Wes Tender

When we can exact the optimum price to pull their pants down over the deal.

I do ignore him.

https://southamptonfc.com/news/2017-06-06/under-11-international-tournament-premier-league-champions-southampton Can't see this posted here yet. Congratulations to the youngsters; some formidable opposition in the tournament, so good omens for the future generations of players rising through the academy perhaps.

A boring first half reminiscent of the Hull match, but a much improved second half. Overall, we were the better team and should have had all three points but for inconsistent finishing and good Goalkeeping by Romero, especially and critically the penalty save, when he used his experience of Gabbiadini's play when they were both at Sampdoria to guess correctly and dive to the right. Overall, we have little to moan about after the match, but I suspect that United Glory Hunters will be spitting feathers at their inability to score against little old Southampton and to be bested by them to boot. If any of them suggest that they had fielded a team of reserves, then equally we were without several of our first choice players too. Any neutral observer would happily admit that their "team of reserves" comprised a team of far greater quality on paper than our first choice team. So what were the reasons behind United's poor performance, probably the worst I have ever witnessed against us? Were their players already mentally on some exotic beach? Has Mourinho imposed this boring style of play on them, the same boring style that Puel is accused of bringing to us, so that when the two teams come together this can be the only result? Certainly Mourinho appears to have brought a level of gamesmanship to them that is to be deplored, where players crumple to the ground writhing in agony to gain free kicks and yellow cards for their opponents from the slightest of contacts, only to be running around athletically the next minute. The falling to ground feigning injury to break up a head of steam from the opposition is another cynical ploy that Mourinho probably instils in them. The standard of refereeing seemed to be poor to me. The penalty decision was incorrect, as were some of the decisions from the linesmen, and the ref was inconsistent in awarding United soft decisions on fouls whilst ignoring the similar or worse fouls committed on our players. But it was a shame that the incorrect penalty decision did not result in us gaining the three points, as it is only the likes of the Glory Teams being on the wrong end of such mistakes, and the resultant loss of league position, being knocked out of a Cup match, or failing to qualify for the Champions League, which will get the powerful lobby of their fans, media support and sponsors to exert their influence on Football's governing body to bring in video evidence. Regarding Saints, our season, and our prospects for the next one, yes, it has been disappointing at times in terms of our style of play. However, that must be viewed in the context that we suffered disruption form departing players and manager and had injuries to key players, on top of a demanding fixture list distorted unreasonably by the demands of the TV scheduling. In the light of those pressures, we did quite well to reach the League Cup final where we should have beaten United, and if we finish 8th, that will also be a creditable result. Lack of European football will enable us to pick a settled first team, but with the strength in depth brought about by blooding several fringe players who can cover for injuries next season with less necessity for them to be rotated. On balance because of these problems which were beyond his control this season, Puel deserves the chance of at least another half season to state his case, hopefully with a full squad available to him, or with the depth of the team strengthened if Van Dijk leaves and we replace him with two or three good players of Puel's choice.

Hands up all those who if told that we would play Liverpool 4 times this season, twice at home and twice at Anfield, and that we would come away with two wins, two draws, and that Liverpool would fail to score against us. Who would have thought it incredible, bordering on nigh impossible? Well, any criticism of the style of play or the tactics, must be seen in that context. What we had yesterday, was a glory team full of star players, (many of whom used to be ours), playing against us, mid-table opponents considerably less strong financially and without some key players. It is ironic that the one player who might have made a difference to the boring stalemate, was our former player Mane, but thankfully he was injured. Nevertheless, Liverpool still had players in their team where a couple of them were valued at more than our entire squad. Whether the match was boring or not, nobody can argue that Puel's tactics and the discipline of the players wasn't very effective. Yes, they had a couple of decent chances and we didn't really have any ourselves, but the frustration of Klopp was clearly evident and Puel is becoming his nemesis. If there are moaning-minnies on here decrying the boring play yesterday, just think how it will have gone down with the Liverpool fans, with their over-inflated sense of entitlement when they contemplate the failure to score a single goal against lowly Saints in four matches.

I've waited a while to post, in case I managed to soften my reaction to the match. In my heart I knew it wouldn't make the slightest difference. Quite simply, it was the most boring match I've seen at St Mary's for some time, and not even just this season. It even makes the West Brom match seem exciting by comparison. The first half in particular was truly dire. Hull dominated the midfield, winning most of the 50/50 balls, but luckily it is their lack of quality in attack that meant that we weren't punished. Gabbiadini was largely a spectator up front, because the midfield was incapable of gaining the ball and threading through the service to him. It must be clear to Puel as it is to everybody else, that playing Boufal, Tadic and Redmond together constitutes at least one too many flair player at the expense of a ball-winner. Also, pre-match research should have indicated that Hull is a team of brick sh*t house giants and that they would therefore dominate our comparative midgets. Puel must have stripped the paint off the walls at half time, as we came out with a bit more conviction, but it was crying out for somebody like Hojbjerg to add muscle, but instead another midget, Sims, came on and was constantly bullied off the ball. Even Ward-Prowse or Clasie for Tadic or Boufal would have been more effective in gaining the midfield advantage. Also, the most likely striker to score, Gabbiadini, was substituted for the least likely to score, Long. To be fair, Long did well on a couple of occasions positioning himself to receive some superb passes high upfield, but then lacked the ability to do something with them. Can we please take away the role of penalty taker from Tadic? He cost us 2 points today. Some have said that it was only fair that we didn't take all three points as a draw was fair to Hull. This is patently nonsense. The team that scores more goals than the other one deserves to win, regardless of whether the other team had the most possession and chances if they fail to capitalise on them. I haven't been one to call for Puel's head so far, but if we put in another such lacklustre performance again this season, I am tempted to change my mind. Of course, Puel can only be blamed for the tactics and the substitutions; the players today for the most part were a complete disgrace. It was if most of them had already booked their summer holidays and that their minds were on some tropical beach paradise.

