um pahars

Walcott was idolised and woud have been even more had we managed to keep him. Oxo is getting there. Dean Richards got the Player of the Year. Some idolised Ken Monkou. Carlton Palmer had a fan club. Tahar's new boots. I think we were all itching for Delgado to be a hero (same with Best and Balckstock).

I think our mutual friend ran on and told Wright to get his shirt off and swap it for his coat as he would put more effort in than Wrighty was. I think it got a bit heated at that point and he also offered him out. Does he still post on here?????

The whole Dell got on Steve Baker's back the minute he cokced up against Portsmuff and never let him forget it.

And I'm sure a very small minority of fans are racist and ignorant and that is the basis of their booing of Puncheon. It would not be realistic to suggest we are immune to the bigotry and ignorance of racism, but IMHO the overwhelming majority are doing it in the same way that they have booed and berated players over the years, regardless of race, colour or creed. I would imagine that in the same way that Mark Wright became a figure of hate for some due to his attitude and disrespectful behaviour that Puncheon is now suffering the wrath of the spurned football supporter and so any opportunity to have a pop is worth having.

And exactly the same way that I idolised Mark Wright in his years at Saints, but the minute he had his head turned by big money and was looking to move and his performances deteriorated, I looked upon him as a turncoat and was really upset and felt betrayed. Like others (inc someone from on here who ran on the pitch up the Dell and told him to get his shirt off) he then was subjected to a bit of booing and abuse. (then again I suppose someone might accuse me of being gingerist)

I don't think he went on strike, instead he may have started to develop a tweaked hamstring.

I'm certainly not trotting out the line of "I'm not racist, one of my friends is Black" line, instead I'm merely pointing out that players over the years have been booed, jeered and given a hard time for their perceived lack of effort or skill on the pitch and their behaviour off of it, not due to the colour of their skin. I have witnessed much racist behaviour from crowds over the years, ranging from verbal abuse and chanting to throwing bananas, so am fully aware of the history of racism in the game, but IMHO I think it is disengenuous to attempt to link the criticising and booing of a player due to his perceived lack of effort/ability, and his hissy fit reaction to being dropped, with racist undertones.

Two issues relating to Puncheon. The first is that some people didn't think he was actually that good or putting a decent shift in and had a go at him when he was playing for us (as people have had a pop at players of any race, colour or creed over they years e.g. Steve Baker, Lee Todd, Potter, Hughes). I personally thought Puncheon wasn't that bad, so wasn't in that group, but people pay their money and it's up to them. The second issue is his reaction and hissy fit (refusing to play, train etc) after having to make way for Chamberlain which got people's backs up (as did Mark Wright's behaviour towards the end of his stay here). More than happy to say that this is the reason behind my dislike of Puncheon. He's paid good money and should have been a pro, nit a disruptive and arrogant prima donna.

I've booed Steve Baker (can never forgive him for that 88 debacle), I've booed Mick Mills (and joined in with the "Oh no, Mick Mills" chant - not overly proud of that one!!), I've booed John Bailey (opposition player, but he still got a good booing from me), I've jeered Branfoot, I've booed Mark Wright (when he was a ***** at the end of his time here). Personally, I think it's rather lazy, cheap and counter productive to try and introduce racist undertones to the debate of giving players stick.

The OP makes reference to doing a Norwich, so does the OP and others here: http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?29912-any-reason-why-us-following-Norwich-is-impossible&highlight=norwich Plus a number of other posts commenting on how we are no different to Norwich (some suggesting we're actually better placed) and we could emulate their success.

Some people had us down for competing in the Champions League at the end of those 5 years!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I would say the difference with your scenario is the acceptance that a wage cap would change the quality of the product on display (with players migrating to Europe), which would in turn might lead to some effect on the price clubs could charge. The elasticity of demand is driven by the product, not by how much it costs the producer (the increased wages have been driven by the huge increases in TV revenues as the money washes itself straight through the clubs and in to the pockets of agents and players). However, for a wage cap to work it would have to be right across the board (or at least across the major markets in Europe) and simply reducing the wages of the existing players and them remaining in the English game would make no difference on the price being charged (why would clubs start to charge less if they believed the price they currently have is the one that maximises revenue?).

Indeed. We're going have to work very hard (and sign well) to get near the top of the division next season. Expectations need to be reined in to make sure we're not on the players and managers backs when we don't go on a ten game winning streak come August/September!!!!!!

I have to disagree with a few on here as I certainly don't think he is rubbish (and a few managers have thought highly of him) and he has produced the goods (even if on occasions) in the the top two divisions. However, he quite clearly has a p155 poor attitude and we should get rid, or let him train with Vospers.

That argument is simply ridiculous. Nothing in your argument has any reference to cost (you could do all of what you are saying regardless of whether your wage bill is £20m or £30m). Clubs will simply price tickets and offers in the way that they believe will maximise their income. If clubs believed they could increase their income by reducing prices, then they would do it regardless of their cost base. The price elasticity of demand is not affected by suppliers costs. And I very much doubt that any club would reduce their ticket prices if they managed to enforce a wage cap (unless they were forced to).

Fine him two weeks wages.

I'mnot sure how much simpler you need it, but: Do you think that if a wage cap/restriction was brought in (therefore reducing costs), then clubs would unilaterally reduce their ticket prices?

But people don't buy these extra tickets as they know they have to fund these wages!!!!! Whilst I agree that wage inflation is a huge problem caused by greed and a desire for success, it's not the reason behind rising ticket prices. If the club you mentioned weren't paying those wages, do you think they would turn away those 20 extra tickets???

So do you really believe that if wages were curtailed then the commercial owners of clubs were reduce their ticket prices??? When a consumer decides to make a purchase (or not), he is not influenced by the cost base of the company from whom he is buying it from. All the matters for him is whether it offers value for money. As for the seller, then they will set a price that maximises their income.

Costs driving up prices is a rather socialist approach to business. Prices are all about what the customer will pay, not what the costbase is doing. Methinks you have things ar5e about face.

Personally, I think they, like Roman are just happy blowing their "easily earned cash" on a plaything and enjoying the ride and the ego trip.

It really is a strange set up. On the one hand they have collective bargaining, the draft system, collective rights etc, which all sound "socialist" (although the NFL is in the middle of a ***** fight over player costs), yet on the other you have franchises & stadiums all able to be bought, sold and moved just to make more money for the owners (and others).

So you think that if wage costs were curtailed, then the commercial owners of football clubs would just pass this saving back on to the punters at the turnstiles???? Dream on.

Doh!!!! You don't have to be listed on the Stock Exchange for money to be going to shareholders. The overwhelming majority of companies owned by shareholders are not listed on the Stock Exchange.

You're going to have to expand on how not being on the Stock Exchange is relevant here.