Wes Tender

The irony of a Sunderland fan accusing us of living in a **** city! As you say, Sunderland and Middlesborough must be two of the ugliest cities in the country. It must have been refreshing for them to be able to breathe relatively unpolluted air for a few hours. As for their fans, credit for travelling such a distance but I'll excuse their quiteness because they probably had to get up quite early to get here and most were probably suffering from coach lag.

I'm not particularly aware of an historic anti-Saints bias in the Telegraph and in any event, the article is about an individual player, although it does mention the effect that our management and sports science department has had on him.

Well, it certainly seems to be producing the results, although it is arguable that the fixture list has been kinder to us since the opening first few matches, which were probably the most difficult of any team's since the beginning of the Premiership. But psychologically, Adkins recognised that the team's confidence still needed to be boosted to get us back into the winning habit, despite the fixture list being easier, so it seems that his tactics have been spot on. But looking back over his tenure here so far, there isn't much in the way of dissent or lack of respect for him that filters out of the changing rooms, so it appears that the "together as one" approach is productive and effective.

A masterly summary of his MO by Wessex Saint. It is a shame that posters like you and he don't come on here more often, put off by the small handful of trolls and wind-up merchants who ruin the forum for others. Of course, it is possible to put those individuals on ignore, but then somebody else quotes them making that pointless. For example, I see that he has chided you for believing that you speak for many others who deplore the way that he and this handful of buddies ruin the forum. Well, over the past year, there have been plenty enough posters expressing the same point to give it some real validity, whereas I don't see a massive rush of posts defending them, apart from the culprits themselves. Ultimateley, the mods should have a good hard look at this situation and realise that there is probably a significant number of posters who would become full members and contribute more, but who are put off by a handful of disruptive individuals and their puerile behaviour.

I'm more embarassed by thuggish behaviour in our fans rather than the innocent fun that some might derive from wearing what they like on matchdays. I'd much rather that people harmlessly looked like a prat, rather than behaving like one and disgracing the Club and City because they got their activities reported in the local and national media.

Just as a matter of interest, do most other sporting events levy a charge for every ticket purchased, or is there just one transaction charge regardless of the number of tickets?

Totally agree.

Bought tickets for me and my son on Monday as ST holders. Was horrified to see that there was to be an additional cost for each ticket, even when paying with a debit card. So I went to the nearest cash machine and came back and paid cash, so avoiding the extra £3 charge. On getting back home, I fired off an email asking why there should be a charge for use of a debit card and also why there was a charge for each ticket, even when there was only one transaction. I also observed that the club did not make a charge for the use of cards in the purchase of goods from the Satints Store and asked what the difference was here. I suggested that it was because we were a captive audience who could be fleeced because even if some stayed away, others would take their place, whereas the sales of merchandise would definitely suffer if a charge for the use of a card was levied. Thankfully as a ST holder, I don't have to buy tickets except for cup matches, but if we get past Chelsea and get another home match worth watching, I'm thinking about paying my £50 or so in £1 coins. On the plus side for the club, they at least sent me a letter in response to my email, which didn't say much and certainly did not provide any answers to the points I raised. They say that they adopted the new policy in the close season. As with all charges, they monitor, record and analyse the feedback they receive and evaluate the value or merit of these changes. They acknowledge that any kind of fees are unpopular and consider that alongside all of the other advantages and disadvantages. They assured me that they do take all feedback very seriously and my comments are noted. So if this ticket tax is despised by others, I suggest that the way to get them to amend their thinking is to email the ticket office in sufficient numbers so that they have to think again. Or else pay cash in small denomination coins.

Well, if he thinks he's Dickens, then the famous quote by Wilkins Micawber ought to have sprung readily to mind, so that it would have been obvious to him what the end result would be following the massive expenditure of monies that the Skates didn't possess. "Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds, nineteen shillings and six pence, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery."

I didn't mention any names at all. Certainly there were those who wrote off our season that early and if they feel a bit sheepish about it, then good. Regarding Downing, he has always struck me as an intelligent player with ability and certainly I'd be delighted if he came to us, provided that his wages weren't too excessive. He appears to lack a bit of confidence after a poor spell at Liverpool, who are in the doldrums at the moment. I have absolute faith in Adkins' ability to turn around a player's confidence levels and in this senvironment with the other players we have, I think that he would thrive.

Cortese came via a banking background in sports investment and through that, interested Markus Liebherr in taking us over, so it isn't exactly true that neither Lowe nor Cortese were totally uninvolved in football before they came to the club. Lowe might have come from a banking background but was in business in a relatively small way running retirement homes, when he arrived at the club. He came to us via the morally corrupt reverse takeover, when arguably there were other groups who were interested in us, but who were not given the chance to make their bids, unlike the Cortese/Liebherr scenario where they were the ones delayed by the tyre-kickers. Lowe was the product of an English Public school education, whereas as far as I know, Cortese was not. He is Tweed and Saville Row, Hockey and Rugby, Cortese is Armani and football. Lowe brought no real investment into the club, whereas Cortese brought a billionaire to the table. Yes, they both perceive the development of the academy as an important part of the club's future development. But Lowe as part of keeping our heads above the water, to generate future income and knowing that we would be forced to sell those players to keep a level keel financially, whereas Cortese's desire is to keep those players as an investment in our future, to improve the team without a need to sell. I still stick to my chalk and cheese analogy.

