um pahars

Nothing personal Geneva (as I was going to raise a similar point with DellDays and a couple of others), but is success on the pitch the only thing that matters to you??? If so, would you be willing to pay any price for that success??? Being totally hypothetical, would you accept £40 for matchday tickets? £50? £60? Would you accept Steve Grant being banned from St Mary's if the powers that be thought his criticisms were unwarranted? Would you accept this forum being shut down if the Club felt it was a hindrance to success? What about banning all media sources (radio, TV, papers etc) and only allowing supporters to pick up stuff about the Club from the Official Site? What about withdrawing all co-operation for any event outside the confines of the Club if they felt it hindered success(i.e. no other charitable work, engagement with the local community)? I'm sure I could list loads more, but hopefully you get my drift. Is success on the pitch really everything, or do we also want "something else" alongside it (ethics, fairness, history, a community spirit, togetherness)??? In which case, is it not a personal decision as to what level of success we would accept balanced against these "other issues"??? Or is everything up for scarifice on the altar of success???

Did you read his Echo piece where he mentioned not believing everything your read in the press on this issue? If so, then I think you might want to reconsider the "planting" claim. (Of course could have been misquoted in his Echo article, though not likely, IMHO).

Although I like Oakley as a person and as a player, I would have to say that I think the turnaround in fortunes that day against Espanyol was probably more down to their manager and a few kind words suggesting that going in 4-0 up in a game celebrating the opening of the opponents new ground might not be what the locals came to see!!!!!! They definitely took their foot off the gas in the second half!!!!!

One of those players that every half decent side needs, but someone who will rarely get any credit. Solid enough and the fact that a fair few different managers rated him means he must have been doing something right. I think his off the field, low key personality meant he also escaped the radar. Being honest, I also felt he never really lived up to his earlier promise, although would accept injury, a revolving manager's door, as well as often ebing in a struggling team may not have been the best help in fulfilling your potential.

Once again, apretty decent set of results for us. You're not going to get them going all your way so Hudds & Bmuff drawing & Charlton losing (at home) can't be bad!!!! Posh and MK Dons winning isn't that worrying, particularly if Hartlepool lose at home again midweek!!!!!

John, I was on my "sabbatical" when this first came out, so apologies if I'm not that well informed on the issue, but couldn't the issue surrounding the initial furore be more to do with it being a somewhat "dodgy" claim i.e. "dodgy" in that at that point the allegation was fairly new on the block and involved two people going to court and the last thing this forum wanted was to be somehow implicated in an already butter dispute. I could understand if the forum owners were unsure of its veracity, particularly as it turns out there still seems to be some contention over the facts with "Benali's" side claiming it is going through the due legal process, whilst the Club are saying they have heard nothing and are aware of nothing???? I'm not doubting your sincerity or personal integrity (I think you are a thoroughly decent chap), just suggesting that the motive for stamping on the initial post might be to do with saving this forums ar5e as opposed to Cortese's. On a similar note, was anyone aware of a rumour that Lee Hoos and Matty Oakley had a dispute when Hoos was renting Oakleys house??? Iwas led to believe it was only resolved when some lumps paid Mt Hoos a visit (could of course be total ******).

Indeed, I find it rather strange that people are expressing an opinion on an article they have not even read. This is just the kind of post that FF was referring to on another thread in that people are just so quick to jump in to knee jerk mode without even considering the issue. Like you I find it a rather conciliatory piece and certainly attempts to shed some light on a falling out which increasingly appears unnecessary. You never know it might be the start of a thawing in relations!!

That's a totally valid opinion to hold and espouse, no problem with that whatsoever. However, it's just as valid to be interested in this issue, as many so obviously are for whatever reason (noseiness, juvenile curiosity, both are still entwined with this club, what it says about the moral compass of those involved who both have an interest in our Club, much of what keeps a forum going is not related to current on the pitch issues etc etc etc). And of course if you're not interested, then just steer clear of those threads/posts. Personally, I'm just not comfortable with others telling me what I can or cannot talk about (within realms of decency, legal issues etc).

Start a new thread and post it up again and let's go down the road of whether it was right to be pulled (with the benefit of hindsight, further information coming to light etc) as it has got nothing to do with this thread which is important in its own right.

Well it would appear you offended the poster who you were replying to, and I also felt it was unnecessary and unwarranted rebuke. As a moderator I would have thought you would need to be a little more tactile and discreet with how you communicate with your paying customers.

