um pahars

I would suggest that treason is somewhat more serious than supporter representation and loyalty to this country is impossible if you continue to support the actions of a traitor. (plus had Smith a farm worker in his Government, then things might have been different).

Was an enjoyable read. Investing in youth has served us well over the years and so it is pleasing to see that whatever happens over the next few years there will be a legacy that will help the Club long in to its future. We have always has a great reputation with regards bringing players through and this will only enhance that reputation ensuring that we will have at least have a chance of attracting the brightest talent.

Come on Dune, just because I pointed out it is somewhat ridiculous to claim to be a loyal subject whilst supporting and promoting a traitor who committed treason against our great country there is no need to become all upset and insulting again. I'm not sure music is your forte if you thought Beautiful South might have originated down here given the fact that it was common knowledge they evolved from the Housemartins.

Problem for me is that songs adapted from the Roses, Mondays or Carpets are all too intrinsically linked (and often used) by United (and they do it impressively as well). Therefore not convinced. However, that does mean we have a monopoly on The Delays, Craig David, Artful Dodger and Howard Jones.

Loyal up until you support an individual and regime that committed treason against this great country of ours. You cannot be loyal to the Crown whilst supporting an individual who committed treason against the same Crown.

I'm not suggesting that the City should decide, merely that I would like to know why they seem to be so in favour of staying in Europe?? Is it really that beneficial to UK PLC (or just more beneficial to them), if so then I would take that in to consideration when deciding whether I think it is in our interests to stay in and balancing that out against what I think is an obvious lack of accountancy/democracy.

Was just about to offer mine up as well (big Sony thing) as understand charity shops aren't keen on them!! Are you off to buy a new one then?? We're off up to John Lewis to pick one up after the Argos adverts made us think about trading in our less than slimline thing!!!!

I think it is only fair to highlight that the Conservatives were the ones conveniently ignoring the World financial meltdown and trying to blame the UK's plight solely on the Labour administration (not that they were innocent parties mind, as they certainly should have reined things in in the latter years) when they were campaigning in the run up to the General Election. That is why I think some find their current reaction to the Eurozone worries as somewhat galling. I think it is obvious that the Eurozone Meltdown will have a significant impact on the UK economy and it is right to highlight that, but it is a bit naughty for them to have ignored the larger and perhaps more significant Worldwide meltdown of a few years ago when berating the then Government. Whilst I don't advocate a live by the sword, die by the sword policy, I can understand why some might want to be less generous. As someone who is leftish of centre, then I have to say I'm no advocate of the European integration we have seen. My main objection is the lack of accountability and democracy (something so wonderfully highlighted by the bureaucratic overthrows of Greece and Italy - Europes Autumn uprising curtailing democracy). However, I'm open to debate and one question no-one seems to have been able to answer is just how important Europe is to UK PLC. Is it negligible or unimportant as you suggest, or is it considerable and a major issue as suggested by many of the UK's corporations? I'm not one that accepts money is everything, but I would like to know the full cost to UK PLC(positive, negative or neutral). Why is the City and UK PLC so pro Europe?

This reply resonates with me, in that I see a distinction between the two "organisations". I view the Act of Rememberance as a tribute to those who gave their lives so that we may well enjoy our future. A tribute made more poignant that it was undertaken en masse by the ordinary man in the street. Of course the money raised goes towards supporting ex service personnel, but for me the main symbol is one of remembering those who are no longer with us. Whereas I view HFH as a charity doing great things for those who servicemen who are still with us today.

I was thinking along the same lines when I first thought about this issue, in that I wonder just how far we are willing to go to chase the money. Personally, I think it's sad that the game is more than happy to sell its history under the mantra of " well you have to compete", when in reality most of that money is going in to the pockets of journeymen mercenaries who are already very well paid. But then again am I just being an a bit of an old fogey. Was there the same sort of furore when Saints became one of the first (if not the first?) sponsored teams with Rank Xerox? Propbably not, but then again I think the addition of a brand name to a teams kit wasn't deemed that intrusive. Prefixing or suffixing the stadium for us would be acceptable, whilst I wouldn't be happy with only a corporate corporate brand, but I can also see the arguments relating to new grounds without an identity. I felt St Mary's was different as although new, St Mary's was already sysnonymous with the Saints. But if we are happy with a solely corporate stadium where would we draw the line in bringing in money in order to compete?? Would we be happy to down the equestrian route of a few decades ago (i.e. horses named Sanyo Music Centre) and rename or suffix the team, The IBM Saints, Southampton Sony FC, Portsmuff Pounds Scrapyard FC?????

I know him and the Romsonian on his left in his Burberry polo. Would love to introduce you to them both.

