Wes Tender

The whole episode has been a hilarious diversion in a boring interlude between last season and the next, so I thank these two modern day Laurel and Hardys for entertaining us. It would be nice to imagine one of the culprits turning to the other following their sacking and saying "Here's another fine mess you got us into, Dave" The episode doesn't do much to lessen the stereotypical image of some Skates, that many of them are bit thick.

Braintree must have played out of their skins against the mighty Pompey. It would have been like a Cup Final for them. Even though nothing was riding on it, there was the opportunity to take a glory scalp by winning, one worthy of a footnote in their club's history. In their old age, Braintree fans could have reminisced about the night they beat Pompey. Sadly, it was not to be.

It doesn't sound like the prat toy salesman. He would have ended with ROTFLMAO

Fair enough to accept that there is an element of propaganda to it, but then there is a question of degree to throw in. If a player was asked by somebody to comment on the team spirit and responded that it was good, then that would be what one might expect in normal circumstances at most clubs. But for him to state that he had never before experienced team spirit as good as with this group is a bit more than that and presumably he wouldn't have said that if he didn't believe it.

Exactly. Really good to hear that the team spirit is so good and accordingly it ought to be easier for newcomers to feel a part of something special. We appear to have a good blend of player ages, some different nationalities, experience to mix with raw youth and the management personnel to foster that team spirit. It all bodes well for next season, provided that new additions settle in well with their team mates.

I read that earlier today and generally enjoyed the increased praise that we are receiving from articles like this. Word is gradually spreading. The forum is all about opinions, so stand your ground with yours and don't worry about the flamers. They really don't deserve to have people pay much attention to them.

Hurt pride?

I've also had a driver awareness session. The cuplrit for the speeding offences was that mobile unit they periodically place on that grass triangle heading up the hill towards the Gatso at Bitterne. Apparently, even when you come around the bend at the foot of the hill, by the time you see it, it has already clocked you, so jammimg your feet on the anchors is a waste of time. I just don't go that way any more and instead head off home via Mousehole Lane. By the by, although not speeding related, I once got a parking ticket rescinded by the courts on a technicality. I was parked opposite Debenhams at the foot of East Street on a Sunday and on that small stretch of road on the left hand side between the East Street Centre and the corner of Queensway, there are no parking restriction signs, but there is a single yellow line. I challenged the ticket on the basis that I thought that parking on a single yellow would be allowed on a Sunday. The Council's correspondence arguing the toss soon filled a folder, as they took legal advice stating that I didn't have a leg to stand on, but I took it to the Ombudsman who found in my favour. Although the Council had large signs at various places around the City centre detailing the parking restrictions within the controlled zone, the Ombudsman accepted that motorists couldn't be expected to read them while concentrating on their driving and therefore it was the duty of the Council to place the parking times on a sign adjacent to the single line. Needless to say, the bastards still haven't erected a parking times sign there, as they probably gain quite a bit of revenue from unsuspecting motorists who don't challenge the fine.

He seemed to be a decent enough option when we were after him earlier, but somehow I find my self distinctly underwhelmed at the prospect of getting him in now. In light of the sort of strikers with whom we are now being linked, he appears a bit bargain basement all of a sudden.

Nothing to argue about there and some good points made. But typically the usual brigade stuck in their time-warps do their best to discredit any arguments that run counter to their own opinions, refuse to acknowledge the simple truth that over a period of time, the hierarchy will often change due to any number of different circumstances. When they are forced to admit that Saints ending up in the top four is not an impossibility, all that ensues from them is scorn and insults whenever anybody dares to suggest that we are headed in that direction. And even if we did get up there, we can never ever be a bigger club than them, even if we were there for a decade, (presumably with the accompanying enlarged stadium that we would need to build in the process), because they have history as bigger clubs behind them.

I realise that you would probably not consider us a bigger club than Spurs and Everton, but then you're only one fan, supposedly a supporter of Saints. How other neutral fans would think of us under those circumstances is more pertinent, but I'm impressed with your arrogance that you feel suitably qualified to speak on their behalf.

Where are Man Utd and Sunderland? Off the graph somewhere? I presume that's United between Swansea and Arsenal perhaps?

Your opinion and entitled to it, of course. UKIP aren't going to be elected to form the Government any time soon, but before the next General Election there are the European Elections. As they are effectively a one policy party and that policy is to leave the EU, if UKIP gain a substantial number of MEPs, that will concentrate the minds of our MPs of all parties wonderfully. I expect them to emerge as the party with the biggest number of MEPs, Eurosceptic to a man. And I don't agree for one minute that all three parties would be campaigning against leaving. Following a really good showing by UKIP in the European Elections, pressure will be on parties to adopt a fall-back position, that the British electorate if they voted to leave the EU in a referendum, might be pursuaded to remain in Europe solely as part of a trading partnership, such as that which we originally joined under Ted Heath's Government. If the main parties attempted to whitewash over the electorate's clear signal that they wanted to leave the EU, the General Election would probably find UKIP with as many seats as the other main parties, producing another hung parliament with them holding the whip hand. So the position that the main parties adopt on Europe following a substantial vote for UKIP in the preceding European Elections is key to how they will campaign in a referendum. My suspicion would be that a direct YES to leaving, or NO to leaving choice would see a victory for the YES campaign, whereas an intermediate option to stay in, but solely as part of a renegotiated trading agreement and nothing else, is the best hope against a vote to leave.

