Matthew Le God

- You choose your religion from the many thousands there are in human history. - You cannot choose your ancestry or sexuality. There is a significant difference between the two! If a choice you make cannot stand up to questioning or mockery, you should surely question if you should put as much faith in it as you do. Especially if it influences large parts of your life.

Well I don't if he then fails to spot an offside for an opposing team.

The linesman areas were becoming muddy quagmires. Particularly noticeable in the heavy rain at the youth cup game a couple of weeks ago. This prevents it happening and gives them a good surface to run on without slipping.

Who has said something offensive in this thread? If anyone has been offensive, it is you for calling people "cocks"!

31,524 Was a sell out in the home end. Empty seats in the Palace section and segregation.

I don't think that is a good idea.

Exactly, there are many "Messiah's" (like in Monty Python's Life of Brian) recorded in the Middle East that pre date Jesus. They have similar stories to Jesus of a virgin birth, resurrection, miracles etc. The Jesus story is by no means original, it is just one that caught on. The Bible is inconsistent in its accounts of his life, is riddled with historical errors and self fulfilling prophecies.

It did come across like that.

What a bizarre comment. People's religious "faith" is one of choice and normally an accident of birth into that culture. There are thousands of religions you could choose to follow, you dismiss the thousands of others but not Christianity, despite having the same amount of evidence for all of them. People do not chose their family of birth or sexual orientation, to insult that is wrong hence why it is against the law. If your faith is hurt by questions, does it really stand up? There really is very little evidence of Jesus even existed, let alone is the son of God.

What bizarre logic! Sharp was injured it a horrendous challenge by Brighton's Lewis Dunk. How do you propose he avoided that injury? http://www.theargus.co.uk/sport/9183133.Dunk_says_sorry_to_Sharp/ Since his return from injury on the opening day against Brighton and despite playing for a team in the relegation zone and only having 13 starts (plus two as sub), he has scored 9 Championship goals this season.

Are you going to retract your previous nonsense now that NickG has pointed it out to you?

Why are you "taking as gospel" a website that can be edited by anyone in the world? It is not and never will be a reliable source unless it links to another article that may have some credibility.

What makes you think that is a "fact"? Adkins gave a different reason for the deal not going ahead. Depends who you believe...

How would "someone on the payroll" at Bristol City know the thoughts of Cortese and Adkins regarding Maynard?

That still doesn't explain how you know!

How do you know?

I suspect you think it could be the difference between a 17th or 18th place finish...

He is on loan at Burnley until 15th January 2012 so seems unlikely...

That makes little sense. The reason they are happy to listen to offers now is because he isn't going to sign a new contract and he is free to leave in the summer. The January window is all they have to recoup some money. The buying club has the advantage as the clock ticks to deadline day and Maynard's value is declining by the day.

You make this too easy... The 2009/10 accounts you are referring to are from when Markus Liebherr was still alive. You call it "losses", but you have no idea when or even if the money Liebherr gave to Saints in those accounts has to be paid back. At least his money came from a legitimate construction business and not stolen from the Lithanian/Lativan public and used to fund a summer transfer spree that David Lampitt can then boost about on the Pompey website, only for a few months later the club to admit they can't fund the rest of the season without further investment. "Inextricably linked" - I think so! What makes you think the Liebherr estate isn't funding Saints anymore? The revised Staplewood development was announced after his death. That isn't coming cheap! As for "how are you doing?", well Saints are top of the Championship and half a season away from the Premier League if you hadn't noticed, so the investment from the Liebherr's is working just fine!

His contract runs out in June, his value is dropping each day closer to 31st January.

I took it from another Saints forum. http://www.not606.com/showthread.php/109718-Points-total-needed-to-win-the-league In any case even if the average was slightly higher, it shows that Saints due to the points they have already amassed this season can afford to drop points in quite a few of the remaining 24 games and still do very well. I didn't expect the Shurlock inquisition...!

And you ignored it when I put to you that Southampton Leisure Holdings had a number of companies not connected to football. Many of the CSI companies have been setup suspiciously recently and/or have tiny turnovers. Mark Fry was never the administrator for the football club, by the wording of the Football League's rules at the time Saints shouldn't have been deducted points. It is however a members club and the openness of the rules in some areas means they can act to some extent as they wish. I would imagine pretty much every Football League club would want them to take a hard line on Pompey's second admin in a short space. Also £10.8m was invested in Pompey in the summer on player fees and wages! David Lampitt had the cheek a mere few months ago to boost the club was the second highest net spend in the Championship in an article on the Pompey website. Four months later with CSI in admin the administrator for CSI has said Pompey don't have the funds to support itself beyond Jan/Feb. I think that links them inextricably as one economic entity! Pompey were reliant on more funds to pay the bills that they increase the wage bill for by spending in the summer, this is no longer happening and the club is screwed even more. How can you claim they are not closely linked when the funding for bills has dried up midway through the season after been given £10.8m to spend on player transfers?

Take all the point totals for Championship winners in the last 5 seasons and divide by 5. 2010/2011 - QPR - 88 points 2009/2010 - Newcastle - 102 2008/2009 - Wolverhampton - 90 2007/2008 - West Brom - 81 2006/2007 - Sunderland - 88 Mean: 89.8 (90 if you what to be fussy and round up ) 24 games left, 44 points already in the bag 13 wins 6 draws 5 defeats Would see Saints on 89 points.

I'm not sure that rule was ever more than just a proposal. I think it could be a bigger deduction than a mere 10 points if they do find the link between the companies, due to multiple admins within a very short period.