Wes Tender

Considering that last season only three additional points would have had us 11th, 5 points 10th and 8 points 8th, you bet Cortese wouldn't be happy with advancing a place a season over the next five years having spent a considerable sum on improving the squad. The big points gap last season was between 8th and 7th, so if the season is as tight as it was last, I see no particular reason for us closing that gap towards 8th, provided that we get in a decent striker and further strengthen the defence.

We've already had a couple of additions to the squad, but it seems that you don't think that they've improved us. And we are after further additions too. Whether targets like Damiao, Osvaldo and Banega are unachievable remains to be seen, but they are an indication of the quality we seek to sign. The rumours that link us with a whole lot of dross? The clue is in the word "rumours". Unscrupulous agents and clueless journos are quite good at spreading rumours for their own agendas. So some rivals have made signings that you believe have seriously strengthened their teams? That remains to be seen, in the same way that we will have to wait to see whether our own signings will strengthen us. Are those players they have signed of the calibre of the ones we have signed, or are looking to sign? I don't think so personally. But as you say, there is plenty enough time to make further signings and the time to judge our prospects for next season is when the transfer window closes. Yes, ideally they will have had some time to bed in to our way of playing, but I'd personally prefer to wait to get the right players than sign lesser players earlier.

Typical of this place for the usual suspects to discuss why Cortese gave the interview, rather than discussing what he said, or the reasons why the media are increasingly taking note of what we are doing here.

The last line, obviously. Apologies for the sarcasm, lowest form of wit, I know. As for the rest, nobody knows what he might consider to be positives or negatives about us or Fulham, but it seems that some are prepared to assume what he would like based on stereotypical perceptions.

Isn't it interesting to have somebody ask the rhetorical question about what a foreign player would think about coming here or going to London and then as an Englishman go ahead and make assumptions as to what an Argentian/Italian's preferences would be? And even then, not knowing the particular individual, to lump him in with all other foreign players as a stereotype.This rather flies in the face of the theory that all footballers are like supermarket workers who will move to another chain just because of an extra £ an hour as apparently it's important for some of them to play for a big club and live in a bit city too. (Where Fulham is concerned, that's one out of two criteria sorted). If he is attracted to the bright lights and the shops, then London is an hour away. Does he even live within the city at Rome, or on the coast nearby? Maybe he hates the crowds of a big city. Perhaps he's got a yacht and goes sailing. Who knows? What he does know is that we have a former manager of his who is also Argentinian and a Chairman who is Italian and he can also ask his old team mate Papa Weigo for his opinion of life down here. How ever did we manage to get them to come here when this is such an insignificant little club in such a boring little provincial City?

I agree that it is his weak point. No good for shots on target to be so powder puff. I can recall shots that would have been goals if they weren't so weak that a defender or the keeper had time to get across to save them.

It isn't a debate about how big we are, but how big we might become under certain circumstances. Also, it seems to have escaped your attention that the debate is about whether we could be Champions of England, not whether we are one of the largest clubs. The largest clubs have a greater chance of succeeding, because it follows that they will generally have more money to throw at it. But even as we stand now, we are patently ahead in the top flight of some of those clubs deemed by you to be bigger than us, which presumably includes some clubs one or even two divisions below us. Talk of us not being able to progress upwards because of historical precedent and therefore in the process becoming a bigger club is plainly nonsense.

Is the correct answer, although the repetition and implied snideness is boring and infantile, in your typical style. Improbable, but possible.

I think that there were a lot of positives that we could take from that match. Schalke were ahead of us in their pre-season preparations and are a seriously good team high in the German top division and in the European Champions League. And yet it took until almost an hour before they broke through, we having matched them well for the first half, despite us playing a pair of youngsters as full backs, having a couple of other mainstays missing and arguably never having our best combination of players on the field together. The object of these pre-season games apart from getting the players towards match fitness, is to blood newly signed players, give some youngsters an outing to see how they are developing and to try different combinations of players and formations. From that point of view, it was a useful game and the strength of the opposition could reasonably have been expected to have come away with a higher scoreline if we weren't somewhere near good enough and disciplined enough to give a good account of ourselves. I didn't see too much of the famed Pochettino high-pressing game though, more like the Adkins style, but no less effective for that. Neither Chambers nor Isgrove looked out of place for players so young and with Shaw playing at the same time, that is three very young players facing such quality opposition. Isgrove does have some real pace, doesn't he? He stroked the ball past their full back and beat him to the ball from a couple of yards behind him and then shot narrowly wide at full stride. Wanyama looked very solid in midfield, but as somebody else suggested, he doesn't yet bring the industry and movement that Cork does. Lovren did OK, but it will take a while before the defence gains an understanding of each other's game and with the goallie. Their first goal was gifted by uncertainty between Fonte and Davis and their second beat Gazanniga at his near post and maybe both might have been avoided. On the other hand, Lambert missed a sitter and was there also a decent appeal for a penalty to us? Things might also have been different had Yoshida and Ramirez been available. Man of the match for us in my opinion was Puncheon. I thought that he looked very lively tonight.

