Frank's cousin

Dalek - sorry but **** off. If you acnt enjoy a 4-0 after playing great stuff you simply aint a Saints fan, so **** of back to skatesville

NO Nuns necessary today.... ;-(

Chez and those worried he is a bit 'staged ' in such interviews.. I actually agree that it may well be 'reheraesed to some extent, but I think it would be naive to think he is not perfectly capable of dishing it out and telling players exactly what the issues are behind closed doors... and doing it the right way, understanding the psychology of each player and not taking a blanket approach... I know he can sound like a record at time as its a constant mantra, but for me that is actually a good thing. The public face is teh same, we dont wash the dirty linen in the media etc and I suspect that culture of , 'quietly going about your business' is a very strong ethos at the club right now, and despite the sterotypical comment, perhaps an influence of our Swiss ownership. Add to that his obviously genuine infectious enthusiasm, the fact he has demonstrated he aint half bad at coaching players and managing as side and I have to pinch myself that we are lucky to have him. I think its pretty much a very good shout that he is a genuine really nice bloke, and would be a good laugh (if a little bonkers ;-) tio share a pint and a chinwag with. Top bloke!

I would supect that there are a couple of good reasons why the flag will only be brought out at certain times... 1) there is probably some crappy H+S issue - stupid i know, but the club have the liability so in some respect its understandable. 2) It actually makes it more meaningful if its not there every week. 3) I suspect that NC has also considered the emotions of the Markus's family and friends - dont forget its still not that long ago he passed away and those close to him will still be grieving. But if you want to use this as another NC beater....

..although given MLT is a more recent legend and still in most folks memories it could be argued that he is still represents what SFC is all about to many fans... this has nothing to do with freebie tickets - more likely a legacy of failed pinnacle bid and the subsequent criticisms of the club by LM and MLT especially when Pards was sacked... ... The problem for me, and i think many is that by involving themselves in these public spats it erodes some of the high regard these legends are held in... we tend to hold players and managers with more affection given their mor obvious contribution and so its more painful seeing this happen in public. With chairman, its different, as I think most dont expect them to get everything right, and accept that its probably impossible to do so, if there is a single vision and bloody minded determination to succeed... which is how they should opperate, but it means its far more difficult to hold Chairman in the same level of esteam as players... so in a way its why its less of 'shock' or disspointment when a chairman does this than a player.... on the flip side most would be naturally far more forgiving of players who cross the line than say NC, because of that aforementioned affection.... ultimately though, dispassionately with resepct to teh spat they are jsut as bad as each other... so for me if forced to chose (which is bloody unfair), i have to side with NC, simply because he is the here and now and is getting things right more often than worng IMHO. I have absolutely no knowledge of why Pards 'had to go' (in NC's own words), and am not interested in rumour and gossip, but the sad fact is that when managers go, so often do the backrrom staff and its not exactly a big deal and very common for those dismissed to go for wrongful dismissal as it provides better pay offs than just the contract term... espciallly if not on a fixed contract... 'a case of nothing to see here' and fuss over nothing.

Sorry UP, you have done it again...picked one sentance in isolation which then comes across as a completely different concept...the point of that WHOLE sentance was to demonstrate the inconsistency shown by those most vocal in their negativity NOW, claiming a club is so much more than results including idiotic statements such as 'would rather be in middle of L2 then have NC at helm' (paraphrased), when previously any good a regime did was immediately dismissed because it was results that matter... ... I am sure a few fans did recognise that winning is not the be and end all of following a club (I personally have never believed it was), but it is the main aim with respect to competition and sporting principle... and when you express a criticism in teh appropriate context, then nowt wrong with that, but surely you recognise that for a few, it goes beyond that. There is also a biog difference between 'winning at all cost'... as Pompey tried, and having winning as your aim and thus doing everything possible with the exception of stupid spending to try and achieve that. What I object to is the assumptiosn so many make without any real evidence that then forms teh whole basis of an argument/criticism. The ST sales thing is a good example; Yes its seems we were late to the party... but there are MANY alteranive explanations as to why rather than simply saying its a cock up.... as to prices and car parking charges and 'ticket taxes' - despite having a 2,000,000 + viewed thread where we laugh at Pompeys stupid spending and inabilty to budget, some fans seem to expect us to spend big on transfers and high wages, yet not consider whetre teh money should come from, or expect teh ML estate to pay for it all desoite it being made clear from the outset that teh expectation is self financing with a little thrown in for major cap ex projects.... its this sort of simplistic view and distorted rationale and justification for criticism that gets me irrate (as you can probably tell!)

