um pahars

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.

And she also intervened at the Commonwealth Conference in Lusaka in 1979 overuling Thatcher who wanted to accept Smith's compromise settlement, instead insisting on a one man one vote solution. Whilst her mother had some sympathy for Smith (a legacy of the Empire Days), the current Queen did not share such imperial nostalgia. Smith and Mugabe, two tyrants who destroyed a country.

Even his service during WWII was borne more out of stopping Nazi expansion from their existing African colonies which threatened "Britain's" colonies. His first loyalty was to his own country, namely Rhodesia/Zimbabwe and when push come to shove his true colours were to be seen flying high above the House of Assembly. Anyone who commits treason against my country, defies various Governments of the time and then is an accessory to the destruction of their own country is not a great leader in my book (now had he had a citizen on the board, he might have been shown the light).

A rather obvious point lost on Dune, but that said that piece in the Daily Heil was equally critical of Smith, calling him and Mugabe two sides of the same problem, a view shared by most. When push came to shove Smith showed no loyalty or respect to my country and went against Governements of both blue and red leanings, as well as the establishment, monarchy and wider population. He was no friend if the UK and ultimately a disaster for the country he presided over.

That will be the great Ian Smith who attempted to use Rememberance Sunday as a cheap publicity stunt for his apartheid regime. The great Ian Smith who forced the United Nations to enforce economic sanctions for the first time. And of course the great Ian Smith who effectively committed treason against this great country of ours. This great man and his delusional call for UNI sowed the seeds for the bitterness, turmoil and vacuum that allowed despots like Mugabe to flourish. As the Telegraph noted in his obituary, Smith "was the co-author of Zimbabwe's tragedy".

Would have thought that in 99.999% occasions the individual would know where they are from. And perhaps intentionally witholding this information should be made an offence (a sort of contempt of court issue and send them away until they cough up). I have no problem with those claiming refugee status, or claiming asylum, but it needs to done correctly. Those trying to dodge the system actually undermine those who have a genuine case.

There were a couple of late changes to the plan (I ended up in my normal seat!!), but not as exciting as last year's match, but still 3 points which is the name of the game!!!

"Always look out for Turks carrying knives" to e Life Of Brian look on the bright side of life tune. A not very impressive reference to the attacks on Leeds fans in Istanbul.

Will have to wait until the BBC highlights to come out before I can say for sure, but I thought that quite a few of ours gathered at the scene of the crime and looked as though they were pretty upset with the tackle (Chaplow & Hammond plus Harding giving it large - at least). Not sure how bad the tackle was and it may be that it was worthy of being wound up about, but I wouldn't say we left it solely up to the ref to decide (happy to be proved wrong when the highlights come out and they've included the sending off).

Have to concur with many of the sentiments on here in that: a) Wasn't ever that nervy, even when they pulled a goal back. Always thought we were going to win. b) We took our foot off the gas once we were two up and never seemed to get going again. c) Substitutions seemed to disrupt us (not that we were that fluent before) d) Had the feel of a training match, which increased once they went down to ten men. e) Attendance was poor (midweek and unattractive opposition aside, I did expect more). f) Winning ugly earned us the same points as the great Saturday performance (next!!!!!)

Richard, Dan, Richard, Dean, Jos, Jose, Richard. That's really funny aint it!!!!! There's been some godd chants and banter at SMS and other grounds, but first names in a strange voice is not up there with them.

It was so bad that I'm happy to post this twice!!!!! I thought "Steeeeeeeve" was cringetastic, but then we hit new levels with "Dan, Jose, Richard". As well as being dinlotastic I also thought it looked as though it was putting him off his game.

I thought "Steeeeeeeve" was cringetastic, but then we hit new levels with "Dan, Jose, Richard". As well as being dinlotastic I also thought it looked as though it was putting him off his game.

Nice!!