The Kraken

I don't see your point about Lambert. Its the club's job to gauge whether he'll step up or not. Its a footballing decision, the likes of which every club makes each season. You're welcome to your opinions about Rodriguez, I just don't share them. IMO he's a striker and not a midfielder, and I don't think he was a wise purchase. I don't think £3M+ was a wise purchase for Mayuka. We have made many wise purchases before; in fact that £3M for Mayuka is around about the same total we spent on Cork, Schneiderlin and Lambert put together. So lets not pretend that both young and old talent can't be bought for smaller prices. I listed 7 players who have been our stand out players this season; Boruc, Clyne, Shaw, Cork, Schneiderlin, Puncheon, Lambert. The sum total of their transfer fees does not come to the same total as we spent on Rodriguez. The club has previously done very well to ascertain who will step up from one league to another, as the jump from L1 to the Championship and then straight to the PL proved. This summer, for me, was much less successful.

Well, I think that's the point again, isn't it? The club should be aware of what they have, what they need most, what positions they really need to improve, and which players they should bring in to do that. I don't think they did a particularly good job at that. And I just think that £7M should bring in a player who is genuine competition for Lambert this season, not just a backup. As I said, Rodriguez may be one for the future; this season, when we need to consolidate and hold our position in the division, he is only a backup option and £7M is a big price to pay for that. Add in Mayuka and Gazzaniga and you have well more than £10M in second choice players. That's around the same money spent that Swansea and Norwich finished mid table with, let alone the additional £20M we spent.

Yes. That's entirely my point. JRod may well come great in the future. At the moment I don't see £7M worth of value, and I don't see the logic in spending that sum in this season when we are looking to consolidate. i think we got our priorities wrong, that's the point I'm making.

At £7M, for a club like us, my minimum expectation for Rodriguez (or any striker of that value, for that matter) would be for him to be good enough to be our first choice striker. I don't think clubs like Saints can afford to have £7M of player sat on the bench about as often as they're on the pitch; particularly in the first season on return to the top division.

Well I hope it is, as I'm going...

Yep. The stand out players so far have been Clyne, Shaw, Schneiderlin, Cork, Puncheon and Lambert. Top3 of Cork, Morgan and Lambert IMO. Boruc may be able to be added to the list by the end of the season, as of now he's a keeper who has had a couple of good months. Yoshida has been decent enough for a £2.5M player. Davis was cheap and has done OK, though nothing special. The jury is very much still out on Ramirez, Rodriguez, Gazzaniga and Mayuka IMO. God knows what Forren is like.

Yes, I realise that. Which is why I qualified the point (which you chose to leave out from your quote) that Ramirez and Rodriguez were targetted very early on as our key signings. Ramirez signed on the dotted line on deadline day, but that doesn't tell the story of his being targetted and chased for weeks. He was prioritised as a key signing early in the summer, and we followed that through until we finally got him.

Most PL pitches get replaced every summer now anyway. And unlike Wembley which had huge problems, most pitches don't take time to bed in. Man United and other clubs have even replaced pitches during the season in seasons past. None of Man United, Newcastle, Sunderland, Villa from the PL deem it a problem, nor do the 7 Football League clubs who bid, so I don't see why we should. Personally I think it would be good for the city.

Why not? Can't see a reason why it would be a bad thing. Unless its the pitch issue, but then it would probably be a condition that the pitch gets replaced afterwards in any case. I'm not a massive rugger fan but I reckon I'd have gone to a game or two at St. Mary's if we get it (although it does sound like we won't).

I can see why we did what we did. We bought players who are young and can give us some decent service while still having a resale value. I just think we got the balance wrong. £5M on Mayuka and Gazza, while £2.5M on Yoshida, free for Boruc and almost free for Davis as players to bring some top level experience in. I think we DID spend a fortune, just not in the right areas. We put most of our our eggs in the basket of youth signings, topped it up with a bit of relatively cheap experience, and IMO for the amount we spent it hasn't paid off. Also, that Puncheon has massively stepped up to the plate against all expectations covers another hole in the transfer strategy. £30M is an astronomical amount for a club our size to spend in one summer, I don't think we got value. Time may prove that opinion wrong, but to spend that much money and still be a very strong candidate for relegation suggests to me we got more wrong than we did right.

Not really, he wasn't. The transfer saga began weeks before he put pen to paper. He was clearly prioritised, even if the negotiations were massively protracted.

Very debatable, for this season anyway. What perhaps is less debatable is the folly of spending £7M on a player only to see him on the bench almost as often as on the pitch, and more importantly fail to replace the incumbent of the striker's role in a team that predominantly plays with just one up front. We're seeing not nearly enough impact from the £30M - £35M of signings this season.

Our transfer policy over the summer was a complete shambles. Priority given to spending £7M on a striker not good enough for the first team and £12M for a very hit and miss South American youngster. Key areas such as CB and GK were not adequately addressed until late in the window and beyond, and even then with cheaper options. Bizarre outlays on Mayuka and Gazzaniga, around £5M or so on potential prospects for the future yet we didn't spend that much on areas for the first team that blatantly needed more urgent reinforcement.

Just use some reinforced shorts FFS.

That's an unknown. I seem to remember reading a little while ago that there is no right to appeal, unless it is on a particular point of law that was not followed properly. But then I probably read that in the Pompey boards so its equally likely it could be completely made up and full of sh*t.

So have you seen the contract, and do you know what it does and doesn't cover? I think we know the answer is "no".

First of all, the hearing is to decide whether FP can be sold in the first place. If it decides it can be sold, the judge will then set a market value for it.

What happens by law if you just enter into an agreement to rent, say, just one bedroom of a shared house? Or two bedrooms? Without seeing the contract you simply have no idea what was rented and what wasn't. There are all sorts of permutations, particularly in a house the size of the one in question.

I think lots of people don't actually realise this, or its implications. Which are: yes, this is technology being introduced in to game. How much difference will it make to the way the game is played? None. None at all. Except for the fact that any doubt is removed for close goalline calls, the players will know that any call is 100% accurate so if a goal isn't given within the 1 second timeframe then they need to play on. All of this "ooh, it'll only lead to more technology" nonsense completely ignores the fact that FIFA have continually said they'll only introduce technology if it doesn't disrupt the current flow of the game, which this doesn't. Video replay would disrupt the game, which is why FIFA have refused to consider it.

I've got no idea what point you're trying to make, Dave. Much less care, to be fair, if you're carrying on with your quest for TV replays in football which is a recipe for disaster IMO.

What a ludicrous statement and justification to not use technology that will make not a single difference on the way the game is played by the players and seen by managers.

"Hoooooooooooooooooooooooooo!"

An entirely reasonable suggestion IMO.

Where are these located? I've been to the Rose Bowl a few times but never noticed a dry section. Good idea of course, and shows what's possible in football if boozing near the away fans is really seen as the bulk of the problem.

Thinking about it; are there many other clubs that base their main home end around where the away fans are? We seem to be a minority in that regard, and the home end gets decimated when we play FA Cup games due to the extra away allocation. It would be a decent introduction to have a complete stadium rethink and turn the Chapel into a proper home end.