Matthew Le God

I'm not saying they should be banned from doing it as that would be illegal to imprison them in their seats for 2 hours. However what they are doing isn't logical, a waste of their own money and most importantly is inconsiderate to other supporters who have paid to watch a game of football.

A slight rant which I'm sure will go down on here like marmite What is the point of paying £25 for a ticket and then... ...Missing the first 5 minutes of the 1st half getting to your seat because you get delayed by the numbers in the concourses getting a pre match pint? ...Missing the last 10-15 minutes of the first half to get to the front of the line for half time pint and pie? ...Missing the first 5 minutes of the 2nd half getting to your seat because you get delayed by the numbers in the concourses getting a half time pie and pint? ...Missing the last 10 minutes of the game to avoid the crowds at the final whistle? Miss the Papa Waigo equiliser and penalties against Norwich I have never done any of the following but a large number of people do at St Mary's and other grounds. With so many people doing it you are forever standing up to let them leave or they are stood infront of you obstructing the view of the pitch. What is even more annoying is that those that decide to leave start walking out but if anything happens on the pitch whilst they are leaving they stand there and watch despite everyone behind them not being able to see. Will it really harm you to go 2 hours without food and drink? Do you really benefit in leaving 10 minutes before the final whistle? - Anything could happen on the pitch in that time. The delay of waiting until the full-time whistle to get out of the stadium is minimal. You paid £25 to watch the match, you don't pay £25 to stand in a line in the concourses or walk home whilst the match is still on. Will it kill you to have food and a pint before and after the game? Or to sit through the 90 minutes rather than leaving 10 minutes early to save you 5 minutes getting out the ground? In doing both you are spoiling it for the others at the ground because the game is going on and you keep obstructing the view. ...rant over

4,000 of them would turn up just to have "potential" fight more than anything. Most away fans hardly watch the game and just play silly games of taunting with the "hardcore" home fans next to them. If home fans in the Northam were really there to watch the game you wouldn't have a season ticket to sit behind the goal(where you have an awful view) and mainly look at the away fans rather than the pitch for most of the game.

I guess you are joking But just incase you aren't ...of course they would.

Read the whole post rather than quoting only part of it.

Thats very good... Still conceding too many though

Although Pearson would have been better than the Dutch pair, if he had stayed and Pearson kept us up we would still most likely have Lowe as chairman. Administration and relegation in many ways was the best thing to happen as it allowed us to shed Lowe and start again with a new owner. Yes, I know its bad to be relegated but we have a much brighter future now than if we were currently in the Championship with Lowe still at the helm not investing.

Is that "anyway" you admitting you were wrong? Docker P was certainly wrong when he said

The 1980's were perhaps the most successful period in Southampton history and we didn't wear red and white stripes for any of it. We came 2nd in 1984 just behind Liverpool and a number of other high league finishes and cup runs NOT wearing red and white stripes.

I'm only talking about changing for 1 season in 2010/11 to a 1885 style kit. For 2011/12 change back to red and white stripes. What is wrong with that? Alot of fans seem to think the current badge has been around for 125 year when it is only been in existance since the 1970's. So thats 80 years of Saints history where the scarf and halo badge didn't exist!!! Alot of fans think we alway played in red and white stripes for the whole of recent history. When for the whole of the 1980's we did NOT play in red and white stripes. Also going back further in time there were other periods where we didn't have red and white stripes.

WRONG Throughout the whole of the 1980's Southampton didn't play in red and white stripes 1987 to 1989 1985 to 1987 1980 to 1985 So what is wrong with for the 125 anniversary season playing in a kit like the kit worn 125 years ago?

I'm sure they said that in the 1970's when they came up with the current badge(and even that has had tweaks).

Yes, it is real. They really are that close.

What destroys GM's plan more than anything... Imagine what would happen if Saints at any point in the future ever played Pompey again away from home. It would mean a game at St Mary's in Southampton with 28,000 Pompey fans and only 4,000 Saints fans in their own stadium and the players in the away dressing room.

An away tie against Pompey but play it at St Mary's With 28k Pompey and 4k Saints fans in St Mary's to test Guided Missile's idea

Saints kit 125 years ago looked like the picture below according to http://www.historicalkits.co.uk 2010/11 season kit imo should be in this style/colour scheme. The badge could change to something like the original badge aswell instead of the current badge which was designed in the 1970's. Modern version of 1885 Kit Badge (50% current 1970's designed badge and 50% 1885 badge) Use this badge for 2010/11 season

Lloyd James for a start

I think you have got confused there, he has never publicly said any such thing. btw we have spent 5 times more than any other League 1 club this season

Taking quote out of context, scandal, shock, horror. Selling papers with unsubstantiated stories is not good journalism even if every newspaper seems to do so.

Guided Missile can you name a few ground shares for teams from different cities sharing a stadium in one city? Milan, Munich, Rio etc have both clubs from the same city. Inter Milan and AC Milan fans both come from Milan and respect Milan thus "unlikely" to damage their own city or make it unpleasant for local residents. Portsmouth fans do not like Southampton and having approx 20,000 roaming Pompey fans in Southampton twenty times or more every year is a bizarre idea. The annual police bill would be HUGE. It was bad enough for south coast derby games with 3k Pompey fans once a year.

GM I'll ask again Manchester and Liverpool are a similar distance apart to Southampton/Portsmouth. By your logic... Does the M62 mean Manchester and Liverpool are the same city? Can you imagine the annual police bill for policing 70k Liverpool fans in Manchester city centre at least 19 times every year

Manchester and Liverpool are a similar distance apart to Southampton/Portsmouth. By your logic... Does the M62 mean Manchester and Liverpool are the same city?

John Lennon also said "I am the Walrus, we are the eggman coo coo ca choo" Because football is modern tribalism and we are evolved apes and it is inbuilt. As I said before every other ground share is two clubs from the same city, not two clubs from rival cities. Having 20k plus fans from another tribe on "your land" won't work. Milan is the home city of AC Milan fans and Inter Fans. Southampton is not the home of any Portsmouth fans(well a tiny few) and tribal instincts will make any groundshare impossible.

Pretty much every example of ground sharing is from 2 clubs from the SAME city sharing a ground. Pompey and Southampton are 20 miles apart. It would be a policing nightmare having 20k Pompey fans in a city they don't like. With the two Milan clubs at least both sets of fans respect Milan. If 20k Pompey fans were in Southampton 23 times or more a year it would end in tears.

I'm sure we would all like to hear from the club if anything is happening if anything. Just a guess but as this has been in the Echo as main story for last couple of days if the club were not in talks with the FA then they would release a statement to end media speculation saying Southampton can't bid. The lack of anything from the club to me suggests they are still talking to the FA and will disclose what has gone on after talks have concluded either successfully or not.