The ones who really know all about football are those capable of writing off a team before the season is one third through; they're the real experts.

Complete and utter tosh. There are as many similarities between chalk and cheese. I'd be interested to see your list of areas where there are similarities between the two of them, I really would, because background certainly isn't one of them, nor is the way that they came to be associated with the club, or the way that they present themselves to the media or to the fanbase.

And yet not long ago, we thrashed Villa. So on the basis of your analogy, who is the best team of the three of us? There's nothing that unusual about a scenario like this; it happens often enough and you can't really draw any realistic conclusions from it.

I note that on the Pompey takeover thread, we showed that most of us are decent human beings with a bit of class, as many expressed condolences towards the family of a Pompey fan who died yesterday on his way home from Fratton Park. What a shame that on our own forum comprising fellow Saints fans that we have somebody who lacks this basic humanity towards another of our own fans during a time of similar personal grief. I'm pleased to see that my faith in human nature is partly restored by the shocked response and universal condemnation that has been heaped on the offender. Please add my sympathy and best wishes to those expressed by others, Avenue Saint.

Shhh. It's a tactical ploy to get Reading's set-up wrong-footed. Shaw always get a twinge in his ankle before matches that he can't wait to get stuck into. Frankly, I'd be worried if he didn't have the twinge.

So now Sky sports are reporting that Fiorentina have expressed no interest in taking Ramirez, at least not at this stage.

Yes. Clyne's physical reactions are quicker than Clattenburg's mental reactions.

Maybe. When there are 5 or 6 possible scenarios as to the factors that might affect the decision, then it is obviously open to interpretation, probably to give the referees a get out clause when their decisions are questioned. But the question is, if it occurred in the penalty area, would a penalty have been awarded? Often not, therefore raising these consistency issues again.

The replay that I watched showed that Clyne had got the ball first. Discussion on here about how the laws regarding tackles should be interpreted determined that a free kick might be awarded if there was clumsiness, undue force, etc, but Adkins didn't think that there was anything wrong with it and neither did I. And then watching Clattenburg in his next match, the Arsenal - Swansea game, there was as near as possible an identical tackle in that match, which Clattenburg let go without so much as a wagging finger. What would be nice, would be some consistency. The only thing consistent about refereeing at St Mary's this season, is how consistently poor it is.

So all this speculation appears to be groundless. That's par for the course.

So what? If it means that by avoiding paying their taxes they have a competitive advantage over their British rivals who do pay those taxes, then I'm not going to cry over the witch hunt, which incidentally seems to be bringing then to heel. They bleat about their ethical fair trade ethos on the one hand, while trying to get away with a tax avoidance scheme which is morally reprehensible at the same time. If people wish to call them hypocrites and therefore exercise their right as consumers to boycott their products, then it serves them right.

Watched it all the way through. He seems a very capable guy, knowledgeable in his subject and a good communicator. I'll be very interested to see what he can bring to us in terms of customer satisfaction and brand awareness.

Received this little snippet from a friend today. I don't know how much truth there is in it, but they are seemingly doing themselves no good at all and if true, they deserve a good kicking. Starbucks paid zero UK corporation or income tax in the last 3 years. The world's biggest coffee chain recorded UK sales of £3.1 billion over a period of 13 years during which it paid £8.6 million on total UK taxes. Think that's bad? How about this; Recently, British Royal Marines in Afghanistan wrote to Starbucks because they wanted to let them know how much they liked their coffees, and to request that they send some of it to the troops there. Starbucks replied, telling the Royal Marines thank you for their support of their business, but that Starbucks does not support the war, nor anyone in it, and that they would not send the troops their brand of coffee. So as not to offend Starbucks, maybe we should support them by NOT buying any of their products! I feel we should get this out in the open. I know this war might not be very popular with some folks, but that doesn't mean we don't support the boys on the ground, fighting street-to-street and, house-to-house. If you feel the same as I do then please pass this along. Thanks very much for your support. I know you'll all be there again to support us when we deploy once more. Sgt Howard Wright, 1 Platoon, Recon Company, Royal Marines PLEASE BE KIND ENOUGH AND DON'T DELETE THIS... PLEASE PASS TO EVERYONE ON YOUR E- MAIL LIST, IN MEMORY OF ALL THE TROOPS WHO HAVE BEEN WOUNDED, LOST LIMBS AND EVEN DIED, SO THAT WE MAY HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE ! Also, please don't forget that when the Twin Trade Towers were hit, the fire fighters and rescue workers went to Starbucks because it was close by, for water for the survivors and workers, and Starbucks CHARGED THEM!!! AN ADDED NOTE TO THIS: STARBUCKS HAD STORES ON SEVERAL MILITARY BASES IN THE UNITED STATES. THEY ARE NOW BEING REMOVED BECAUSE OF THIS. There are 227 Starbucks stores across the UK, and there's no doubt that our soldiers would get the same response from this company, so let us do our bit and boycott Starbucks to show them how despicable their actions are. When the Underground was bombed in London, the Marks and Spencer's store at Edgware Road gave all the stock away to those in need. Perhaps you might care to get your coffee in there instead!

Skate:Originally Posted by freda So what is wrong with most fans of other clubs just presuming that they spent money they didn't have and are now receiving their just Atacamas, Saharas, Gobis, Kalaharis etc.