um pahars

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.

All I'm saying is that the amounts paid to players is not the driving force behind us having to pay higher prices at the turnstile and your points back that up, in that what is driving players salaries in many markets are owners pouring money in, or weak management (responding to many pressures) spending more than they earn. If clubs (including ourselves) really had to live by "normal" economic rules, then it might indeed force a more realistic stance with regards wages, but I'm not sure it would have any effect on the prices we're paying at the turnstiles. Ticket prices are solely dictated by what clubs think they can get away with charging and what we are prepared to pay (and it could be made worse in a "normal" trading position with income being even more important if clubs were no longer being subsidised by rich owners).

Would have to agree. I think not seeing Lallana for one meaningless game is a lot less important than him having a decent break over the summer.

Surely a wage cap would go against your normal free market principles. Additionally, we're being fleeced because that is what the market is prepared to pay. Simply free market economics. If the money wasn't going in the players pockets, then it would be going in the pockets of shareholders, it certainly wouldn't be distributed back to customers.

Or Oxo???? Friend of mine sorted out 25+ tickets (for a very reasonable £5 for adults and £2.50 for kids) so think I will be popping along. Hats off to some decent pricing.

Market forces. Don't think it's value for money then don't go. Simples.

As I said in my first post, many other teams do sing it, but Portsmuff sung it for a few seasons beofre we latched on to it.

Any self respecting Saints fan has to surely remember the Hildene Angel advert and the strategically placed H and A up The Dell. As for the thread in point on the Ugly Inside, I thought the issue was more to do with matchday programmes and ditching the long standing Cedar Press and switching to Portsmuff based printers Bishops.

Which is why I can never understand why we try to sing "Southampton Till I Die". I'm sure others sing it as well, but I always associate that shtty ditty with Portsmuff as they definitely knocked it out before us.

Indeed, and I also like: "Before you embark on revenge, you should dig two graves" Confucius (I think)

How old are you Delldays???? 43 now and certainly not sleeping as well as I used to (despite my life being a lot less hectic & feeling rather mellow and calm). Also sure I'm needing a pi65 more often during the night as well. Put it down to middle age fella.

I think most people would accept that there are some differences between Holmes and Bart, particularly the peculiar position of being 2nd choice goalkeeper. Although injured for a period, I think Bart has shown himself to be slightly more robust than Holmes and although he hasn't actually featured in many games I do think there is a difference between being on the bench at St Mary's and being on the bench of the treatment room of Staplewood.

I'm not sure a fit Lee Holmes would have turned that debacle of a season around!!!