Wes Tender

I would be interested to read your justification for your assertion that if we invite in increased immigrant numbers, living standards will be driven up and if we reduced immigrant numbers they would fall. Presumably by your logic, the higher the number of immigrants, the higher will be the rise in the living standards of almost everybody, apart from the unskilled workers. And it also sounds as if you infer that public services would decline if fewer immigrants were admitted, whereas I would have thought that a huge influx of immigrants would have necessitated massive increases in demand for them. Undoubtedly the case could be argued that living standards here would increase if we were able to choose which skilled immigrants we allowed in, but unless we have control over our own borders, we are not in any position to lay down these sorts of parameters. I'm pleased to see though that St.Alex has an ally in blaming former governments for not having the foresight to create the increased housing to accommodate all of these EU economic migrants and the refugee victims of strife in the Middle East

Why would I put you on ignore and lose all that entertainment value you provide? Maybe Fry is right and you aren't a Yank at all, but just like to adopt the persona for your own amusement. If so, you have my admiration for playing the red-neck/trailer park trash yank to perfection.

Yes, barracking is indeed a word and seemingly more appropriate to what you were wishing to express, so you have learned something new. http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/barrack Interesting that you are concerned over infrastructure such as housing and the railway network and yet not a peep out of you about the need for schooling and health care provision for these immigrants/migrants/refugees. Perhaps you would care to apportion blame for those services onto the government from over 30 years ago for not having the foresight to have anticipated the size of population we would have once the EU allowed freedom of movement between member states and also allowing for the refugee situation arising from humanitarian crises like the one in the Middle East. Interesting that you have some sort of persecution complex because only a "handful of posters" dare to express differing views to yours and gang together to shout you down. If it is indeed only a handful, then it is logically only a minority, but obviously quite a powerful one, given their ability to forge such a strong alliance that they are capable of shouting down the views of the majority. In reality it is silly to label those who express doubts about the ability of our infrastructure to cope with such an influx of immigrants as being "anti-foreigner". There have been enough former immigrants into this country from many years ago who have expressed the opinion that our infrastructure cannot cope with too many more, so how ironic is that? Are they therefore anti-foreigner too? Because of the strain placed upon our housing, education and health services because of immigration, there is growing support amongst the electorate for us to leave the EU, so that we can set our own immigration policies. That will enable us to take in only those from other countries who we wish to allow in, freeing up space for us to take our share of genuine refugees.

What exactly does he mean by "safe routes"? How many should we in the UK be taking according to him? Tens of thousands. How many tens? And I note that he wishes to change the rules for Asylum seekers to, so that they should be shared around Europe, rather than having an obligation to claim asylum at the first safe country they enter. On what basis should this distribution of refugees between countries be settled? And what are his thoughts on the treatment of economic migrants rather than refugees? He starts out by stating that he knows the difference between the two, but then only speaks of refugees.

Isn't it unfortunate that we are not able to take an indeterminate quantity of refugees and economic migrants because those nasty 1980's Tories privatised the railways , so that they will not be able to travel around the UK, and because the housing stock which was sold off too will mean that they will have nowhere to live? Undoubtedly it is also the Tories' fault that they will also not be able to fully avail themselves of education for their children and the provision of health services because of the nasty Tory Government of the 80's too. Quite why Labour didn't do anything to repair this damage caused by those wicked Tories when they were subsequently in power from 1997 to 2010 is a bit of a mystery, but you go ahead and pin it on the government of the 80's if it pleases you. You complain that a handful of right-wingers shut (shout?) down and any reasonable debate by barraging (barracking?) any sensible posters, however, I'm afraid that the opinions you have expressed don't really qualify as being very reasonable or sensible, as they are rather ill-thought out on the one hand, or as demonstrated by Buctootim, just wrong.

My clearest memory of a goal from him was when I witnessed the time he poached the ball from behind Ed de Goey and scored at Chelsea. The match perspective from Chelsea is here:- http://www.chelseafc.com/news/latest-news/2015/03/pre-match-briefing---chelsea-v-southampton--part-two.html Interesting to note that subsequently we signed Petrescu, Wise, Hughes and Le Saux from that team, with another ex-Chelsea player in Monkou there too.

Your opinions are welcomed, just as we would welcome the opinions of your average Yank:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm3kQIK9-7g And of course, we always look forward to your opinions on this forum about our soccer team, which coincidentally has the same nickname as your local football team

Sky had N'Jie as a midfielder on one page, then as a forward on the page about him. He is young, with not an outstanding record with 8 goals in 43. Poch reckons that it would be foolish to throw him in too soon, but he could well turn out to be another Mane. Son looks the better prospect immediately, but as you say, the time to make a valid assessment will be after a handful of games to see whether they can cut it in the PL. The point is though, that Berahino appeared to be their number 1 target and they were still after him despite signing the other two, so there is some validity in assessing them as being weaker up front than they expected themselves to be, not least in terms of lacking depth.

Did they? N'Jie is a midfielder and Son is classified as a left-winger, although he does seem capable of scoring goals in the Bundesliga.

They needed additional cover up top and in midfield. We needed additional cover at CB and midfield. We resolved our shortages really quite well with Romeu, Clasie and VVD, whereas they failed to resolve their main shortcomings in defence and midfield. Had we not signed Romeu and VVD, could you imagine the furore there would be on here? I would argue that as a result of this transfer window, we now have a better team than them. As GarretIvo says, finishing as low as 7th would be curtains for Poch, but there is potential that they could actually be lower down than that by Christmas and I don't think that Levy would stand for that, even though it is largely his fault that those signings weren't made.

