um pahars

I believe the Spirit of Southampton is unique to Saints, just as I imagine the Spirit of Exeter is just as unique to The Grecians etc etc etc. I believe it is a spirit of unity, belief, cammaraderie, feelgood, togetherness, hope, enjoyment, optimism etc etc etc, something that has been missing from this Club for quite a while. Of course it's not unique to us, but at the same time it cannot be doubted that we have lost it big time at Saints.

Considering we could be bottom if Charlton beat Barnsley, which will probably not make for the best atmosphere should we lose!!!!!

You can have a full blown apology if you want. I'm sorry. Fck me you're a right **** at times.

Fair enough.

This little ditty: They did not have to make up 20 yards on him, they were the ones who had a headstart on Sproule

Have you seen the goal????? Not overly fussed about conceding so late in the game, but once again what you have described is slightly out of touch with reality.

My money is still on Flashman/The Bear/Sundance/nineteen being Corp Ho.

He may not have been playing well, but surely when you're one down and in need of a goal, you keep on the only player who has shown he knows where the goal is in recent games. Saga has shown in recent games that he knows where the goal is, so I just find it madness that we take off the only player who has scored regularly in recent matches.

I presume you didn't notice the italics then (indicating it was a staright lift). And don't get all prissy on me for suggesting that you've been coming across as a prck with your posts, particularly after the insults you've been freely dishing out. Just go to bed, you've posted like an idiot on here today.:rolleyes:

The Solent interview is on line and the guy is clearly fcking bonkers: "Marek Saganowski was a couple of matches on fire, scored four goals and the last couple of matches he's a little bit less productive and less sharp". So he gets four in three after coming in from the wilderness and then because he doesn't score in a couple of games (I'm presuming Sheff Utd and today) then he's written off. But then of course We have a scoring problem. Fck off home you useless cnt.

I don't think we'll need as many as 20 points to stay up, but I'm not sure we'd even get the lowe amount needed to stay up. We're not out of it yet, but I accept it's looking a bigger ask as every game drifts by.

I f we carried on in that vein, then Barnsley and Norwich would only need to get 5 points between now and the end of the season!!!!!!!!

Preston - Home - Currently 4th in the league - 3 points Cardiff - Home - Currently 5th in the league - 1 points Ipswich - Away - Currently 11th in the league - 0 point ??? Birmingham - Away Currently 2nd in the league - 0 points Derby - Home - Currently 17th in the league - 3 point An optimistic and up for it 7 points. 3 home games in there, and we must be able to get points from all three of them. Logic, current form and common sense doesn't say anything more than 5 points there, but I think this is the time when the battle really begins.

14 games left : Did you realise that in the last 14 league games we have won ONCE and gained NINE points. The actual stats are : P---W---D---L---F---A---GD---Pts 14...1.....6....7...11...22...-11.....9 :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

I'm sorry, but we always get the same old promises of "the boys are up for it, they're feeling confident, we know what we have to do, we will be more effective, we will get better results" etc etc etc before matches. And then when we lose/draw, we get the same old excuses of "we were unlucky, I can't believe that result, we looked like getting a point, we didnt lose the war, we feel confident now" etc etc etc. Sorry fella, but you're just another chief talking bllocks and you need to start delivering and, 26 points from 28 games when you were a partnership with Poortvliet, and now, 2 points from 4 games on your own, just aint good enough.

As soon as the Administrator is appointed, then the current Directors will be on the outside. There's nothing to stop them throwing their hat in the ring with others, and arguably the Administrator might think they have certain advantages over others with reagrds their offer (e.g. experience and inside knowledge of the Club), but there is no way the Administrator will let them have an "inside track". I certainly wouldn't rule out Lowe throwing his hat into the ring post Administration, but that's not the same as saying the Administrator will be sharing confidential stuff with him.

Don't worry, we will come good again. And I'd like to think that coming back from adversity and some real setbacks will make us stronger both as a Club and as a supporting community. Sometimes you have to experience the absolute sht to realise what you have isn't that bad.

No problems, it's only my sense of humour that's keeping me going at the moment!!!!

I'm convinced he said he has not been productive recently. It was a part of the Solent interview which normally goes up on the BBC/Saints section after matches, so easy to verify.

"We have to score a goal, that's our problem" "We have a scoring problem" No sht sherlock, so how about explaining why you took off the only player who has looked like scoring regularly recently? When questioned, he said Saga came off because, "he has not been productive in recent games" What the fck is he on. He may not have scored against Sheff Utd, but he got 4 in the prior 3 games. If that isn't productive then I'd like to know what th fck is????? Absolutely shocking, and I'm beginning to wish we had kept Poortvliet on:smt048:smt048:rolleyes:

Just heard that as well, but have absolutely no idea of what he means, nor any confidence that there really is something around the corner.

You've really lost it here Alain:smt048:smt048:smt048:rolleyes: You're in the same boat as Professor on this one (and trust me, that's not good company) LMFAO. Mullah's, shoe bombers, inciting others, fcking hell fella you're coming across as right prck on this one. Go and have a lie down and reflect on your posts, as you're not doing yourself any favours on this one. As for my view on luck, I'm afraid I'm a rationalist: Another view holds that "luck is probability taken personally". A rationalist approach to luck includes the application of the rules of probability, and an avoidance of unscientific beliefs. The rationalist feels the belief in luck is a result of poor reasoning or wishful thinking. To a rationalist, a believer in luck commits the "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" logical fallacy, which argues that because two events are connected sequentially, they are connected causally as well: A happens (luck-attracting event or action) and then B happens; Therefore, A caused B. In this particular perspective, probability is only affected by confirmed causal connections. A brick falling on a person walking below, therefore, is not a function of that person's luck, but is instead the result of a collection of understood (or explainable) occurrences. Statistically, every person walking near the building was just as likely to have the brick fall on them. The gambler's fallacy and inverse gambler's fallacy both explain some reasoning problems in common beliefs in luck. They involve denying the unpredictability of random events: "I haven't rolled a seven all week, so I'll definitely roll one tonight". Luck is merely an expression noting an extended period of noted outcomes, completely consistent with random walk probability theory. Wishing one "good luck" will not cause such an extended period, but it expresses positive feelings toward the one -- not necessarily wholly undesirable.

Seriously Alain, you've lost it with this post:smt048:smt048:smt048 Go and have a lie down;)

Forget muffins, you owe me