Wes Tender

It really is delicious, the irony of you preaching about the moral high ground at us. I don't recall us owing a penny to local charities, the tax man, or local businesses. As for standing around with our hands in our pockets, we had bucket collections, organised marches in protest against Lowe and Wilde and also some with the highest principles boycotted the club until they were gone. So don't talk to us about morality. Many of us realised that ultimately a boycott would force the club over the brink and that although administration was a gamble, the likelihood would be that somebody else would take us over and rid us of Lowe, Wilde, Askham, Richards, and all the other dross attached to us. I suspect that there is an element of your fan base that is currently boycotting you until the likes of Chainrai is gone. That might account for your falling attendances, but I don't see you or anybody else mentioning it as an effective weapon to bring about change, a reason to claim that you lot have principles. And although you wring your hands and cry crocodile tears about the succession of crooks who owned you, I don't recall any protests against them. So who's gutless? But then, if you had principles, you lot would not have countenanced charities being defrauded and you would have deemed it a priority to make that right. And Ball, who was also a player for us and a good manager here too, got it a bit wrong. The majority of soldiers who left to fight in the Second World War, went out from Southampton.

Agreed. We should have thrashed both Manchester teams and kept clean sheets both matches. Their strikers are crap. As for the Wigan team, we really ought to have beaten them 5 - 0 or so. Letting them score against us was inexcusable, especially their second. We shouldn't have stretched ourselves chasing the game, that's for sure.

Anything we say, is labelled as being the opinions of badly informed and naive rivals, whereas Sue Maskell is apparently somebody whose views command his respect. But Maskell only anticipates a future for the Skates based on the Trust taking over the reins in conjunction with people suddenly interested in the club because they are property developers. So who is naive? Most of us are of the opinion that the only way that they can have a future, is by liquidating and reforming at the lowest level and rebuilding unemcumbered by the likes of Chainrai and other leeches. But to carry on by avoiding liquidation with the help of property developers? Wouldn't they want a significant say in the way that the club would be run by the Trust? As would these high net worth individuals. Unfortunately this would dilute the influence of the so-called ordinary fans. And another interesting snippet from Maskell:- Do I understand you correctly, Sue? Are you indeed suggesting that an exception to the new rules be made in the case of the Skates? Why? Because you would be ambitious, as you have been the past decade? Unable to work within the constraints that other clubs will be forced to? They also rode the crest of the wave by being the first club in the history of the Premier League to go into administration. They must be so proud. But they are not the first to be taken over by a supporters' Trust, although she would no doubt argue that the Skates are the biggest. And as for the mention she made of Portpin's proposal to charge the Trust £1 million a year to rent Krap Nottarf, how does she propose they get around that? The takeover of the club out of administration by the Trust isn't going to work. If they manage to cobble something together, they are just going to hit the buffers again further down the line. Already, had they proceeded along the liquidation route and reformation as a new club from the lowest level, they would have made some progress on their journey towards the second division, where they belong.

Me too. I was there. Also the very similar end result against Tranmere, which I watched on TV at the Lamp & Mantle, West End. Why did Hoddle make those substitutions, eh, Dalek?

Who's moaning about them? We allow tame Skates on here. It's them that are made to look small time with their attempts at cleansing their forum of us, largely on the basis that they just can't take the fact that we are once more the top team on the South Coast and they don't wish to acknowledge the truth. Small time it might seem, but you have to weigh up the sheer enjoyment that we derive by poking sticks metaphorically at the village idiots. I'm sure that they would find comfort in the thought that most of us are spotty teenagers whose only conscious recollections are of the Skates superiority over us, but I have witnessed several Saints wins over them in my time, so that during my lifetime, they were at their very peak when I was born. Since then, apart from their very recent sojourn in the Premier League, for most of the rest of my life Saints have been the dominant force. Sorry to disappoint the Skate. No, I'm not really.

Dear old Trigger! And Benali in the left back spot, the ever present threat of a red card or a ball cleared somewhere into the depths of the West stand.

Put me down as another sash admirer. Likewise I wouldn't mind it permanently. It is distinctive and individual. I can't stand the new red kit, but lke others, don't mind the white away kit.

8-10. We will be the surprise package. Like Swansea and Norwich last year, but even better.

