VectisSaint

WBA 43, West Ham 40. One more will take us level with Newcastle and Nottm Forest. But we have less than half of Spurs (75) and Villa (73). On the following site we are shown as only having 35 capped players: http://englandstats.com The missing player being C B Fry (the real one), they have him associated with Corinthians. Looks like the OP was using a different site as he listed Charlie Fry as well.

Agreed, I cannot find the references either. I assume some sort of infiltration by the CIA or Barack Obama has lead to this information being modified :-). I distinctly remember at the time of the takeover or shortly thereafter that a list was available that showed the wealth of Markus, independently from that of Willi and Isolde, and that it was about $4bn. Maybe it wasn't Forbes, which is a shame because it is the backbone of my argument. That said, I think it beggars belief that you seriously think that Markus was not a multi billionaire (whether that be 2,3 or 4 billion). There are references around indicating that his wealth, independent of the Liebherr Group (Willi and Isolde) was around 3bn Euros (Telegraph Obituary, for example, which is clear that his business was quite separate from the Liebherr Group). Although not as good a source as Forbes, of course, it was reported in 2014 that Katharina had inherited her Father's $3bn fortune (although I don't believe myself that she did inherit the full amount), hence her appearance in the Top 10 Richest English Premier League owners (Valnet Inc), nevertheless it would be strange if they did not get their numbers from some reliable source. The Mirror (yes, I know a ragtop, with no substance at all) quoted that Katharina was worth £1.9bn in 2015 (probably a more believable figure than the $3bn from 2014). Whether or not KL is still a multi-billionaire (if 1.9 counts as multi) is a moot point, but there can surely be little doubt that her Father was before his untimely death. Markus inherited a great deal from his father, Hans, and purchased the main constituent companies of the MALI Group in 1994 (he did not build them up from scratch). These were not back yard/ industrial estate little tin pot companies, but suppliers of R&D and equipment to the automotive and other industries (diesel engine common rail technology). It was of course reported that he handed his shares in the Liebherr Group back at a later date (as did his brother Hubert), but this does not mean he gave back any of his "fortune", merely that he gave away his part in the controlling interest of the Liebherr Group and gained nothing further from their efforts. I think your assertion that the winding up of the MALI Group was a simple affair (implying the company was not substantial) is really pure fantasy. Without the Forbes reference it is difficult to prove that Markus was as wealthy as believed, but there is still enough circumstantial evidence that he was worth in the realms of 2-4bn (whether that be dollars, euros, pounds, Swiss francs or other reliable currency as opposed to Nigerian Naira). If you really think Markus' wealth was wildly overstated then you will no doubt be able to produce verifiable details :-) It is arguable that KL is not as wealthy, that is accepted, the terms of her inheritance probably meant that she did not inherit even 50% of her Father's total estate, the inheritance laws in Switzerland are complex and in any case I suspect that substantial parts of his Estate passed to others, including his great friend Cortese, and possibly to KL's son. Incidentally, in all of the years since ML came onto the scene I have never found any reference to his wife (KL's mother). Did she die, were they divorced, does anyone actually know? Please post your citations to the list to back up your theory that Markus Liebherr was actually a pauper, my citations for the contra-argument are shown below :-) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/sport-obituaries/7950756/Markus-Liebherr.html http://www.therichest.com/sports/soccer-sports/top-10-richest-english-premier-league-owners/ http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/premier-leagues-richest-owners-how-6233348. On the other hand you might just think, who gives a tinker's cuss and give up

Show me that then.

Around the time that Markus took us over it was reported on the Forbes List (which is about as authoritative as you can get outside seeing his personal bank accounts) that his personal wealth was around $4bn, nothing to do with the Liebherr family as a whole, as they were separately listed. Whether he still had this mount when he died is another matter, and undoubtedly Katherina did not inherit this much.

He is 32, no top club is going to beat a path to our door for a midfielder approaching the end of his career. All of the other players mentioned bar Lambert were young and had years of development ahead of them. The only place he would go now is Rangers, and that's unlikely.

Whether you were born in Southampton or not it is a derby. A derby is "a sports event between teams in the same area". In this case the area is the County of Southampton or Hampshire (the ceremonial county not the political redraw of 1974) [if some of our younger readers are not aware Boscombe was in the County of Southampton until 1891 and then Hampshire until 1974]. The area can also be considered the South Coast (personally I have an issue whether Southampton is actually on the South Coast but it seems by definition it is), or the New Forest. Why people seem to have a problem with this is beyond me. It is just as much a derby as with the Skates. You could argue that it is not a local derby, but then if so the Skates would not be a local derby either, whereas Eastleigh or Totton probably would be. It is arguable whether it is a rivalry, but it is not arguable whether it is a derby. I don't consider it much of a rivalry at present, but it could become one, especially as the other lot become less and less relevant. I like having a localish team in the same division as us, as long as we continue to be above them.