The opinions from the Spurs' forums are enlightening because they are the ones who would normally be prepared to put the more optimistic gloss over their transfer activity. However, the overall impression given is one of gloom and despondency. It seemed apparent that they were short of strikers and also weak in midfield, but have signally failed to address those weaknesses before the transfer window closed. Kane is already suffering a goal drought and should he suffer an injury like J-Rod did, their season is knackered, unless they unearth somebody similar from their academy. As pointed out by others, the lack of protection offered to their back line by their midfield could also mean that they ship many more goals. Their goal difference was bad enough last season. Will Pochettino still be their manager by Christmas?

Surprisingly not, Alps, although I think that the "messiah" reference in his post 2710 may well have been a reference to him.

My understanding is that with any players we sign, their character is an important part of it, and how they will meld with the other players. On that basis, he fails on both counts. I wouldn't want him back here, the greedy little git, and neither do I think that he would get into the team as a first choice anyway.

So how do you prove that? And apart from that, there will also be the list of names of prospective players which Mitchell will have remembered as likely candidates anyway.

You really are a nasty piece of work *again* I really do pity your pupils/students.

The black box is just a room full of video equipment and computers to monitor players. The data from the black box is presumably stored electronically, so I admire your optimism that there is not list of players thrown up by our scouting reports and match videos that couldn't have been downloaded onto a USB memory stick when Mitchell left. I don't know how instrumental Mitchell was in setting up the whole thing, or whether he was just the "department head", but he must have been considered important enough for Spurs to head-hunt him from us. Given that he has been with them now since the end of last November, there ought to have been sufficient time for him to have produced a reasonable list of prospects for each position (and some names to replace Pochettino too)

kingdawson: Either he reckons that we will finish below Spurs, WH, Swansea and Palace, or he has us higher than them in 6th or above. Nice to encounter one of the more realistic Spurs fans who doesn't through some false sense of entitlement believe that they have a divine right to a top four place.

Surely what with having Mitchell and all of his expertise with how the black box works, Spurs will have identified several alternatives to Wanyama. These players, like those that Southampton identified when Mitchell was here, will be really cheap in comparison with established PL players, totally under every other club's radar, and they will quickly establish themselves as being better than the players they replaced. I have every confidence that Mitchell will have several players lined up as I write, who will be signed by Levy within the next hour and a half.

Some express opinions which are their genuinely held beliefs and some purely to get a rise out of others as wind-up merchants. I'm inclined to pigeon-hole you in the latter category.

Am I the only one who thinks you are full of ****?

Kerching! Another ten loyalty brownie points. I'm inclined to believe that you might just be one of those charlatans from the old board, the way that you won't hear a bad word said about your idol Lowe. The FA thought that Lowe was a visonary, eh? The FA appointed Wiseman too, so their judgement is spot-on, isn't it? As for the rest, I really can't be arsed to debate against somebody so fond of seeing his tenure through rose-tinted glasses. No doubt you will read that transcript of the report on the AGM and tut-tut about how misunderstood Lowe was and how ungrateful all those people were who didn't recognise all the good things he brought us. For me, I'm eternally grateful that his monumental cock-ups on his return with the Quisling laid the foundations for Markus Liebherr to take us out of administration.

Nice to see that you are still earning loyalty points from defending the person who did more to wreck the club than any other single individual. Roger didn't say that all of his managerial signings were crap, but although two of your list were pretty good and the other two not bad, nevertheless Lowe didn't manage to keep them any longer than his other appointments, did he? As for your second point, Lowe made the ultimate sacrifice for the club by coming here, giving up the millions he was making out of his dealings in the City and leaving his ultra-successful retirement home business. Pardon the sarcasm. What I really meant to convey, is that he benefited massively from being one of the highest paid chief executives in English football, was awarded large shareholdings and no doubt that could well constitute the claim that he was making a fortune out of the club. Until we went into administration that is. Then thankfully the shareholdings of all the board became worthless, and nobody was more deserving of losing all that loot than Rupert Lowe, closely followed by Askham.

We're not going to get an offer of £30 million for Wanyama from that tight-fisted git Levy. They have spunked all the money they got from Bale on dross and are back to being cheap-skates when it comes to offers for PL players from lower down clubs.

You've excelled yourself. Whereas that doesn't on the face of it look a half bad team at the time, let's have a bit of context. When Boruc was injured, we had a young Gazzaniga in goal. Before Shaw got himself established, we had the underwhelming Fox at LB. The CBs included Hooiveld. Other squad players comprised the likes of Stephens, Forren, Do Prado and Ramirez, but also Butterfield, Seaborne, Reeves, Chaplow, De Ridder, Mayuka and T Lee. Easy to see that we were only an injury or suspension away from a very weak substitute.

How much do you think? I'm not even certain that the black box was his idea, but as far as I know, he was just the person who oversaw its operation. There were several others whose jobs were to analyse the videos of all the players around the world and then research their character and suitability to our team and style of play. I don't recall hearing that since Mitchell's departure that anything regarding the way that we identify targets has changed. Like when we replace players sold with somebody we hope to be as good, we have replaced Mitchell with somebody well enough thought of by Huddersfield (Ross Wilson) that they appointed him a board director. http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/news/article/20150314-announcement-ross-wilson-director-of-scouting-recruitment-2333456.aspx Also, it's pertinent to answer your question with the counter question; has Mitchell's arrival at Spurs improved them? It seems that his innovative and imaginative approach is to go for some of our players, or others who we were rumoured to be interested in when he was here.