Minty

Good point!

Thanks all - think I may plump for Virgin then and see how it goes for a year. 60mb vs 16mb for about the same monthly cost - if the speeds are good and contention is low now, i think it's a bit of a no brainer. Might've been a harder decision if I had BT fibre available to me, but not til late 2013 for the Shirley exchange apparently.

Thanks all - Liquidshokk especially, that's exactly what I had heard, including about the superdud! Suggestions seem to be to use it only as a modem, and to then use an additional router for the wired/wireless distribution around the house. If the line is relatively stable I can overlook the poor customer service, because I shouldn't need them, and I could do with the speed... BTW, TopGun, whilst I will obviously need the cable connection into the house, I don't actually need a 'telephone line' to get the cable broadband connection. Virgin do the the 30mb line for £22.50/m without a phone line, or £14.50/m with a £14.99/m line. Although with offers they have on at the mo, it is actually cheaper to get the phone line too for the first year (30mb broadband is free for 6 months that way.) Just out of interest, what speeds do you guys get (i.e. using http://www.speedtest.net)?

Afternoon all, About to move house again, and need to get broadband connection sorted. Always used BE in the past and always been very happy with service, but don't actually need a landline, so considering going with Virgin to get 30 or 60mb cable (will be on Shirley exchange, so fibre is not yet available), and save money on the line rental. Anyone else with Virgin in SO15 3 postcode area, or nearby? I know there were some problems in Dec/Jan with Virgin service locally, and that they're not known for their speed of resolution to such issues, but what do any of you who use them think of the service? Ta.

Then we'll just keep bumping this until he does.

And as if by magic: http://web.archive.org/web/19970124072538/http://www.soton.ac.uk/~saints/

Christ knows when it was, I think it was just after college, mid 90's somewhen. Back when I had WAY too much time on my hands, obviously! Before the days of any decent content management systems too, so it was all edited by hand. A right ball-ache, thinking about it now. And yes, the first 'official' site was Dave Currie and Mike Furby's site that was originally hosted by the University. I think it was at something like http://www.soton.ac.uk/~saintsfc or something like that! And yes (again), Saintslist is still going strong too - nowhere near as busy as it used to be (except on days like when Adkins got sacked!)

Pahars nutmegging Jaap Stam was pretty sweet.

Just signed up for GSR2013...

Good to see the 'Jizz Mopping Mong' thing is still being remembered... can't remember exactly how it came about but it was from when I was working at the airport and there was some discussion about my job... I think eric joked about me being a toilet cleaner, and PB came up with the moniker. Was pretty funny, even I'll admit! Anyway, I've obviously been on boards for about 20 years now since having my own Marching In forum, back in the day when it was mainly my site and Rick Throbber's Bogus Saints page. And I still sit on the fence.

Corrected it for you.

'Health and Safety' is a bit of a bo!!ocks excuse for this but technically true if those filming aren't doing so with the permission of the club. If media want to work at SMS, they need the permission of the club to do so... part of that permission will include a requirement for public liability insurance and to sign appropriate documents to say that the club are not liable for any incident arising by their being on the premises. I had it when I was a photographer there, so the club knew that if I did injure someone with my equipment, they weren't liable, and my insurance would cover it. It's no different for ANY third party working there, be it a contractor, catering outlet, media, drainage repair etc, etc... but if someone is on their land without their knowledge, and having NOT signed something, then it could be a bit of a legal minefield if that person were then to cause injury. Now, all legitimate media outlet would have public liability insurance, but if the club haven't got a disclaimer or given explicit permission for them to be there, as it is happening on private land, it could lead to the club being implicated. I'm no legal expert, but it will be along those lines I'm pretty certain.

Quite. Impossible to come up with subjective comparisons IMO.

Do we really have to keep going back to a discussion about the definition of 'loyal'? DPS has his meaning, seemingly most others have a different meaning (and it's the interpretation of the definition, not the definition itself that is causing the disagreement). There's been little new on this thread for the last 100 posts, there seems little point in labouring it... although I appreciate you are loyal to your cause! (Sorry...)

The point of this thread should not have been an 'Are you loyal or not?' discussion, but rather the implications for all fans (loyal or otherwise) in accepting the continuing influence of money on the game of football, and the impact it has on us... it is nothing new but as we get nearer the top of the pyramid we increasingly experience the more ruthless side of it, and it starts to clash more with our values and opinions on how things should be. And each time something happens, fans will continue to choose, often subconsciously, whether to accept it, or walk away, or try to change it in some way. As has now been illustrated above, more and more fans are considering walking away.

Well I think I'll stop here - I don't believe that it is as simple as 'attendance = loyalty', which seems to be the crux of your argument, so we'll agree to disagree.

I think you're perhaps too focused on this '£100 ticket increase'... it's more than that. It's the accumulation of things over the years... players' wages, treatment of fans by various club regimes, overt efforts to censor fans, the wider football landscape... as each issue comes, it becomes the straw that breaks the camels back for more and more fans (loyal or otherwise).

If 'loyal' means 'goes to games' to you, then I'm not a very loyal fan. But if you look at the dictionary definition, and I would argue the wider acknowledged meaning of the word, it is a lot more than that. As I posted in my previous link, the costs of going to football have risen around 1000% since the 80's... by DPS' definition, anyone who pays that and still goes is 'loyal', whilst anyone who can't afford to (or one of many other reasons for not going week in and week out anymore) is not loyal. That is way too simplistic IMO.

I think this is a bit different to 'most things in life' Frank, not many things in life have seen a rise of around 1000% since the late 80's... http://soccerlens.com/english-football-finances-1981-2011/91782/

Frank, I think you're looking at this a bit simplistically. I certainly don't think any section of fans has any divine right to expect football to be the way they want it to be, but you cannot argue that football is becoming less and less accessible to many fans because of the money required/involved, through little or no fault of their own. You might see that as a 'natural evolution' of the game, but I'm with Sour Mash and Turkish on this one... we're not moving away from the game, the game is moving away from us, and purely because of the financial interests of those at the top, the tv/media/sponsors etc. (Oh, and seeing as this is my thread, it'd be quite nice if people could stick to the topic and reign in the personal/unneccessary stuff, ta.)

And I think that will be his most significant lasting legacy... he managed to ingrain his positivity into many fans who perhaps had never looked at things that way before.

Perhaps not that exact phrase, but as I've been posting, mainly on Saintslist recently (it was less hysterical than on here at the time), we have to admit that our emotional attachment to our clubs means we have a difficult choice to make in these circumstances. As much as we may disagree with Cortese's methods or actions, we generally only have three choices: Walk away from Saints and football completely (and respect to those who do), protest in some way to try and effect change, or carry on supporting the club and going to games (captive fans, if not consumers). If we're honest with ourselves, most of us do the last option eventually, even if we're not happy to do so.

Thought this was a very good article, capturing things well and asking very pertinent questions about the wider game: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2013/jan/21/southampton-nigel-adkins-supporters?intcmp=239

I was simply referring to you calling people 'weasels', that's what I thought was harsh. How people view the decision and the future is down the individual. For me, it's two seperate things though... the decision to sack Adkins which I'm gutted about and unreservedly disagree with... and the decision to appoint Pochettino and how we'll do going forward, which to be honest I think is not a discussion for today.

As I said to you on Facebook, had this discussion with myself many times over the years. If there wasn't an emotional involvement I would've walked away years ago, but there is, and it's not something that can be explained or justified.