Chin Strain

But you take the point that we play in red and white stripes as a rule though - yes?

9 years out of 116...

According to this http://www.the-football-club.com/southampton-kits.html we have had what can only be described as red and white stripes in the 116 years since 1896, with the possible exception of 1985-1989 and maybe 81-83 (and clearly 2010/11) - 107 years of red and white stripes. Since 1950 we've had black shorts in all but 2010/11. 61 years out of 62. That's why I say it's ok, but not quite Saints. That's it really.

Can we have a 'it's ok but not quite the Saints kits that we've been used to over the last 40 or so years (which, normally have been red and white stripes....)' answer?

The carpet is a bit of a shocker....and it looks like someone could do with getting a paintbrush on the skirting boards TBH

I know, I know....what was I thinking? It's been a long week and I have a beer in hand...must do better in future!

OK, thanks.....I think we may have had one mainly red shirt with white sleeves, but still had black shorts (I think). This is a much, much bigger departure from that....or don't you agree?

I hear what you're saying, but you don't really choose the team you support based on the colour of the kit do you. If Saints had been wearing brown when I was growing up, I'd still be a Saints fan. Personally, I like the kits, I'm just not convinced that it's close enough to red and white stripes that we've had for 40 or so years.

That's going to make life interesting for TB as they'll run out of cash before then.

This. I've just bought an A6 S Line Avant. The deal was fantastic, and the car was white, with the alternative option being a factory order and 3 month wait. I saw an SE Avant in white and it looked ok, but the S Line with bigger wheels and privacy glass looks fantastic. Having just does an 1100 mile round trip through France, it does keep clean too.

If they can't meet their football creditors then the league have to take draconian action to prevent it happening again. Even if the players are bullied out by the club, fans and media, the principle is the same - they were pushed out and suffered financially which should equal big points deduction or relegation another division or two.

lol...probably. However, he did walk back into Farton Park with us in 2005....more than Crouch managed

So we were the biggest over achievers according to Gus, but couldn't bring himself to mention Adkins in despatches.

Yep, there's a lot of steel in that roof!

Looking at that it was probably about 10 - 12 years ago....I suspect he may have matured

In a nutshell, the reason why this thread keeps going. They just simply don't get it. DFCSBs.

Skybet are giving odds for promotion from L1 next season. They have 19 teams listed, and the site says 'more teams to be added when participation is confirmed'. There will be one team coming up, and 3 teams from the 4 play off teams to be added. That makes 23 teams. So, who do you think is the 24th team whose 'participation is to be confirmed'? Yep, they're missing from the list of teams.

This by the sounds of things

UEFA are looking at the stadium deal. I also think that for UEFA it isn't about clubs living within their means, it's about a level playing field to make it a better competition. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2136754/UEFA-chiefs-tough-warning-Chelsea-City-face-Europe-ban.html

http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/financial-fair-play-explained.php The PL hasn't got any FFP rules at all at the moment. The only teams it affects is those wanting to play in Europe. However, with the FL introducing FFP, it's going to make it interesting as to how bottom third PL teams (i.e. those likely to be involved in a relegation battle) structure their deals to ensure that they can survive in the FL if they go down. The top teams will try and get around the rules because, as it stands, there's no way on earth that Chelsea and City can qualify for Europe. There are supposed to be rules governing sponsorship to avoid City's owners just sponsoring their ground by way more than anyone else would sponsor it, but it remains to be sen how vigorously this is enforced. If it's not, it's a farce. In my view, I think Platini has completely hung his credibility on this. I think it's a case of who blinks first - the clubs or UEFA. A Champions League without several of the bigger clubs would start to devalue the competition. Likewise, a breakaway competition for these clubs, not sanctioned by UEFA, would have limited appeal also. I think there's a mixed message here with the different financial rules in place. UEFA seem to want theirs to ensure that it's an even competition in the CL and Europa League, whereas the FL want to ensure that clubs don't run into debt. I'd have though a rule whereby salaries are limited to a percentage of turnover and, if clubs want to go over that percentage, they should have to put the excess funds in an escrow account. If they also banned director loans, and insisted that owners turn debt into equity, that would avoid what seems to be a big problem with a lot of clubs.

He couldn't even get in the starting 11 for Barnet at the weekend, despite them needing to win to stay in the FL (although he was joint top scorer with....18....in L2)

I think he did a reasonable job for us, but results in his last season were deserving of the sack. I agree Lowe was in a no win situation with the allegations, but think Jones had taken us as far as he could. I'm pleased he's done well at Wednesday as he seems like a decent bloke.

Davies was a Souness signing.

I agree with the rest of this, but they take all of the responsibility for their actions in leaving the children alone. They could be considered lucky that the twins weren't taken too.

No, Gibralter hosted Bury in January.