trousers

Joseph Mills Jedward

Ed Byrne Jose Fonte

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11979_6285047,00.html 01. Southampton 02. Charlton Athletic ----------------------------------------- 03. Sheffield Wednesday 04. Huddersfield Town 05. Brighton and Hove Albion 06. Notts County ----------------------------------------- 07. Brentford 08. Peterborough United 09. Plymouth Argyle 10. Bournemouth 11. Bristol Rovers 12. Walsall 13. Carlisle United 14. Swindon Town 15. Leyton Orient 16. Oldham Athletic 17. Milton Keynes Dons 18. Exeter City 19. Colchester United 20. Yeovil Town ----------------------------------------- 21. Tranmere Rovers 22. Hartlepool United 23. Rochdale 24. Dagenham & Redbridge That's us buggered then.....

Nice one. Would appear Saints were justified in 'disputing' Brentfords c.£500k valuation.

I suspect people were more refering to the thread title (which is more impactful) than part of the opening prose

Michael O'Leary of Ryanair goes into a Dublin pub and asks for a pint of Guinness. "That will be one Euro, please," says the barman. "That's a very fair price," replies O'Leary. "But would sir like a glass with that?" asks the barman.

But I thought it was nailed on that prices would increase....? ;-)

Yep, that was my thought too when I actually read through the article. The text gives no hint that they weren't there, so all this is based on the absence of a matchday photograph which, as you say, could be for a completely different reason to the 'ban'. Just observation of course.

I guess it depends how far Cortese has cast his Echo net then. Sounds like my hunch is a tad tenuous though.

I can't think of anyone out there who would want to buy the club at this moment in time though.....ah, hang on....

No. I'm simply summising that perhaps Cortese has banned the Echo and 'anyone who works for them'. If said fan has no connection with the Echo whatsoever then my hunch would obviosuly be wide of the mark.

You may have double counted one 'criticism' there as I believe that said fan may have a connection with said newspaper (in that they write occasional articles...?). Again, I'm not judging whether the umbrella 'anything connected with the Echo' ban is right or wrong just pointing out that it may be the same root cause. Who knows.

What did Cortese and Pardew say in their respective programme notes?

Or, to put it in SaintsWeb Forum speak: "Saints lose nearly a quarter of all games that Lambert scores in. FFS" ;-)

Similar thoughts I had a few months ago.... http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?22537-How-easy-is-it-for-football-managers-to-adapt-their-natural-style

This. FF has made it clear that he heard this as a rumour, not as FACT. By doing so he is conceding that it could all be hearsay or conjecture, or indeed "made up" as some rumours can be. All he's doing is passing on said rumours. That is all. From our friends at Wikipedia:

Source?

Or.... he has a new manager lined up with such a high profile and calibre that fickle football fans would soon forget the AP 'outcry'?

If only Noel Edmonds hadn't quit Saturday morning kids TV this would have all been sorted by now... ;-)

You seemed pretty 'close' to the recent 'Lallana is off' rumour (as in saying categorically that it wasn't happening), so with that background I would say your comment about Rickie being injured is probably close to the mark. May I therefore be the first to say: "Rickie injured? Oh, c o c k"

I've not been there yet but Porterhouse in Jewry Street gets great reviews.

Amazing how many people seemingly know very little about consumer law. As SaintBobby eloquently highlights, his contract was with the person/organisation that sold him the goods/service. He has no direct recourse against any third party involved, e.g. The venue. If a consumer does not receive the goods/services 'as advertised' at the time of purchased then he/she is entitled to a refund. It really is that simple. Obviously, the retailer can dispute a consumer's claim but that involves responded to the original complaint/refund request at the time.... Disclaimer: the above is simply general observational comment on consumer law, not an opinion on the specific case being discussed in this thread.