The Kraken

While that's true, I'd still say West Ham, Boro and Leicester will feature in the promotion race. Add to that Derby's good start plus of course the Seaweed, playoffs would still be a thoroughly respectable achievement IMO. Not saying we shouldn't aim for automatic, of course not, nor saying we can't achieve it. But there's plenty of tests yet to come. Looking forward to tomorrow and seeing how we play against a well organised top side away from home.

It won't be his fault, though. The excuses have been trotted out already, they'll be regurgitated and repeated ad nauseam that it's the nasty board's fault.

That's optimistic!

It's been said, but at the Dell we were massively hemmed in with regard to how close the fans were to the pitch. New regulations with the size of perimeter really meant that the size of land available to us at the old site, however it was rotated, just wouldn't have been enough. And that's before you start even thinking about space for visiting TV crew vehicles, parking etc. I know St. Mary's gets a bit of criticism for it's location but, for an inner city stadium, I'm not sure if there are really too many better locations that we could have gone for. I actually very much like our new location, and as much as I loved the old ground I think we have the better of everything with our current location.

Derby 0 Barnsley 1 Portsmouth 1 Peterborough 2 Dune, do us all a favour and chuck a bet on Cardiff tomorrow, would you please?

I genuinely don't get it, I really don't. I can say until I'm blue in the face that I'm massively thankful for Cortese, what he's done for the club and the direction he's taking us in. Yet as soon as you mention one tiny facet where I don't particularly agree with his approach on an issue (however minor it be) you get an avalanche of "stop undermining the club" accusations. It's utterly ridiculous, idiotic and childish. Besides which, I'm sure Nicola Cortese couldn't give two hoots about what a small bunch of random nobodies on an obscure internet forum think about him. I doubt there's anything that anyone on here could say that would have the effect of destabilising the club.

Very well said; the need to pigeon-hole people into a pro or anti Cortese stance is as childish as it is ridiculous.

Weird isn't it?

Exactly right.

I don't see a reason why we can't have both. The Saints Foundation is an excellent and worthy organisation. The Ex-Saints have also done some great work down the years. the two are not and never have been in competition with each other, there is room for both (Aston Villa are a perfect example, on their website you will find promotion of Acorns, "Villa in the Community" and their former players' association). It can be done; it has been done in the past. I find it a shame it isn't now, especially given that the Ex-Saints have also extensively supported the club in the past. We'll agree to disagree, I guess.

The ex-Saints charity pre-dates MLT and Benali being on its committee. It has, for a long number of years, enjoyed the support of the club and received help with promotion of many of its events down the years. And as a charity that raises money for former players such as Kevin Moore, there is obviously the footballing link with the past and the current club setup, so there's clearly a natural synergy between the two. Many other clubs see fit to support their former players' associations, whether it be by allowing programme space, promotional pages on their official websites, and allowing use of the club crest to promote their events. If you don't think it's a shame that we used to do all these things but have now seemingly decided to cease all of that, then we have vastly differing views of the situation.

Yes, good analogy, that's entirely the same thing.

I think you do the Ambassador's Lounge a complete disservice to describe as just being filled by p*ssed up legends. I had the fortune of going in just once when it was hosted by Lawrie Mac and can comfortably say it was the most enjoyable day I've ever had at St. Mary's. I've also done the coporate boxes and Channon Suite and they didn't come close in comparison. And if, like you say, there are other ways to drive corporate sales then I'm surprised they're not already being done, as we must be missing out on significant revenues with the amount of empty seats waiting to be filled by the simple implementation of a sales strategy. You're right that no-one knows the actual ins and outs of the situation; I certainly don't. I guess that's why I've resisted going too far into any accusations or anything, just registering my disappointment that the two entities cannot work together. You're right, history is made as you go; but I prefer to go along with the notion of "You've got to know where you've been to know where you're going."

Why the need for another new thread? You even posted this in the Stelling thread itself.

If former club legends are being publicly disenfranchised with the club then, in an indirect way it could hurt the club, in particular with corporate/hospitality sales. Corporate sales such as the Ambassador's Lounge previously relied upon former club legends being in attendance to boost sales; the high number of empty corporate seats at the moment suggest this is already a problem.

I've not ever said it's news. What I have said is that I find it very disappointing that the club and the charity are not working together. If you read the website of the Ex-Saints, their opening line is: "The Ex Saints enjoy a close relationship with Southampton FC and have an affiliation agreement with the club." That clearly isn't the case any longer, but it used to be. It's an excellent charity, and as I've said, the spat that is driving a wedge between the two will only harm both parties in the long run.

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.