Cortese wouldn't be here if it weren't for Lowe. Discuss

Not outrageous at all, Alps. In fact it is exactly in line with this proposal for debate made by you:- If we were debating that hypothetical scenario, there wouldn't be a problem, beyond establishing whether in fact Ramirez had indeed been prioritised before defenders. The problem arose when the OP suggested that the expenditure on Ramirez meant that less money was available to buy in the defenders that we needed. Sid has tried to backtrack from the OP, saying that the progression of the thread had altered the thrust of the OP, but it seems clear enough to me that the wording in the OP was very suggestive that money spent on Ramirez meant that it was not available elsewhere. Most took that the way that I did, that the £12 million was therefore not available to spend on other players.

Would you describe the potential bad press as being disruptive, Minty? Apparently, if it doesn't affect the way we play, it can't be described as disruptive. And MLT is worth 1000 Corteses, so it is already established who is more important to the club.

As you say Minsk, there is probably no confirmation coming from Syd to prove his hypothesis that money spent on Ramirez deprived us of the monies needed to buy defenders. Neither will we see any response to the other points you raised. But based on the calibre of response on this thread, I hope that you do renew your membership, as you have made valuable contributions to the debates.

You're entitled to your opinion, as ludicrous as it is. So would you rather that MLT ran the club? I'm confused, as further down you state that Cortese is doing a good job and is taking the club forward apart from some mistakes. But then MLT could equally be accused of making some mistakes too, the betting scandal, the tie up with Pinnacle, etc. But the difference is that MLT is no longer a footballer, which is what most lauded him for and had fond memories of, for what he did for us a few years ago. But several on here are now finding that although their memories of MLT the player are sacrosanct, MLT the post-football pundit is losing some of his gloss. It is a real shame. The two of them need their heads banging together.

And therefore, by the superb logic of your massive intellect, the Prime Minister should be somebody who has experience of running a country? Or that it would be preferable to have somebody running the club who has no experience of finance? The essence of a good chief executive is that they appoint other people with experience of marketing, commercial activities, scouting for players, etc. Kindly point me in the direction of any football clubs in the top flight, or indeed anywhere else in English football where the chief executive had a background in marketing.

Wot? No avator of you p*ssing on the new shirt because it is not the usual stripes? I'm disappointed. But I'm not disappointed that you are true to form, posting the same old drivel. You somehow fail to understand that without Cortese, Markus Liebherr wouldn't have invested in us. And no doubt you would have been very happy that we would instead have been owned by some cheapskate charlatans like those who have almost driven the skates out of existence.

I've already pointed out that Cortese is 6 years older than ADP. The Panini stickers are far more likely to belong to Cortese's son if he has one.

I thought that too. But if he wanted a challenge outside of top-level football, he could always have gone to English football's greatest sleeping giant - the Skates. But surely Liverpool would be too much of a draw for him.

delete

Dlete. Alreadycovered

Just as all the great players have come and gone too. Swiss billionaires and Italian financiers and their like have never ever been present at the club in all its history. The club has never previously been owned by anybody with any real money. That money means that the future of the club is assured and that it is quite possible that even greater players will come to play for us. If Cortese is here for a decade and continues with his ambitions plans for the club's growth and future success, then the Liebherr/Cortese era will feature far more prominently in the club's history than any single individual player. I realise that some do not like that, but it will be a fact. But if you'd prefer that they went and we reverted back to a club run by small provincial solicitors and accountants, or owners of minor care home businesses, then you're welcome to it. Count me out. I'm grateful to former players who gave illustrious service to the club, but if they retire and then go on to be disruptive influences, then they risk tarnishing their own images and lose the respect for the fans who adored them. That doesn't diminish my memories of what they did on the football pitch, but it just illustrates that somebody good at kicking a football doesn't necessarily possess other attributes that are beneficial to the club when they hang up their boots.

Eating frogs' legs puts a spring in his step.

Why would we need him when we have Ramirez? And Ramirez is 6 years younger and will be the next Ronaldo anyway.

Yes, but you know how much the fans like to stereotype players depending on the country they come from? Hence Lee eats sushi, etc. So the song has to include a reference to him eating snails or frogs legs. It's de rigeur. (to add more Francais) Anyway, I'm block 42, Northam and don't recall hearing anything much for Morgan.

Or... escargots for his breakfast Does that scan better?

Morgan Schneiderlin, Zut alors, mais oui, Morgan Schneiderlin Tres bon, merci, Morgan Schneiderlin Bonjour, aujourd'hui, 'e eats snails for his breakfast and strikers for his tea. To "Brown girl in the ring" I'm not sure if it scans right, but just an idea.