That is just paper talk, based on no evidence, fake news. Indications from the Club are that it could be very minor and could be back but that they will know better after scans this week. In other words nobody knows yet.

Its not doing any harm either. Apart from letting Erikson (?) ghost past him once in the 2nd half he did absolutely nothing wrong again on Sunday and looked calm and collected, significantly better than Yoshida (who I like) who was a bit all over the place. Stephens is clearly good enough for the PL especially if he is alongside someone like VvD. He is making less costly mistakes than Fonte was earlier this season, some people seem to expect him to be the greatest CB in the world already, even at his young age. The last thing he needs is a loan again, he has had them and performed very well. I would like to see Caceres playing but to be honest he is not going to be significantly better. It will be interesting when VvD is back whether Puel keeps faith with Stephens or swaps Yoshida back to the right. Unless he picks up some serious injury I fully expect Stephens to be England's CB in 2 or 3 years. He needs to improve a few areas (his heading and to some extent his passing) but it is quite exciting seeing a good ball playing CB coming through now, its been a long time since we have produced one like this (yes I know we got him from Plymouth). Think some people need to appreciate what potentially we have here.

Tweaked groin

The season over bit

Slight over reaction.

When the rumour was initially published a week or so ago it was clear that any move was likely to be a further loan and that City would continue to pay a substantial part of his wages. It is also clear that City will not loan to a rival-they apparently consider Everton a rival but not us. Torino will not have European football next season so Hart moving to the PL which is what he wants will not be influenced by lack of Europe, there are only a few other options, West Ham perhaps. So with his wages not being an issue and his options boiling down to Torino or a mid-table PL side it really is not that unlikely that he would choose to go to us if Forster moves on. Maybe the influence of Watson is pertinent,who knows.Hart's options are very limited. People may poo poo the likelihood of this happening but in reality it is not so unlikely.

English, two legs, plays for Man U. Simple. 9 former and current Saints, would have been 10 if Walcott had been included. Stephens next.

Nice little swipe at Luke "Nandos" Shaw. He does come across as arrogant, and his being best buddies with Ronaldo doesn't help. Unfortunately (for him) he isn't doing it on the pitch where it really matters, until it does all his talk is just that.

Unless of course we are not paying by instalments but 100% up front.

Nope, it was particularly embarrassing because of its association with Trump at the time. It really is awful, cringeworthy. Problem is that no-one these days tries to build atmosphere before game everyone too bloody interested in downing **** in the bar before kick-off.

Fake news.

MK stadium contains integral hotel with rooms over looking the pitch

No it isn't, his current contract is until end of 2018/19 season (another 2 years). If his contract was up City would not have any say in his plans for next season. Just to check my facts: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2880977/Joe-Hart-signs-new-Manchester-City-contract-keeping-Premier-League-champions-end-2018-19-season.html

Man City will not sell him to a rival, they consider Everton a rival but not little Southampton. It would also initially be a loan with City paying some of his salary (as they are doing at Torino). Hart is reasonably happy with Torino who will not be CL next season so he is not limiting himself to a CL club as someone suggested (Torino won't qualify for EL either). Personally I would Take Hart over Forster since Forster has Morphed from a decent keeper last season to an absolutely crap one now. Whether Ronald or his successor would take him is another matter.

Yep, they will only have hat-trick Son instead, LOL.

Having watched two interviews now, I think most people watching would probably think "what's the issue"? The "acrimonious" transfer (was it?) isn't really discussed//mentioned and there is nothing that really gives any sense of what injustice was done (I didn't hand in a transfer request is about the sum total of any controversy). The follow up on the BBC interview focused very much on the crux of the matter, namely that Ronaldo is a great player and that Fonte does all he can to give him the platform to play. The pundits really had no interest in Fonte, West Ham or Southampton, only what he said about Ronaldo.

Morph would be better than Forster at the moment.

"Stellar list of names", Gareth McAuley Good result and deserved

He is also a former Saint, so not completely tenuous. It is so clearly an accident, it is disgusting that the FA have given him a 5 match ban, with no right of appeal. The Ibra ban should be for the games previously scheduled, that would mean he would miss our game, but now he won't.