teamwork to actually get us to the world cup. Let's face it, despite what any of them say, Frank Lampard and John Terry don't give a flying about playing for England. They all pull the shirt on with the excuses and whines about how it isn't their fault already forming in their minds, and their focus on their next club match. Get the kids on - at very least it might make the fans empathise with England once again.

Oooh, threatened by some dribbler on the internet. Keep taking the tablets, sweetheart.

Oooh, threatened by some dribbler on the internet. Keep taking the tablets, sweetheart.

Okay, can you name one player that Lowe has "actively tried to sell", then? I've given you a summary of how and why all those other players were sold, not once have you given anything to suggest any of them were "actively sold". So what is your reasoning, apart from Rupert is, like, evil and stuff? So, Just one player in those ten years, with a brief summary of how Lowe "actively tried to sell". And then explain how he will "actively sell" Lallana, which is the pant wettingly hilarious "new" angle that you lot are desperately now weaving now your old stand-by "he will sell anything and everything that isn't nailed down as soon as bid comes in" has been blown out of the water. Only on this forum could a refusal of a bid for a player be instantly interpreted by half the fan base as evidence of the club chairman "actively trying to sell" said player. Turning down bids for players, eh? What a wa n k er.

Errr, what you were comparing was the decision of one manager to pick Paul Moody over our greatest ever player in his prime with the decision of another manager to pick one nondescript midfielder over another nondescript midfielder. I don't recall exactly when Jhon Viafara became an indespensible, undroppable Southampton Football Club legend that the notion of not playing him is comparable, in your eyes to Branfoot's exclusion of Matthew Le Tissier. But of course that's just typical you. Zero perspective, zero logical thought, zero grasp of anything apart from petty outbursts and f uc kheaded overreaction. No perspective, no insight, no clue. Rant, rant, rant, rant, rant. Yeah, not selecting Viafara is comparable to dropping Matthew Le Tissier. Get a life. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Bit of both, he says. Richards was dragged out of SMS kicking and screaming was he? No, he handed in a transfer request. Bridge? Handed in a transfer request. Beattie - don't know about you, but I thought we held off Villa and Everton who both came in with bids during the Luggy summer and he didn't go (although, of course, Lowe sells everything that isn't nailed down ). He went when it probably made sense and to free up cash for our "saviour" that saggy faced c @ nt. Walcott? Probably in the top ten transfer deals for the selling club of all time. Bale? Very, very similar. Have a look at what Palace have got for some of their starlets recently. So there's my side. Please enlighten with one shred of insight into how any one of those transfers were nasty evil old Rupert was cashing in on players that bled red and white and were desperate to stay for the sake of the great fans in the Northam? If you've got nothing, then it's not a "bit of both", is it?

I will assume from that comment that you are twenty years old or younger. Branfoot easily the worst manager we have ever had. And, by the way, as this is my last post of the day, I am quiety ****ing myself at Alpine comparing Jhon Viafara (John. Viafara.) to Matthew Le Tissier. There's not enough of these in the world to respond to that garbage. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: