um pahars

I very much doubt they are and I svery much doubt they could/should be. It's as lame as "who would you shoot, your mum or your dad". Playground stuff.

Yeah, because those two extremes are the only two choices available.

I was aware from my dealings with Meridian, the City Council and SEEDA that the whole of the waterfront from the Television Studios down to the Itchen Bridge were earmarked for regeneration. As far as I was aware, almost all of the waterfront could have been made available to any developers who were willing to finance it (and the council and the relevant authorities would be only too willing to roll over to achieve it). Obviously a few years out of date (and SEEDA are on the way out), but given the current economic climate, I would have thought the City Council would still be up for greasing the planning wheels etc.

Well we already had a few renditions of "You don't know what you're doing" and "There's only one Alan Pardew" last September (probably sung by the same bunch who were yesterday singing their Cortese song, fickle, my ar%se).

Had my worries that it wouldn't be a happy ending. RIP to the fella and deepest sympathies to his family.

Mentioned on the post match thread, but an oldish fella collapsed just before the start of the game and looked in a very bad way. They were working feverishly on him as they took him out on a stretcher. Fair play to all involved as they were working their bollocx off to try and save him. Haven't heard whether he pulled through or not, so fingers crossed.

Sit in Kingsland North and there was definitely a fair amount of cheering which seemed mainly to come from the Northam when the lad was subbed. It doesn't matter how sheite the game was or how poor his contribution today, that response isn't going to help anyone. I'm all up for honest opinions, but that type of jeering is just so counter productive. He didn't play that well (then again, not many shone today), but the bloke next to us reckons he was one of the better players at Exeter.

Definitely not our best performance of the season and we seem to be misfiring at the moment. Not even the introduction of Lallana at half time got us going. It was definitely one of those Holloway ugly wins. A win is a win. But on a sadder note, I do hope the old fella who collapsed in the toilets under the Kingsland just before the game has pulled through as he looked to be in a very bad way. Fair play to the emergency services, stewards and police who were giving their all to save him.

A tough decision I would say!!!!!! Not going to be an easy task sorting season tickets for next year with promotion hopefully still in the offing and all the problems that brings (delays, potential price changes, take up). To make life easier for the Club, we need to get on a run and get promoted as early as possible (mid April?????). Therefore the problem lies with Nigel!!!!!!!

Football is all about opinions and we're all experts on how things should be done (at least on here LOL), but you're right in that I doubt any "true" Saints fan wants the Club to fail. We all ultimately want the Club to succeed and prosper, which is why I do get a tad frustrated when some people start questioning others credentials just because they have the temerity to offer an alternative opinion on "their" Club. At the very, very, very worse I imagine a few wouldn't mind a name failing (insert Cortese, Lawrie etc), but the Club itself??? I very much doubt it. My one caveat to that would be that given their profile, status and reach, I do think they have to be somewhat measured and thoughtful before they give their thoughts on some of the more "controversial" issues. In the sense that they are not mere fans, there does come a degree of responsibility with their status. I'm not saying they should gag themselves, nor that they should refrain from commenting on things they consider important to them, but there has to be a an acceptance on their part that their words may well travel further.

Fingers crossed, this might be the start of something new, where diplomacy, consideration and reconcilliation are used instead of battles being played out in the public view.

If we're talking in strict business terms, then surely this site could be viewed as being in competition with the Club. I certainly visit this site more for the news (and gossip) than I do the Official Site, so you could argue it takes traffic (and therefore money) from the OS. If we're looking at this in the cold light of day, then I would have to say that if a Charity that has a "good and firm relationship" with the Club and has many ex employees doing good deeds cannot use the logo, then this site should be receiving a request in the next few days. 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 have to agree and it is not just Saints who have gone down this route. A number of Clubs recently changed their logos in order to copyright it and protect it form exploitation. I can totoally see the logic in protecting the brand in terms of merchandise, copyright abuse etc with regards "normal" business, but would have hoped that there would be the ability to allow agreed dispensations for certain organisations.

Maybe with the Club doing well and hopefully coming out from somevery dark times, life expectancy of Saints fans has risen!!!!!

As I said when some were incorrectly claiming the Ex Saints weren't a charity (and a whole host of other attacks on its credibility), I'm afraid mud sticks. We may have to start with "assuming the directly attributable quote from MLT is true", then I have to say I can't find the logic of banning use of the Club's logo by the Ex Saints. With the Club happy to state they have a strong relationship with them, I think that makes some of the excuses no longer valid, so why would you say it is justified?? I am genuinely interested. After all, I look up to the top of this board and see the crest fully on display. If a forum like this can use it, then why not a "connected" charity??

Good move IMHO if he does bring it back. I think it was mentioned that it would be linked in to a more robust system which would tackle the original reason given for pulling the scheme, namely the "fraud". Were swipe cards mentioned, or am I just getting old?????

I think I even mentioned in one of the posts on that thread that I was saddened to see this good little charity being used as a Political Football in a battle of larger egos (with people on here then happy to give it a kick). And as I also mentioned, both sides need to stop pouring fuel on the fire and someone needs to bash their heads together. I don't think anyone comes out of this very well, intentionally or unintentionally. The Ex Saints part of the Mail article (the bit about withdrawing use of logo) is a quote directly attributed to MLT. As he's on their "board", one would assume he's not lying over something that is so easy to substantiate.

