xerox

thats the one!

any pictures?

err.. i thought the idea was to have one place full of noise?? it wont work waste of time, i'll move to the kingsland as banter is part of football, best thing would be to reopen ichen north and leave the away fans where they are otherwise next season you are going to get previously quiet areas invaded by noisy fans, and those people will end up moving somwhere else. sms evolved a good spread of supproters, all finding the area they liked, over the first few years - pain in the neck to go through it all again - waste of time!!

yes the 'female's camels private area' meaning, always thought it a bit strange but i have been told 'where to go' quite a few times when calling people mush. anyone explain this?

saints promotion 30 pounds at 6-1 pompey to go down 10 pounds at 5-1 arse to win prem 5 pounds at 9-1 all made on 9 july

agree makes me really sad to read the negative stuff today about the team, esp davis,, we have so many tw*t fans its unreal, you are tw*ts!!! we have a great team and we should be proud of what they have done, things can only get better for saints and the city. we are on the up after so much crap, if you dont like it feck off, you are not saints fans!!!!!

yes agree - lets go back to navy blue shorts, it's what we originaly wore and it will make us stand out from the makems, sheff utds, etc of this world, we deserve a kit like no other, black shorts are crap! 125th anniversery maybe - and stick with it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

15k to put poppies on shirts???? cant cost more than 10 quid each

Agree 100% as i said on the other thread, i'm with jason on this. loosing my blk3 seat was a factor in not renewing my st's (along with lowe, relegation etc etc..) having sat in most areas of the ground i must say i really miss itchen north, it developed into a little community over the years. that is now lost. oh - some on hear seem to think banter is violence related, it is not, it's just a laugh and part football. whats wrong with having away fans behind the goal, away fans are integral to the atmosphere at games, i like the buzz they create - sticking them out of the way (a la newcastle) will remove that part of the game as well. sms is getting quite boring now, sing in the chapel or kingsland and people stare at you like you have just beaten a baby seal to death. oh - delldays - you sound like a right grade A tw*t, i'ld rather go to fratton park than go to a game/pint with somebody like you. don't bother responding, i don't care what you think!

shut up you muppet, what would you know? ever been in there?! it's not loud because they closed 75% of it numb nuts. i sat in blk 3, row cc for 5 years, it's great in there, with a really mixed crowd of people. i don't want to sit with the chavs in the northam and the other parts of the ground are so dull. and as for not selling tickets there so his mates, family have to sit else where is a joke - why dont the club just tell us why they are doing it rather than try to pull the wool over out eyes with this bullsh1t from kelvin, he didn't play in that game did he? this is a crap idea, i'm with st jason all the way with this one. blk 3, row cc, 48 49 - can i have my seats back please sfc?!?!?!?!?

yes i know they seem to, esp england managers but thats another thread for the summer no doubt.

Barrels.

