angelman

No.

Certainly seems that way.

1-3 McQueen good strike

Well At least we can't be relegated (I think!)

No, you just need to read what people write without casting aspersions from your incorrect interpretations and non-sequiturs. As for being grateful that we were bought by the family (what with all the risk - IMO a fairly small one, albeit I am sure we all have our own opinion on that), this is just banal. They didn't buy SFC for our (supporters) benefit. And before you go spouting off again, that is not to say that there was a sense of relief that a new owner such as him came along so late in the day, rather than SISU (although hindsight is a wonderful thing).

Halo are you very stupid? I didn't say I was a bigger/better supporter than this JCL, but just that I don't need or want to be told how I should be supporting the team. If anyone is going in for the better supporter ****, it is the arrogant young pup.

Ungrateful about what? That we were bought out of administration by some long standing Saints supporter (btw that is being sarcastic) at a dirt cheap price, who then sadly passed away soon after, with his daughter (another equally long standing Saints supporter) taking over, and who with a bit of care with the investment turned a £150m profit, while retaining a minority stake in the club. People seem to not realise that the Liebherr purchase of SFC was a business decision, first and foremost - and as mentioned, at a really cheap price. The feelings and wishes of the fans were and are somewhat unimportant to say the least. Or do you want and expect an owner to be all pally with you, just so that you feel appreciated?

Not sure I need to be told by some kid who has been "supporting" Saints for 5 minutes, how I should or shouldn't show my support.

Self deprecating humour does make me laugh.

The sad thing about this, and I know that I am coming across as old fashioned, is that the player didn't admit he cheated. Winning (or drawing in this case) is all that matters, and **** decent and proper behaviour. Now, I am sure if one of our players did it, they would do the exact same thing. And it isn't just football. Stuart Broad comes to mind, when he was given not out and should really have walked. Sport doesn't exist any more - it's business, but business that ****s over principles to gain an advantage isn't something I really want to be associated with.

VVD: Until the last couple of weeks I was just focused on Southampton, fully focused. Yup, sure you you were boy.

While he is always the panto villain, esp with the swinging elbow, Fallaini is a top player. Was brilliant at Everton, and always wanted us to have signed him but of course, with Utd there, there really wasn't much chance.

I do as well, not quite for him (although he did act like a complete and utter ****) but more for Liverpool.

If we had to spend the best part of £20m and offer £100-110k a week wages, who would people want? Walcott or Hernandez?

How do accountants become billionaires?

The notion that someone/anyone would think that we would gladly pay an extra £5 a ticket so that someone can get £110,000 a week (rather than say, £70,000 a week) is utterly ridiculous. It shows just how ****ed up modern day football is and how some supporters see nothing wrong with it. I guess that there is a reason that wages are quoted per week. Do some people really think that it is somehow less obscene? Walcott supposedly wants £5.72 million a year - and this person is suggesting we all stump up even more money to top up the (guessed) wage of £3.64 million that we might pay. Me, I'd be more than happy putting a wage cap on - say £20k a week. That's a ridiculous amount of money, and I doubt if you said to a 10yo kid "son, the most you'll ever earn out of football is £1m a year" that the kid is going to turn around and say "nah, can't be bothered getting out of bed for such a small amount". And playing football does not preclude you from getting a job once your playing career is over, even if the remuneration will likely be a lot lower.

The thread seemingly exists because of a few tweets. Sad isn't it that so much can be based on those. That the thread is still going is probably because we are a little expectant that something might happen in the transfer market, and probably should have happened the best part of a fortnight ago so that integration could happen before the next PL game. I am presuming that we all realise that this is pie in the sky, but what harm does it cause? We're here twiddling our thumbs watching our season go down the pan.

I'm afraid to say that Wolves, along with Man City, Chelsea, Utd, Liverpool, PSG, Barca, Real etc are the reason I have fallen out of love with football. It has simply now become an exercise in spending the most money. And with that you get players who seem to forget how to behave in order to get those even more obscene wages (understandable, but there are ways of doing things). Wolves have a net spend of £46m over the past two seasons - I really hope that they fail to get to the PL, although I suspect they will get promoted. Makes FFP rules look rather pointless. By contrast to Wolves' £46m, over the past 2 seasons Derby (currently 2nd in the Champ) have a net receipt of £9m and Cardiff (in 3rd) a net spend of about £0.5m

Football is travelling a path where the actors are getting ever more ridiculous remunerations. Couple that to the fact the the league is becoming ever more polarised with the them and us, with the them spending ever more ridiculous sums. I am travelling a very different path and am almost out of sight of football's path - getting me to stump up £5 more a ticket (presume that would be 19 tickets a season) would be the final nail in the coffin.

Done. Of all the places at SMS, I am not a fan of the bridge across the railway lines.

He's talented. He's got a point to prove. He ain't going to be treated by us like he was at City. It might work, but it would need him to grow up a lot. IMO would be surprised if he came here.

This article might be interesting....http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/guardian-journalist-says-scouse-victims-13767056...and in particular that it "grew" post Hillsborough. Would it be safe to say that it started elsewhere, but has now been incorrectly associated with Hillsborough by a fair few people? Personally, when I see it being used, I know/believe that it isn't anything to do with Hillsborough, but I am equally aware that some/many will think it is.

Where do you think it originates? http://strettynews.com/explanation-its-never-their-fault/

I thought it was against regs for sweetners for the parents. They had to be in situ off their own backs. So buying a house for them, unless they worked for the club, would be bang against what SHOULD happen. However, I am not so naive to think what should happen, is what actually happens.

Fully intend to watch it....From the discussions I have heard about it, the one bit that sticks out to me is the need to manage the expectations of the parents (as well as the kids).