Indeed it is very good news to hear that the Club and The Ex Saints have a "good and firm relationship" and on the other thread that is all that I wanted them both to have. Working together positively for the good of the Club. They are decent little charity, doing much good out in the Community and keeping the name of the Club and the its former heroes (and some not so "heroes") in the mind of many communities. If anyone was offended by that wish, then I'm more than happy to apologise on here. Similarly, if anyone felt any of the attacks were personal (I can assure you, they were not), then I'm more than happy to apologise. But I certainly won't be apologising for the majority of my posts on that thread that were countering claims it wasn't even a charity, along with other insinuations and underhand comments about the charity and its operations.

That he looked like Wayne Sleep.

Potentially have one spare ticket, up in the Gods (Plus side is it's not next to me). Was spare this morning, so hopefully it still is. Face value of course (PM if you want).

I would venture that you may well be right in that I would guess that it would be cheaper to outsource all your ticketing operations (and insist on a premium if bought in person at the ticket office!!!!!!). However, the downside could well be a fall off in numbers if people still demanded that personal service. But I think this point does highlight that I very much doubt that the transaction cost per ticket is any more expensive on the phone than it is in person (P&P excluded). I'm sure you could always just quote "supply and demand" and set any price you see fit, but as you say I think there has to be an element of fairness and equitability in our pricing structure and I'm just not convinced this booking fee is fair. As you quite rightly point out, there is a section of our fanbase who are adversely affected by this fee and they are probably the ones already laden with the highest transport costs (and also probably with the easiest excuse not to come - travelling time). Should we not be looking for every opportunity to encourage people to come as opposed to potentially hitting certain sub-sections with an additional cost? Or is this small fee just that, a small fee, that doesn't discourage people either way (of course, the counter argument to that would be to start throwing in a Ticket Office booking fee if prices are that inelastic). Finally, what is sad is that for some people an honest and upfront debate about issues that affect supporters is somehow seen as disloyal, offensive or counter productive. I would counter that by having such debates it may be possible to find a better solution, one from which we all benefit (the Club included). I would also suggest it is somewhat draconian to start suggesting that certain topics (or even individuals) are off limits.

There is a cost incurred allowing people to book tickets at the ticket office, but this cost is absorbed in the "normal" price. I don't think anyone would have a problem with any incremental costs (e.g. postage) being passed on, but £3 a pop, I'm not so sure. I'm sure that for some matches you can't avoid it, (particularly if you live a distance from SMS and buying on the day will see you charged an extra £2). Are ticket prices that inelastic??? Is £3 on top going to put people off??? Are certain sections of our fanbase adversely affected by this??? Are prices at the upper limit anyway???

Subtle digs....... My, you do live in a strange world where people aren't allowed to discuss issues. In the interests of fairness, feel free to stalk me on other threads where I have been supportive and understanding of the Club and its Officers (Staplewood, Cortese on Chamberlain, Bournemouth away etc).

But there is a service when people walk up to the window. As a cost per transaction, I would venture that is comparable (if not cheaper) to go via a call centre. I think it would be fair to charge P & P as that is an additional cost incurred, but the £3 is OTT. (PS I'm sure I've got through to the ticket office itself when I have used the ticket line on occasions).

But haven't there been occasions when tickets have not been sold on the day (meaning those living away have no alternative) and certainly for this Bournemouth game it would appear that some times there is no alternative. On a single adult Bournemouth ticket, this £3 charge equates to a 16% surcharge (30% for an U 16). Maybe some will say the sums involved aren't huge (maybe not, but over a seasonthey soon add up) others will say that the money is going back in to the Club (and tug on the heart strings the way some councils have done by suggesting services would have to be cut without these fees), others will say why not just raise the average ticket price (as with the heart strings argument above, if the money is going to the Club then why not ask us all to pay a bit more every time we attend as the Club will benefit even more) whilst others will say that selling tickets is a normal part of a "business" and why should certain parts of the fanbase be charged extra (is transaction per ticket that much more expensive over the phone/in writing Vs personal visits to the Ticket Office???). As far as I'm aware the Club don't charge for credit card/debit card transactions (I'm sure I didn't pay extra when I bought my ST by credit card did I???), but they certainly charge a booking fee, which I think is somewhat discriminatory and a tad OTT.

I'm sure Matty did like Spurs when he was growing up and I don't doubt that there was a bit of man love there for Glenn Hoddle, but I do also think it is safe to say that Matty is a huge Saints fan. Like many others (including myself who liked Man City in the early 70's when I was 4 or 5 - mainly because my brother liked Man Utd) he may have come to Saints via a roundabout way, but we are all ultimately fans of the Club. I just think in the current *****fest where a decent charity are seen as fair game to have a pop at, it doesn't help having a pop at MLT and slagging him as he is now deemed to be a Spurs fan. It's the type of sniping that the main egos have been playing out, just don't think it's necessary for us all to be dragged down.