... I am surprised that some of you seem 'surprised' that a) this is a tough league, b) that sides would eventually work out that to stiffle us they need to target players like Adam, c) that sometimes, all players make mistakes, d) that sometimes the chances dont always go in and we are beaten by a sucker punch etc etc... We have a squad and a team that is greater than the sum of its parts and with luck, can be there or their abouts, but as we have seen this is not L1 - there ARE about 12 teams all capable of being top 6 come May... we siad that before the season started yet seem to have forgotten it after 9 games.... Yes we have let in 9, but as the saying goes, as long as we score more we will win and its sure as hell more enteratining being the Brazil of he NPC! Come on, we got promoted and are doing well, yet you need to judge on realistic expectations, not ones that have us walking this league...

Thing is SOG, is it really necessary? I mean really to question everything when the approach is working? No one chairman will ever please all the people all the time, thats a given as we all have different attitudes, opinions and thresholds towards the decisions and appraoches taken. So I dont expect to agree with everything NC does. However, as I dont expect to agree with everything he does, rather than form an opinion of him based on the small trivial things I happen to disagree with (which seems to be the approach taken by some), I base my judgement on teh IMPACT of thsoe decsions on what really matters to fans of a club, both the quality and enteratinment the team provide and the results that go with it. I think I lost count of the number of times when trying to defend some the logic in Lowes decisons, I was beaten down (By many now ironically against NC) with the simple response that its 'a results based business' - which is of course true... afterall there may have been a good rationale and logic to playing the kids and the failed dutch duo, but as it did not work Lowe was blamed.... but I digress, but I hope the point comes across. ...which is there are some professional moaners on this forum, that for some reason have a problem with ANY authority at the club, unless its some fan friendly sychophant. They are characterised by changing their opinion in complete shameless contradiction/turnaround depending on what sits their latest whinge... eg, Lowe did nothing right because we got relegated twice - its results that matter.... now its NC is a 'cock' because the club is so much more than results...blah blah blah betwetting nonsense which either illustrates these posters are around 13 or have are just nobends with some sort of agenda. I have never met NC, I have no idea whetehr he is a likeable bloke or not, but if judging on the very criteria those now critical of NC used to judge Lowe (results on the pitch) then he is doing a top job - to me that says the approach is working and if that means he has ****ed a few folk off with certain decisions to enforce that direction, so be it. Re. the comment on why we failed to land some transfers - this is always a contentious issue. On the one hand, taking a strong position and refusing to bow to agents and tehir scandoulous demands, having a stricht budgetary policy is superb and applauded. I am sure NC was 'difficult' to deal with as he will have negotiated hard and refused to paly the 'agent fee' game beyond what was fair and reasonable. On the otherhand as 'mad dog' Allen found out, this can mean you struggle to sign players as agents look elsewhere for more lucrative options... we will be in a far better position in January if we are top 3 or 4 as we will more attractive to players at that time, than we were pre season as a new promoted side... so we will see, but I am sure NC will be 'pragmatic' when its in our best interests to be so.

Although they are always welcome off the bench, lets hope we dont need them tonight ! (unless in celebration at 90mins)... think we may need them though, suggest this will be our toughest game so far, and would be nice if Leicester v Boro is a draw

Thing is UP... yes NC was probably misguided in that interview but given that we dont know the sequence of questions or responses, its difficult to be sure as to how misguided... I dont for one minute believe he is naive, but if intentional, it is difficult to see what strategic value or what was to be gained from this... so jury has to stay out on that, but I would hazzard a guess that teh sequence in which teh responses were published has made teh whole thing far more 'interesting' to the media. So own goal for NC However, as you say both MLT and LM recently being very complimentary about the club, (even if not NC), so although I appreciate its difficult to avoid teh desire to 'defend' or retaliate to such media comment, what did they have to gain form it? I doubt Stelling would have made his rant had LT suggested it would not be wise to do so, or wished it played down. I know he did not comment, but if Stelling is a 'mate' and given the large publioc audience, what was Stelling hoping to achieve on behalf of his mates? 1-1 draw (both own goals IMHO). Sad but trivial in the grand scheme of things

Doubt this is true ...but Makes me laugh - EVERY chairman up and down the country Veto some enquiries re players from the management staff ... usually for financial reasons, but also a variety of others, at 33 Beats hardly fits into the development squad or teh model we have adopted... but hey lets pretend taht NC is somehow unique and very bad because he is doing his job.. Change the thread title to: Cortese makes a decision that is part and parcel of his role andd responsibilty shocker! (would at leasr make it more accurate) ....FFS, there are some mongs/feckwits on here at times...

