Wes Tender

No, he doesn't and neither do you.

These wil be the ones including those from the well known suburbs of Manchester, such as Bridgewater (I kid you not), Rotherham and Farnborough!

It's all fine margins. Take away their offside goal with a more competent linesman, cut out the suicidal defensive error for Yoshida and we win 2-1. But what was inexscusable was the way that we let them pass the ball around when they were 3-1 up, without closing them down and pressing the ball. Thankfully Koeman made the right decision to counter that negativity by introducing Davis and Long, both of whom can be relied upon to give their all and having pulled a goal back, at last we showed some urgency and put United on the rack during the 5 minutes added on. Again, small margins, as one has to ask whether United's second choice Keeper would have made those saves that De Gea did. But I didn't think that Romeu had done that badly to have been substituted ahead of J-WP. United are now strong in midfield and attack, but still have glaring weaknesses in defence and we should have punished them for it. I am getting heartily fed-up with how we pass the ball back in defence for Stekelenburg eventually to hit it long and lose possession, when we were at our most effective before when we played the ball up the field from the keeper to the midfield. Had we shown the sort of urgency 10 minutes earlier that we did in that last five minutes, then we could have taken at least a point, if not all three. Finally, Crap'nberk was his usual biased self, allowing United and in particualr Schneiderlin a succession of fouls without punishment, whereas we got two yellows for nothing more serious.

He's grown his hair and almost looks like a normal person, rather than a thicko skinhead thug.

The left-wing/right-wing debate over Hitler has been done to death. But there are just as many valid arguments to label him left-wing as right, so when it suits left-wingers to invoke Godwin's Law and label one of history's nastiest tyrants as right-wing to suit their agenda, then that needs to be challenged.

Sorry to disappoint you, but Hitler was left-wing.

Quote Originally Posted by Wes Tender Buctootim: I don't know why in response to my post you have gone off on a tangent about unregulated markets and the monarchy. If you disagree with my post, why don't you counter it with something plausible and relevant? Do you disagree with my statement that instead of Cameron "shifting more money to the wealthy", it is more the case of allowing them to keep more of their own money? Let me see you demonstrate this grasp of ecomonic fundamentals you insinuate that you have by arguing the point. I took the position on this that Maggie Thatcher did, summed up by this quote of hers:- Economics isn't an exact science, so even the top economists get it wrong sometimes. For example, I presume that the EU took advice from their top economists over the chances of success of the EU single currency and look at what a disaster that has been. Corbyn proposes a maximum earnings level apparently and I say that will result in either tax avoidance or the wealth creators leaving the country. Care to argue the toss over that? The wheel having turned full circle, this is again appropriate from MT:

Or more correctly, allow them to keep more of their own money.

I believe it is a mistake to make such sweeping generalisations about how the EU referendum would go if Labour had elected a more Blairite leader. Both the Conservative Party and Labour have their factions who wish to leave the EU and they will form cross-bench alliances in the pre-referendum campaigns. Their votes won't be whipped by their Parties. Furthermore, it isn't as clear cut to assert that corporations who fund the Conservative Party will definitely all pressurise them to stay in. Increasingly it is being argued effectively that if we were to leave the EU, not only would we establish new markets in the wider World, but that the EU manufacturers would need to keep us as customers for their products and we would be able to ensure that reciprocal levels of trade continued. It is interesting to speculate on whether the Labour leadership competition or the EU referendum will cause splits within parties and the formation of subsequent new parties. Having survived for decades with their party split over Europe, I can't see the Conservatives needing to change, especially as it seems that Labour have shot themselves in the foot by electing a rabid leftie to lead them. Labour could wait their chance to depose Corbyn and then reassess their position, but if they cannot manage that a couple of years before the next election, they will be a strong contender as a party where a large faction allies itself with the Lib Dems to form another party. And then we have another situation mentioned by GM that is pertinent; the SNP. On the one hand, the Scottish SNP witch will be worried that Labour's lurch to the left that Corbyn entails is a threat to their prospects in Scotland at the next GE. She is already using this as an excuse for another referendum, on the pretence that with Corbyn unelectable, the Scots should have an opportunity to stop being governed by the wicked Tories. And then there is the prospect of antagonism being caused by the SNP taking the opportunity of stirring things in our English Parliament by siding with Corbyn on left-wing policies that affect only English voters, thus stirring the West Lothian issue so that we are more likely to accept the break-up of the Union. And of course, the SNP will have an ally of Corbyn over Trident. In the middle of this Parliament we have the referendum and UKIP presents another scenario where there could be a potential change to the political landscape. Once the referendum has taken place, UKIP as a single policy party has no reason to continue, unless it can reinvent itself to champion other national causes. So there are several interesting potential developments during this Parliament which could change things drastically within the next few years.

