Wes Tender

And there follows a further three posts and it's only halfway through the day. The average 5 daily posts you claim would take 10 years to achieve. How long have you been a member of this forum? As others have said, the problem with some posters ruining the forum, isn't necessarily what they say, but how many times they say it. I'm inclined to favour the suggestions that limit the number of posts a day, as otherwise many threads resemble the forum equivalent of having been spammed. A daily post limit would at least have the effect of forcing certain posters into crafting replies comprising more than a single line to answer somebody else's post. Instead of ten one-liners, perhaps a paragraph covering several points might be easier on the eye and more closely resemble a contribution towards a debate. I won't hold my breath though that anything will be done, based on the comment from Steve. The decline of the forum will progress further until something is done, but it is his baby and up to him if he isn't that bothered about the revenue declining because posters will not renew their subscriptions.

This. As far as I can see, there have been a few similar threads starting to appear with increasing frequency, naming the same culprits time after time. Each time, there is the opinion expressed by many that there really is no point at all in having an ignore feature if the posts of somebody on ignore has their posts made visible to all when they are quoted. I understand that there are difficulties in changing the software to stop this happening and it would be expensive, but because of this, the onus really is on Steve to take action to satisfy the concerns of those who pay a subscription. Otherwise he will increasingly find that fewer people will be paying and logging on, the standard of debate will deteriorate further and the downward spiral will eventually lead to the forum no longer being financially viable. If that is what he wants, then he's going the right way about it with his laissez-faire attitude.

Matt Oakley left the club some years ago, so therefore although entitled to an opinion, it carries no more weight than mine or Barry's would if we were to speculate on whether Pochettino would go to Spurs, or Lallana would leave for pastures new. In particular, I'm interested to know how he can decide that Pochettino would leave for Spurs if the vacancy was offered to him, as I suspect that Oakley has never met Pochettino.

It isn't that various clubs will wish to sign our players or indeed our manager. Let them dream if they like and then report their longings to the media. What is galling is the way that they report it. Liverpool have overtaken Man Utd in the bid to sign Lallana, Shaw prefers to go to Man Utd rather than Chelsea, Pochettino is a definite to go to Spurs, etc, etc. Why, we have even had headlines shouting that Shaw's leaving was virtually completed. What none of these shrill articles mention, is that Saints have actually adopted a position that none of the players will leave unless Pochettino sanctions it and that there have been no approaches or offers from any club for any player. The way that you would have it, is that players would have to sign a new contract every 6 months, or else they are on the way out. It wasn't long ago that Shaw signed a new contract and the speculation about him leaving came only a few months later. The club would have to make a Reed type statement every week, because the press have sure as hell ignored the last one we made a few days ago. No, one can't blame other clubs for looking at our best players and our manager and the media reporting it, but one can certainly blame them for the way that they are reporting it, as if it is something imminent, when it is not. But they have got it wrong so many times over the years that anybody with half a brain would take anything they read in the Red Tops especially with a huge pinch of salt.

Well, it got a bite from you.

Clyne had Baines in his pocket most of the match.

Roger and Adrian - It's hard to say, just a feeling I have. Fair enough Roger to point to the incredible early start we had with Wanyama playing and to conclude that our poorer run of results coincided with him being injured, whilst ignoring that we also had Lovren and Boruc out during part of that period too. Last season the Cork/Schneiderlin combination was very good and it seems also that Wanyama/Schneiderlin worked well too earlier this season. Today Wanyama and Cork was effective. But it is easy to overlook the part Davis plays together with those combinations. Frankly, we are blessed to have a midfield as talented as ours.

One word describes his contribution in every match he plays - stalwart. He and Davis are both reliability and endeavour personified. They are the rock on which our midfield is anchored. Hard to play our high pressing game without either of them.

Whether we have any combination of Cork/Wanyama/Schneiderlin, the glue that holds them all together is Davis. He truly is the unsung hero of our midfield and were he to be out injured, I bet we would not be as potent a force without him.

