ooh it's a corner

Fair play for answering the question posed to you yesterday, and given the points you have raised I can understand why there is so much of a distance between your opinion and others on here. As a balancing view, as requested; 1. A right midfielder has too roles to play. One is attacking, and you're right that we didn't see Guly wip over many balls yesterday, in part because he was ably supported by his right back, who we did see wip over balls with some regularity yesterday, but it is Guly joining up with Richardson that allowed this to happen. The second role for a right midfielder is to help defend, to track movement from the opponents midfield and to provide cover for the full back. He did this very capably yesterday. 2. Once again, your comment that Guly covered no more ground than Lallana or Cork is right. However people weren't lauding Guly's athleticism, they were defending him against another's view that his performance was abysmal. Had someone posted that Cork was abysmal, people would have bought his ability to cover the turf into view. 3. Perhaps he could have been more agressive with his challenge with the 50/50 with their keeper, personally I thought the keeper was favourite to get there first. Other than that, I think you have to consider that with Sharp, Lambert and Lallana on the field it would be very easy to start looking like a 4-2-4 formation, if Guly pushes too far up the field. 4. Defensively, I think whoever plays in this position (Guly or SDR are perhaps two obvious examples), is potentially prone to switching off. Guly's defensive performance yesterday was faultless. He was always in the right place, happy to track back and happy to put his foot in. This isn't always the case, and it is easy to judge a player on previous games, rather than the last 90 minutes, but I don't think he could receive too much criticism for his defensive performance yesterday. 5. Racist bit. Nah I don't believe you're being judgemental in any way because of his race. It's an easy thing to throw out there, particularly in the light of recent media coverage of other teams/players, but I'm not seeing that here. So, I accept people are entitled to their opinion, as I also posted on the Guly watch thread, I think 75% of the crowd gave him a standing ovation off (FWIW I didn't), but I still think it is one of the best shifts we've seen from Guly. And let's face it, it'd be a boring forum if we all agreed with each other

Always difficult to gauge, but when Guly was substituted yesterday, I would suggest three quarters of the ground stood and applauded him off the field. If 75% of the crowd thinks he merited a standing ovation, then I would suggest the majority of the support thought he had a good game. 25% of people either couldn't be arsed to stand up (me included), or didn't think he had a good game.

REALLY? Genuinely, do you think he was ****e today? I thought he tracked back, he chased, he harried, he ended up at one point playing right full back to cover... IMO that was the best performance from Guly in a Saints shirt. So, if you think he was sh1te and I think that was his best performance, one of us is wide of the mark

Completely agree. I was reading the WHU forums a fews days ago and the sentiment was "keep the points tally over southampton, then beat them, and we'll be 7 points clear of second, or still be top even if we lose". Now, if they lose, we're top, pressure is firmly on WHU for tuesday...

superb all round performance, but for anyone without a good view of the second goal, it wasn't Sharp's it was an own goal. I not even sure Sharp touched it, but it certainly went in off the defender. We've had a few bits of pinball in the opponents area in recent weeks, just not able to convert, whereas today we got that bit of luck to go 2-0. That said, thoroughly deserved it, and we're back into the opposing manager telling the media that his side hasn't played that badly for ages, lovely. bring on west ham

We are going to win this. First saturday 3pm kick off in ages. The crowd will be back in their routine groove and will provide 12th man support. the boys upfront will bag us a few today and we will leapfrog west ham tuesday when we beat them at theirs... bring it on.

...

myyyyaaaaaaaaawwwwwwww

I think it is an often quoted factor in Luton's point penalty. -10 for going into admin and another -10 for a second admin within a short period of time. Not sure if that is a bone fide rule, or not

"His trial heard that the contract he signed at Portsmouth in 2004 was worth £4.2m over three years. He emphasised that he had paid income tax totalling £8m – suggesting an income over the years of around £24m". People are beginning to join the dots and realise that HR's net worth is more than he could have ever earnt from football. Given the transfer calculations from PFC earlier in this thread of Redknapp's transfer commission of £500k, (with Portsmouth being his most lucrative contract before his current spuds one), where did he get all of his money from? I hope Portsmouth go bust, I really do, for the sake of what is good in this country, please let them start again.

be fair, there could be hundreds and thousands of reasons for his disappearance

You're absolutely right, he has been found not guilty. However, something in my core says that he is not the chariting giving, model citizen that the tabloids would have us believe. Dave Jones, in my opinion, was a good egg, falsely accused. Harry is a bad egg, falsely found not guilty. This is purely my opinion, not one that I am trying to convince others to share, just my opinion. That means that if (or perhaps when) he becomes England boss, I will feel less pride in that team, to the extent of not bothering to watch. that's all. But, as DP says, it's not the HR thread, so back to more important matters, are they dead yet?

