benjii

Do you ever go to away matches? If so, I'm surprised you say that as Hammond can consistently be seen rallying the troups, marshalling the defence etc...

In my defence, I have always said he is good and massively underrated on here.

If they had the same surname I would be more inclined to believe they were related, TBF.

I don't think there's anything particularly idiosyncratic about our midfield work when not in possession. Sometimes we tackle, sometimes we track....! Maybe the Charlton match was a bit weird.

The fact that he decked the bloke and then kicked him in the face three times when he was on the ground is an aggravating factor. Had he just punched him once then left the sentence may have been more leniet. Also worth noting he was guilty of affray as well as ABH. I think Barney has just been charged with ABH and not with anything under the Public Order Act?

Where's Peacy's dad?

Peter Storrie, Saints legend.

No, didn't think you could engage sensibly with the premise.

I think it's fair to say that neither are pushing for the play-offs.

It is both a serious miscalculation and correct at the same time

And even better to have them gainfully employed in economically viable positions.

You've listed a bunch of services there. You haven't pointed at any jobs. If you think the public sector operates efficiently and isn't bloated then you are mental, IMHO of course.

No, really. The premise is simple: People being employed in private sector jobs that are economically viable is better, regardless of the level of tax paid by the employer, than those same people being employed in unproductive publis sector jobs that can't be afforded. Are you saying you disagree with that? Don't just post a link or some snide comment. Explain why that premise in incorrect.

Job creation and a little additional tax must be better than no job creation and even less tax? It crtainly seems a better plan than borrowing to employ people in pointless public sector jobs.

Are you making a dossier Alps?

BBC's football coverage is tending towards the level of stand-out turd displayed by ITV. On 606 a few weeks ago they had some numpty called Alan Parry whose obvious brief or m.o. was to talk as much contrarian ******** as possible to wind up callers. Funnily enough, most callers had him sussed and the only person he really wound up was Robbie Savage.

No one disagrees with that. They disagree with your stupid point about "settling for the play-offs". They think it is the wurst possible idea.

What's the answer? So fatties and birds can get in there?

TBF, you sound better off out of it as that is a completely ****y answer from them straight out of the David Brent book of cock-managing.

He was an Ipswich fan once. So has he been a West Ham, Ipswich and Saints fan? Wow, he really does live and breathe football.

So you're monumentally annoyed about a small rise on beer prices but non-plussed about a significant increase in your personal tax allowance?

That's annoying.

I don't think I would find it "disgusting". It will obviously be disppointing. The reason we are not virtually home and dry already is our first four home games so I certainly wouldn't be disgusted with Adkins. Whatever happens this season we should stick with him.

If that was the case then it should only be their fans who are at least 40-45 or older who dislike us. I'm pretty sure that if some random club had shafted us before I was about 10-12 years old I wouldn't give a toss. They are just fans of a small club who are not used to any measure of success and have seen us be consistently better than them for several decades. It is rare for them to play clubs who have spent long periods in the top flight and so they are a bit excited about the whole thing.