Fowllyd

Really? Was that to do with the Paul Allen/Saints stuff, or something else entirely? Just curious...

They did indeed. As I recall it, SISU's offer would have meant a large share issue, which would in turn have diluted the shareholdings of Crouch, Lowe and Wilde. It prompted a meeting involving all three parties; they decided to reject the offer, leaving it dead in the water. A few months after that, the execs running the club (except Hoos) were booted out along with Dulieu. After that we had Crouch in charge, then the Lowe/Wilde combo, then administration, then rebirth. Phew.

Well, he gave me a lot of laughs...

But does it not take two to continue an argument, silly or otherwise?

When he's not busy training with the reserves/youth players he's spending his time on his very own naughty step. My guess would be that, as it appears to be common knowledge that player and club wish for no more of each other, any club looking to sign Puncheon will bide their time and look to get the best price possible. Saints are no doubt hoping for enough interest to start a bidding war of sorts, even if it doesn't start till the last few days of August.

I'd have thought that performance issues are down to sheer weight of numbers viewing and posting at the same time. In that case, sub-forums will only have a marginal effect (if any at all) during matches, as the vast majority of posters will be on the match thread. It may be that my understanding of the issue is deficient, in which case I'm more than happy to be corrected (and I'm sure I will be ).

The voting options need looking at. There's no option to let people post as they see fit, which is the only thing I'd vote for. Threads can be closed if there's good reason (the regular píssing contests being an example), posters can be infracted if the mods have reason to do so. But why the hell can't someone start a thread for rumours, which is allowed to run as long as it runs and simply drop down the list if nobody's posting on it? I find the idea of a weekly rumour thread more than a little ludicrous, to be honest.

Blimey. That was a fast week.

Just be yourself and you'll fit in just fine, I'm sure.

Cheap and crass abuse, delivered in a sneering, patronising tone, is Corp's stock in trade (on the occasions when he summons up the necessary courage to post on here at all). So where does that leave his arguments?

Yeah, I'll give you that one!

Well, you've certainly shown that you can do patronising pomposity, if nothing else. Well done you. And I'm sure that Gingeletiss (or should that be Mr Gingeletiss?) will be most delighted that you approve of his contribution. Well done again. Pity about the rest of it, though. Assumptions or otherwise? Let's have a look at a few: Yes, I did indeed fail to grasp the qualification built into that statement. In fact, simpleton that I am, I still do. Can you point it out to me please? Hmm, "the club turned down by one or more players". Really? Did Billy Sharp turn us down, did we turn him down, or did both parties decide that the move wouldn't work? We don't know, but you've stated that the first is the case. Looks suspiciously like an assumption to me. And "These are the sort of things that a prospective player will consider unless the money on offer is so much better...". Another statement of fact, it seems - but fact which you can't possibly corroborate. I'm not saying it isn't true; it may be for all I know. But for all you know it could just as easily not be. So can we call that an assumption, presented as fact? Again, this post is all supposition and speculation - qualified, admittedly - until the end, when all of a sudden it becomes a definite "question mark" - with no qualification. Your approach here is rather akin to saying 'Something may or may not have happened, I don't know for certain whether it did or not - but I demand to know why it happened!' On the subject of Puncheon, this has nothing to do with ambition. The club doesn't want him, he doesn't want to be here. And that's all there is to it. A club signing him won't be showing ambition so much as taking a big gamble. The clubs he was loaned to may be interested in him, but they're hardly tearing our door down.

You miss my point entirely. Your initial post, and several subsequent ones, have been based on assumptions - Sharp turned us down, Cork is doing likewise, we've been beaten to Mackail-Smith's signature, and others. You then roll all of these assumptions up into a contention that you present as fact - to wit, that we have problems attracting players - and ask whether this problem is down to Adkins or Cortese. At no point do you ask "Do we have a problem?" you just present a perceived problem as fact. Whether or not I agree with the opinion you've expressed is immaterial - my point is that you're basing your views on things you don't know (and which you therefore assume to be the case) and then present those views as facts. You say that there is no evidence available to the football community to demonstrate any ambitions we have. Really? Have you been seeking out the views of this football community then? This, I'm afraid, is another assumption which you're presenting as a fact. And, as with the other ones, my agreement or otherwise makes not one iota of difference - it's an assumption, not a fact. For what it's worth, I would say that we did indeed demonstrate ambition in seeking to sign both Billy Sharp and Jack Cork. We haven't signed either and it seems pretty certain that we won't be signing Sharp; however, we have put in bids which have been accepted by both players' current clubs. Lack of ambition would be characterised by not bidding on such players, and trying to make do with what we have, plus a couple of low cost/free transfers or loans here and there. I'm not sure what the football community thinks, though, as I haven't had a chance to ask them yet. I would not for a moment seek to prevent you from posting whatever you like - why would I? You can say whatever you like, but you need to be prepared to defend your point of view better than you do. As an example, Dig Dig has posted a very good reply to your post above (hence my only quoting a small portion of it myself). Care to answer his points?

Perhaps he should try some logical reasoning and see what happens. He hasn't done that so far on this thread, just produced a string of assumptions and hypotheses, presented as fact. Nor, for that matter, has he deigned to answer any number of valid points raised by various other posters on this thread.

Your sister has an iPad you say? Has it been specially adapted?

Actually, I think you'll find that we turned Sharp down, not vice versa. How do I know this? I don't. But then you don't know that he turned us down either, do you? Maybe, just maybe, we didn't bid for CMS because we didn't want him. Hard to believe, I know, but just give it a go. Also, if a player wants more than we think he's worth, then we won't pay it and neither should we, billionaires or not. If someone else thinks he's worth it, let them pay it and we'll all see how it works out. The going rate is one thing, overpaying quite another.

