trousers

Attention seeker in attracting attention shocker.

Would be a bit of a coup for Glasgow Saint if we signed Muriel

@SouthamptonFC: First training session underway... #preseasonuncovered #saintsfc http://t.co/aZjle1Tkvc

Maybe signing the likes of Wanyama could have a domino effect in attracting players of Osvaldo's calibre?

http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?p=1734711#post1734711 "My understanding of the major transfer goals over the summer was a £20 mill + Italian striker that would break the Saints signing on fee,who that meant is up for debate.Perhaps it still is in the working ,we wait and see."

At least we got into double figures before the first inevitable Tory bashing post

Cheers VMAN. Glasgow, can you confirm this?

...

Yeah, think so. Sunderland are next to QPR. Spurs also missing but they are snuggled behind Liverpool.

Mr Freud would be proud of that one...

I suspect they're busy setting up the press conference for the triple signing announcement of Banega, Damiao and Shaw...

I'm comfortable with the fact that we privatised trains, energy, telephones, etc in the 80s because I could see the rationale in removing the burden of cumbersome loss making industries from the taxpayer's shoulders, but I'm struggling to rationalise the selling off of the Royal Mail as its a profit making organisation (isn't it?) I know this'll turn into a coalition bashing thread before long but it should be remembered that it was originally Mssrs Blair and Mandleson that hatched plans to privatise the Royal Mail. Even Thatcher was dead set against the idea... So, why are we doing it? Is it simply short term thinking to generate national debt reduction funds or is there actually a longer term justification for it? We know that a privatised mail services works in other countries (Germany is often cited as a good example) but I'm with Thatcher on this one: Don't sell.

A bit like Barcelona you mean...?

All good stuff. That article also has a link to this graph which plots 'opposition possession vs own possession'.... http://public.tableausoftware.com/views/TPP/Sheet1?:embed=y&:display_count=no We seem to be in a league of our own when it comes to denying the opposition possession under Pochettino

Some of them seem to think there's some big conspiracy behind the "undisclosed" transfer fee

Last seen in Norway in 2010.... http://www.yachtspotter.com/ysp2_ycard.php?foo=20051213

Good read - cheers. I particularly liked this bit... "The most striking statistic of Pochettino's spell in charge relates to possession - or rather the restriction of it. In all 16 games that Pochettino has presided over at Southampton, his team has ensured that their opponents enjoyed a below-average level of possession in the contest. While Chelsea and Tottenham did manage to achieve this for 10-game sequences, no team in the Premier League could come close to such a remarkable run. Indeed, in the top-five European leagues, only three sides managed to better it"

No.4 not wearing any pants?

http://www.cml.org.uk/cml/media/press/3586

@SouthamptonFC: The #SaintsFC squad has arrived in Girona! #preseasonuncovered http://t.co/mc2GUqgTWW

@SouthamptonFC: @Hola Girona! #saintsfc #preseasonuncovered https://t.co/sEWJHSD1tq

RIP Lee Rigby

Thanks. Any news on whether the pope is catholic or not...?

Just watching the second part of that interview where he talks about the 'deal' with Tesco. He's saying that PFC don't have anything tangible to sell to Tesco as part of the supermarket build proposal but what they are selling to Tesco is PFC's cooperation with the planning process and Tesco are making a 'substantial' payment to PFC to buy this "cooperation". Hall then goes on to say the alternative would be for PFC to not accept the money from Tesco and instead contest the planning process. He said there's no point the club doing that as they would end up with nothing and Tesco would win in the end anyway. Not sure if any of that is new information or not but first time I've heard it articulated in those terms. What doesn't seem to add up is that if Hall is publicly saying that there would be no point PFC contesting Tesco's planning request then why would Tesco feel the need to give PFC a "substantial" sum of money to buy their cooperation? All sounds a tad contrived to me....