shurlock

Fair points - as you say what the blue few hear and react to is only side of it. If pay up pompey was our one and only chant, then it would be ridiculous for the reasons you say; but it wasn't - and in moderation seems the perfect wind-up. Re. spurs, agree its our chant, so not easy to confuse, though don't underestimate their sense of ownership over it and the extent to which others associate them with it. Indeed I know of parts of our own fanbase that deliberately wreck attempts to do a slow OWTS because its seen as a 'f**king yiddo song' I joke you not.

Pointless thread. Pointless subject. Where is the hard evidence that there is a problem? Even if it could be shown we have less advertising, there are 101 financially rational reasons why this might be the case - indeed less advertising might not necessarily mean lower revenue relative other clubs if we then charge more for space, secure longer-term deals etc. But in the absence of evidence, this is just conjecture as is the whole discussion. As pointed out above by iansums, it seems odd that Cortese/club would miss a trick with advertising when he's been more than happy to cut waste and exploit other revenue streams (UI's portrait of NC is frankly schizophrenic - on the one hand, the club under NC is a commercial simpleton; on the other its turned into a cold-blooded revenue-maximising monster that's trampled over the ordinary punter and the spirit of the game- what is it lads?) And why does Dull Days feel it necessary to drag up a discussion that he obviously thinks is b*****ks? Its immaturity and pettiness of the highest order. If he thinks its relevant, fine, feel free to open up a discussion; otherwise man up and mind his own f**king business.

MK Dons are nothing like us - they set up differently (4-5-1) and are less direct than us. They are a younger side and arguably have more pace but lack penetration in the final third. They play a much more counterattacking brand of football. They are like a s**t Swansea. I agree though that we need to improve (though I don't think our current squad would necessarily struggle). We need to retain posession better and pass and move more quickly.

Agree 100% - who gives a f**K what it sounds like on TV. Its as witty a chant as we've come up with: they got the message and, from where I was stood, it riled them. By the same dopey logic, nobody should sing OWTS when we play spurs in case its attributed to the other side.

Hull are my dark horses - 25/1 is fantastic value.

Everyone sings it.

Whatever we sell Puncheon for should be used to make an offer but I wouldn't pay more than £2.5m. He's a good honest pro with bags of energy but he's not class.

Would be happy to play either - but Peterboro would worry me more than Udders at least right now. You know what you're going to get with Udders - they're a resilient team but nothing special. Their directness and strength from setpieces are easy to set up against and play into strengths. There have been times when we've not retained the ball well enough which is dangerous against a team like Peterboro which is good in possession. Their greater movement and craft would also ask questions of our defense and midfield which isn't blessed with pace. Yep they're ****e defensively but they have tightened up under ferguson and have learned the lessons from their last brief flirtation with the NPC. Of course, Udders have the greater resources, so they are more lilkely to strengthen; whereas Peterboro will probably lose their best players.

How do they play like us? To start, they only play one upfront.

Mk dons done nothing. You would think they have nothing to play for.

If you look at the beginning of Adkins reign, Seabourne started every game (Jaidi filled in only when Fonte got a slight injury). Only much, much later did Adkins mix things according to the strengths and style of the opposition as you point out. And by then Jaidi was generally first-choice.

I can see your point but it would also force the other team to chase and attack more.

I think it was suggested on some other forum that the playoffs should be maintained but modified so that if a game remains level after 180 mins, the team that finished highest in the league would go through - no need for extra time or pens. This would pay greater respect to league position and arguably make games more exciting while keeping the playoff format for the neutrals and the money men. Think its a very interesting proposal.

Fair play to Jaidi - people forget that he didn't start games when NA first arrived. He fought his way back into contention and made himself no.1 choice on merit, not reputation. The udders game tonight illustrated perfectly why he still has something to offer - i remember our game at the Galpharm earlier in the season where lee and novak totally bullied us in the air (seabourne started that day). Yes some games in the NPC will require pace on the deck but there'll also be plenty of aerial tussles and i'm just glad the big man will be in the trenches with us.

They're more long ball than us

Yep feel sorry for them - great effort. Arguably played the better, more controlled football and udders should have been down to 10 earlier on. The Killbane decision was absolutely shocking.

Bottlers

Hudds or Bournemouth end? The majority of empty seats are in the bournemouth end.

Bennett is a great shot stopper from pens

If you slowed down and read the second part of what I said, it might make more sense. Any proper -dare i say scientific- consideration of Arsenal's ability to add value or not must compare what would have happened to the value of those players if they had gone to another big club instead of Arsenal. Just consider how Bale's value has shot through the roof at spuds (supposedly worth more than Fabregas??? IMO Fabregas is a much better player) or what man u did with ronaldo (smashing the world record) or even liverpool and torres. Of course, some of this -like the figures you quote- is just inflation - and nothing to do with value-added. Its very difficult to assess 'what would have happened'; but arguably the values of Arsenal players would have been higher if at the very least the club weren't perennial bottlers, were more flexible tactically and actually won something. From a form perspective, with the exception of Wilshere and Nasri who have been brilliant, there is a sense in which the progression of some players has stalled. Surely one of the reasons you buy young is to see them develop and get better and better - for the most part, I don't see this with the current crop of youngsters...

Question is how much value Arsenal added to those players - (they weren't developed from scratch as other clubs did the hard work) - and whether competitors could have got as much, if not more out of them. Arguably, Man U has a more impressive youth set-up than Arsenal.

Wonder if this is the sweetner before a string of players are released.

As it says on the tin http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10280~2361961,00.html

None of our midfield stood out in the plymouth game (not least until the second half when we were comfortable). Of course, that's largely because plymouth bypassed it with its long ball tactics and pressing us high up the pitch.

yet you omit he took all their pens.