The Kraken

From this very thread, post 91. And it hardly constitutes much effort on the club's behalf to promote upcoming ex-Saints events on the website or in the matchday programme, as they've previously been more than happy to oblige with.

If it's true then yes, I would be surprised to hear that the club chairman has completely cut ties with a charity who the club have supported for many years, simply because of a personal spat with two of that charity's members. If it were all true, I would suggest that it smacked of abject pettiness, considering the history of that charity.

There was clearly some space behind the West Stand to allow for an extension; I'll be honest though, I can't remember seeing any design for it or anything,

In theory this thread is valid enough, as it's about the ex-saints (although the thread title is needlessly provocative). I do think it's sad that there seems to be a widening chasm opening between the club and the ex-Saints. They are a great organisation and in the past have received great support from within the club, and vice-versa. I'd suggest it's possible that the ex-Saints board consisting of MLT and Franny isn't going to engender good relationships between the two, which is a thorough shame as it will only mean both parties losing out.

Merson was a guest appearance for the game yesterday. No doubt cajoled into playing by MLT from their Soccer Saturday association. Also, from the ex-Saints website: Should have heard of some of those.

Why have you put the word "charity" in inverted commas? Are you suggesting that they are not one?

Well that's a bit far-fetched; otherwise why do newspapers get sued for libel? There are laws in place to stop newspapers printing any rubbish they want, especially when it comes to direct quotes from individuals. Like it or not, the article in the Sun contained a number of direct quotes from Nicola Cortese. As others have previously said, if Mr Cortese believes that the quotes in writing are not an accurate representation of what he said and do not match what he actually said, then he has a cause for libel. That he hasn't made a subsequent public statement denying the quotes used would suggest that the quotes are an accurate representation of what he actually said.

And you'll find I have never advocated him being so; indeed I've been critical of him for some of his previous actions, and will continue to do so as I think the only healthy way to judge him is to evaluate each and every decision on it's own particular merits. Some people (I guess you included) were indeed thoroughly in favour of Adkins to start with. A hell of a lot were also rather non-plussed with his appointment. I'm pretty sure all Saints fans were willing for him to succeed, but to say he was the only obvious candidate for the job, the fans' favourite and only logical choice, is just total nonsense.

If anything I'd say that Adkins was one of the last names on the tips of peoples' tongues as to who we SHOULD go for; certainly the major national papers were talking up a host of other usual names that get trotted out. Adkins didn't seem to be on the radar of anyone but SFC, who clearly had him identified as the number one target. You only have to look at the amount of fans who were "underwhelmed" to form a picture of how high up the pecking order Adkins was viewed as being; to say he was the obvious shoo-in is just a blatant rewriting of history to suit a particularly bitter agenda.

Of course it isn't Docker; even the staunchest anti-Corteseite could tell you that you're talking out of your arse with that statement.

Aren't WUMs supposed to be, you know, funny? It's sort of the point. Dalek is just a bit thick, and thoroughly tedious. Annoying people by acting like a complete bellend is a bit different to being a WUM.

Mr Lallana

Being as there's so much whingeing on this board, have some happiness in your lives. From 00.30, comedy genius from our best ever manager. Gaaafferrrrrr!

Most people do that. Unfortunately there are people like DellDays mentions who can't work out for themselves that there are shades of grey in every debate and therefore have to polarise opinion into bite size chunks that they can understand. Hence completely needless sh*t threads like this one, which prove nothing at all and go nowhere. Sh*t i just got suckered into the nonsense. B*llocks.

I don't disagree, it will have very little overall effect on most games. That said, I truly believe that it's the extent of how far technology should encroach on the game. Unlike rugby, tennis and cricket, football is very much a continuous game and does not afford the natural breaks in play required to analyse video evidence to come to a particular conclusion. Were it to be introduced, then yes it would improve the accuracy of decision making in the game. But I also believe it would ruin the game as a spectacle by making it massively fragmented, and therefore it would have a massively negative influence.