It not you Kracken - thats the point - making a criticism of particiular decisions is healthy, and perfectly sound. Its the fact that there are some who once again are constantly griping about every single trivial piece of crap because they for some reason dislike/mistrust/think he's a cock ****** without evr presenting a truely honest reason... hense it comes across as agenda driven nonsense, rather than an appropriate and useful debate.

The past defines who we are? YES, but it can also hold you back in some respects, or are we happy with who we are; 'plucky saints '76 cup winners against the mighty Man U, or the side once that finished second in '84. Great occasions at the time and part of our history, but if we place TOO much importance on the past it can stiffle real progress... the ghosts of '66 have haunted England for 50+ years.... The question for me is whether its more important to embrace the here and now with an eye to changing what we are, or trying to stay as we are. One thing was certain after the 'bad times' was that we needed a NEW start. The focus needed to be on the future and that meant not forgetting the past, but certainly not being in awe of it. NC and ML had a vision of what they want Saints to be, not how they could recapture what happened 30 and 40 years ago. Sport and football should be about never being satisfied with where you are, but about striving to do BETTER than what you have achieved in the past. Now given our position 2 years ago and what it takes in the current football environment, the only way to rebuild was IMO a NEW start, a new approach and a SINGLED bloody minded determination to have unity and a sprit of togetherness. Both LM and MLT for example were (for the right reasons) associated with the recent politics, and it was clear that as a result they would not be intrinsically involved going forward.... remember this decision had nothing to do with their obvious contributions to past success, but with their more recent involvement with one or more of the previous regimes. It was IMO nothing to do with ignoring the history of the club, but more to do with a clean slate... a fresh beginning. Also lets not forget that most in football who are successful have huge egos - a good thing and a necessary thing - but it also means you cant have multiple egos involved if you want unity of purpose. I do not think NC would have acheived what we have without having 'broken a few eggs (egos)' - that may not sit well with everyone, but it was probably very necessary. The 'past' also means something different to every fan depending on your age and which era is most influencial... its also defined by your most recent major success... I for one dont want what we have achieved historically to be the defining moment of our club, i want it to be more than that so look forwards rather than backwards. Finally ... UP you set yourself up a bit with your statement... I can remember countless times when I traied to point out logic and merit in some of Lowe's decisions, even if from a practical perspective they might not have been workable - the Dutch duo was a case in point - a cheap measure to try and reduce costs by playing kids was step 1, the second - look to a country where coaches are used to doing this... OK we got a couple of useless guys which was a mistake, but that should distract from the concept or idea given the situation we were in financially... yet you have often been quite dismissive yourself based on the person making whose idea it was rather than the idea itself. In a way these threads are in some respect the same thing. Countless fans have pointed out that whilst they are very happy with Cortese, that does not exclude him form crticism for wrong decisions... BUT given certain posters constant 'joy' in finding another stick its almost like ground hog day with Lowe mark 2 in the way some posters are attacking with glee... because he has a small spat with LM and MLT... its the posters with the ingrained 'he's a cock' mentality on here that I have an issue with... because it seems very familiar to teh last tiem we had soemone in charge that was noit some fan sychophant. The fact that we actually have reative success on the pitch now makes it all the more obvious that their attitude is less about the spat' and more about the fact they just dont like him or his approach - just wishe we would see more honesty as to the REAL reasons why.

