The Kraken

Then you, sir, are my new hero. I also enjoyed the analogy "it was like navigating one's way up a badger's arse" when describing the recovery and eventual landing.

I only had the home version; the blue one reminds me of a trip to Villa Park and, after we kicked them all over the park, Micky Adams popped up with a late equaliser for a 1-1 that the locals weren't very happy about at all. The walk back to the car after the game was interesting...

The yellow one was worse in that it was worn with white shorts and yellow socks. That famous yellow-white-yellow classic colour combination.

As for this part, while I would hope it would be wrong I wouldn't be at all surprised if it were true. I simply don't believe a plane can just disappear and no-one has the slightest inkling where it is. There's certainly more than meets the eye to this as far as I'm concerned.

Please tell me that you're the chap who came out with this immortal line: "Ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. We have a small problem. All four engines have stopped. We are doing our damnedest to get them going again. I trust you are not in too much distress" If so, then

An outrageous assertion. You WUM.

Simple question: why does it irk you so much that someone else may not share your opinion on Cortese. Or, what it actually is, that someone recognises the good things he did but can have a laugh about some of the things he was poor at? Truly,what does it matter if some randoms on a web forum don't subscribe to your view of the former chairman? Why get so "wound up" or "react" about that? It seems when it comes to Cortese there has to be common consensus across the board and anyone who deviates from that is a WUM or worse. It's bizarre. Saints fans don't seem to do this for former players; I've seen people on here who say that Ormerod was fantastic for us and others who say he was nothing but a sub-standard runner. Yet they don't seem to get called into line. It really is most odd.

Now you say it you can just make that out at the top of the reverse. OK, I'll revise my statement. "As far as red and white stripes go, the front of that one is perfection IMO."

It may not have been quick, but his departure was accelerated from the originally planned date.

Depends what it's on. The silver on black looks good. The all white on the black of the away kit looks good. The gold on the red home kit looks naff and needs the full colour version.

Not a fan at all of that. The thing I've liked the least about our last two home kits (and there has been a lot) has been the red shorts, followed by the red socks. I'm not overly bothered about conventional stripes, as such, but it kind of stops being a proper Saints kit IMO when the shorts aren't black. Not overly keen on red socks either, it's white or black for me (best stripes kit was the late 80s Draper kit with black shorts black socks both with white trim).

Nike are where it's at. As far as red and white stripes go, that's perfection IMO. Turn it Rank Xerox and, well, don't blame me for the mess.

Pony did. Our one was f*cking awful. Had that for 2 years as well.

I'm not saying they've never made a good kit, Baz. They clearly have. In fact I've got a couple of oldies that I still parade for 5 a side. But they now have so many clubs and churn out the same old monotonous sh*te for most of them. The same lazy template for almost every club. There are still some gems in amongst all that; Ajax 2013/14 home shirt is a beauty, for instance. But in the main they just go for a thoroughly lazy and generic approach.

That would be the major upside. And stripes are so bland. Adidas really are a lazy, sh*thouse brand. Just repetitive, average garb for the masses.

If you change the blue on the sleeves and neck to white, it's almost identical to this year's kit.

Very much doubt it's us, but you never know I suppose....

Black shorts, white socks would be a great start. Not overly fussed about traditional stripes per se, Rank Xerox would fabulous. But please ditch the red shorts and socks.

RIP Woody.

Also bear in mind that, unless Ms Liebherr just gifts SFC the money, there are interest payments on a multi-million pound loan. I've no idea if its true but I saw it by more than one source that our £15M loan from Vibrac attracted a £1m interest payment. When you add in the extra costs associated with an increased capacity it really starts to eat into that £2.6M you mention. Without increasing capacity and getting close to selling it out every game it's very hard to make a financial case for it. We'd all like a bigger stadium, of course we would, but there seems to still be a desire to get one before we actually need it. Man City are spending £50M to take their stadium from 48,000 to 62,000. To give a different perspective of how much it can cost to increase a stadium in size.

We're not going with your car boot sale prices, Bear.

The most firm answer is the £3000 per seat figure that was previously provided. There is nothing to suggest that was not a valid figure, so any deviation from that amount at that time is speculation.

Where has a figure of £12m been fabricated from? when St. Mary's was built it was at a cost of £1000 per seat, but it was estimated that extending would cost £3000 per extra seat. Using those figures it would be £24m. Or to use a different example. Wolves knocked down their old Stan Cullis stand and rebuilt a new, 8000 seated stand in it's place. Cost £18m. £12m for 8000 extra seats simply doesn't get the job done.

Some safe standing (rail seating) actually provides two standing spaces per one seated space. That's probably where Ff is coming from. That said, in the remote possibility that the Goverment reverses their policy to actually allow rail seating / safe standing, I'd have thought the only configuration they'd allow would be the one standing space per seated space model.

Only SWF posters could try to make an argument for a bigger stadium while our average attendance has dropped by 800 fans per game and currently sits at less than 300000, our lowest ever figure in the Premier League at St Mary's.