trousers

Was it ever officially stated that he was training "alone"? IIRC, all Saints ever said was that he wasn't training with the first team squad. Perhaps he's been training with the U23s all along?

I would venture that those who boo "every" ex-Saints player are very few rather than "many". I would also venture there are more ex-Saints players who don't/wouldn't get booked Vs those who do/would

I'm sensing you're a tad disgruntled?

Looked more clumsy than cynical from where I was standing (albeit a fair distance away in the Northam). You'd have thought MotD would have shown it if it was contentious? Without having seen a replay, yellow was correct decision IMO.

I disagree. I was watching him closely from the stands yesterday and his body language wasn't screaming out "model pro" to me.

Quality schticking, pal

Rotation didn't seem to hinder our progress in this tournament last season...

Just back from the match. One of those games where the result was far more satisfying than the performance, especially having listened to a rendition of "2-0 and you f**ked it up" before our last gasp penalty. That was quite pleasing I thought Yoshida was one of our better players - made some important interceptions and tackles - but hear what people say about his (and Stephen's) lack of command in the air. I thought Bertrand had a poor game. A lot of stray passes and he has that "I don't really want to be here" vibe about his body language. Was slightly baffled that Boufal didn't get a chance to exploit our one man advantage. We were crying out for some midfield creativity (just for a change... ) When they got their red card I turned around to my son and said: "we're usually rubbish against 10 men"....lo and behold... We played worse than we did vs 11. Couldn't watch the Tadic penalty, which is just as well given how poor it was! (watched recording on my son's phone at half time). Big sigh of relief at the end when Tadic didn't step up for the 2nd penalty. I was able to watch that one! So, all things considered, I think we just about deserved to win that, but I'd probably say the opposite if I was a West Ham fan! 2-0 and we nearly f**ked it up...!

...

Nah... Can't be true. The mods don't tolerate obvious WUMs on here...

...

Aye. Keeping it in the family. He'll fit in well with our fishy friends

RIP

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/finland-stabbing-attack-man-shot-turku-victims-police-south-west-a7900556.html

Assume they'll change the name of the football club in due course...?

Game now sold out. IIRC, we don't usually sell out in August, do we? (on account of it being the holiday season). MLG?

@SouthamptonFC Watch our full interview with Mauricio Pellegrino, as he previews #SaintsFC's meeting with #WHUFC: https://southamptonfc.com/news/2017-08-18/video-mauricio-pellegrino-pre-southampton-west-ham-united

Good question. Dunno. I'm just thinking out loud on a football forum which means there's a significant danger I may be talking nonsense...

I was hypothesising that Goa might have some kind of masterplan that involves buying more land around the stadium (in due course) and turning the whole area into some kind of super-dooper leisure & living quarter. He is a real estate developer by trade, after all. There again, he could simply be a con merchant whose intention is to buy the club, milk a few years of Premier League riches, and then bugger off leaving the club in dire straits. Who knows?

Fair point. I'm open to the notion that this could all go tits up. I'm also open to the possibility that it might turn out OK. I'm not making a judgement either way...yet...

This

To also buy up the land around the stadium and make a fortune out of developing the area? Maybe?

I'm easily confused

Maybe she needs the money for something else? (the supposed tax bill on Markus's estate for example?) So, in the scenario where she needed to raise funds for personal reasons she had two options: 1) maintain 100% ownership of Saints and realise the money she needs out of the club profits going forward, thus reducing the amount of money available in the club for maintaining the same levels of self sufficiency Or 2) sell 80% of the club to someone who she is convinced will maintain the same level of self sufficiency that she's been able to uphold over recent years, thus not needing to tap into club profits as much as if she'd stayed on 100% So, could it be argued that by taking option 2 she has, potentially, left the club in the best financial position overall, all things considered? i.e. the financial status quo has been maintained rather than us taking a step backwards? Dunno. Just flopping it out there, so to speak