Wes Tender

According to this article featured in the Express, according to Football Manager, we will end the season in 13th position http://www.express.co.uk/pictures/galleries/4605/Football-Manager-predicts-Premier-League-tabel-sportgalleries These morons reckon that despite being in 7th position after 24 matches, we will drop 6 places in the remaining 14 games. We will only win another 3 games, draw another 2 and lose 9! Our goal difference will go from +8 to -1. We will drop from an average 1.42 goals a match, to .78 goals a match in the remaining 14 games for some reason. Watford, Stoke, Palace, Liverpool, Everton and Chelsea, who are all below us at the moment, will leapfrog us. Liverpool maybe, Chelsea perhaps, but I'd be dubious at such a reverse. Ours is a team that has shown incredible form in the last four matches, shipping no goals, scoring 6 and gaining 10 points, holding Arsenal to a draw away and beating United at Old Trafford in the process. We have just signed a proven goal-scorer and yet we are going to sink like a stone. Does current form not register in their tiny little brains? Whereas nothing can be ruled out or in where football matches are concerned, one has to question either the intelligence or the football knowledge of the moron who wrote that particular article.

The way to beat Arsenal is already clear to Koeman; close them down and don't allow them the space to play their passing game. It worked when we beat them at St Mary's on Boxing Day and it worked again last night. The difference between the two matches though, was that we were less effective in midfield and therefore lacked the same intensity that fed our strikers in that match. This was fine margins, but I lay the blame on some sloppy passes losing possession and I think that we missed either Davis or Clasie, who would have given us some extra speed and bite. We were pretty solid with Wanyama and Romeu together, but Tadic and J-WP don't possess the terrier-like qualities that Davis and Clasie do. But it was a creditable performance by the team, where player availability on both sides determined Koeman's tactics, which he got spot on. It was a colossal performance from Forster, but a pity that Long and Mane were off-colour when it came to putting the ball in the net. One feels that if available, Austin would have had at least one goal from the chances that presented themselves. But only a short time after there had been dire forecasts of impending doom from some on here, even predictions of a relegation dog-fight, we now have 10 points from 4 matches, have beaten United away, held Arsenal for an away draw, scored 6 goals and conceded none. Other teams around us still have the distractions of Cup matches to tire their teams or to inflict injuries and suspensions on players, and that has to be weighed against the disappointment of having been knocked out of both competitions. Liverpool in particular must have suffered some effects and now we have risen above them. If we can overtake West Ham and maintain this sort of form, then 6th place beckons, or failing that, 7th for the second year on the trot would be quite an achievement.

At the start of this season, what were people's predictions? Chelsea to be Champions again? Man United would surely press on with Van Gaal having had the opportunity to bring in his own players. Would they now have a realistic shot at the title? Liverpool to regain what they consider to be their divine right to sit at the top table? Leicester to flirt with relegation, or at least to finish in the lower bottom half? Arguably the top managers in World football are Guardiola, Mourinho and Van Gaal. Mourinho has had an embarrassing fall from grace despite considerable early success in the PL. Van Gaal has been less then impressive even in charge of one of the greatest teams in the World. Guardiola has virtually unlimited funds at City, but no experience of managing in England. Will he do better than Pellegrini? Even though it is most unlikely that they will not be first or second, the recent hierarchy for the top four would historically be chosen from Man City, Chelsea, Arsenal, United and Liverpool. Who would have thought that at this stage of the season, Leicester would be 3 points clear at the top and 10 points clear of United, that Spurs would be in 4th, 5 points ahead of United. West Ham 6th, two points ahead of the once mighty Liverpool, who are only a point ahead of us, having bought half of our team. Why should this next season be any different? Why should there not be one or two of the glory teams misfiring through over rated players not performing, like Hazard at Chelsea, or key players like Kane being injured? Why shouldn't there be other teams like Leicester coming up the division because of clever management of their team, bringing out the best of them. Ultimately, the size of stadium is becoming less of a factor financially compared to the vast sums coming into football through the media and sponsorship. But at the end of the day, teams can only have 11 players on the pitch and sometimes the most expensively formed team of world superstar individuals is beaten by another with a squad costing less than one individual in the glory team. Although we have had our customary dip and a poor start to the season, we have beaten United, Chelsea and Arsenal so far and we are showing how disadvantages of size and money can be countered by good management, investment in infrastructure and canny dealings in the transfer market. But if Leicester hold on to finish the season as champions, then that will do more to upset the apple-cart by proving that the top four is not the sole preserve of the richest glory clubs.

