capitalsaint

Bored to Death

How will a minute's silence at a football match teach anybody anything about the history of the event? I think you'll find more people know about the Titanic nowadays because of the film than anything else, and encouraging somebody not to make any noise for a minute won't expand that knowledge. For me, I can appreciate how significant it was at the time, and clearly it was a tragic event, but I would find a minute's silence to be a little artificial, and I'm sure that the majority of the fans in the stadium wouldn't be remembering the people who were lost. If it is something that is still resonant to the fans Southampton FC on a human level, shouldn't there have been calls to do something about it sooner than 100 years after the event? I agree with you that history is wholly important, but I don't think a minute's silence will at all alter the general public's understanding or perception of what happened. I also think it is irrelevant whether the club is in The Premier League or not. We can't now decide that the remembrance of those who died on the Titanic is important to us more because it happened 100 years ago and we are playing in a better league, surely?

Reading between the lines of this post, it is clear I knew he'd get a brace.

Who?

Sky Sports News is on a 24 hour loop, Maguire's with them forever!

To be fair, that sounds like a bit of investigative journalism more than anything else. If anything it shows the lengths he's willing to go for a story.

It is strange that an article appears on goal.com at around the same time as this thread.

Three hedge funds?! That doesn't sound promising.

They're chinos. If only they were red.

Cue bad manuel joke

So sometimes you have your last meal of the day before 3pm?!

I see your point. I suppose the hope is that we'd spend enough to make us reasonably competitive amongst the also-rans, although that will probably lead to mid-table and the odd cup run. The only reason I'd think that is we seem to have invested in more than we'd need to if we simply wanted to bounce between the Premier League and Championship, although probably a large part of that is more in hope than anything else!

Really? It seems to me that he was explaining how well we'd done before (8th) with little first team investment, so imagine how well we could do if we invested more than in the Lowe years. The Swansea example, in my mind, was to strengthen the point that a certain level is possible without significant buys for the first team, so with them why not hope to do better than a team like Swansea are currently? You're right that it's straightforward to understand that without spending on the first team squad you have no hope of success, but that isn't the point that's really being debated. If anything, the Staplewood upgrade shows how willing the regime is to spend where necessary. So why wouldn't the first team come under that category?

So you don't know either. You think he'll be disappointed, he thinks you'll be surprised.

He doesn't play for QPR. Guess again.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17327250#asset 2.09 'when we win we don't get too high... and when we lose we don't get too low.'

Dobbie is a great player.

In fairness, you did say that his signing was a 'big, big disappointment'. May not go so far as writing him off, but it's closer to that than supporting the fellow.

awkward...

That poem is awful.

What do you mean common courtesy? There's no objective way to be courteous, certainly not when football is involved. They bought some merch, they cheered the team.

So a few young chaps with some homemade banners, which they've taken the time to make, wearing the beloved red & white, cheering one of our strikers, is worse than four middle aged men sat on their behinds moaning about Guly having no passion.

What's wrong with chinos?!

Aren't we a happy family!