no thats correct - the sheild really should be our badge. The Arms of the City of Southampton The official description of the Arms of the City by the College of Heralds is as follows:- "ARMS: Per fess, Argent and gules, three Roses counterchanged. CREST: On Wreath of the Colours, Issuing our of a Castle Or, a Queen in her imperial majesty holding in the dexter hand the sword of justice and in the sinister the balance of equity all proper, Mantling Gules doubled Argent. SUPPORTERS: On either side a Ship upon the sea proper, standing in its forepart a Lion rampant Or". This description is in heraldic `shorthand`, and the following is an explanation of the City`s Arms in ordinary modern English:- THE ARMS: These are drawn on the shield in the centre, which is shown divided into two approximately equal parts. The top half is white (or silver) with 2 red roses side by side, and the bottom half is red with one slightly white (or silver) rose in its centre. THE CREST: This includes a knight`s helmet which rests on the shield. The mantling (probably representing the cloth which hung down to protect the back of a knight`s head and neck from the sun and rain) is red with a white lining, and is shown hanging from the top of the helmet and below the wreath with the other end parted into long streamers. The wreath (the laces attaching the crest to the helmet) is in bands of white and red. Above this is the crest, which is a yellow (or golden) castle resting on a green mound, with the upper body of a woman, crowned as a queen and robed in red with white trimmings, rising out of the top. She holds in her right hand a sword of justice, point upwards, and in her left hand the balance or scales of equity or fairness. The queen and her sword and balance are shown in their `proper` or natural colours. THE SUPPORTERS: The two supporters of the shied are Tudor ships afloat on the sea, with gun ports in the hull, and 2 masts with flags and furled sails, all in their natural colours. A large yellow (or golden) lion stands in the bows of each ship, rearing up to hold the side of the shield in its front paws. The bottom point of the shield is usually shown resting on a mound of green grass, and the ships can be shown anchored or not. All these together make up Southampton City`s Heraldic Achievement, or Armorial Bearings. It does not include a Motto. THE ORIGINS OF SOUTHAMPTON`S ARMORIAL BEARINGS The first surviving official record of the Town`s Arms is a grant on 4th August, 1575 by the herald, Clarenceux King of Arms, of a Crest, and Supporters to the Arms. In this grant the Arms themselves were described as "anicient armes". No one knows, therefore, when the three rose on their contracting backgrounds were first granted or adopted, although the simplicity of the design points to a fairly early date - the thirteenth or fourteenth century. The general opinion is that the most likely period for their adoption is the second half of the fourteenth century, a period when many military expeditions of the Hundred Years War sailed wholly or in part from Southampton and the Solent, including those led by Henry, Duke of Lancaster and his son-in-law John of Gaunt, also Duke of Lancaster. John`s younger brother, the Duke of York, also had similar connections with the Port, and it seems to be a reasonable guess that the red and white rose badges of the Dukes of Lancaster and York should have been used as a compliment to those important royal princes. However, it must be stressed that this is only a guess, no proof of it survives. THE CREST AND SUPPORTERS Their grant in 1575 came at a time when heraldic design had declined from its medieval clarity and simple beauty, so that Southampton has one of the most unusual and complicated achievements in British heraldry, although the earlier Arms do show an elegant clarity. It should be added that the grant of supporters is a rather exceptional honour, nowadays mainly reserved for peers and certain types of knight. DEPICTIONS OF THE ARMS In the early 17th century a Herald, making a local Visitation to check on Hampshire heraldic bearings, wrongly recorded the Arms of Southampton as two white roses and one red rose on alternately coloured backgrounds, also that the lions stand in the sterns (not the bows) of the ships. Writers of books on heraldry have copied this mistake ever since, and so wrong arms for Southampton can be found in many such books even today. In heraldry, white is interchangeable with silver, and yellow with gold, and are taken to represent these metals. However, they should be used consistently, that is, white with yellow, or silver with gold, but not white with gold or part white and part silver.

fair comment but from a revenue point of view i don't think it going to b a gold mine, thus poor decision, whoever made it. PS i thought the man u kit reflected one of thier old kits??

oh yes it will SC - it's awful!

this is really really bad!!!! i could have done this while waiting the the traffic lights to turn green. this bears no resemblance to being a saints kit. umbrow design sh1t to be sold to tasteless scummy chavs! i think the embossed bit must be a hint at a new badge - why else could it be there, but i really hope not - if we have a new badge there is a very good one out there already - it's called the city crest. this is a big mistake by the new owners to allow this out, this will make no money and make us look like d'heads. if tony adams comes in after this, this will totally wipe out the feelgood factor before the season has started!!!!! very bad start ML!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

its just been anounced they are being taken over by an arab dude, look like they are out of the do-do, which is a shame.

i don't remember making a bid??

Peter Taylor?????

i have said my bit i am now going to bed with a bottlle. i dont condone violence but if people wish to proceed this way then its up to them. just get rid of that fecker lowe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i;ve said it before and i will say it again. stop funding this shower it is the only thing lowe understands, if you go to games protest, storm the fecking box, set fire to lowes car, anything just get rid of the fecker!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

it won't happen on the 3rd feb, we have sheff utd at home that evening and there would be a riot, apparently.

and you know what, were just going to sit about and let it happen! stop funding this shower of sh*t you tw&ts!!!!!!

were going down and bust, not sure which first, but it is going to happen chaps!!