Hamilton Saint

You're not happy with 33 million pounds? *sigh*

Romeu has as many league appearances as Van Dijk (20). And Redmond has 19.

In which case it is not an opinion. An opinion has to do with something that cannot be proved true or false. See my post #55

All opinions are "correct' in the sense that they accord with the particular holder's view. An opinion is a belief or judgment that cannot be proved to be true or false. My opinion that The Beatles were the best band ever, and your opinion that The Rolling Stones are the best band ever, cannot be proven as "correct" (i.e., true or false) because it is not an opinion based on verifiable fact. It is a subjective assessment. In the area of deductive reasoning, it doesn't make sense to talk about "opinion". You can't have an opinion about whether or not 2+2 = 4 Scientific observation also precludes "opinion". To hold the opinion that the Earth is flat is "incorrect" because it flies in the face of observable "fact" and scientific consensus. Opinions about inductive reasoning are all about probability. If you hold the opinion that all swans are white, then that is "correct" until the day that somebody sees a black swan. The opinion that the sun will come up tomorrow is "correct" because it is probable—based on prior experience. But it is not logically entailed. Most opinions about football are based on subjective criteria, not logical facts, or objective observation. Southampton lost to Burnley yesterday is a verifiable fact. You can't have an opinion about that. Southampton lost because Burnley scored and Saints didn't is also not an opinion; that's a logical fact. Southampton lost, says A, because Fraser Forster is a lousy goalkeeper; Southampton lost, says B, because Romeu gave up a silly foul on the edge of the box: those two statements are reasonable opinions, and they can both be considered "correct" opinions, because they are based on observation. But they are not facts. Puel is a useless manager; Puel is a good manager: these can also both be considered "correct" opinions. It depends on the criteria you select and the evidence you provide.

Anyone know the reason why the club's commentary (AB and DM) doesn't generally start until 5 or 10 minutes before KO when it's an away game! Very annoying.

I agree.

Gonna finish 17th, eh?

These two sites list the total away attendance and the average for last season. The second site gives the highest and lowest. Hope that helps. But maybe you want the away attendance for every single game? http://www.worldfootball.net/attendance/eng-premier-league-2015-2016/2/ https://www.statbunker.com/competitions/AwayAttendance?comp_id=515

If you check out "Lawro's League Table" at the bottom of his weekly prediction page, the final column shows (+ or -) the difference between the real league positions and what the team positions would be, if all his predictions were correct. Saints are the team he is most incorrect about (out by nine places). He has nearly always been negative and begrudging about our club.

I'd go with the same team from Wednesday, except have Hojbjerg replace Clasie. Rodriguez and Redmond seem to be finding their mojo?

It just boggles the mind!

No, it works on aggregate. The away goals only break an aggregate draw after extra time. In other words, 1-0, 2-1, 3-2 to them (etc.) sends it into extra time (30 more minutes). If it's still a draw at the end of extra time, Saints win on the away goals rule (away goals counting double).

Just listen to the doom and gloom brigade: "But ... but ... but." "It is not enough ... not enough ... not enough." We will still lose ... still lose ... still lose."

Not if we keep a clean sheet.

"13.5 In the Semi-Final ties, if the aggregate score is level at the end of the second game an extra half-hour shall be played. If the aggregate scores are still level at the end of extra time the tie shall be decided by goals scored away from home counting twice. If the teams remain equal after this procedure the tie shall be determined by the taking of kicks from the penalty mark in accordance with the Laws of Association Football."

Only if the aggregate score is a draw after extra time in the second leg.

Precisely. I am English and the statements SKD and Dangermouth have made have nothing to do with my idea of "English-ness". I'm all in favour of strong rivalries, but despise this sort of mindless tribalism. Meanwhile, come on you Saints!

Well, of course, I wouldn't be looking for such from you. And the figurative expressions "losing it" and "breaking down", which I used, were not intended to be taken literally. And, yes, perhaps it is the anonymity of a football forum that goes to people's heads and turns them into malicious trolls or condescending *****s. I have always been sincere and honest in my communications—even though it often puts me at odds with the general tone of this place. And, yes, I do look for information and intelligent opinion on here, which—despite what you say—can be found, interspersed amidst the drivel and BS.

I feel honoured, I reckon, to be associated with such an impressive specimen!

I am as bad as he is? Really? What a strange transvaluation of values there is on social media. If he is evidently a troll, then presumably—given the comprehensive list of rules laid out by the administrators of this forum—he should have been removed from this forum long ago. I come on here virtually every day (what fool me?) looking for information and intelligent opinion about my favourite football team, and I have to wade through the BS of the same smallish group who seem to infect, and dominate, every thread. Not surprising that I lose it occasionally. So, if I do break down once in a blue moon and respond to one of these fellows, you ought to sympathize, rather than criticize.

This is so typical of your style—full of hyperbole, misrepresentation of what people are saying, and mis-characterization of their motives. I did not "threaten" Kermit with defamation; I suggested that he provide evidence for a statement that appeared defamatory without it. I have not been "hounding" him for retractions: I stated once that he consider retracting his accusation, if he was unable to provide evidence. And I did not state that LR was "whiter than white". I don't live in the hyper-negative, black-and-white, mud-slinging, blame-apportioning, knee-jerk, attention-grabbing world you seem to inhabit. As you state correctly, "we don't know all the ins and outs". I would go further and say we know virtually nothing of what goes on behind the scenes. And even if we did know a lot, it would still be difficult—even presumptuous—to make snap judgments. As a supporter of SFC (one whom you like to characterize as a "happy-clappy"), I don't see the point—or wisdom—of constantly insulting and demeaning the manager, ridiculing the chairman, abusing the owner, and scapegoating out-of-form players. Especially when it is based mostly on rumour and specualtion. If you do feel the need to criticize, then that's fine, but it can be done without misrepresentation, insult and invective.

My, my, my. Of course there is freedom of speech in North America, but it is not an absolute right—it is restricted by laws dealing with treason, sedition, blasphemous and defamatory libel, disruption of religious worship, hate propaganda, spreading false news, public mischief, obscenity, indecency and other forms. In Canadian law defamatory libel is a "matter published, without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published." I consider it likely that there are similar laws in the UK dealing with defamatory libel. To write on a public internet forum that a prominent figure in a widely-followed organization is "well known for lying through his teeth", and then to try to defend that statement by saying it is merely an opinion, with no apparent basis in fact, is defamation. Pure and simple. If you can't see that, well that's your problem. HTH

Jeez. If it is "well known", as you said, then you are claiming it is an established fact. In which case, it is not your "opinion". It is one thing, or the other, but not both. So—again—what is your evidence? Or do you think it is OK to call someone a bare-faced liar just because you present it as your "opinion"? If you don't have any evidence, you should retract your "opinion".

This is defamatory. I challenge you to give a few examples. And what do you mean by beginning that sentence with "personally". It doesn't make sense.

Amen, again! It's all about the big picture.