That's the thing, its the same old same old who kicked and screamed and refused to ever acknowledge that Lowe ever did anything remotely positive... only with him we suffered on the pitch as well. What is saddest in all this is that these posters who process to 'care' so much about MLT, LM, Ex-Saints and of course the club, really on care about themselves and their pathetic little egos. This is all about an agenda, a clear dislike for anyone who runs teh club with a strong usiness ethic and not in teh wway that pleases them all the time. Sniping criticising at every opportunity often based on nothing more than speculation and rumour, never bothering to find out the facts because the TRUTH is not necessary to add fuel to their own vendettas. Of course no one is perfect and everyone makes mistakes, but when I see this constant immature, and cowardly sniping, without bothering to state the reasons behind their hatred for a bloke (the real reasons that is) itsonly natural to try and defend it. I defended some of Lowe's more often than not because of the same reasons. Arrogant arse that he was, some the decisions had logic, but of course that is never acknowledged because it does not serve their agenda.... same with Cortese. These f*ckwits will never be satisfied, even if they got together in a little clique and sat on the board, they would find something to maon about - especially when teh vast majority of fans were questionning why we were in freefall, in debt and struggling, telling them to feck off as its our club and we would rather be in League 2 with fans in charge that top of the NPC with someone who actually knows what they are doing.... sad ****s.

F*ck me... here we go again.... same old ****** about NC as there was about Lowe. Misinformed, speculative opinion forming based on a sample of a few mates who all have the same agenda, without bothering to look at any of the logic in decsions made, or accept that things are never as black or white as they appear on the surface....

Of course MLT and Pinnacle did not increase the chances of liquidation - so not sure whetre that came from. The validity of the bid becomes questionable only when there are better ones around and for any decsion to prioritise you have to look to M Fry. However, its not difficult to speculate that NC and ML would have been concerned and peeved that a 'rival bid' that probably had no legs, delayed their own negotiations. Even then, the key question for me is what happened afterwards and how the various parties reacted. It became clear very quickly that ANYONE with previous connections to the boardroom or politics would no longer be involved. It was time for a clean slate and new beginning. Almost immediately, as I recall, this led to some 'criticism' in the media from LM et al... valid or not, it was perhaps not timely and fuelled the feud... purther public criticism of the direction the club was taking and public comment on the speculation surrounding Pards added to this. Then we had the whole Benalli show. Now everyone is entitled to their opinion and figures in the game are always going to be asked about for theirs, but surely its not rocket science to see that if you want to be back on the inside, you dont get that through being publically critical, especially when its clear that the regime is about unity and one vision and direction? If you dont agree with that vision or approach, fair enough afterall its about opinion, but you cant be surprized if you are then criticised for NOT being supportive or even of being 'dark forces'. There was bound to be some natural suspicion, so why not build trust? Did not happen. The rest about tickets etc, is a load of ******, and Stelling and media have speculated as MLT never asked for freebies, just 10 for an over subscribed game, for which he was offered 3... more than the average ST holder which is fair enough... Think it was sSTelling again previously who sugegsted MLT should get freebies and it seems to have become urban myth.... In an ideal world they work it out, but TBH, In some respects i believe that we are better off without the old guard being involved as tehy were too close to previous regimes - but having said that it would be great if tehre was at least some civility between these parties, but that requires both sides to agree and avoid the use of teh media to argue their case. Finally what if no agreement is reached and ithis rumbles on? I dont think fans need to 'take sides' its nothing to do with us and those advocating taking sides from both persepctives seem driven by some sort of agenda or ingrained cultural viewpoint. We have a past which we should never forget, AND a future that is our focus - this problem is only there because those intrinsic to recent success, were also involved recently in off the pitch stuff. Had they not been, as we saw with the rest of the Cup squad at SMS v United, there would have ben no issue - add to that that from day 1 there has not exactly been a positive outlook towards the new regime and we have our impasse.

