Turkish

he wasn't arsed the two full years he was here, he told the club he wanted to leave so doesn't want to be here. Why on earth would he be worth another try?

Yep, when he wanted to be he was excellent, but two great games a season isn't enough i'm afraid. Sadly it seems he's another one more interested in being a celebrity than a footballer.

Why do we need another striker we've already got 4 etc

We will probably offer him a new deal, try and sell him but not be able to, then loan him out for the rest of his contract.

Is that Alex Crook "south coast football expert" Cut our losses and get shot of him

Couldn't you say that about every single striker in the world?

has he signed it yet?

Does paying a load of players who can’t get in our squad far more than their worth, more than most other clubs in Europe can afford and that we can’t sell qualify as being part of a sustainable business model?

For such a daft point you haven't half gone on about it!! My position is quite clear, I have said for a long time that the telegraph is saints mouth piece, you've said they aren't and that when things said in there don't come true it's because of their inaccuracy. Not really sure why you're asking me to clarify something which I've said is the case when you've been the one disputing it! Maybe you missed the sarcasm in my post on this thread where I said everything they post is made up lies and don't come from the club!!!!

They use the telegraph for all sorts of things. As per a previous post I made the telegraph broke the Hassenhuttl news, some signings before any other outlet. They've also done appeasement style good news stories after heavy defeats or key players sold. My point has always been the telegraph is obviously the clubs mouth piece. Whereas you don't seem to agree as per this post "Jeez. For the last time. An article in the telegraph is not a press release. Has it occurred to you that when a telegraph article does not bear fruit it's because it's an inaccurate newspaper article rather than something that's "meant" to be happening? " Now you answer my point, why are we taking this article as gospel when it could yet another example of an inaccurate newspaper article rather than something that's "meant" to happen?

I think youll find it was you that said the telegraph is not to be trusted and it's inaccurate articles rather than fed from the club. So can you confirm if we are to believe this story or is another inaccurate on? "Jeez. For the last time. An article in the telegraph is not a press release. Has it occurred to you that when a telegraph article does not bear fruit it's because it's an inaccurate newspaper article rather than something that's "meant" to be happening? "

I said it's an indication as is historical evidence as to how many points it typically takes to stay up. And as for the other point it's not hard to work out. IF we finished on 36 points we would have finished 17th based on if every other team had performed exactly the same that season, but they wouldn't have, for example in 2016/17 f we'd have finished on 36 points we would have finished with 10 fewer points meaning other teams would have gained more points so the league table would be different. It's not hard to work out.

How is it more relevant? That is how they are performing now but it doesn't mean they'll perform to exactly that way for the rest of the season. It gives an indication granted but you are dealing with humans not computers who have upturns in form, fitness, injuries etc. Bournemouth lost yesterday so their points per game has dropped, if they lose again Saturday it'll drop even further, or if they win it'll go up. So it's only a guide. As for your point about staying up with 36 points that's incorrect too, as with 36 points we would have finished below the team that finished 17th that season, meaning that team would potentially have finished 16th but crucially we would have finished with much lower points tally meaning other teams would have more points as they'd have taken them from us. So you need to look at the team that finished 17th not 18th as the safety mark.

Im confused. When you were defending the clubs lack of activity in January you dismissed the good news story in exactly the same paper about the club backing Ralph and addressing issues at centre back and full back in January as nonsense and not to be taken seriously, the journalists wont know the truth and probably just speculation. Yet it appears this one should be taken seriously. So what, where and when should be believe things?

Going to be interesting to see them for sure. With no big money sales it'll be interesting to see how sustainable we are......

So what? 36 points has only been enough to stay up 3 of the last 10 seasons. Lets hope 36 points isn't the aim this year.

We were told over the weekend that reported profits do not equal having money to sign players. I suggest you go away and come back will a fully updated set of accounts along with the power point presentation as to their business model before you jump to any conclusions about Celtics ability to fund transfers. You were fully behind those who supported saints not spending questioning if we "would prefer to be unsustainable" so you need to be consistent Matthew.

We've made a £70m profit the last two years but we cant afford to buy players without selling them, so this is irrelevant.

36 points seems a bizarre number too. I’d be surprised if that was enough to keep a team up this season. 40 is understandable as that’s the generally accepted safety figure.

The journalists just make them up mate, they don’t come from the club. It’s just coincidence that it’s the same journalists in the same paper that make they up. You’d have thought the club might act to put a stop to them spreading such lies.

Do our doing the rounds that brave Phil who we should all admire has “chosen” to come out now because he was about to be exposed for having a gay affair with a runner at ITV less than half his age. Imagine if he’d been having it away with a woman that age, he’s be absolutely castigated and the woman’s accused of being a slut and a home wrecker, but no, it’s a man so he’s brave and it’s all okay.

That’s not true though is it. My point is why are we the only club that has to fund transfers by sales? Of course I’m not saying we should never sell a player again, but we’re the only club to be in profit from sales, I think the nearest too us has spent £50m more than they’ve earns. The defence say we’ve made bad signings. Well so has every other club. The defence say we’ve got players on our books we can’t sell. Well so has every other club The defence say we’ve got to pay agents fees, bonuses and running costs, well so had every other club. What other clubs haven’t done is make £70n profit the last two years Then when all else fails you get told to stop demanding we pay millions for more crap players, stop being spoilt and wanting a new pony because the other kids have one. The only other option is to do a Pompey and be totally unsustainable. I’m amazed even clubs like Watford and burnley appear to Have more financial clout than us, but maybe it’s just me wanting a new pony.

Has he signed it yet?

Think we need someone to clear up the Forster situation. Is he a really good player who has been treated really badly or his he one of the raft of crap players on big money we can’t sell that mean we can’t sign any new players? Seems to be a divided view on this one

Great post pal. Amazing input as always