The Kraken

If only there was a three page thread on the first page of this forum devoted to the flag and it's whereabouts. What's that? There is?! http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?31625-ML-Flag

Yeah, I hate it when clubs put their owner and CEO in the squad picture. Oh...

If that's the case, I'd definitely rather not have that "incentive". You're effectively paying for a ticket (if you want to or not) for a game that may or may not actually take place. I'm still sure the away team must have input into the pricing; I remember either last year or the year before where the club wanted to cut prices but couldn't because of away team input. In fact, didn't SFC p!ss of someone like Shrewsbury through such an arrangement and then we slagged them off about it on the OS? EDIT: Here's the link to the article: http://www.shropshirestar.com/sport/2010/10/28/fa-steps-in-over-shrewsbury-v-southampton-ticket-prices/ SFC wanted to charge £10, away team wanted to charge full price, FA mediated a compromise.

You sure about that? So how does that work if Arsenal/Spurs get drawn away in the cup and only get an allocation of 3,000? They can't give every ST holder a ticket.

Being as I've used bookies in other stadia (and other sports) that are more up to date, I'm pretty sure it's not as complicated as you want to make out. Not simple I imagine, but for a larger company like Ladbrokes I'm sure it wouldn't involve a huge amount of logisitics. And why are you getting uppity about it?! "Don't like it, don't use it then" is a silly statement to make when there are valid criticisms to make. Please tell me what is wrong with wanting a service I've previously used to be better and more efficient. I assume when someone complains about the queues at half-time for beer and food being too long, you tell them "Well don't use them then".

I agree. I am surprised the club went with someone so tin-pot, I can only think it can have been motivated by extra money. As I said the queues were by far the worst factor with Ladbrokes, which weren't helped by the fact that the betting kiosks were all run with manual slips. As per the high street stores, this could be speeded up by using the scanners and pre-printed forms. Of course, The Betting Room don't have these; they don't even have the facility for online betting. And no other way to redeem a winning bet than wait for ages Or until the next game) at the ground, take your slip to a shop in Pompey, or mail it by registered delivery. Very poor options for the customer. The Betting Room will only justify their outlay if they can get customers served quicker, and not put them off by long queues and comparitively poor odds. Having a captive audience will only get them so far, they still have to perform.

No doubt; the problem is that QPR don't seem to have a spare million to spend. Not in cash anyway; which may suggest that Gorkss in p/x is also off.

It isn't a direct criticism of the club, more so the suppliers they use. In fact, these new lot may actually be paying more than Ladbrokes used to, as Ladbrokes apparently refused to meet the price demands of Cortese. So there's the possibility that it's actually a good move for the club, in terms of revenues. The down side of course is that, while the Ladbrokes system certainly had it's flaws, their biggest criticism (the waiting times for bets and payouts) has gotten even worse. And now the odds seem pretty poor in comparison too. In any case, the club shouldn't really lose out; they'll get their money from The Betting Room nonetheless. But having such an outdated system and untrained staff for an environment where speed of service is key makes little sense.

For a Man U fan you have an unhealthy obsession with Saints.

Blame the manager.

Not really that worrying then! TBF I knew he'd gotten injured but thought he was back training by now.

A bit worrying not to see Barnard anywhere near the team yet; would have thought this was an ideal chance for a run out. Injury perhaps worse than thought.

It already has several tons of sh!t flood through it's gates every other week.

Which is an excellent way for him to gradually get introduced to top-level Premier League and (potentially) Champions League group games. Although I disagree that he'll only play a handful of games, I think it will be more than that. There are plenty of parallels with AOC and Theo, though AOC played more games for Saints than Theo did (in fact almost twice as many). In Theo's first full season following his transfer he played 30-odd games for Arsenal's first team, many of them as a substitute admittedly, but still an ideal way to introduce a young player to top level football. So, despite all the whingeing going on here, you have to ask yourself: what is the best way to nurture a young player and get him used to a new playing style, a new set of team-mates, and a massive step-up in level from effectively League 1 to top of the Premier League and Europe? is it: Play 40 odd games in a league one level below the league your current side plays in. or Play 30 odd games (some starting, some as a sub) among your new team-mates in the Premier League and Europe, surrounded by international players every day in training, coached by a manager and team who have one of the best histories of bringing through young talent to the top level in recent times. I know which one I'd choose.

You can add Wayne Bridge to the list.

Our OS also says its "one of the biggest deals in Championship history". So who went for more than £12M from the Championship?

Precisely. Same with Wayne Bridge leaving; Lowe resisted for as long as he could by rebuffing offers, then Bridge put in a transfer request. So Lowe then made sure we got a good price for Bridge, and also a good replacement in Le Saux. There's plenty of things to knock Lowe for; his sales policy and record is not one of them.

I think he has an enormous amount of new twitter followers who do think exactly that, yes!

I'm sure they are, yes. Again, all part of the learning process playing for a side at the top end of the Premier League and in the Champions League.

This is a ridiculous argument anyway. The accusation is that Walcott's progress was "stalled" because he went to Arsenal too early, and therefore missed out on playing in enough competitive first team matches. Which is actually nonsense, given here's the number of appearances he actually made: 2005/06 (Saints): 23 2006/07 (Arsenal): 32 2007/08: 39 2008/09: 35 2009/10: 30 2010/11: 38

Account was only created today, so looks like its a fake. If you've just signed for Arsenal, why would you put up a profile pic of yourself in a Saints kit?

Not necessarily. In itself it's probably a fair value of his current and future worth, with the market the way it is right now. Arsenal fans are rightly up in arms because it's not the signing they need right now. They clearly have problems at CB and maybe also if Fabregas and Nasri go. Using up to £12M for a non-essential signing while neglecting other key areas that need addressing is what they're getting their knickers in a twist about.

Gordon Simpson has re-tweeted: Someone else called arsenaljeff on GS's twitter followers has posted:

Are there those that criticise Lowe for selling players? I always thought one of the things he was extremely good at was getting a good price for our players. And we'll always be a selling club. If Man Utd and Arsenal can't even keep hold of their prized assets, it's not really a bad thing.