As Nolan says, the leadership in Argentina use the Falklands issue as a tub-thumping exercise to boost their popularity ratings when they flag during periods of dissatisfaction caused by their poor economic performance. Why is the Argentina poll rating claiming sovereignty of the Islands higher than it is here? I would imagine that it is the subject of considerable propaganda, taught to their schoolchildren during their history and geography lessons. Over here, at nearly 34 years ago, it isn't something that high in the minds of those who were only born after the event when geographically the Islands are remote and historically there have been many other military events that we have participated in compared to subsequent Argentinian military actions, which would be more likely to be taken against their own population. Personally, I don't give much credence to polls such as the YouGov one, which got things like the election result badly wrong last year. However, knowing your stance on how you believe we ought to remain in the EU, it is encouraging to see that the currrent YouGov poll shows that there is now a majority of the electorate who would vote to leave. https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/01/28/4-point-lead-leave-eu-referendum-and-support-danis/

As you say, the acid one-liners are indeed easy to do, aren't they? Your preference is to question why people hold the views they do rather than the specifics of the actual war or vote, something which would require a thread of debate that would dwarf the Pompey takeover thread, involving such factors as upbringing, education, environment, and dozens of other things that go towards forming the opinions of individuals. But as you obviously think that this is something easy to explain, perhaps you'll begin by telling us what makes you hold the views that you do. Actually, don't bother. I'm sure that you are capable of realising what factors go towards the thought processes forming people's opinions and you were only using this as a diversion tactic to deflect the criticism that you have received for some of your views on the Falkland War. These are easy enough to pick holes in with the help of the historical perspective afforded to those old enough to have lived through it, regardless of whether some posters attempt to label them as sheep if they happen to belong to a group who share the majority point of view. For example, let's look at your assertion that around 85% of both Brits and Argentinians thought that their countries were in the right. It is naive to think that there is any real substance to the figure of support for the war from the Argentinian people, when they were living in a country ruled by a cruel dictatorship, where those who voiced criticism of their leaders were murdered, the tens of thousands of so-called "missing." There may well have been that level of support, but little or no credence can be given to any suggestion that the poll result was achieved without coercion or fear of savage reprisals towards those who spoke out publicly against the War.

Maybe they could build it on the nearby Stoneham site. Lowe and Cowen could assist them with getting it passed by Eastleigh Borough Council.

I can see why this is causing you some personal anguish.

http://www.socceronsunday.com/article/southampton-to-merge-with-portsmouth/ Very droll.

Would we? Why? Where we trade with other nations outside of the EU, do we have a legal obligation to allow free movement of labour from those countries? I had not heard about that. Please enlighten me.

Interesting article in the Independent before the match:- http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/fa-league-cups/portsmouth-vs-bournemouth-fa-cup-tie-after-the-fall-pompey-regroup-on-safer-ground-a6842836.html It glosses over their recent history of ownership by the gun-runner, the fake sheik, the penniless Arab ice-cream salesman, the Hong Kong loan shark and the Russian mafia and then asks a couple of the main people representing the trust that owns them now, whether they would swap all that for stability in the second division. Typically as is borne out by asking the same thing of my Skate business clients, they are happy to accept their lowly 4th division status and the prospect of remaining in the lower leagues for many more years as a price worth paying for the trips to Wembley and the cup win. No doubt it is in their blood, living on an Island steeped in Naval history, probably with numerous precedents of their matelot forebears spending all their money on grog and tarts and saying that ending up in the poor house was worth it when they look back on the great time they had boozing and womanising, whilst also ruining their livers and getting the pox. Despite the glossing over of the charities robbed, the local businesses robbed, HMRC robbed, Neil Allen states that he as a journalist (allegedly) and most of the fans, never thought that it would be a good idea to question why these crooks gained control of their club whilst things were going so well on the pitch. This thinking is in tune with the belief by the fans that the near demise of their club was also worth the fleeting glory.