I'd have no qualms at all having a Villacher beer with Alpine even if our opinions might differ on matters relating to Saints and it is encouraging to hear others say the same. I respect that he at least comes across as holding opinions that he is sincere about and is prepared to fight his corner often in the face of hostility and insults, which I admire. At least he is prepared to debate issues often, if treated civilly, which is more than can be said of some whose response to any opinion that doesn't correspond with theirs is either to resort to insults or sarcasm. This is a great opportunity for him and his family to see the team play right on his doorstep and to meet fellow fans and I hope that he has a really good time.

We've already been informed by experts on the other thread that it is not necessary to turn up a couple of hours ahead. Assurances have been given by those who have followed Saints all over the place that 5 minutes will be amply sufficient.

That's not right. That strange little island known as Portsmouth was formed following thousands of years of Sailors having a last crap overboard before going ashore.

European bureaucrats really don't encourage the British electorate to appreciate being members of the EU, do they? And then they wonder why there is all this dissent over here.

Well, if our lords and masters had the common decency to offer us the choice with each successive treaty that got us further into bed with the Eurocrats, we wouldn't be in this mess.

It seems from several posts here, that there is a reasonable consensus that favours leaving the EU, but continuing the original trading agreement we entered when we joined the Common Market. So how about those whose position when offered the stark choice of in or out, choose to remain in? Would they in fact prefer the option of diminishing the encroachment of the EU into our affairs if we were able to bring that about? Or are they indeed perfectly happy with the current situation and content that eventually this path will lead inexorably towards a federal Europe?

A substantial no vote would leave us in a strong negotiating position. We would not accept what they wanted to give us, but what suited us too. You speak as if we haven't ever been screwed already by Europe since we joined. I'm happy for France to slog it out with Germany as to which is the top dog. Perhaps the Frogs will pursuade them that French should then be the main language of Europe. That will be fun

When all's said and done, there are a lot of assumptions made about what the Japanese and Americans and indeed what Europe would do if we voted to leave the EU in a referendum, but that is all they are, assumptions and conjecture. There is a lot of posturing going on, but when push comes to shove, everybody realises that trading tariffs are not going to be in anybodys' interests. And then equally of course it could be argued that if our trading ties were loosened with those partners, we would then form trading agreements with others. When you say let's get real about how it will go, I don't agree with your summary of what will transpire. What will happen in my opinion, is that polls will show a clear majority wishing to leave. There will be the scare-mongering from those alarmists, but instead of that swinging the vote for us to stay in, there will be a groundswell adopting the position that we should retain our trading links with Europe but ditch everything else that has been adopted to turn Europe into the EU instead of the Common Market. Thus we will not be raising the drawbridge on the real world (whatever you perceive that to be) and would have no need to democratise Europe, as we would not be subservient to their laws and quite content with our own democracy. I suspect that regardless of how the yes/no vote divides on here, there would be a clear majority for us to be part of the original Common Market that we joined following the only referendum that we had on the subject without all the other rubbish forced upon us in an attempt to form a Federal Europe. I for one voted for the Common Market and would be entirely happy to return to that unencumbered by everything else. I don't see why there has to be a simple yes/no vote. If UKIP gain a substantial vote during the European Elections, there is time for discussions about a strategy to adopt a fall-back position of retaining the trade agreements but renegotiating everything else that our past governments have signed up to without asking for the approval of the electorate. I expect that the response to that will be that Europe will never agree to it. But then that is what they would say until it becomes clear that we are serious about leaving unless we can renegotiate. That is when the large insustrial concerns within the member states will bring pressure onto their respective governements to reach some compromise with us, because they fear the loss of business with us that would be caused by them placing tariffs on our exports and us retaliating with tariffs on their products. As for your conclusion that if Japan withdrew their car manufacturing presence from the UK, that we would get a government-established British Leyland MK2 here, it seems to have escaped your notice that Red Robbo isn't around any longer and that the TU workers that killed off British Leyland were repaced by robots. We actually have a very hard-working and skilled British workforce in the car industry now and the Sunderland Nissan plant ranks high among their World operations in terms of productivity and innovation. We have some of the best designers here too. Apart from the jobs involved directly in the manufacture of the cars at the plants, there are thousands of jobs tied up in the engineering sector supplying parts. If a number of plants closed in the UK because manufacturing was moved elsewhere, (like Ford Transit, which had nothing to do with the EU debate) then there is no reason why some arch-capitalist entrepreneurs shouldn't set up the manufacture of cars (or vans) over here, especially given the sort of government grants that helped Nissan establish a plant in Sunderland.

