saintbletch

Me too. An excellent choice Sir!

Google translation... ...which doesn't make complete sense to me.

Well I'd say that the more heinous crime is the use of Are (ARE CEO) instead of our. But I'd also make allowances for the difficulty the original poster had typing on his mobile. He might also argue that this is a simple football forum and as such normal grammar fascism should be left at the door. He might just have a point. I also rile when I see poor spelling and grammar but I recognise that this says more about me than the perpetrator. In fact there is one thing that I hate more than poor grammar and that is people who are poor at complaining about poor grammar. I couldn't see why you suggested using LEAKED. I did see that the OP used "LEACHED". Was that it? If so then in my humble opinion LEACHED is OK in that context. And if you're going to be a pedant and you don't flag the OP's use of AVALIABLE and ATTENDENCE - two words I'm not completely familiar with, then you should be sending back your Pedant Society membership. Finally, I wouldn't say that yours was a particularly sorry rant, but it's good to see that you can be self-critical too. Hugs and the warmest of regards. P.S. I should acknowledge that this post is probably full of grammar and/or spelling crimes. So if you find any, I was being ironic.

Or is that the sound of someone using the media to put pressure on the player?

Tax evasion. Turns out the muggers were representatives of Diego Forlan and the cash they 'stole' was his signing on fee (half to be put in a Swiss account for HR's retirement).

Ah yes Mr. Bridger. I've checked on IMDB and it says that Noel Coward played that role in the original, Rupert Lowe played that role in the Theo Walcott version but it gives a credit to "Dark forces working behind the scenes to destabilise the club" in the Alex Oxlade-Chamberlaine version. I must say I'm not familiar with his body of work.

Nope. It's not Escape to Victory, it's another "on the bus" tale called "The Swiss-ITALIAN JOB." Here's the plot. A bus has crashed leaving the arse-end hanging precariously over a precipice on a winding road in the leafy hills above The Avenue. At the bottom of the drop, is a grinning Arsene Wenger looking skyward with his arms outstretched waiting to catch anything that falls from the bus. On the bus, and standing at the safe end is a very pensive Nicola Cortese who is looking down the bus to the dangerous end where he can see a very relaxed Alex Oxlade-Chamberlaine (and his Dad) apparently unaware that is presence there may cause the bus to crash to the ground below. In the middle of the bus, between Cortese and AOC is a huge pile of gold, I'd estimate there to be between £5M and £10M worth. The way it's filmed makes it unclear if Cortese is waiting for AOC to run towards him so they can both get off the bus leaving the the pile of gold to fall, or if Cortese wants AOC to fall from the bus leaving a huge pile of gold behind. This is a re-make and as I've seen the original starring Theo Walcott, I won't spoil the ending for you.

I think that last comment is meant to be ironic sarcasm. He's 6'1", 13 stone 8 and built like a brick privvy.

Plus image rights.

They hardly got forward at all. But aren't you just commenting on how effectively Notts County stifled us and kept our LB and RB busy defending? I didn't think they had a poorer game than most of our team. And as I say I put that down to Notts County's attitude to the game.

Ricky couldn't help thinking that Nigel had taken Nicola's instruction to "go get a Brazilian" a little too literally.

Very good!

Batman summoned the stewards and asked them to remind Colin that operating a pneumatic drill within the confines of St. Mary's stadium was against the conditions of entry.

Well in an attempt to inject some grey into your joint "black is not white" ego rutting, I'd say that most fans thought we were in remission whilst walking along Wembley Way but they also feared that the disease had returned when Pardew was sacked. Was the sacking of Pardew and the behind the scenes cliques evidence of a long-term malignancy? Was Puncheon leaving having been the victim of fans' displeasure further evidence of long-term malignancy? Is our criticism of our new manager on this thread evidence of a long-term malignancy? Maybe, maybe not. But to me, it certainly is evidence of our continuing over-inflated expectations. To the original poster, I'd say no he isn't. And that is more about the disappointing style of play than results. I think he's a good manager and will get us promoted this year. But I was led to believe that Adkins was a purist who got his teams playing high-tempo, passing football. But time and again I've seen disappointing performances where we've hoofed long, high 'passes' to a 6'3" striker who, this season, doesn't appear to be able to win a header or hold the ball up. In balance I'd have to say that I've also seen some very encouraging performances that make me feel that Adkins will get it right. And to my eyes, those performances have coincided in the main with Chaplow being in midfield, or at least the splitting up of the Schneiderlin/Hammond 'partnership'.