It might not be rocket science, but calling people who buy to let parasites suggests that your understanding of it isn't very good.

Strange really as that is the impression that I got too. The Radio Solent made reference to it several times. OWTS was loud and clear and not necessary for them to say that it was the Saints fans making all the noise. Particularly good was the reception that Lambert got when he was substituted when it was clearly our song for him that was audible and every word clearly heard. It might be that the Solent commentary team were situated close to our fans of course, but if they weren't, then there doesn't seem to be any basis for complaint.

Sorry, I don't follow your reasoning. Encouraging people to invest in buy to rent schemes can surely only be good in increasing the availability of rented property, which in turn will push down rents. If the government were to introduce rent controls and then allow tenants the right to buy the property they rented, the number of people investing in buying property to let would dry up. Larger properties which would have been bought to convert into flats would remain unsold or in need of repair, exacerbating the housing shortage and increasing property prices. The recent legislation allowing people to invest their pensions as they wished instead of being forced into an annuity, made buy to let an attractive proposition. Giving the tenant the right to buy that property removes the attractiveness of that investment avenue.

Some of his policies are not only pie in the sky, but just plain barking mad and thankfully the chances of him being able to implement them are extremely remote. For example, he would apparently wish to bring back rent controls to the private sector, so that rents reflected local earnings and tenants of private properties would have the right to buy the property they rented. That will obviously have the effect of massively reducing the number of properties available to rent, when there is already a housing shortage. He proposes a maximum wage to cane the high earners. So there goes any incentive for the movers and shakers to better themselves and the result would almost certainly be a brain drain similar to that caused by the punitive tax rates under Labour during the Wilson government. And then where is he going to find the money to re-nationalise the unitilities and the railways as well as abolishing University fees, whilst spending on the infrastructure to create jobs? Well, he is going to print money to pay for some of it, although that will be inflationary and the rest will presumably come from every left winger's standard solution of soaking "the rich", who will either find ways to avoid paying or more likely emigrate, impoverishing the economy and the country. He will allow the Argies joint administration rights to the Falklands against their will and unite Ireland against the will of the Northern Irish. So much for democracy. He doesn't want us to interfere in the Middle East, except for in Israel where he will press somehow to give the Palestinian refugeees the right to return. That's enough pie in the sky to be going on with.

Yes, it is easy to dismiss Corbyn as a joke, but there is always the possibility that those not old enough to remember our past history of damage that a left-wing Labour government caused, could turn him into a very dangerous man if he garnered enough support from the younger voters. But as I said earlier, I think that the political demographics have changed over the past few decades so that the majority block of the electorate is now firmly middle-class and parties need to occupy the middle ground to attract their votes.

So the Labour Party's last elected leader was a pathetic, directionless weakling and this latest one is pretty well a relatively unknown back bench time-server who is their most left-wing leader since the unfortunate Michael Foot. Not very good at this leadership election thing, are they? But still, Maggie Thatcher was apparently considered unelectable by some when she was chosen by the Conservatives, so there is hope for Corbyn yet, eh?

I'm happy that the working class socialists are now to be represented by a Labour Party led by an extreme left-winger, as it means that they will never hold power again in England. As you say, there isn't that much distance between the Blairite Labour Party and the Lib Dems, so perhaps the best chance of them being elected to govern this country is to form another party as the SDP did when the more moderate faction of the then Labpur Party wished to remain in Europe and keep our nuclear deterrent. They need to get Alastair Campbell on board to come up with a smart new logo and name, something containing the word "new" in it and featuring some red and yellow flowers. It could be intertwined red and yellow roses perhaps, or the Lib Dem sh*tehawk carrying a red rose in its beak.. As for what would then become the rump of the former Old Labour, its core base of working class soclialists has eroded somewhat over the past few decades, as industries like coal mining, shipbuilding, train building, etc have gone to other countries where the labour costs are lower and the work force more subservient. It is the middle classes that are now the dominant force in the electorate and Labour under Blair only managed to get themselves elected by having policies that appealed to them, whilst hoovering up the traditional working class votes because they had always voted Labour and had no viable alternative party on the left. In the immediate aftermath of Corbyn's victory, there is an element of euphoria from those who voice their satisfaction that there is now a more clearly defined choice in the political sphere on the one hand, and dark mutterings on the other hand about how Corbyn will have to be deposed a couple of years before the next election if Labour are to stand a chance of being electable. When Red Ed Milliband revealed his tablet of policies set in a giant tombstone, it was described by some wags as the longest suicide note in history, but by electing Corbyn, Labour has surpassed itself and lurched alarmingly even further to the left, travelling back in a time warp to the days of that other scruffy but strangely likeable leftie Michael Foot.