I suspect that a lot of the sales of Japanese cars into the European market are to the UK, based on them being made here. If they wish to risk losing a large percentage of that market, then that's up to them. Perhaps the UK government would take the opportunity if the Japanese manufacturers pulled out to re-establish a British volume car maker once more in one of their plants.

Doubleonothing has saved me responding, as that is the point I would have made. The EU placing trade barriers on our goods would be totally counter productive and their manufacturers simply wouldn't allow it.

The US and China aren't in the EU. Ought they to join too, for fear of becoming uncompetitive? Will the Japanese all of a sudden not want to sell their Cars and electronic goods to us if we left? Why would we become uncompetitive anyway if we left? The Japanese expressing an opinion does not constitute evidence, as that would infer that they had to irrefutably correct, which they aren't.

No, perhaps the dream is that we will always remain the middle sized regional football club. The waking reality is that for the first time in our history we are starting to advance beyond that. I don't see us particularly spending way beyond our means. Neither is it necessarily the case that if the Liebherrs lost interest in us, that we wouldn't be taken over by somebody else equally as wealthy who would continue to build on the strong foundations that we are establishing right now. I know that some feel that as we are little old Southampton, we cannot dare to harbour ambitions to rub shoulders with the big boys, but even their fortunes wax and wane. None of us can predict with any certainty where this ambitious charge will lead us eventually and whether it is sustainable over a long period.

The vast majority of Saints fans were caught out by that one, so most of us were prats by your definition. But let's take another case more recent. Shaw was going to Man Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal, City and we were assured by several journos that they were all done deals. But talking about prats, how about you giving us your predictions in advance as to the situation between Man Utd and West Ham for this coming season? Do you think that West Ham will be a) As likely as Man Utd to go down b) Less likely than Man Utd to go down c) More likely than Man Utd to go down Or would you prefer to wait until sufficient time has passed during the season so that it is clear that United going down is a mathematical impossibility?

No it doesn't. It means that some journo made five out of adding two and two and then attempted to save face by insinuating that it was virtually a done deal until Ramirez said he didn't wish to leave. If that journo had taken the trouble to go back a month or two, he would have realised that Ramirez had made his position clear then and he could have saved himself the embarassment of making himself look like a prat.

There's been a lot of belly-aching from Cardiff's owner Tan about how they had a deal agreed for Wanyama and then Celtic took the increased offer from Southampton. I had the impression that we had already agreed that sum, but that Cardiff had only appeared later on the scene when the hiccup surfaced about the agent's fee. In any event, who cares if Tan is a bit miffed? That's life, mate, get on and deal with it. We've several irons in the fire where there will be bidding wars to secure a player's signature. I can't see Cortese whinging like him if we're outbid by somebody else.

Calling people posh just goes to show that there is an inferiority complex and massive jealousy at work. As for the comment about us not being the sharpest knives in the drawer, the irony obviously escaped him that two Skate supporters must have had a single figure IQ between them to do something as stupid as film themselves carrying out their little jape and then broadcast it to the World as evidence to be used against them, complete with the insults towards those employing the company which had sub-contracted their labour. Here's another prime example of Skate thickness. Apart from the extreme improbability that Cortese took the action he did because of his supposed animosity towards the small fourth division club down the road, this idiot doesn't realise how febrile his thought processes appear to be when he talks about records of success and suggests that we can't do anything to redress the balance because they are in a lower division. I didn't see many Skates complaining about that horrible, greedy Premiership when they were there, spending money they didn't possess. If he would have us believe that he would rather be in the fourth division than the Premiership, then I'm afraid he's probably been out in the sun too long.