Brown. Apparently when he was a lad you had to be posh to have red sauce. He also has a tidy car port and watches football during the first week of a two week foreign holiday. You had to be there I guess.

Agree with all this Duncan. Whilst I wouldn't describe it as a gripe, my concern is that NC either doesn't know or perhaps more worryingly care how to a) deal properly with the supporters and b) respect the history of the club that he is currently custodian of. There are many examples now of how he has blemished the name and reputation of the club and I'm prepared to put that down to a Swiss banker still learning how to run an English football club. If such behaviour were to continue over the years then unless we're enjoying great sporting success, then I feel many will turn on him.

Good stats. You 100% need to get out more. Agreed though, it does looks scary when you put it like that. Not sure how I feel about the appointment to be honest. Pleased we're no longer rudder-less. Quite excited that NA looks like a footballing purist and seems to have 'something'. Concerned that his success at Scunny was down to the fact that he had nothing to lose and was known, and probably liked and respected by everyone at the club already. Good luck Nigel.

It's the sort of appointment a Swiss banker would make. I don't necessarily mean that to sound too derogatorial. It was a decision made with logic and without heart set against a wider, more limiting agenda. Welcome Nigel and I hope you're able to get us passing our way out of this division. Good luck.

It's all up and running now. I guess there was a glitch in their software. Souness now quoted at 33-1 docker-p so put your money where you mouth is. Also in at 14-1 with Victor Chandler is Paul Buckle!

That's odd (if you'll excuse that pun). The oddschecker web site isn't picking that up. See below...

Fonte risked a 'no-ball' as his weird superstition of never stepping on the white lines whilst on the pitch left him looking like a Pakistan fast bowler

Looks like the bookies think it's Adkins as you currently can't get a price on him from Paddy Power - the only bookmaker still running a book on the new manager. According to... http://www.oddschecker.com/football/football-specials/southampton-specials/next-permanent-manager Brown - 1/1 even money Adkins - no price Zola - 6/1 Howe - 6/1 O'Neil - 12-1

A good insight - thanks. I think it shows that circumstances play such a role in gaining promotion. Managers that have proven time and time again that they can influence circumstances to gain promotion are what we need. Howe MIGHT be that but he hasn't shown it yet.

I agree. But fair enough, policies change and a charter should be updated. Shouldn't it? I mean, what sort of idiot would expect a charter to be "set in stone"? Answer - SFC. This from the Supporters' Services page of the web site. Perhaps this is a particularly malleable stone - chalk perhaps? Or perhaps the charter is setting things in stone, but just for a year - or 6 months or until it suits the club to change the things that were expected to be set in stone. Pretty poor PR to be honest.

I disagree with both your examples and your summary but I'll acknowledge I am not working from a position of knowledge, just some assumptions - which is a good start for a debate. 1) This presumably worked because your mate handed over his ST. How does that work if the club doesn't get a chance to seize the ST that the defaulter now has? Take an extreme case simply to illustrate the point. Say we have 15000 ST holders and 5000 ST holders default. But the club cannot get the 5000 tickets back because it has no way of identifying these people (other than through an exhaustive check at the turnstiles which the club currently doesn't do). So does the club re-sell those 5000 tickets for a home FA Cup game against Portsmouth? It can't do that. It would cause chaos inside the ground. Even if we had 250 defaulters - or 100 or 50. I believe, but I'm happy to be PROVED wrong, that once sold the club will find it difficult to re-sell a seat belonging to an ST holder unless they are able to seize the ticket. 2) Because of 1) above the seat resource is finite for the season. It exists once and once sold has no further value to the club. Therefore the sale of an ST for anything less than the full amount (all instalments paid) is a loss to the club that it has no ability to recoup. I ask you again to look at this from the club's perspective. The club is extending credit to you without a formal credit arrangement which leaves it exposed. From your perspective you are right - as long as you pay the instalments, you are consuming a resource for which you have already paid in advance. I couldn't agree more. But the club can only sell this finite resource once. Therefore the second they send the ST out in the post, they are giving the instalment payer 23 games worth of attendance - or at least they are removing their ability to sell those 23 games to someone else. So until they receive the final payment then they are "out of pocket". I think that one of the "costs of administering the instalment plan" that the club cites as its reason for withdrawing it, is the policing of defaulters I've described above. So I don't think the credit argument is muddying the waters. I think it is germane. I'm not an apologist for the club by the way. I think they've done the wrong thing here both by withdrawing the instalment plan and by the way they've done it. I'm simply trying to interpret what would make otherwise sensible and successful business people make such an otherwise arbitrary and image-damaging decision.