I think what is sad about all this is that its caused a rift between fans on the topic of MLT, LM and NC. All three have played a huge part in the clud, be it on the field or off it and its a real shame that we have been placed in a situation where 'taking sides' seems more important to some than the club itself. Everyone makes mistakes. MLT in fronting teh pinnacle bid was naive for sure, but teh intentions were right. Leon Crouch and Micheal Wilde in believing that the best way forward was a go-for-broke spend on promotion, Lowe on thinking the kids would do all right and turn us into Ajax overnight and avoid paying huge wages would prevent financila meltdown, Nicola in not explianing to fans the reasons for simple things such as STs sales timing, charges and taxes... they ahev all done it and will all continue to do so. The question is do we go on..and on... and on about them because we place so much value on the past (afterall history is what makes a club), or do we embrace teh future, warts and all, because its the ambition and future that will define us? Take your pic, we have seen that you cant have both because I dont see how MLT/LM and NC will reconcile their differences.. just dont think it will ever happen, no matter how much sense that would make. So what's it to be? Well, no right or wrong here IMHO, just depend son your perspective. For me I value the contribution of those legends and hold those memories fondly, and dont want to disect them and analyse so that I end up reducing the affection I have for the heroes of the past, but the thing is, it is the past, history and its not good being a fan of a club that WAS... but for me its more important to be a fan of the club that IS. That means the here and now and teh good things that are happening. For me, our success is down to two main things, 1) NA has built a Spirit and togetherness amongst the players that is second to none..the sum of the parts and all that. NC has focused on blancing the egos internally and ensuring everyone at the club is pulling in the same direction... which has meant that many egos on the outside of old have been disenfranchised - its the price of that internal unity IMO, and although I can appreciate that its does not sit comfortably with some fans, it all depends on what you value most. I think its naive to think we could have had both... we saw with Wilde and Crouch how trying to keep everyone happy all the time resulted in ineffectual and poor leadership, infighting and divisions... even if their intentions were honorable and in the spirit of inclusivity... it became a mess. NC has gone the more direct dictatorial route, with me, my way or feck off. It seems harsh and hard and often wont be comfortable for those with more egalitarian views of the 'community clubbeing its fans' but in the modern environment, its one that works - so make you choice.... but for the love of a mystical being often portratyed as an old man with a grey beard, lets put this ******** to bed once and for all and focus on 3 points at Cardiff?

... seems to me, both parties are part if SFC. Both parties have done great things for the club. Both Parties have made a few mistakes... end of. That's life. The polarisation suits certain agendas of a tiny minority, but for most which side you come down on (none of us can help it, it's natural) is whether you value teh past more than the future... no right or wrong, just different perspectives. I tend to look forward

I'm with LTC on this one... its dissapointing becuase we knwo the squad and NC will be dissapointed... because they have created a winning culture and mentality and winners are not satisfied with draws and losses and work even harder to address it. This is not a criticism of NC or the team, they ahve already doen wonders so far and i am proud of them... but, we have gotten to where we are by not accepting mediochre. Of course no one can win every game and no one is casting blame... but nor will NC and the players accept it as a 'bad day at the office' because they are winners and not whingers. They will analysewhy they did not win this and work on thsoe areas... That that is why this is a great side.

This. Sadly there are fans who simply cant cope with not having something to moan about... and quite frankly they are getting very boring.

Coprs, I think the 2/3s bit stems from teh fact that teh 4 year parachute payments are split approx 16m yr 1 16 mil year 2 (which I you are already in as you drew some of this when still in the prem) and then 8m year 3 and 8 mil year 4, so it was correct from that perspective....the total is obviously 48 mil or there abouts, but from that you need to subtract the amount you used in teh prem and teh amount that is held back for football creditors... teh rst will no doubt be swalled up paying the CVA creditors... or one would hope...

Er... not sure... confused now, BUT are you right? .... if you have 16 teams, what is the total number of possible combination of matches? If it was a 16 team league it would mean 30 weeks of 8 games a week = 240 matches (or combination of matches) Only 1 of these games will be Saints v Newcastle so 1/240 + 1/240 chance that its Newcastle v Saints giving (1/120) However, as its a cup you have to select 1 week only ( at random) so the odds that in any week saints will be playing Newcastle - is actually 2/30 as saints must play them twice to complete the season ;-) so that makes it 1 in 15 surely? LOL ;-)

If you want to be a smart arse about its more complicated than that ;-) If saints drawn first - chance of that is 1 in 16 x 1 in 15 that club A (the one you want drawn next) = 1 in 240 PLUS Chance of Club A being drawn first is 1/16 x Saints drawn second 1/15 = 1/240 PLUS Chance of saints being 3rd in draw is 1/14 x club A being 4th 1/13 = 1 in 182 + vice versa and so on..... Think thats right all the way down to the last paring reducing the odds to 1 in 2... then add them all up... leave that to someone else ;-) Any probability experts know any different?