What question mark? You've invented a problem and are now asking others to discuss exactly where it lies. Perhaps there actually isn't any such problem and you're being more than somewhat premature in your thinking.

Others have already commented on Mackail-Smith's 'marquee' status, so I won't add to what's been said. As for Nolan, he's certainly an excellent player. However, it seems crystal clear to me that what West Ham are displaying right now is not so much ambition as desperation. They have massive levels of debt, which will be unsustainable in this division once the parachute payments are gone (in fact, they'll struggle when those payments are reduced). They have two options: cut costs drastically and hope to survive, or take the 'shít or bust' route. One look at their choice of manager, along with a signing such as Nolan tells you which course they've chosen. It may work out for them; they're looking to build a squad capable of promotion and have employed a manager with the right kind of experience. If they succeed, they'll have some chance of beginning to reduce their debt once they're back in the Premier League, but even then life won't be easy for them. If they fail, they may have no future at all. Is that the kind of ambition you think we should be showing?

We know nothing of Jack Cork's willingness or otherwise to join Saints. He may come, he may not - but unless you have some inside track which the rest of us lack you know nothing more than that. And, as signings go, he'd be a pretty decent catch in my view. Did Sharp turn us down? Or was it perhaps the other way around? Or did both parties conclude that they weren't best suited to each other? Again, we don't know; all we do know is that an offer (of a few million, let us not forget) was made, but that things were not ultimately taken further. Does it not occur to you that the ambition you believe Brighton to have shown in signing Mackail-Smith is down to their need for a striker, having lost two of their best ones? Or that it's the 5th of July today? Or that there's more to building a team and squad than simply flinging money at other clubs to get hold of their players?

If Matthew Le God ever does such a thing, I shall truly believe that the Rapture is upon us. (No offence, MLG)...

Nice to see the subjunctive there.

It's as valid a stance as it can be, based as it is on a severe lack of first-hand knowledge. There are three major weaknesses in your argument: first, your initial disappointment at Adkins' appointment informs your view and influences what you regard as accurate comment; second, a great deal of your opinion is based on what's posted on here, much of it by others who weren't at games either (some will have been from attendees, of course, but by no means all of it); third, you introduce a straw man to assist you, in the form of the apparent view (which I've seen no-one on here express) that Adkins is a football messiah who can do no wrong. As a result of the first part, you accept as fact any criticisms of our play that you read on here, while ignoring or playing down anything else. From what I've seen of your posts, you do this a great deal. It's something that we all do to a greater or lesser extent (there is, after all, no such thing as true objectivity). But you go further and make sweeping generalisations - we resorted to hoofball, were dragged down to other teams' levels, only maintained a level of performance for parts of games, and so forth - and state them as fact. Yet they are, for the most part, based on the comments of others, not your own experience. If I told you that a particular film was rubbish, you'd probably assume that I'd seen it. If I went on to give more detail, saying that the lead actors were well below par in it, the dialogue was clunky and the characters one-dimensional, you'd be certain that I must have seen it. If I then told you that I had formed this opinion having read a few reviews, spoken to other people who'd read the same reviews (and maybe some others), plus I'd spoken to one person who'd actually seen the film, you'd laugh at me - and rightly so. This, it seems to me, is the reason you get disparaged on here. It's not because you hold different views to some, it's because your views are based on not much more than thin air - that and your seemingly relentless pursuit of anything to hit Adkins with. For example, I don't agree that he wasn't tested last season, or that he walked into a nice, easy set-up. He took over a team in the doldrums, which had recently lost its manager and was sitting near the bottom of the table. A position which a good squad such as ours shouldn't have been in, but there we were nonetheless. Add to that a highly ambitious and demanding boss and that doesn't look too easy to me. Having good players guarantees you nothing - if you doubt that, ask Felipe Scolari. Next season will certainly be a tougher test than last, but to describe last season as if it were a walk in the park is frankly risible. Unlike some others, I don't think that you want us to fail with Adkins in charge; however, you do appear to be desperate to justify your initial response to his appointment, to the extent that you continue to look for all the negatives you can find. Assuming we progress well next season and thereafter, I'll be interested to see the point at which you overcome your aversion to Adkins. And apologies for participating in the off-topic direction of this thread! On topic, I'm delighted that Rickie has signed a new contract. I'd be amazed if anyone isn't.

Any chance of a reply? You've done the easy bit here - responding to a post which mocks you without asking questions. Why not have a go at answering mine? There are no insults in it, no belittling of your views, no suggestion that you're wrong because you say what you do. Surely answering a question asked in good faith is right up your street.

This is a regular refrain of yours, along with the complaint that we only ever played at all well for 45 minutes in any of our games. Yet I seem to remember you also bemoaning the fact that you hardly ever get to see any matches. How can you speak with such certainty about the level and quality of our performances, if you didn't actually see them? As it so happens, I don't get to many games myself. But those I did see last season were, for the most part, comfortable wins. As for the ones I wasn't at, I don't have first-hand knowledge, so I don't consider myself qualified to comment.

Did you actually read those articles? The first contains no comment or opinion from Cork himself - merely the vague statement that he is "keen to move across London". Possibly true, possibly not, but it's not exactly conclusive. The second article has the Lancashire Telegraph's writer telling us know that: "Southampton had an offer accepted late last month but I understand Cork is not keen on a move to the south coast club." Again, this may or may not be true, but you can't call it conclusive proof. The third is simply a verbatim copy of the first. I doubt anyone wants a video of Cork saying anything, but an actual, attributed quote from him would make a difference. Personally, I have no idea whatsoever about where Cork will be playing next season and if asked to guess I'd say he's keeping his options open, hoping for the best deal he can get.