I suspect that quite a significant percentage of votes for Corby as leader didn't actually come from within the party, unless of course you are prepared to accept that the definition of "from within the party" included thousands who probably paid their £3 just so that they could join the Labour Party entitling them then to vote for him. At least Blair's votes would have been because those who voted him as leader considered that he stood a reasonable chance of success in a General Election. I'm also impatient to see how he fares during Prime Minister's Question Time. I suspect that Cameron will walk all over him. I find it amusing that Maggie Thatcher's election as leader of the Conservative Party can possibly be compared to the election of Corbyn by the Labour Party. Having lost an election because their leader was perceived to be too left-wing, what is the solution? Oh, yes; elect one who is substantially much further to the left. Genius.

A nice bit of propaganda, making it look as if he prefers to go to former glory club Spurs, instead of to Southampton, whose star is in the ascendency. But apparently he had the opportunity to come here before to play under Poch, but he went instead to Leverkusen, who play aggressive football, which he likes very much, and he likes to pressure opponents. He thought that he could be a better player if he trained under Sami Hyypiä. Interesting to read the level of pettiness that Spurs are prepared to go to, banning him from having a car in rival Arsenal's colours. I can't see us having nothing better to do than insist that none of our players have a blue car. I appreciate that red is a propitious colour in Far East cultures, so maybe he ought to insist on having a red car and see what Spurs would propose to do about it.

I agree. This calls for a celebration drink

Quote Originally Posted by Wes Tender: Is it too early to throw this back in your face, before the announcement has been made?

Rolls Royce say that it was not one of their engines, so General Electric it seems.

Ah! So the player was meant to have recognised that because the referee had signalled that he was playing the advantage, he intended to award a yellow card? There are fouls that are committed that do not result in a yellow card, you know? If you reckon that the ref verbally communicated it, then he could have also verbally communicated to Baird that he was on a yellow for the first foul. I am assuming that he did not, otherwise I expect that Baird would have been a bit more circumspect in his next tackle. To counter, the player had no chance of having received a fair warning that he would be sent off for a subsequent yellow card, so how is that fair? You saying that you don't think that it matters whether the player did or didn't know that he was on a yellow is frankly ludicrous. As you infer that any foul should result in a yellow card, why bother with yellow cards at all? Two free kicks awarded against a player and he's off, eh?

The injustice was caused by the player not having been given the warning that if he committed another serious foul, there would be the probability of him being sent off. The NI manager's assertion that Baird would have been much more careful had he been yellow-carded for the first foul is valid. If play continued because of the advantage, then only one yellow should have been shown.

There are occasionally exceptional players in a team who provide a significantly higher level of goals proportionately than their team mates. Bale and Kane are the obvious examples at Spurs, as was Suarez at Liverpool. It is claimed that the goals scored by Le Tiss in his pomp were what kept us up in several seasons. Of course those players would have been replaced by those considered to be the next best option, but it is logically the case that if they were anywhere near as good, they would be the ones scoring all the goals. Spurs' most expensive striker was Soldado and I don't recall him contributing much. That Kane hit a purple patch was very lucky for them, especially as he was from their academy. How lucky would they have to be to unearth somebody capable of matching his goal tally if he became crocked? One or both of their two new signings up front might produce the goods, or they might turn out to be the next Soldado and Lamela.

Who cares what they think? Judging by the standard of response on there, it seems that most of them are on the same intellectual level as those on the Pompey forum. The Telegraph paints an accurate picture of how Levy has alienated the owners of other clubs to the extent that many are reticent to do business with him. Their own fans are disappointed, even disgusted that Levy's shenanigans have resulted in them starting the new season without adequate support for Kane up front and without strengthening their midfield. And yet when we post similar sentiments on our forum, we are derided for it. Post the opinion that Bale's goals had single-handedly propelled them to a respectable position in the table, and the response is that that is what a striker should do. Much as Kane did last season too. An injury of Rodriguez proportions to either of them would have meant them finishing in the bottom half of the table. That is a simply verifiable fact, proven by simply removing the goals that gained them additional points. They cannot accept that they are not one of the top four clubs and have not been for some time, so they deride us that we cannot prevent players going to clubs like Man Utd, Arsenal and Liverpool, but that to go to Spurs would not be seen as that much of a step up in their careers. Alderweireld will appreciate the rise in his wages, but will find that without the protection of the midfield and defence that surrounded him here, he will not shine so brightly as he developes Lovren syndrome. Wanyama, if he knuckles down and has a good season, will thank us when he moves to a bigger club than Spurs, just as Schneiderlin did before him. But of course, they are powerless to prevent their best players leaving for the bigger clubs too. It's just unfortunate for them that apart from Kane, there is hardly anybody in their current team who is wanted by the bigger clubs.