hughieslastminutegoal

No it never did. You can probably blame Hockaday.

Ok you've convinced me. Even though we have one of the lowest goal tallies in the CCC, our stikers have done OK. I mean, our two main strikers have scored - oooo, what is it now, 10 between them. (But you are right, the ones we loaned out all year haven't scored for us either so the ones we kept must have been better).

Well, that wouldn't cost us much then, though the physio might not have time for anyone else. Don't you think the word "legend" is a tad over used when it is applied to a guy who had a good season and a half but shirked the rest of his time here?

Stop it, you are not giving him sufficient time and space to re-write the history of the first half of the season.

Wrong kind of dome?

In taking on the debt for a new stadium, the service of which requires prem income, we should have tried to make a better fist of avoiding relegation. It appears to me that Lowe thought that relegation wouldn't be that bad as he was convinced we could make loads of dosh from the Academy product, and we had senior pros on contracts that cut their wages in half (well most of them). So he was complacent about the necessity of really trying hard to stay in the prem. We are paying the price for trying to recover from that half-hearted strategy. And now he is back he has a half-hearted strategy about staying in the CCC.

Surely the villain is D.Jones, who runs with the fox and hunts with the hounds. He seems a distinct liability to me.

They can't buy it for £1 because I'll offer the Administrator £2 and that will be a better offer. Ah, but my mate will offer £5, so he will get it. Damn.

Looks like he missed with the punch though.

Interesting that the article says nothing about wages depending on appearances, so, on the face of it there was no reason not to play experienced players (apart from form/injury) when not out on loan. So not playing them looks to be nothing more than an effort to hack them off so they leave, maybe not the best policy. Certainly won't get them chomping at the bit to report themselves fit after "injury".

Do you think that it currently being called an Academy is still enough to attract them? Won't it become more to do with the reputation of the club as a whole, not just what the youth set-up is called? If we carry on as we are it won't matter what you call it, IMO.

You forgot the smiley/ironic thingy.

Aren't the club and the SLH different legal entities? Isn't there yet another company that holds the stadium? So the legal ownership of assets (and debts) isn't necessarily simply "the club". Could different bits of the organisation be disaggregated from SLH?

Or maybe Lowe thought he was getting a jock right winger when the man at Donny said "Would you like loan of a flying scotsman?"

Can't be brass - there is none at St Mary's, we are told. Plenty of muck, though, which disproves the adage.

I more or less agree with this, except I am far from certain he really wants promotion to the prem. I think he sees Saints as a feeder of footballer-product to other sides (especially the prem), so myopic has he become because of Walcott.

So what advantages does being an Academy bring over and above being a Centre of Excellence? And why would we be frightened of having to compete with Aldershot etc?

The Echo puts in quotes Watford were “a lot keener” , not just that they "wanted me more". That seems to quantify it a bit more.

JFP, you are still having problems with AND/OR. Was it a mouldy picture of a train, or a picture of a mouldy train, or was it a mouldy picure of a train and the train was mouldy? Perhaps the picture has been infected with the mould of decomposition infecting everything at St Mary's?

"The generally accepted part of the arm is from the fingertips to where a short-sleeved shirt would start. " - Not sure about this. When I was playing, refs regularly gave handball decisions when a player dipped a shoulder and controlled the ball with his upper arm. And when going for headers if the ball hit your arm below the shoulder, handball was blown for.

Wasn't it supposed to be "vulva-coloured businessman"?

But do you really think Saga will score, though?

A very good post . But I'm getting worried now. Do I usually agree with you??

Of course what FF said is valid to the discussion - surely making an assessment about whether RL will want to pay for the privelige of keeping Saga is valid - and him possibly using excuses like this not to play him adds weight to an argument that he won't play him, and therefore doesn't want to accept that cost. And for what it's worth, despite me wanting more experience and ability in the squad, Saga's goal-scoring record does not fill me with enthusiasm for playing him too soon and thereby losing the chance to offload him (in order to get someone else who might do a good job for us).

The "offside" goal. When exactly do you think he was offside? When the ball came back off the bar? Not offside. When the ball was first played towards the bar from middle-left of the penalty area? Didn't look offside at that point to me. Dozing defenders when the ball came off the bar was the problem.