The Kraken

Warnock has gone on record about Puncheon.

Joined Blackpool on 1st Jan 2007; played for them 50 times in the league in a year and half, won promotion in season 2007/08 with them (while scoring 7 goals). Transferred summer 2008 to QPR. Has since played 114 league games for QPR in 3 seasons, and got promoted with them last year having played over 40 games. So he has a decent history, if that of a player deemed more than good enough for top Championship level but not good enough for the Premier league by two previous managers.

Ah yes, I can see now that's exactly what you were alluding to with your previous, clearly entirely relevant comparisons. My apologies, you carry on.

Look at where we are and tell me if we're on topic. So, back to Gorkss.......

MLG hijacking a thread with his ever-tedious pedantry? Never.

I think it was based on the fact that Saints announced that they expected to sign one or two players before the Leeds game. From that, I believe Saint Richmond deduced that Saints were only seriously interested in Jemal, and no-one else.

We're not looking any further than promotion this time around. Read that echo article above, it's Adkins' own words. As Trousers said, his only stated ambition is to be "in the race around Christmas time". He says nothing about a building a team that can compete in the Premier League, in fact he goes on to suggest how strong this division is and how we need (more) good players (in addition to the ones we already have) to complete.

Fair enough, but I'm not sure what that has to do with Trousers' post.

So you think we should buy him? Good, I'm glad we all agree.

Well, there's two parts to why that's a misguided statment. First, why is he here for only one season? We're not promoted yet, we haven't even kicked a ball in anger. IF we get promoted, then we would then have to look at getting a replacement player. If we don't get promoted this year, then we have a first team player for the following season. So it would clearly be a signing for more than one season. Secondly, even if we do get promoted, why is it such a bad idea to buy a player who can assure us of that promotion. TV money and prize money in the Premier League is worth upwards of £60M a year. So, from a financial point of view, even if we got there and let him sit on his arse for 3 more years, it would be money well spent. I really don't understand your logic of not wanting to buy someone because he might not be good enough for the division above, it really doesn't make sense. At all.

He'll never do it in the Premier League though, his legs have gone. Gorkss out.

Why are you worrying about what players we'll need in the Premier League? We're not in it yet, I do hope you realise that? Our Chairman even has a 3 year plan to get there, rather than your suggestion of 1. And if we do get there, we do have the option of replacing him you know?! By your rationale we wouldn't sign any players, just in case we get promoted and they're not good enough for the league above. EDIT: Well that was a waste of my time! Cheers everyone above, nice to see some of us are on the same (logical) page.

Exactly right; I don't know where St Richmond learnt to add up, but it all slots into place as far as I can see. QPR have signed Danny Gabbidon this summer. Dan Sh*ttu has signed a new contract with QPR. Saints apparently made an equiry for Gorkss a couple of months ago but were rebuffed. Warnock needs to replace Wayne Routledge and wants Jason Puncheon, having commented on him Warnock however cannot spend huge sums of cash so must move players on before bringing others in; hence the "swap" offer for Puncheon/Gorkss. Seems to make perfect sense.

Sound enough advice. The problem you have with that is that the vocal minority on here tend to be the ones who don't go to many games, and therefore for whom the result is the be all and end all. I've had a look at match threads following games I've been to, and have seen things such as substitutions / lack of substitutions / tactics / individual performances torn to pieces in explicit detail by people who hadn't even seen the game. Pardew's very first season here was a prime point in case, whereby we took 10 games to actually get going. People who actually went to the games kept claiming that the team were turning the corner, looking better in ecery game, and better form was definitely on it's way; but they were consistently shouted down by the non-attenders who just looked at the results and declared it was season-over already, predicting a league finish lower than 16th and such like. It's why I don't bother with the match threads any more for league games; they're just ful of over-reactionary and usually misleading nonsense.

GOAL Saints get one back on 44 as Lloyd Isgrove capitalises on poor clearance to finish low. We're back in it!!