A fantastic performance all round and although we missed the cutting edge that Rodriguez gives us, Everton also did not trouble Boruc unduly either. The key to the match was the midfield and we were dominant, despite not having Schneiderlin playing. I understand that the Cork/Wanyama pairing was a first and I was confident that Cork would acquit himself well. Cork was my MOTM yet again, but Clyne, Shaw, Davis and even Wanyama weren't far behind. Again the central defence partnership of Lovren and Fonte was solid, winning most of the aerial battles and generally forming an inpenetrable barrier in front of Boruc, who was largely a spectator. Lambert, Gallagher and Lallana should have had a bit more about them in the box, but otherwise played well holding the ball up, but they should have had a few shots at goal. Lambert did have a good shot at goal from a free kick and hit the foot of the post, Howard beaten. Lallana also had a clear shot, but it was one of his powder-puff shots, lacking venom and straight at Howard. There were three handball shouts for us and one for them, nothing given by the ref. Where it looked as if they had earned a penalty when their player was brought down in our box at the Northam end, I was relieved to see play waved on and their player yellow-carded for simulation. This was a game that I had anticipated losing and hoped for a draw. As it turned out, it would have been a travesty not to have had all three points, as we outplayed them. Out of these three remaining matches until today, this was the one I thought we might get nothing from. I am now thinking that it is not improbable that we might finish with a flourish and win the next two. It will always be a great feat to beat United, but there can seldom be an occasion when our chances will be this good.

But you obviously have no issue with a paper such as the Guardian (which attempts to be a serious newspaper), lacking balance and objectivity. You know, the sort of balance that points out that this is an article solely from the perspective of the United Camp, but that Southampton had recently issued statements to say that no player would be sold without the approval of Pochettino. Therefore there ought to be an acceptance that the article is one-sided until Southampton provide their input as to their position; which they have now done. But I don't see much admission from these same journos that they got it wrong. We're obviously wasting our time expecting them to do so. And it's intelligentsia

This is a reasonable scenario, but it doesn't excuse the line taken by journos that infers that United have reached agreement with Saints and that the deal is pretty well concluded. That's the part that constitutes journos making stuff up, which seems to have escaped your attention. Or as you might prefer to see it, adding two and two and making five. Honestly Gov, it was a reasonable conclusion to reach, given what we were told by the player's agent/ Man United's cleaning lady/ some United fan's blog/ hearing from somebody that Saints were looking at other left backs, etc. So it seems that what they say is not confirmed by us and they have egg on their faces - again. But some of the mud will stick and when the time comes when Shaw or others wish to leave, the groundwork has already been done as to the price, which club will be favourite, etc. Except that the landscape might have changed by then, with these clubs having brought in other players or managers.

I'm tremendously encouraged by Reed's statement. After all, the perceived wisdom of all the forum's greatest experts has consistently told us that anything written by journos, both of the Red Top and Broadsheet varieties, is beyond reproach. I was even challenged to confirm that I was more ready to take the statements from the club as being of greater relevance to the sale of any of our players than the rumours from journos and labelled as naive for taking that stance. But assurances will no doubt follow from these forum experts that the club must be lying, it is what wasn't said that carries more weight, we will be forced to sell against our will, etc, etc. It takes two to tango and until we hear from more reliable sources that any of our players wish to leave, then I am happy to accept that following Reed's statement, they won't.

I can see why it went right over your head.

The highlighted bit is pure supposition on your part. Cortese might have overspent beyond his brief on the day to day running of the club, but I find it hard to believe that he had carte blanche to send millions on players of his choosing without redress to Katharina. Whether the plan is to invest in the additional experienced players required to take us up a place or two next season or not, we will have to wait and see. As yet, there is little to suggest that we will return to what you describe as normal service, presumably the financial struggles that we used to endure before the arrival of the Liebherrs. Personally I will be disappointed if we are unable to move up a couple of places next season, especially if we keep the team more or less intact and relatively injury free. Excuse me for being an optimist and harming the club in the process.

He expressed an opinion and even qualified it by the caveat "I think". You happen to agree with him, but just because the two of you think along the same lines, doesn't make him correct, does it?

Of course, we aren't "forced" to sell because of the FPP regulations. We will only have to sell players who wish to leave for the top few clubs either in England or Europe, because we have been offered stupid amounts of money for them. So Samuels concludes that we are a selling club and always will be. Just as the top clubs have had to sell players that they wished to keep too. And he must be short of a few brain cells to even mention Terry as the sort of player we might wish to buy.