Gemmel - I did read it and noted the fact that the Human Rights judgement could factor in violent crime etc... but fair enough, the comment was perhaps based more on opinion... but why do I suggest there is an 'agenda' here - I am talking about the agenda of singling out such cases for the fan forum moral judgement and the way in which this has bee responded to on this site - if there was no agenda, why have some brought up 'other cases' such as the Iraqi or Jamaican - if race is not an issue and its about nationality, what about the cases involving Germans, French, Polish or whatever? The problem with the subsequent responses is that they are IMHO deliberately mixing up 3 seperate (if not) issues to make a point... which is pretty typical when trying to 'cloud' the issues and get a morally unanimous response .... Issues: 1. 15 yr old rapes 13 old - Hideous crime, no argument, is convicted, sentanced and serves his time and is released - First question: sentancing issue, oviously 4 years is pathetic, but that is separte from all the other issues Second question: should an ex con be allowed to get on with their lives after having served a sentence? Again seperate from the other issues 2. After having spent several years in the UK, should an ex con be allowed to stay in the UK if they have established a life, not reoffended and gotten on with things - YES it is very difficult to ignore the nature of the crime when making this judgement, and as we see, the legislation does allow for the nature of violent crime to be considered in making that judgement... but it is not the only issue - This judgement should IMO not be based on anything other than what the judges use... eg the nature of the crime, the level in which the ex con has re-establihed his life etc - but rightly IMO also includes whether in deporting someone back to their country of origin, what might happen to them in that case, even if they have served a sentance in the host country. The nationality/race shoudl and does not play any part in the judgement and is irrelevent to the debate, so does not even need to be mentioned whether they are Polish, German or Iraqi or Nigerian - so why mention it? The media is to blame in the first instance, and then so are thsoe who are bringing it up in subsequent 'cases' 3. Should we care what happens to an ex-con if deported after they have served their sentance here? Personally, yes. If we take the repsonsibilty for their trial, conviction and sentancing, washing our hand afterwards, is not what makes Britain Great... what makes us great and BETTER than many other countries is that we DO have a civilised and mature society that deals with these issues, under the umbrella of legislation. 4. Human Rights ACT - yes it has been misused, abused and like many Acts and legislation, lawyers find ways of using it to their advantage. - but that is teh nature of deomocracy in that if the people wish to see amendments to this to close loopholes etc, they have the opportunity to do so in the way they vote and acts are amended accordingly. This has feck all to do with 'political correctness' (gone mad or otherwise - the Daily Mails favourite slogan), but about a democratic value system that ensures that the starting point is not extremes, but fairness. If the fairness is considered too lax, it will be ammended through the democratic process. And tehre is good reason for that. It removes the reactionist emotive element from legislative change - you only have to look at how the figures for approval of capital punishment go up immediately after a child murder etc and then settle back down as folk realise that it might satisfy their emmotion need for justice, but does not in anyway act as a deterrent and is a backwards step. 5. The emotive issue. As a father of a daughter, as pointed out above, would I ever forgive someone who in any way harmed my child? NO, would I want to search tehm out and do them harm? YES to bloody right. But that personal need is not what legislation is based on - we have progressed from an 'eye for an eye' thank feck and although from a personal perspective I can fully understand that need if personnaly effected, its not something on which to base legislation. 6. So yes I believe that there is an 'agenda' here because if debating the issues, nationality is irrelevent.

yep he is/was whatever... that is not the issue that so many posts above are arguing about - for that he has been tried, convicted, sentanced and released... he got on with his life (rightly or wrongly) and that is one debate as to whether a0 sentances are correct, or b) whether criminals who have served their time should be free to get on with as normal a life as possible... or locked up for good - that is for judges to decide and that is what they did... I dont agree with the sentance, which is way too short even for a 15 year old, but that is not the issue this post 'raised' Its about whether having completed his sentance or paid for his crime, after having buiold a life here whetehr he should be allowed to stay - and as it stands that is judged on the issue of human rights legislations ... WHICH does not (and shoudl not ) factor in the previous crime. The fact that this has been highlighted on a football fan forum, when 1000s of rape cases or victim needs are not suggests an alternative agenda. The fact someone brings up andother 'illegal immigrant' crime as opposed to 1000s of hit and runs per year means its not unreasonable to suggest that this is driven by another agenda. As hideous as teh crime is, its not the issue when determining his right to stay under the legislation