Great news. Lander never seemed to be worthy of consideration as suitable owners from day one. I like the mention of the skates' unsuitable owners further down the article.

Well, we have nothing to be ashamed of, as we gave them a game. The difference between the two teams was the quality of their attack and the weakness of ours. Had we had available our £50/£60 million CB, we would be good for a point at least.

Sh*t! Changes needed, or they'll begin to run away with it

I believe that Redmond will give them more problems.

We can come back and win this. Can we have Redmond on for Boufal please?

The money will be donated to a charity of Timmy's choice, not to me. So some good will come from Timmy's lack of perception and understanding of how events would go post referendum.

Feeling really unsure about it now, aren't you Timmy? The Norway deal isn't going to happen, so you do recall our bet of £50 don't you, or are you trying to wriggle out of it?

How's your World view going, Timmy? You know; the assertion that you made that we would go for a Norway style Brexit. Have you been giving any thought to which charity you will be donating the £50 bet to when it doesn't happen?

You asked for a link to the article, I provided it. I made no comment on it, so you really shouldn't get your knickers in such a twist. As you say, the article was indeed written by some batty columnist and it received much derisory comment for the assertion that May's election call amounted to a coup. But as Ann Perkins has been a leader writer, lobby correspondent and feature writer for the Guardian since 1997, there is validity in quoting such published tosh when making a claim that it isn't only the right wing red tops who are capable of talking rubbish. Just as a matter of interest, why do you nearly always edit your posts? Aren't you capable of ensuring that what you write is satisfactory before you hit the post button? Or is it because you realised that you missed out your trademark juvenile parting insult?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/18/general-election-coup-mps-theresa-may Happy to help.

I think that you're not far off the money in your summary on most counts.

Quite happy to dish it out, but not so pleased to get it back, eh?

I'm really enjoying the discomfort that you two must be feeling at the turn of events recently. Both of you think that you are so clever, but fail to realise that your petty insults and puerile name-calling diminish your credibility. You two just carry on with it and we your targets will just take it as a sign that you're really hurting and enjoy the schadenfreude.

I decided to take a small break from your infantile sneering on the EU thread, but May having called this General Election and the prospect being of a considerably enlarged Conservative majority, I'm encouraged to come on this thread and enjoy your discomfort as it all unfolds. For your information, I was never unsteady or uncalm and as you have been told numerous times, as a party member I have always voted Conservative in General Elections. I presume that you now accept your oversight as to the most valid reason for May to call the General Election, that the mandate it will give her strengthens her position in her negotiations with the EU and her ability to control her Brexit agenda in Parliament. Are you going to continue to embarrass yourself further by calling anybody who isn't a leftie a "little kipper", when UKIP's whole raison d'etre has now passed and they will be in terminal decline now that their agenda in British politics has largely been achieved?

Just for the sake of argument, if one was a Remoaner in the media and a Labour supporter to boot, how would one go about attempting to destabilise the Conservative vote potential? Ah, yes; suggest that May isn't going to be true to her stance that no deal on Brexit is better than a bad deal, that as she was in the Remain camp during the referendum, she really wants a soft Brexit. Should she achieve a substantial majority in Parliament, her negotiating position with the EU is considerably strengthened, so the possibility of access to the single market without the four so-called freedoms is increased. Once that majority is attained, then she needs to set out her red lines with clarity and state that if they are not agreed, then we will be prepared to have access to the single market under WTO trading terms. The EU has detailed its red lines and they should be in no doubt as to what ours are before negotiations begin in earnest.

What a surprise that Verbal and Shurlock didn't think of a reason as blindingly obvious as that one! As undoubtedly avid Guardian readers, surely they read this article explaining that a substantial election victory would considerably improve May's negotiating position with the EU. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/18/mays-real-reason-for-calling-election-to-show-eu-that-brexit-really-means-brexit Unfortunately it hasn't been a good couple of years for them, what with the Conservative election victory in 2015, the referendum decision to leave the EU, the election of Corbyn as Labour Party leader and now the likelihood of a massive increase in the Conservative Parliamentary majority enabling her to thwart the attempts to derail Brexit by the Labour Party at the conclusion of the EU negotiations and the Liberals in the House of Lords.

Richmond will go back to the Conservatives. There were exceptional circumstances which gained the Lib Dumbs the seat and they won't be able to put the resources in they did in the by-election. Anyway, there is always an advantage to an opposition party as a mid term protest which won't repeat in a General Election. Most of the seats that the Conservatives identified as being vulnerable to tactical voting, will be more than compensated by the collapse of the UKIP vote, now that the reason for their existence has largely disappeared following our vote to leave the EU. As you say, Labour are in complete disarray and have the conundrum that many of their voters in their traditional heartlands voted for Brexit. Tactical voting will go both ways, with Brexit voters not wishing to jeopardise their referendum victory by voting in MPs who openly declare themselves as willing to reverse the Article 50 process. Boundary changes have made the electoral process fairer, but favour the Conservatives. There is no way that there will be a hung parliament; if there was a possibility of that outcome, then Theresa May would not have called the Election.

Brilliant news. Caught Labour with their pants down and puts paid to the criticism that she didn't have a mandate.

/\ This