Who knows how many are in that situation? You're making a lot of assumptions as it is, categorising those who might get a ticket from a ST friend as plastics and assuming that those who went to 4 games are real fans. I suspect that as well as all of the lapsed season ticket holders like my son, there are quite a few who live abroad who are dyed in the wool Saints fans and come back to visit family and friends and who would even plan their trips home around matches like the last one of the season, even if it wasn't against a team like Manchester United. Would you categorise Dubai Phil or even Alpine as plastics? There are thousands of Saints fans who have formed supporters groups all around the World and I suspect that when they come over here they rely on ST holders from family or friends to get them tickets for matches

It's all very well using the argument that a ST will buy a ticket for a mate who doesn't normally attend matches, and why should he have priority over somebody who has only been to four games? But it isn't always going to be like that. For example, my older son had to move well away from the area and because he is now faced with a round trip of 400 miles, he is only able to attend a few matches a year now. I had bought three tickets for him this season, but under these new rules, that was not enough and had the Man Utd tickets sold out to those with 4 games, his ST that he held for nearly the past 20 years would count for nothing, in the same way that my two current STs don't either. There are arguments for and against this new system and because of the situation regarding my older son, I still think that ST holders should be able to purchase one extra ticket in a priority position.

The highlighted bit part is the important bit. I have always said that players we want to keep will only be allowed to go for silly money, as we have no financial need to sell them. Regarding the second part, we will have to wait and see whether money will be spent on taking us to the next step up the ladder. In the meantime, there is no evidence that they won't, is there? Does that clear up your befuddled mind?

My God you're naive! Phone calls from agents, eh? You mean the agents with a strong financial interest in getting their players to move to other clubs so that they can get their percentage of the fee? No reason for agents to stir the pot then, no Siree.

Where is your evidence to back up this statement? Do you have privileged info about our finances, the projections for future revenue streams, the balance sheet covering our outgoings? No, I didn't think so. It somehow seems to have escaped your notice that in terms of wealth of ownership, we are not a small club from that perspective. Therefore we do not need £30 million from the sale of Shaw in order to balance the books. We will only sell him because we think it is a good deal or Shaw wants to move. If he is sold for either of those reasons, no doubt you will take it that we were unable to keep him because we were a small club, like Torquay are at their level, and could not do otherwise. I don't hold out much hope of you getting real any time soon.

I think that you'll find that Adkins leaving was a shock to most Sainsts fans and most fans of other teams too and the media . You of course, being the know it all that you think you are, knew that it was on the cards. And of course, I never said that formal statements and official press releases are the most reliable sources of information. What I did mean, is that statements released by the club carry more weight regarding our players than wish lists from other clubs who desire to purchase them. Either I don't explain myself very clearly, you're a bit thick, or deliberately obtuse. Probably the latter.

I should have put a "wink" after it. I was being tongue in cheek. Sorry you didn't detect that. No doubt the revenue that they derive from plastic fans all around the World will get them back into the top four soon, as it did with Liverpool after their dip. But undoubtedly the landscape is changing, with them losing plastic fans after a season like this, whereas many of them will have joined the blue side of Manchester recently instead.

And it's more than you know too. The point that you've managed to miss, is that had the club stated that they had no intention of letting Adkins go, then that would be a more credible source than the media stating that he was on the way to XYZ clubs. It is also worth pointing out that under Cortese, he kept his cards very close to his chest and hardly any rumours had surfaced about the possibility of Adkins leaving, thus causing a huge shock when it happened. The people here now are much more open about things and have stated that they have no intention of selling players that Pochettino wishes to keep. If you prefer to believe the media's rumours over the club's statements, then go ahead. Of course the club is effectively forced to sell a player if the player wishes to leave, as it is not good to have somebody playing for you who doesn't want to be here. It is then up to the Club's board to screw the buyer for as much money as possible. As for the other part about Chelsea, please do explain to me how a source at Chelsea has more say about Shaw than Shaw himself or his Club do. Any club can say whatever they like about how much they want a particular player and what they are prepared to pay for him. They can do it until they go blue in the face or go apoplectic with rage, but it is all so much hot air if the player's club or the player himself do not wish to move to that club. Do you not see that?