So, it's me, you and my chip on shoulder, asking for the local boozer to put the tennis on the tele this summer then :-)

For those of you that don't understand why people are posting that they will stop supporting England if Redknapp becomes the new national manager, here's my reason why. I was fortunate to have been brought up with a sense of right and wrong, fair-play, sportsmanship and a need to treat others as you would wish to be treated. This does not make me a perfect human being (far from it), but when I believe people have wronged, then I also believe there ought to be a punishment to go along with said wrong-doing. To REPRESENT your country at anything, is (in my opinion) a huge accolade and an honour. You are showing the outside world, the qualities that your nation has to offer, in a given field. John Terry has been filmed using racist language on a football field. Guilty or not guilty in a court of law, it is enough for me not to want him to be associated with MY national team. By the same token, it is my opinion that Mr Redknapp has, during his managerial career, taken every opportunity to profiteer from football, with no consideration towards the greater good of the game (i.e. leaving some money on the table for the club) and has potentially behaved in manners which at best would be considered bringing the game into disrepute, and at worse bring crown court charges to bear. Of course, by the law of this land, he is innocent. Under the same laws, Abu Qatada is free to leave custody (albeit with bail conditions). I don't expect the national team manager to be perfect. I don't expect the national team captain to be perfect. However, if the FA think it is acceptable to spout racist bile (which fundamentally they do, or else they would have advised Mr Terry that he will never don the England shirt again), they will probably see it as acceptable to ignore any past or future allegations against bagpuss. Personally, I do not think it is unreasonable of me to expect the national manager to have a moral compass which points more-or-less due north - I dont think this is the case with Mr R. Of course this is my "opinion". Perhaps that makes me "opinionated". Perhaps I have a chip on my shoulder when it comes to this individual. I will accept all of that. And perhaps I will change my opinion of him when he leads England out at the final of a major tournament. Or, perhaps, me and my opinion will just ignore the whole event and become like many a recent England footballer and care more for club than country. That will be a sad day.

I don't think I have ever been so depressed with this country, ever. We let out suspected terrorists because we are not respecting their human rights (what about the rights of the other 60m citizens of this parish). We pay lottery millionaires benefits. We let off tax dodgers, because they've paid lots of tax already, so why would they bother trying to avoid to pay some more. We pay enormous bonuses to civil servants. If Redknapp becomes England manager, methinks my time will come to head for sunnier climes....anybody know what the British Virgin Islands is like?

For the record, if Mr Redknapp gets appointed England manager, it will be a cold day in hell before I watch them play under his stewardship...

Probably depends on the Redknapp case outcome. They will get -10 for being in admin, another penalty for their second admin in a short period of time (can't remember if this is -8 or another -10), plus whatever they feel is appropriate for having a former owner/manager guilty of tax evasion (if the two of them are found guilty). I think if the tax evasion case is guilty, then this would be a hefty penalty again, somewhere between 6 to 10 points. So, my my maths, that's -24 to -30 points, enought to be relegated. if they last that long

Yup. I can't understand the negativity, a few games ago it was "we've got to play West Ham, Brum, Cardiff, Blackpool, Hull, Leeds etc" I'm looking at the remaining fixtures now and thinking 17 to go, 8 against teams in the top half, 9 against teams in the bottom half. We are second. Teams have had a chance to overtake us, and with the exception of WHU have failed. We are going to be okay here folks, keep the faith

There seems to be some confusion on here (and evidently at Fratton) with regards to insolvency. I would like to clarify this. If you cannot pay your bills, when they are DUE, you are insolvent. If you CAN pay your bills, shortly after they are due, you are still insolvent, but will get away with it, due to the tolerance of your creditors (the people that gave you the bill). As an example, if I own a pension, which will give me a pot of money worth £1000 per month, when I am 60, but I owe the gas company £100 today, I cannot hide behind the fact that my pension is bigger than my debt, therefore, please don't cut my gas off. The gas company will cut me off. I would be insolvent. Lumpitt didn't authorise the player sales last month, because he knows the club is insolvent. Trading whilst insolvent makes him (and his fellow directors) liable for any increase in debt whilst they continue trading. Selling the players in January would have resulted in £2m ish worth of sales, and this would potentially be considered an insolvency transaction and he would be liable for this £2m. Better off to keep them, and let the 20th Feb roll around. In terms of this liability, for the Directors, it is unusual for this to be pursued. However, what is more common is the striking off of Directors, and to have them banned from holding Directorships for a period of time. Lumpitt will realise this. He KNOWS the club is insolvent (a 16 year old GCSE economics student would know they are insolvent). He will push this as hard as he can without threatening his personal wealth. But, my read and write friends, their club is insolvent, and that is a fact (fact).

here's hoping....

Let's do the tax dodge again, Let's do the tax dodge again. It's just a dodge to the left, It's just a dodge to the right, With your face in your palm, Hope and pray you'll be alright, But its the high court judge, they really drive you insane... Let's do the tax dodge again... Let's do the tax dodge again..

you can't sell the asset to somebody else without the charge being removed first. So, I could sell you my car, you could then think you own it, but if the finance company that helped me buy the car in the first place had a charge over the car (because I hadnt paid them off in full), then they would take the car back. The finance company would have a car, I would have your money, and you would have some explaining to do to the missus. It's like that, but on a bigger scale, with ugly gangster blokes, rather than your missus :-)

I reckon he's for it, the judge has got last year's home hit under his robes...

What? Is this allowed? So, I could ask my employer to give me a contract worth £5, then make un-contractual payments to an offshore account, which will avoid income tax? That's great, I will speak to HMRC tomorrow and get a bank account setup on the Isle of Man

So surely Redknapp is admitting that the money in the bank account was a bonus for the sale of Crouch, which wasn't covered by his contract with PFC, so was paid into an offshore account, which hasn't attracted any tax. Game over Mr Redknapp. you knob.