Sunderland on New Year's Day 1991 or 1992 saw very few in the paddock opposite the main stand. Bit of snow and sleet and I think a 1-0 defeat (a penalty from Kevin Ball!!!!). Was staying in Newcastle at the time so felt a bit sorry for those who had a very long journey back. Also remember an Everton game in the 80's when there weren't enough on the little paddock behind the goal to even get some sort of group going for a sing-song. Around 85 I reckon with Jordan winning a penalty (think we drew 2-2).

Agree, quite enjoyed that. Upbeat, but honest.

You also missed out two English internationals in midfield (Williams & Armstrong), a rising star & England international on the wing (Wallace) as well as a waining star and England international (Worthington). I make that 7 full England internationals, 1 England U23 with 500+ appearances (majority in top flight), 1 England U21 (& PFA Young Player of the Year) & Mark Dennis & Kenny Armstrong. I rate this current team, I admire their tenacity and team spirit, some of the football has been sublime, there have been goals aplenty, but they're not in the same league (literally and metaphorically).

We took the press on with regards the photographer debacle and lost and it would appear whether intentionally or not, that we're not impressing some in the national media. I can't think of any reason why a journalist from a decent broadsheet would remark on such behaviour unless he felt it was somewhat strange. To me it just look slike another miscalculation on our part. And if you think that either The Echos falling out with the Club is solely down to use of photos, or that the Echo are being shunned by the press then I think you are somewhat wide of the mark in both cases (that November piece does not demonstrate that at all). The Club are well within their rights to manage their media profile however they see fit, be it attempting to sell syndicated photos or restricting access, I just don't think that they've always got it right (for me the photographer ban was an obvious miscalcualtion and I just don't see the benefit of being unhelpful to journalists trying to produce an upbeat story on the good times at the Club).

The reason was quite simple, a miscalcualtion that the media would pay for shots supplied by one "Club Accredited" photography agency. Someone at the Club thought they could make money out of shots that were previously "free" and the media collectively said "no thanks". In this instance someone got it wrong, the media weren't prepared to pay for something they were previously getting free and judged that the lack of exposure for Saints sponsors etc (as well as some negative press) would soon make the Club backtrack. We did.

I'd probably agree with you, but there have been numerous posts on here complaining about the lack of media coverage of Saints (with some even going so far as suggesting there might even be an anti-Saints bias). And that's all I'm saying, in that I just don't see any benefit in p***ing off the press unnecessarily. We should be looking to try and cultivate a symbiotic relationship.

Let's be quite frank here, our relationship with the press, ranging from banning the local rag through to banning the national photographers, has been "different" to say the least. We do have a bit of previous here and whilst I accept that current journalism ethics aren't exactly at their highest, I'm not sure why a journalist from a pretty decent broadsheet with no axe to grind would make something up. Rightly or wrongly, I'm more than willing to believe that this guy was attempting to write a positive piece, but for whatever reason (incompetence, oversight or a no talk policy) no one got back to him. Happy to accept that some people believe a tight rein on the media is a good thing (I can certainly see some merits), but I personally think we should be looking to cultivate positive relationships with the press. As the photographer ban showed, I don't think it's in our interests to try and take the press on.

It would seem the amounts involved are in the same ballpark as the Right Hon George Osborne MP who overclaimed his mortgage payments and is actually in charge of running the economy!!!! I do think the one thing that came out of the "expenses scandal" for me was that I would be loathe to use it to criticise a party, or even an individual when it was so widespread and ingrained right across the political spectrum.

Perhaps that question could be directed at those who have been critical of the lack of exposure we seem to be getting in the national press?

You do realise he was being sarcastic don't you And as someone else has posted, some of the Twitter responses are cringetastic. Fortunately, there are a couple of people on there that display a more mature, thoughtful and reasoned response. As for the actual thrust of his Tweet, then whilst I sort of understand our reluctance to engage with the press, like the Photo Ban I do think it is something we might want to reconsider.

Not sure I want to go on the Club's blacklist and be refused a season ticket next year!!!

Certainly not the best team, but I would suggest it probably has one of the best team spirits. Quite a few of the teams in the past have had better technical players, higher calibre players etc, but the cohesion, togetherness and belief of this team is impressive.

has anyone asked the Club why they insist on making it as hard as possible to get a ticket for this match?? I honestly can't be bothered to jump through all the hoops only to be fccked around on the day of the match. Plus it goes against my better instincts of being told what I can and cannot do. I predict us not selling out.

"The problem of Rhodesia has hung over the Commonwealth for many years. The present trouble began in 1965 when the Rhodesian government made the illegal declaration of independence. This was followed by years in which the efforts of successive British governments to achieve a settlement based on the wishes of a majority of the people of Rhodesia were frustrated, years in which the political rights of the majority were denied." The words of that lilly livered Liberal, Margaret Thatcher.