I'd be quite happy if the media began to call us "plucky" Southampton.

Well, we were bound to agree about something sooner or later. All of these drastic changes have been brought about by successive Governments without the electorate being able to vote on them. Promises have been made in election manifestos that there will be a referendum, but then those promises have been broken. Governments claim that because they were elected, that they have a mandate for a basket of policies, Europe being just one of several dozen covering a wide selection of other issues. And yet many vote because of the party colours, or because one or more issues that they feel important are supported by one party, so they will vote for them. There has been too little to choose between the parties on Europe and in any event they might not wish to vote for the party taking their approved stand on Europe because they disagree with the politics of that party in other areas. In other words, the system does not allow the public to vote exclusively on this one very important area. Therefore a referendum is the only fair and realistic solution. MPs are scared stiff of allowing a referendum because they know that currently we would vote to leave. But thankfully because UKIP is effectively a one issue party offering the electorate a say on this, if they gain the most votes in the European Elections next year, they will force the other parties to review their positions or face electoral anihilation in the next General Election.

It appears to have escaped your notice that what we voted for in 1974 has changed rather substantially since and is virtually a different entity. What we voted for then was solely a trading alliance, which was why it was called the Common Market. Since then, because of the further Treaties of Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice, the entity has instead become a European Union embracing significant changes to our constitution and encompassing political, legal and foreign policy union. If you're happy that these substantial changes do not need to be put to the electorate in another referendum, then fine, but that is not a position acceptable to a large percentage of the electorate who feel that the Governments of either party since, did not have a mandate to give away this sovereignty just because it was covered as one issue in a manifesto covering dozens of other policy proposals. Frankly, your question about why there isn't pressure to revisit votes for women or whether a man should walk in front of cars carrying a red flag are absurd. Couldn't you come up with anything better? Is there pressure to have referenda on those issues that I seem to have missed? If there was a referendum on our continued membership that returned a yes vote, then everybody would have to be content that the voting public had decided on that course of action and would abide by it. As in this case being discussed here, there would be no need for another referendum for as long as there were no significantly important further changes to our constitution. All this talk earlier in the thread about our elected MPs being the only ones capable of deciding these things because Joe Public is as thick as two short planks is inflamatory rubbish and infers that most MPs are more intelligent than the average man in the street, when judging by the behaviour of some of them it is plainly not true.

Coliseum used to have the contract and managed to supply Saints with a coach of that calibre previously. But several months back, they sold the business to Fareham based Lucketts Coaches. I have no idea why they lost the contract to a Liverpool based company. But serve them right for supplying a team coach to the Skates and also having an away coach for Man Utd supporters in the region.

Quote: Buctootim: Quote Buctootim: Is he going for the record of most consecutive posts in an hour, perhaps?

Excellent post. But Hartson believing that we are bottom six relegation fodder just illustrates how out of touch with reality the idiot is and what a poor choice he is to be a pundit on TV. He really ought to be bright enough to figure out that if all of these brilliant players join little ole Southampton, they are likely to reap the benefits and cease to be relegation prospects. Come on John, join the dots together and try to reach a more logical conclusion. Shameful events in his past career as a footballer demonstrate that he isn't the sharpest tool in the box, but this sort of opinion illustrates that he doesn't even know much about the current football situation. A panel of Lawrenson, Savage and Hartson, what dross would that be?

No mention of Pahars? He was pretty good value for £800,000 or so, wasn't he?

The Egyptian shopkeeper might well intimate that as the price he is looking for, but the situation is the same as if one was buying a carpet in a Cairo bazaar. It's an opening gambit to ascertain whether anybody is stupid enough to agree to it, but the expectation is that the selling price would be much lower. Mind you, when it comes to buying football clubs in the Premiership, there are always some Arabs with more money than sense and Russian mafia looking to launder money, so who knows?

You're doing it again. Perhaps you're not aware you do it, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and asume that it's your normal WUM modus operandi.

Where did I say we were as good as Spurs? This is why I'm not going to reply to your questions, because there is little point. You'll only twist it as you have here. You're not really capable of sensible debate, so I won't waste my time on you. If you're not twisting things, then your other ploy, as in your response to Frank's post, is to throw insults. It's a bit childish and pathetic really.

You edited this post and you also edited the response to Frank's and still neither of them make any sense. Have you been on the juice?

Probably, but not certainly. There are only 2 or 3 players in World football arguably comparable or better than Bale. Replace him with one of those, fine. Otherwise you are talking about spending the money on two or more players, who would be expected to replace other players and it isn't always the case that players costing loads of money necessarily prove their worth at every club, or indeed in a different country. It also depends if on receiving £40 million for Bale whether they spend it all on players to replace him to strengthen the squad