angelman

I thought it was more this..... Quite why is another question!!

The CL has benefited how many clubs? The Big 6 to varying degrees, Leicester once, Newcastle once? Is that about right?? Winter break is as has been said to help them. I hate the CL as all it does is widen the gap and make the playing field even more financially uneven. But as has also been said, all that the big clubs do in the break is tour the world to make even more money. Spain by contrast are shortening their winter break as they see PL making lots of money as they are the only big league playing when others are on their break. Money money money. Nothing happens in football unless it allows the big clubs to make more money. They can wrap it up however they like, but we are not that stupid.

Because he's such a p*ssy he's decided he wants to look like a c*ck

Sacked in the morning....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-5355065/Adam-Lallana-sent-Liverpool-23-game.html Looks a really manly attack!!! Edit.....here's a video of it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pitjh4rBxJs

Hazard is a brilliant player

I think many are just waiting to say "I told you so". That we haven't gone down in the past 3 seasons or so must irk them some.

Clyne might be a helmet, but at least he left in a proper manner. Last year of contract, no extension, off to Pool. Quite accepted. Mané never said anything in public, so not sure. Lallana, Lovren, Dijk all acted like complete knobs over their moves. But really, this is football. The expectations that people have in footballers and their behaviour is very misplaced. Players and fans are as fickle as each other. As such, I don't dislike any player because they have played for us and gone elsewhere. I hold all players for other teams in equal ambivalence, just that when it comes to Saints players, Ihave my Saints tinted glasses on and think that they are better than others.

So Sky have Carragah and Souness in the studio, and Redknapp helping with the commentary on a Liverpool match. Brilliant impartiality. BBC have old dinosaurs - Lawrenson and Crooks - who cling on to trying to be relevant. They're not. They should have been put out to pasture, especially the one with the MASSIVE chip on his shoulder. They are just like all other journalists writing about PL - they are blinded by the Big 6 and **** everyone else. Actually the one that seems sometimes to break the mould (even then, not too often) is Samuels who does write about the danger of the league becoming very uncompetitive. Bit late for that!! I guess he writes it that it might be uncompetitive for the Big 6, not the 20. BBC does have some good younger people. Martin Keown is quite good. Danny Murphy is OK. I like Jermain Jenas and Kevin Kilbane

3 next w/end to start with....

Sky really is the pits....the two commentators at half time - Carragah and Souness. Balanced? Sure!! This is why I find football (not involving Saints) so boring.

Forster was a big problem at the start of this season. If you have no confidence in the man between the sticks......

http://hoofoot.com/?match=West_Brom_2_-_3_Southampton_2018_02_03

Stephens vs Alexis Sanchez tells me that he can defend. END OF. FACT.

And Vardy, AFAIK was given the choice/chance to go there and turned it down. "Just because I turned down Arsenal, that was my choice, but if another offer came in it would be the same in that I would look at it and work out the pros and cons. But no, turning down Arsenal doesn't mean I wouldn't look at another offer." Poor trolling by your standards Glasgow.

The problem with these people is that they are only interested in the top 6. Fatty Samuels actually wrote quite a good article this week about the league becoming uncompetitive, focusing on Man City's spending. While he has one eye on the rest of football, his other is still on the big 6 and 5 of them being left behind by big spending City. They don't care about anyone else really, so don't know what is going on. van Dijk has left us and therefore for the time being we are of no news interest. They are symptomatic of the problems of the PL. Samuels is wrong about the danger of the league becoming uncompetitive. There is no becoming about it. It has been uncompetitive for many years. Top 6 this year is easy. Top 6 next year and foreseeable future will be the same as last year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier_League has a good bit about the Big 6 in the 2010s. Of the top 4 finishes over the past 7 seasons 27 out of 28 places have been taken by them, with Leicester being the other. Leicester has done a massive disservice to football in giving the impression that anyone can win it. Journalists and the PL use it ad nauseam.

A bit of welding and a few concrete blocks surely is not beyond the whit of the club, is it? I'm sure its probably more complicated than that, but it is a bit crap at present.

Were Brighton any better than that Everton team?

Pride comes before a fall - that's the only explanation I can come up with.

I agree that that time has now passed about worshipping at the Liebherr temple, but the mistake many make on here is that we should be grateful for him buying the club. He did NOT buy the club for us and our benefit. He bought it as an investment, which was also a play thing which he seemingly got a lot of enjoyment out of. He had no (known) interest or connection to the club before he bought it, and the £14m that it cost was a snip given that there was a new stadium and training ground in place. Of course the risk was there in the investment, as there is in all investments, but the rewards were there as well especially given the position we were in in footballing terms. The club was sensibly run, but again not for our benefit, but for the benefit of the investment and for that we can be thankful (rather than grateful). The legacy that ML left behind, as I have said elsewhere, was not for us, but for his daughter. She clearly wasn't that interested in SFC, why should she be?

All you attacking Reed and comparing him to Lowe, the two positions are very different and the club's ownership is also very different. Reed is an employee and has to answer to the owner, or maybe our pathetically useless chairman. If the owner/chairman says sell, he has to sell. However, no one knows what remit he works to and if he has a free hand in things. If he is a footballing man, then he will be just as frustrated by it as we are.

Seems a strange way to run a £210m investment.

Cortese was his own worst enemy. It wasn't his money that he was playing with. But as for our decline.....I would agree that it mirrors the decision to sell. Maybe the appointment of Puel and then Pellegrino were "yes" men who wouldn't demand as much as Koeman. But now the new owner is here, he needs to sort it and give the club some leadership and direction.

As did I and people took me to task over it. SFC for her family was an investment, and one that with a bit of nurturing has repaid very handsomely. I am surprised though, that some believed that she would only sell to those with the club's best interests at heart rather than those who paid the most. They trotted out her father's legacy bit, which I pointed out was to her, not to us. That seemed to be lost on many. Anyway, she still has 20% share, so let's hear from her, seeing as the 80% share holder seems to be totally anonymous.

But it points out that the depth of the squad is better than it might appear. Which again all comes back to how it is used by the manager.