I just noticed this bit and thought how kind it was of them to be so concerned not to kill anybody, when on the other hand when the British troops were advancing towards Port Stanley, the Argies set up their artillery in the midst of the residential area, using the civilians as a shield.

A very good summary. Regarding the Nationality Act, it hardly impinged on the residents of the Falkland Island at all, because virtually the entire population qualified for British citizenship. Indeed their claim with some justification was that they were more British than most of the population of Britain. Whether the Foreign Office was partly to blame for sending out the wrong signals of not, at no time had there been any serious suggestion that the wishes of the population of the Falklands would be ignored. I agree that the wrong signals were sent out when it was mooted that HMS Endurance would be withdrawn. General Galtieri and his Junta misjudged the determination that we would show to restore the Islands to British sovereignty, but it cannot be ignored that one of the most significant reasons that they went to war with us to invade the Islands was as sabre-rattling to improve the popularity of his government at a time of economic turmoil in Argentina, which is presumably the internal factors you referred to. As you rightly say, Thatcher's government was also undergoing a similar unpopularity at the time of the invasion and in the same way that Argentina was united by the fervour of the military action taken to invade territory that they thought they had a right to be theirs, Thatcher and the Conservatives united the country behind the war against the tyranny of this Junta and their illegal invasion of British sovereign territory and following our success in the war, she and the Tories reaped their rewards politically

So from your perspective there is nothing that can be done to substantially control immigration, regain lost sovereignty, restore the primacy of our own legal system, reclaim our territorial fishing grounds and derive any benefit for our farmers from leaving the CAP? What a defeatist attitude. Thank God that there are those who believe that things can be improved in those areas and have the will to make them happen. Nobody talking about leaving the ECHR? http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/jun/03/cameron-refuses-to-rule-out-leaving-european-convention-on-human-rights We have lost much sovereignty through successive treaties not agreed by the British electorate. We can regain that lost sovereignty which has been eroded. Whether you believe that immigration controls would work or not depends on the determination of the government to enforce them. But stopping the unfettered freedom of movement between EU states would be a good place to start and that would allow us to take in deserving refugees and migrants who offered skills that we needed instead. Fishing quotas were imposed by the EU. By leaving, we could establish our own territorial waters and determine our own quotas and who is allowed to fish those waters.

If you believe that an economist receiving a substantial grant from the EU means that he is capable of expressing a totally unbiased view, then bully for you and your naivety. I wonder whether it was made clear on the Yank programme at the outset that the economist expressing those views was in receipt of a substantial grant from the organisation he was championing. Most politicians would have to declare an interest and be unable to vote in such circumstances. The Starbucks thing was a throwaway tongue in cheek connection between the use of the "smell the coffee" american expression and the recent political scandal of such American organisations' tax avoidances. Sorry that you took it to be something more serious. I should have used a , but I know how you despise them.

If you really wanted to know, it is as simple as Googling " reasons to leave the EU" or something similar. You will find many advantages advocated. Unsurprisingly, trade isn't the only consideration. There are issues of immigration controls, sovereignty, ending the subjugation of our legal system, fishery and agricultural advantages, etc.

I found this about Posen:- Ah! So no axe to grind about our possible exit from the EU at all.

And here is the other arrogantly superior assessment, that anybody who wishes us to leave is a "little Englander." Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, eh? Your posts have long ago established you to be in the stay camp, especially your laughable insistence that our trade situation if we left would be similar to that of Norway or Switzerland. If you care to read my post again, this time paying a little more attention, you will see that nowhere did I suggest that Posen said anything about who should be our PM. It was an analogy to ask how he would like it if his English counterpart poked his nose in America's affairs over a similarly important political event that they have to face in the near future and prophesied dire consequences. Adam Posen's opinions on what the effect on our economy would be is just that; an opinion. It is not indisputable fact. There were lots of eminent economists who forecast the dire consequences of us not joining the Eurozone. How wrong were they?

Would that demoralise them more than "shipping" say seven or eight goals during the original fixture?

