Fowllyd

As a matter of interest, who would you like to see replace him? And did you see the Carling Cup game against Birmingham?

I remember seeing a shortish interview with Branfoot a few years after he'd left Saints, in which he imparted two great pearls of wisdom: that Matt Le Tissier could never be considered as a great player; and that the only way to play football was 4-4-2. On the subject of Le Tiss, he said that in order to be considered great you had to play for a big club and tackle back - neither of which applied to Matty. He cited Shearer as an example of a player who'd done these things, and also George Best - did he do much tackling back then? On the 4-4-2 formation being the only way to play, he cited the great AC Milan team of that time; this rather ignored the fact that said team was stuffed with great players, who could have played in any formation you liked and still been great. In fact, for their countries and other clubs, most of them did just that. A few years later, in 2002, Brazil won their fifth World Cup - what was their formation again? Looked very mich like 3-4-3 to me. So which one of Rivaldo, Ronaldo or Ronaldinho was a secret midfielder? The whole interview merely served to show Branfoot's thinking and limitations in all their stubborn intransigence and inflexibility; reading it, I could only recall with sadness how Saints' reputation slid from being an attractive, attacking side to being a bunch of long-ball cloggers during his time in charge. If you consider that to be a good job under difficult circumstances then that's up to you - I certainly don't.

I think it was implicit - if we got some big money we could afford to bring Glenda back. Kind of like the supplementary question thing at Prime Minister's question time...

And on that I'm sure you're totally correct. Personally, I always did feel uneasy at the ever-increasing concentration of wealth at the top end of the game - and indeed the ever-increasing greed of those instrumental in its happening. But that's just me...

What it tells me is that the point I was making was correct - Murdoch was only ever going to pump his firm's money into a good prospect, not a dead duck. Football in this country was on the up when Sky got involved - if it hadn't been they'd have picked another sport to televise.

Great to hear that Tim - thanks for the update.

I'd say the real resurgence in interest in football in this country came in the aftermath of the 1990 World Cup. England reached the semi-final stage for only the second time and were unfortunate to lose; in Paul Gascoigne the game had a new (and as yet untarnished) superstar; the massive problems with hooliganism were diminishing fast. It's true that the Sky deal pumped enormous money into the game, but that only came along a few years later - the Premiership in particular had a product by then which they could sell to Murdoch (not a man to throw money at losing causes) and they did so with gusto. Murdoch, in turn, was prepared to pay over the odds in order to establish his channel and kill off the competition (anybody remember BSB? Thought not). It was a convergence of circumstances which worked well for all parties involved. But, if the game had been in a truly parlous state, Murdoch would never have paid big money to screen it.

I thought so at first, but now I'm cumin round to the idea of it.

Couple of interesting pieces from today's Guardian on the Man City saga: http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/09/02/a_new_era_for_football_how_cit.html http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/09/02/united_show_me_the_way_to_go_h.html Great thread, this one - for what it's worth, I'd agree with LGSC's initial post. Would I care about where any money we may acquire comes from? I would. Do I want my club to be the plaything of a squillionaire, the route to acceptance for a highly dubious character, or a microscopic cog in someone's catastrophic plan (to paraphrase Nick Cave)? I don't.

I'm sure I saw him play for us in a pre-season friendly that summer - Nick Holmes' testimonial against (I think) Benfica. Wouldn't count as his debut though, as it wasn't a competitive match. I remember seeing this rather gawky-looking kid lining up to play for us, then being totally blown away when I saw what he could do with the ball at his feet. Does anybody else remember this, or did I dream the whole thing?

I didn't realise you and Trousers were so close...

Interviewer to Sir Paul McCartney: "So, Sir Paul, could you ever see yourself going down on one knee again?" Sir Paul: "Actually, I'd prefer it if you referred to her as Heather..."

Here's a thought: Why don't you do some massive damage to the forum database, so that the forum is down for - ooh, a weekend or so maybe? Perhaps, once it's been rebuilt, your post count will have diminished. I know, it's a crazy idea, but you never know - it might just work...

While this is unquestionably true, it's also the case that he could have kept on playing this season without signing a new contract at all, leaving him effectively a free agent in the summer. I think this means that he definitely wants to stay here - and why wouldn't he? He's a first-team regular, he's obviously enjoying his football immensely (I could see that from the expression on his face at the end of Tuesday's match) and he's rapidly becoming a firm favourite with the fans.

As for so many on here, Mick was my first Saints hero - get well soon, Mick and Jack.

I find that astonishing - even if they reckon we're in the sh*t, I can't see how they can think they're in much better shape. Ah well, whatever floats their boat, eh... I'll go for a Saints win - if Blackpool come out and play we'll win comfortably, if they come for the draw or sneaky win we'll still win but it'll be tighter. So, 3-0 or maybe 3-1 in the former case, 1-0 in the latter. I'd love to see us keep a third consecutive clean sheet - one recollection I have of the side which finished second in the league all those years ago was that the defence was very tight indeed and we kept a shed load (by our usual standards!) of clean sheets.

Perhaps those boycotting are in fact disgruntled truckers...

I think his point was that both those teams started strongly and were being looked on as near-certainties for promotion (or the play-offs at least) but both failed over the course of the season. We, on the other hand, have made a less than wonderful start, but have the potential to improve as the season goes on. Other than that, what the hell's gone wrong with this forum all of a sudden? We seem to have a rash of mass agreement breaking out; frankly, this is difficult to cope with!

'They' are whoever you think they are...

My but you have a delicious sense of irony...

Am I the only one wondering what the headlines might be if he were to score - ooh, let's say four goals in a match?

It's still badly written though.

Can only agree with that - the whole team impressed, but those two in particular were superb. Seeing Lallana's expression as he came off the pitch at the end was great - he quite clearly just loves it.

First chance I've had to see the new-look team, and god was I impressed. Beautiful passing and movement off the ball, great to see a Saints side keep possession and wait until an opportunity arose to play a proper, dangerous pass forward - practically no hopeful but hopeless balls upfield on display all game. And we never really looked in trouble either. Even when Brum had a fair bit of possession early in the second half they never really threatened - I think Bart made one save around that time, but other than that was hardly troubled. And, if Brum rested a few first-team regulars, so did we - their side was a strong one, not a bunch of reserves and youth players.

Looks like he could be an excellent loan for the season - and yes, I also liked the 30,000 fans bit!