I do like the positive spin on the OS Twitter site. :lol: He's in serious danger of literally being Tommy FourPast tonight.

Wouldn't be a bad opportunity for the likes of Bart, Martin, Stephens, Dickson, Mills, Puncheon, De Ridder, Holmes, Forte and Barnard to get some game time and match sharpness before Saturday. If they all lined-up it wouldn't be too bad a side tbf.

So De Ridder is de player of de season? *gets coat and leaves*

I agree, I'm not comparing, which is why I said "this is a venture into new territory for NA, with a chairman who will expect a bit more..." And I do stand by that. NA has no personal experience of just how good his players need to be to challenge at the top of this division; you could argue that he's never managed that quality of player in his history as a manager. Does he have the calibre of player now? As I said, time will tell. I really don't know, I'm confident of a top half finish with the squad we have but until we get started and see the comparable quality around us, it's only speculation.

To be fair, this is a bit of a re-writing of history. In NA's first season in the Championship Scunny were relegated. In NA's second season back in the Championship, they finished in 20th place. The only team that finished below Scunny and stayed up were Crystal Palace, who were docked 10 points for going into administration. This is a venture into new territory for NA, with a chairman who will expect a bit more than those types of finishes. Time will tell just how well equipped we are for it.

You make a fair point regarding telephone sales for in-demand times. However, I don't see that it can be an issue for online sales. With the right type of booking system in place (which we must already have) there is surely no need to use an agency; the bookings are made directly on SFC's system, and all that is then left to do by the club is print the tickets and put them in an envelope. Which begs the question of why online sales are charged the £3 fee. I'd use the online system if it was free, but for some reason it's the same as the telephone sales charge.

I think you're missing the point. The club already have a price of ticket for those bought at the ticket office. The "ticket tax" only comes in for those tickets sent out, therefore its an extra premium for the benefit of not having to go to the TO to pick the tickets up. As such, it SHOULD be a cost that simply covers all the club's costs. It really shouldn't be used as an extra revenue-generator, otherwise it discriminates against certain customers over others. To sell any tickets, the club HAS to have a ticket office. So the fixed costs are already covered by having to have that ticket office, the staff within it, staionery etc etc. By implementing an administration fee only for mailing out tickets, what you're effectively doing is saying "we know how much we need to sell tickets at for those coming to the TO. What we now need to do is cover our costs for sending tickets out". So it's only the variable costs of sending out tickets that is needed. Now if it was a "transaction fee" as you mention, that would be different. That would surely apply to all card purchases, whether made online, by telephone, or at the ticket office itself. But I can pay for tickets at the ticket office on my card without incurring a transaction fee; the administration fee only applies to tickets being sent out. Which is why the £3 cost is deemed as unreasonably high.

The 12th man thing I think we'll have to agree to disagree. It's no more than a little "fun", not going to make them much money but if just one poor soul decides its for them, then they've brought one person closer to the club. As for direct debit and outside credit agencies, I agree. In terms of the payment plan I think the club have got the idea spot on; it's all managed in house, and there is a slight charge to pay in installments rather than up front. No problem with that at all. A shame that one person c*cked up by sending the wrong tickets out though.... The desire for half-season tickets, well that's a selfish thing on my behalf as I'll be living abroad from Xmas time onwards. But I know of quite a few people who started off with a half season ticket then moved on to a full ST. So there is clearly method there in inducing more customers, i think it was a bad move to shelve it; more so to not actually tell us they were doing it until the last minute, and more than that no explanation why. In recognition of your response, I should also outline that my original Cortese comment was (as per some of your comments) not necessarily aimed at you in particular. More the seeming trend on here to immediately slap down any dissenting voices with the type of comment "Cortese was a banker so I'm sure he knows what he's doing better than you", or the accusation of having an "agenda" (that one still baffles me). I just wish some people could see that it is actually possible to praise the club's operations and still hope for better from them within the same breath.

Notwithstanding the fact that they've since kissed and made-up, you'd be cutting your nose off to spite your face if that were your reasoning.