hypochondriac

out in a bit will let you know how it goes

im not im considering my options for tonight thanks for the advice

Is there ever an instance where it is ok

It isn't on the way.

Superb post as always Minty.

This. I utterly agree. Anyway, this forum is a victim of its own success. Of course the place was funnier when it first started but obviously when more people join it becomes more mainstream. It's why I lament places like b-anter passing because that was actually amusing and worth a read.

FFS bad mood all weekend now.

They don't have an agreement in place (or at least nothing which would compromise their independence) so it's irrelevant.

Steve has clarified above and yes the accusations were major because they amount to libel (something which Steve pointed out to me privately). Anyway that is the end of the matter. Thanks to Steve.

Cheers Steve.

Those two statements sort of contradict each other. If anything, nick getting his ticket revoked shows how seriously the club takes forum matters.

But you must have been about 13 so perhaps not the best judge.

Why are you getting so animated? I was simply asking if what stu had said was true. Following conversations I'm pretty certain it isn't anyway. For the record, I think it is critically important for the forum's future that no such agreement exists. You may not have been here for keith's tenure but if you had been you would understand why.

Some quite major accusations from Stu on TUI that this site has some sort of agreement with the club to use photos and the club crest. Is that true?

Meh. Doubt he will play.

Nice to see you have added a lot of value by starting this thread Alps. You never disappoint.

Thanks delldays.

Well yes but the infrastrutcture and players stem from finance. I'm sure Mitchell would if he could!

And yet it's fine for Wes to suggest that I would rather have Mitchell when I never said anything of the sort! I am just reminding people that the actions of one crap chairman does not excuse the actions of another chairman even if that chairman is 'better.'

I think most people would rather have Cortese, but that doesn't make Cortese immune from criticism

Of course we are lucky to not have Mitchell and Cortese has quite a few positives. Not sure why you think I would prefer the Mitchell approach, I don't think I gave that impression anywhere in my first comment. There are negatives to the Cortese approach and maybe in some smaller areas he could learn from Mitchell (FULLY emracing club history for one.)

Saints fans online- probably the least likely to accept an opinion which differs from their own.

I love how people compare really cr*p chairmen with ours as if that then means we can excuse ours every time we feel there is room for improvement.

Webber?

Reply from Stu: