Wes Tender

I reiterate; I read it that you are in the draw for these prizes if you attend any of those four matches. It could be that an entry into the draw is available for each of those matches attended; it isn't clear.

Eminently possible

The window isn't closed yet, so a case of premature ejaculation here. But in any event, even if no replacement is signed, it is debateable whether getting rid of the bad apple in the barrel is a negative. And presumably you know all the ins and outs of the deal to know that we have "lost" him for nothing. So we don't receive a penny from Juventus and if they choose to sign him at the end of the loan, they can do it for nothing?

Have I misread the offer that was emailed to me? That infers that just for buying a ticket for the Stoke match (for my son), I have been entered into the draw for these prizes. If that is the case, then your name will be entered into the draw if you buy a ticket to any of those four matches.

Out of the 18 teams still in it, 11 are Premiership teams. Of those four teams you mention, 2 of them will be out of the Cup, as they are playing each other. If we beat Sunderland, then that's another Premiership club gone. Everton and Swansea will reduce it by yet another one. Even if all of the Premiership clubs manage to beat their lower division opponents which is never a certainty in the Cup, there would still be a lower division team, either Sheffield Wednesday or Charlton, and Fulham, Cardiff, Hull, and either Arsenal/Liverpool, Man City/Chelsea, Everton/Swansea. If we beat Sunderland and were really lucky and drew the winner of Sheffield Wednesday/Charlton, beat them and we would be in the semi-finals. With home advantage, we could beat anybody on our day.

http://www.sportsdirectnews.com/premier-league-news/39411-southampton-saints-keep-tabs-on-ligue-1-striker.php Is there anything in this, or it it the usual idle speculation or agent talk?

Is this your version of the "Man Utd are as likely to be relegated as West Ham"? Because of course it's a nonsense. To gain 4th position in the league requires a degree of consistency over 19 matches. Winning the FA Cup requires us to win 6 just matches, half of which are likely to be against teams in a lower position to us.

Given the choice (hypothetically), Id rather swap with Chelsea or Man City. If you think that anybody would wish to swap with Sunderland on any level at all, you must have a screw loose to even think it.

Well that's a start. Although I have always managed to find parking within a 100 yards or so of the stadium when I have been to buy tickets, I could see how it might niggle others. If somebody was buying merchandise in the shop, then the parking ticket should be validated/refunded, as it is in many other retail places. Now it remains to look at the wider picture and fill the corporate boxes and price tickets for Cup matches at a level which will fill the stadium, at the same time encouraging parents to bring their kids, so that we get the next generation of fans hooked.

Arrogant Arsenal pr*ck found on News Now:- Response by Saints fan Dan C post match: :lol:

We should have won it, as apart from the short spell after play began for the second half, we were by far the better team. We were at their throats from the off and really could have been two or three goals up in the first half with better finishing. The midfield was immense, shutting down their playmakers, not allowing them the space to play their game, which is normally enough to tear most teams apart. We closed them down, cut off the supply to their expensive primadonnas and pressed them back into their own half for most of the first 45 minutes. Anybody who did not know which team was top of the division, would have guessed that it was us. When they got back into it with those two quick second half goals, we were guilty of a lack of focus and allowed them too much space and time on the ball and they punished us for it. But thankfully this is a team that doesn't let their heads drop and is good enough to regain the upper hand by continuing to do what brought results in the first half. Having levelled the score, I was hopeful that we might go on to win it and we certainly had the chances to do so. But having lost Flammini, Arsenal decided that discretion was the better part of valour and that they would settle for the point. I'm proud of our performance and acknowledge that apart from a moment of madness by Boruc and a ridiculous penalty awarded by Clot 'n' Berk, we would have had two draws against Arsenal this season. When we play like this, we can prove a match for any team in the division and it has only been Chelsea that has clearly been better than us so far. Cork was again my MOTM, although there were several superb performances from others like Lallana, Shaw, Chambers, Morgan, Davies in particular. Gallagher acquitted himself well for his debut and should have done a Shearer with that chance he had faced with an open goal. Had we had the options at least to introduce Lambert, Lovren and Wanyama, I think that the three points would have been ours without a shadow of doubt.

I see it as it was. The method of his arrival here has no justification, as it was a deliberate ploy to enrich the Old Board members. The shades of grey people will attempt to justify it by pointing to the benefits they perceive of us then becoming a PLC, but it doesn't excuse the unethical nature of Lowe's arrival and the greed incentive that brought it about. It certainly didn't bring much in the way of investment, which was always lacking throughout his tenure. Lowe is given credit for gaining us St Mary's, but I merely point out that Stoneham appeared to be the only option at the time and he cocked-it up. Is it too black and white to credit Southampton City Council for saving his bacon? The good things he did for the club? Well, the catering was supposed to be good and of course we had our own radio station. We avoided relegation on many occasions, but credit for that could be laid at Le Tissier's door. Whether the new manager every year could be classified as a plus or a minus, I don't know. The position achieved under Strachan was definitely a plus, but then his leaving and the lack of investment to cement our position was a minus. There was the "tell Lowe" email address, I suppose. That might have been a plus, had he taken any notice of it. Other plusses? I'm struggling frankly and in any event, the minuses weigh the scales far more heavily.

I concur fully with Alpine's post, that a lot of revisionism is taking place on this debate, this post being a classic example. The land had been earmarked by Southampton Council for Social Housing and thankfully the opportunity to change that usage was recognised at the time that Lowe cocked-up Stoneham and it became apparent that there appeared nowhere else we could go. Some Saints fans with connections on Southampton City Council saved Lowe's bacon. I'm obviously a colleague in arms with you and also if I'm not mistaken Alpine. All the apologists for the Lowe regime can bleat all they like about the things he did which they consider to be good for the club, but at the same time they choose to ignore the unethical and immoral way that the old board invited the reverse takeover to enrich themselves, attempting to hoover up shares to distribute to their cronies. No realistic assessment of Lowe's tenure can be made if the shonky circumstances of his arrival at the club are glossed over. The club's demise under him and Wilde had two beneficial outcomes. The first was the arrival of Markus Liebherr on the scene. The second was that we were finally rid of Lowe, Cowan, Askham, Wiseman, Richards and all the other charlatans. The additional bonus was that all of them lost of the value of their shares so that all of their devious manoeuvrings came to nought. Much as I feel that this has been done to death, I see that unless the revisionists are pulled up on their innacurate musings, history will eventually come to see the Lowe era as being not as bad as it really was for the club.

Why are we raking over these old coals yet again? The best thing to do with the Lowe era, is either to forget it as a footnote in our history, or be grateful that he cocked everything up so completely that he enabled Markus Liebherr to buy us and begin our phoenix-like rise.

We should get rid of him as soon as possible. Whereas it is possible that he could yet come good as a striker if given the opportunity, there remains the likelihood also that the next incident like this will result in him losing it on the pitch and being banned for several matches at a crucial point in the season. And that is without factoring in the affect that this incident will have had on team morale. Up to now, the impression is that the team are a tight knit bunch who get on well together and play for each other. Oswaldo could upset that and it isn't worth risking. If he was a brilliant striker knocking in the goals for us, then he could be accorded some lattitude. But so far he isn't. He is obviously a good player, but not for us.

Katharina is really on a hiding to nothing with some of our fans. She promises that the Club will now be run on a more open basis and in the best interests of the Club, its staff, the players and the fans. Her making this statement soon after Cortese's departure and following up with information about the appointment of an interim CEO already distinguishes her control of the Club from that of Cortese, as his modus operandi was to appear aloof and secretive towards the fanbase, who hardly ever knew what was happening until they read it on the official site. And yet despite her openness receiving plaudits from the majority who see it as a refreshing change, there are those who aren't content because they do not have the fine detail and choose to put a sinister slant on her intentions. Cortese had ambitions for us to play in the European Champions League and those ambitions have been financed by Katharina since her father's death. Now, because she has not come out and said specifically that those ambitions still remain, some suspect that she does not share them. Not only that, but it is concluded that mid-table mediocrity is acceptable to her. Some people really do have fertile imaginations which are working overtime at times like these. Katharina Liebherr has been a reclusive personality up to now, but all of a sudden, based on a short statement and the first of a few appointments, these posters are able to make snap judgements about her future plans for the Club. It has only been one week since the bombshell announcement was made that Cortese was gone. Following that announcement there was a feeding frenzy in the media about how the manager would leave, the best players would leave, the club was going to be sold, as Katharina Liebherr had no interest in it. Now on the face of it, all of that speculative conjecture has proven to have little or no foundation and thankfully those on here that went into meltdown are now reduced to nit-picking the minutiae for some subtle nuance in the announcements and appointments that might support their position. One suspects that some like to express the contrary position just on the off-chance that the time might come when they can say "I told you so". As far as I'm concerned, the dust is already settling on the seismic revelations of last week and the ensuing statements leave me encouraged that not a lot will change, apart from the distinct possibility that we the fans will be given much more consideration towards the way that we are treated by the Club. Unless I'm mistaken, our importance to the Club as its supporters will be recognised and acknowledged more than under the Cortese regime, so that in itself might yet be a cause for celebration. As for the longer term repercussions, in the absence of a crystal ball we will all have to wait and see how it all unfolds. Life is too short to worry about things that may or may not not happen in the future.

You seem to miss the point and appear to be incapable of seeing that the role would not have anything to do with his abilities as an Ice Hockey coach, but more to do with his motivational powers, for which he is apparently renowned. But if you believe that that role is adequately fulfilled by Pochettino, then fair enough. Presumably you know for a fact that all of the players are motivated to the maximum already by him, the sums of money they are paid, the honour of wearing the shirt, the esprit de corps, etc. Oh, and also playing in the highest profile league in the World obviously means that no player in that division needs any motivational input to improve themselves. After all, PL players are so much more gifted mentally than those in the Italian, German and Spanish leagues. But as Tony Yorke believes football players to be morons, how can MP be doing so well at motivating ours single-handedly?

Stretch your imagination and divorce the words "Hockey Coach" from the equation. In the same way that SCW produced brilliant results from motivating our Olympic athletes and you presumably would ask why they should have employed a Rugby Coach?

Probably not. The Watford forum suggested that the reason that he had given for leaving them was that it was too far for him to travel daily from his home in Market Bosworth and he missed seeing his family. Apparently it was not feasible for him to move down to Watford for some reason. Although he crows about how successful he had been in his marketing work, he left after less than a year. I read between the lines and see in his low opinion of footballers some other reason for his departure. As others have concluding, he seems to be a bitter man.

I already picked this up and commented on it via the Open letter from Katharina Liebherr thread. Essentially the man is clearly an idiot if he believes that Rugby players, Ice Hockey players, Olympic Athletes are all capable of assimilating motivational techniques, but for some reason known only to him, football players are not. So Sir Clive Woodward failed with the club when the dinosaur Redknapp was manager and Lowe Chairman, all those years ago. Therefore it can never work with footballers ever again and anybody who disagrees is obviously a lunatic. And he has the audacity to talk about people having screws loose. Incidentally, he was director of communications for under a year at Watford over 7 years ago, so that obviously qualifies him to give such insider knowledge of the intelligence of all footballers.

Not to mention the Channel Islands, which produced Matt Le Tissier and Graham Le Saux.

Here is the club he was involved with - Watford. Some time ago. No particular reason to suspect that he's a Skate, as his teams are Leicester and Hull.

I couldn't find a link to that anywhere. I'm not a twitter aficionado, so I can't cross swords with him regarding his ridiculous assertion that footballers do not have the mental capacity to accept motivational techniques, whereas other sportsmen who play Ruby or Ice Hockey, or Olympic athletes are capable of absorbing it all. Perhaps somebody who does twitter can challenge him. Trousers?

Saw this article posted on NewsNow by somebody who asks whether a lunatic (Katharina Liebherr) is now running the asylum? http://www.sportsdirectnews.com/tony-yorke/38861-have-saints-learned-nothing-from-woodward-failure.php It appears that this guy thinks that because the experiment with Sir Clive Woodward failed, Katherina has lost her marbles trying it again. This bloke doesn't appear to have the mental capacity to factor in the possible flies in the ointment when such a thing was attempted all those years ago, that SCW had to deal with football dinosaur Redknapp and that it is likely that he had a big influence on the players under his control. He dismisses it, they dismiss it. Neither does he make any connection when he dismisses this appointment as lunacy, with the regime installed by Cortese whereby the players' mattresses are dispatched pre-match to the players' hotels all around the country. As I don't recall him opining that that was barking mad, I must assume that he considered it to be normal, something that all clubs do. Where Tony Yorke goes wrong in my opinion, is with his assertion that a sports motivator can succeed with Rugby players, Ice Hockey players, Olympic athletes of all disciplines, but somehow not with football players. Apparently, they just don't have the mental capacity to take it all on board, do they, Tony? Or could it be as I conclude that you're the one with the deficient mental capacity, Tony?

A very warm statement of intent and how nice for her to address it directly to us fans. Since the massive upheaval that the news of Cortese's departure caused, there had been the usual knee-jerk conjecture and speculation aided and abetted by the media. It is encouraging to see that as well as her recent rebuttals that have been reported in the more serious newspapers, we now have assurances from her ourselves. This statement of intent clarifies her commitment and underlines her original statement last week that it was "business as usual" At the very least, it buries the supposition that she is looking to sell the club in the short term and accusations that have been made that she isn't interested in football might or might not be accurate, but at least she shows an interest in running the football business well. I'm particularly encouraged that it is promised that when there is further news or developments, we will be notified. Dare we hope that this openness will translate into a two-way dialogue between us and the board, so that anything positive and constructive that we propose as supporters will be viewed sympathetically? I'm talking here about the niggling little things that were introduced by Cortese which rankled with many of us and seemed to be a bit mean-spirited.