I think you have a very valid point and I was going to reply, not along the line of you being censored due to "this site being in the pocket of the Club" as per this thread, but suggesting that maybe it was because such an issue was always going to be dodgy "legal" territory. Two distinctly different issues. But sadly the opportunity was denied. And I personally don't think my angle is for this thread, so I'm out.

It may be that I don't quite understand the role and responsibilities of being a moderator on this forum, but I have to say I do find your tone and application at times to be somewhat wanting. Now if there is no requirement for a moderator to act in a way that is "inoffensive" and be a standard for others to aspire to then please accept my apologies. Nothing personal.

I would personally up your bid and pay at least £200. So an average of £100 per fan. Multiply our ave gate of 22,000. And we've raised £2.2million. Now all we have to do is get some brown envelopes and get Bournemouth, Huddersfield & Charlton paid off (or at least their keepers or key players).

Personally, I would prefer /askinglobbying/engaging with the Club and attempting to get the original pre season Ted Bates game reinstated. That would make more sense to me and open the celebrations and recognition up to a much wider audience. Was there ever anything official about the dropping of the game???? Or has it just been an oversight in the melee of installing a new regime????

I think Monsieur Grant has been open and honest with his replies on the other thread detailing the "link" between the Club and this website. I struggle to make a jump from working constructively with the Club over photos, crest etc and being under the Club's control, or being deemed as their mouthpiece. Certainly, when you consider Steve's contributions on some issues (on here and elsewhere) and the existence of quite a few voices that have been criticial of certain decisions made by the Club, then I'm not sure how people have come tho that conclusion. (For the record I mentioned this place being allowed to use the crest when the Ex Saints weren't, but my argument was that there should be nothing stopping both places using it - "FWIW, I think this site should be allowed to use it, along with a number of other institutions (with the Club's agreed permission). It must be possible for the Club to extend its goodwill and the let the logo be used by a number of initiatives after having a chat with them and being sensible about it."

I know there was some toing and froing that summer and we never concluded the deal, but I'm sure he played in our tour of Austria???/Switzerland????/Alpine region??? that summer as an acquaintance had to courier his boots over!!!!!!! Or perhaps he never made it in the end (but his boots did)!!!!!!

And after being 2-0 up at half time!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ditto. Has to be the best way of getting promoted (although at Wembley would be better) and conversely the worst if you fail in the final.

Didn't Marcus De Beasley (he of American extraction) have a couple of games for us pre season at some point???

How about "Southampton till I die" then ?????? Not sure if Portsmuff came up up with the original (or whether they just copied someone else), but they certainly sang it before us and therefore I can't bring myself to join in. As for the "shed" song, I've just thought it was cringeworthy.

NI was "open" with the IFO and also posted a couple of things on the UI after the IFO report. He has explained things as far as I believe he can. However, the biggest problem is surely without being made aware of the Club's reasons for banning him from holding a season ticket, then it is impossible to put up a defence and respond.

If people are rightly banned and the due process has been followed, then I very much doubt that there would be much support and debate about it (and quite rightly so), but that is not what has happened here. I'm not sure how you came to that judgement if you have read the report. On the first issue the Ombudsman is unequivocal in his findings and clearly states the Club have not handled the complaint correctly (and been in breach of their own Charter etc etc etc) and should apologise to NI. On the second count, it is only due to the Club refusing to outline their reasons for the banning of NI from holding a season ticket, that they have found it more difficult to get to the bottom of the issue. The onus is on the Club to provide the Ombudsman with information and IMHO the Ombudsman has interpreted their refusal in exactly the right way (otherwise we're entering the realms of negative proof fallacy). The Club had every opportunity to provide the Ombudsman with satisfactory answers/explanantions (even in confidence) and I'm afraid their failure to do so is inexcusable and as damning as their initial handling of the affair.

I may come to regret this thread when AOC becomes an absolute superstar, but as we stand here today I would much rather have Lallana in the side (of course I'd love them both). For me, when he is absent we struggle to get going.

Indeed. The Club would be well advised to follow the IFO's ruling and apologise to NI and reinstate him as a season ticket holder immediately or at least at the start of next season. I would be very disappointed if the Club decides to go against an independent ruling given out by an Ombudsman appointed by the Footballing authorities (& Government).

I'd imagine that as the Club took the action then they would know what this is about. However, I understand that NI still has not had any confirmation as to why his right to buy a season ticket was withdrawn. As far as I'm aware they haven't acted on this report. I would be very disappointed if they didn't care about the opinion of Football's independent ombudsman who was appointed with the backing of the three main footballing bodies and the Government. You have to assume the Club are aware of this (I certainly did) as it is an integral part of the game and membership of the League.