He takes the typically arrogant stance of the "stay" brigade. Those who decide to stay will have been those who have enough "common sense" to avoid "shooting themselves in the foot." Those who wish to leave have their own reasons and those should not be dismissed as nonsensical to appease some bloody Yank sticking in his two cents worth. If he has no axe to grind, then why does he bother to attempt to scare-monger our electorate into taking one position over another? Would he like it some British investment broker went on the media to opine that in their Presidential Elections Trump would be the sensible choice for President and that if he were not to be elected, then the USA economy would go into a decline? You also adapt this arrogance by calling the "leave" brigade "dreamers", so it comes as no surprise that his opinions strike a chord with you. I think we should avoid smelling the Yank Starbucks coffee, as they are not helping the British economy by their tax avoidance schemes.

The Skate supporting client I visited Monday (following our defeat of the Mighty Plastics and the 9 points, no goals conceded run) raised the same point. The Beeb make much of the romance of the FA Cup and began well enough by featuring lower division teams with the slogan "It's the FA Cup ; anything can happen." Anything can happen when Salford are featured because their owners were the cream of the Mighty Plastic team in their pomp, but that fascination in the possibility of a team from the depths of the footballing pyramid knocking out a top Premier League club seems to have disappeared. We have a draw between the last lowly team in the fourth division remaining in the competition, and one from the top flight. There is added interest caused by the fact that the lowly team, the Skates, won the thing as recently as 2008, when simultaneously Bournemouth were relegated at the end of that season to the fourth division, so that the teams have effectively swapped places. One wonders whether the match would have been televised had it been Salford playing Bournemouth. Actually, I'm pretty sure that it would have been. It's just that Bournemouth are unfashionable and not considered to be the draw that plastic glory clubs are, whereas the Skates for all of the recent cup glory, are largely an irrelevance nowadays. Regarding the OP, naturally I hope that Bournemouth stuff the skates. 4-1 has a nice ring to it.

Mine too. As aintforever says, the migrant crisis is a big boost for the out campaign and I cannot see that situation easing. It is indeed more likely to become an increasing factor within the next few months and a large proportion of the electorate would already cite the lack of immigration controls within the EU zone as the greatest reason to leave. The EU persist in trying to shoot themselves in the foot with proposals like the latest one to forego the insistence that asylum seekers must claim that status at the first country that they arrive in that is deemed to offer them a safe haven.

What is embarrassing regarding fans of other teams, is them singing the song most associated with us in our ground. I thought that it was clear what I meant. I would hope that our fans wouldn't be so idiotic as to sing I'm forever blowing bubbles at West Ham, or "You'll never walk alone" at Anfield for example. I couldn't care a toss who sings our song at other grounds, as I'm comfortable in the knowledge that we have the best claim to it, as we are the only top flight English club who don't have to change it to adapt it to ourselves.

Of course we don't own it. But it is a song featuring our club nickname, so we have more reason to claim it as our song than some other club who have just substituted their name for Saints. It is therefore our song from that perspective. I'm not sure why that annoys you. If any other club's fans want to embarrass themselves by singing it at St Mary's, then that is a bonus, as all we have to do is sing it at the same time to give the impression that virtually the whole stadium is singing our song.

I had the pleasure of visiting one of my Skate supporting customers yesterday and mentioned what a pleasure it was going to work following a victory on the Saturday, especially one at Old Trafford. Naturally the subject of Austin arose and whereas he admitted his disbelief that we had signed him for just £4 million, he insisted that we were paying him £100,000 a week. I asserted that I thought it very unlikely, but he persisted that the low signing on fee meant that it was made up by his wages. I filled him in on the Caulker factor and how that was probably instrumental in us getting the deal over the line. I left it by saying that everybody could believe what they liked, but nobody knew whether there any truth in it, apart from the player, his agent and the club. But it is indeed a pleasure having Skates believing that we follow in their footsteps in overpaying for players, even if we aren't. It just goes to highlight the gulf between the two teams and the fact that they aren't capable of buying anybody even remotely close to the bargain basement £4 million, let alone anybody in the £10/£20 million bracket.

I particularly loved the responses to the poster who mentioned the Skates as the third club on the South Coast, only to be reminded that Brighton and Hove should also be included ahead of them. And then the wags started with Plymouth, Eastleigh, Bognor Regis and Havant and Waterloovile. Also great to see the comment in response to the superior arrogance of the Skate who said that only recently they had been playing Milan and were now reduced to playing Oxford. He says that the history of the game in England confirms that apart from Swindon, Oxford have been their most numerous opponent.