Absolutely agree. I totally agree with Cortese's sentiment of clamping down on the amount of freebies that went out of the club; but there are some ex-players (not many) who, IMO, deserve a free match ticket for life. As I've said, I'm talking of the likes of MLT, Franny, Jason Dodd, Lawrie Mac, Jimmy Case; like I say, not many at all. Also, one of the best experiences I had at the club was a day in the Ambassador's Lounge. Hosted by Lawrie Mac, he invites some of his former players to join him, give a little speech, basically regale about the old times. We've now lost all that, and I can't help but feel the cutting away of that history must have an effect on the dwindling hospitality we're seeing at the club as it's all becoming a bit too sterile (and I have done the hospitality since then so I have a basis in comparison).

Yes, why on earth not? That's of course exactly the same thing. Good analogy.

Yet again; what is the point in not bringing it in if the technology is there?? The penalties and offside issue is a completely different scenario; they would require a break in play to analyse the video replay and requrie a human decision to be made. Goal line technology would be made in real time and would not require an independent reviewer to make a decision on it.

That's true. It was a great achievement, no doubt. I'm not saying it can't happen here; of course not. But I think Everton qualifying for the CL qualification stages was very much the exception rather than the rule. I also think, with the way the Premier League is right now, that it's much harder to achieve now than it was then. Man Utd, Man City and Chelsea are a shoo-in every year with the finance they have at their disposal. The you have Arsenal, Tottenham and Liverpool duking it out for that 4th spot. Everton, Newcastle, Sunderland, Villa etc, are really fighting it out and would consider 6th place a fantastic achievement. The only hope we can have is that the financial fair play rules put the league on a more even keel. But, being as the Champions League clubs will always have that extra revenue, there is the danger it could have the opposite effect and that we'll always have the same 4 bringing in the big money while the other compete for the scraps. In any case, we're a world away from all of that right now. It's fine to dream, I suppose, but reality is a long, long, long road from here.

I think you'd be surprised at the amount of freeloaders and hangers-on there are within the game, at any club. That SFC decided to do something about it was, IMO, nothing bad. That said, there are some players who, IMO, deserve to afforded a free ticket for every single game from here to the end of time. Not many of them, but the likes of MLT, Franny, Jason Dodd, Lawrie Mac, Jimmy Case. Fair enough limit the number of free tickets they can have to 1 (and they should pay for any more that they want), but we should show at least some respect to past heroes IMO.

Everton have never played in the Champions League group stages.

Again; if the technology is there and can be easily implemented without otherwise affecting the game, why not do it? I'm yet to hear a valid answer for choosing to ignore available technology.

Yep. We may have billionaires behind us but we know they're not going to tip all of that into a fruitless endeavour to turn us into the next Man City. We are to be a self-sustaining club, which is exactly what we were under Lowe.

Yep, I agree with this, and I found parts of the article quite cringeworthy. The positives of it are that it is a lifting of the media blanket that seems to have enveloped the club, and a positive editorial written not by the OS or the Daily Echo. Added to the recent BBC article about NA, it shows the progression made by the club and that what we're doing is definitely being seen ina positive light. I just think the tone of it comes across as a bit arrogant and self-promotional. A bit too much "look at me, I'm great, I stung Arsenal for too much money but I'm still ready to roll my sleeves up and clean the bus up 'cos I'm that type of guy". It's reminiscent of "Just call me Mike" in our Saints go Wilde abomination. I don't mind Cortese at all, I think he's made a few silly small mistakes but overall has made a massively positive influence on the club. But I don't think thsi article will do him too many favours, particularly amongst the neutrals.

Being as I've probably been to around 25% games at St Mary's since it was built, that's quite a staggeringly simplistic suggestion you've just made, so well done on that. But well done for completely ignoring what I was actually saying, just to pursue your petty little point. By doing that you're effectively suggesting that because I haven't seen one yet, there will never be a contentious goal-line incident at St. Mary's, and therefore technology is pointless. I disagree, so now that we both know where we stand, I think we're done.