Wes Tender

I got closure the minute that we were taken over by Markus Liebherr. At that moment, not only had we ridded ourselves of the likes of Lowe, Wilde and Askham, who as a bonus lost all their share investment, but our future was secured. I'll even go as far as to say that I enjoyed my football more in the third division than that played in the last couple of years before administration.

Was Lambert's injury a knock initially? The commentary said that he had jumped for a ball and appeared to land hard and perhaps twist his knee. Then he played on and then seemed to be in further pain later, which might well have been the result of a knock, but the impression was given that initially it was because he had landed badly. The commentators also suggested that the palyers might have to change their studs at half time for longer ones because of the poor playing surface.

You say that the pitch wasn't too bad, but I suspect that if you were actually trying to play football on it, then it might have been a different matter. Saracens had been playing Rugby on it and although I wasn't there, the aerial shots of the pitch on the football league highlights showed divots all over the place. Also the commentary on the match mentioned the poor state of the pitch several times and even suggested that it was contributory to our injuries. Why shouldn't we be critical of WH's hoofball style of playing under Fat Sam? His team isn't playing on pitches like this one every week. So we adapted to a game plan that took account of the fact that the state of the pitch wouldn't allow us to play our usual flowing passing game and the tactics produced three goals and had Watford chasing shadows. I have no doubt that the next match we will return to our usual passing game that has become our trademark. I don't think that one game is going to get us a reputation of playing like Bolton under Fat Sam as mentioned by the Watford blog either. How did they think we played when we put 4 past them at St. Mary's?

I thought that it would be good to cast an eye back to this thread and the OP and some of the ensuing posts:- Realistic Expectations for the rst of the season... This wasn't so long ago. I can understand the jittery feelings that naturally accompany a blip run of poor results, but since then, the injuries we had that have now been overcome, plus the signings of Sharp and Lee and the return of Puncheon into the fold, give hope that this is a squad of players of quality and depth that are capable of taking us up. OK, we have to keep our fingers crossed that our two key players, Lallana and Lambert have not suffered injuries that will keep them out long, but at least we now have able replacements who could do a decent job as cover for them in the short term. But I'm so encouraged that the post quoted has happily got so much wrong when considered in the light of today's events. So West Ham grind out 1-0 wins, eh? We don't get penalties any longer? We've lost the knack of winning? Morgan and Cork don't command the midfield? So Hammond is a must start? What happened to Birmingham's charge today? And thanks to Watford, our bogey team, for giving us three points and three goals to add to the three points and four goals they gave us at St Mary's. So it was apparently only our second win there in 91 years and they haven't been beaten there since October. So can we keep up the momentum that we have gained since the low point on that Millwall Cup defeat? I'd say that the money was again on automatic promotion rather than hobbling apologetically into the play-offs in 6th.

(Somebody quoted him, I'm afraid, so I thought I might as well respond.) I think that it's brilliant that we are now such a force in English football that we can attract the commercial manager from Man City......and then discard him shortly thereafter. If indeed that is what happened.

And bent monkeys at that!

There is a very simple adage that even you ought to understand. It is that if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. Considering the distance that this club has progressed since he has been running things, I don't begrudge him a single penny. And the fact that you do, comes as no surprise to me at all. In fact, I'd be disappointed had you not loathed it.

I have now emailed Mr Pomfret at the FL, quoting this seeming policy of theirs that youngsters would be excluded from an available squad if they had not played for the first team and asking for clarification. I have pointed out that they have loaned out an academy player to Frome and suggested that as he is two years older than Bale, Chamberlain and Walcott when they played for us, why couldn't he play for them? I also asked for clarification on whether it was technically possible for a team that had deliberately pursued a policy of having a small, but expensive squad, to obtain a further advantage as a result of not having enough players available, of then signing Premiership players to boost their numbers. I eagerly await his reply.

The Football League:- Do I understand this correctly? If the Skates cannot field fourteen fit players for a match, they are allowed to sign new players? And any player that has not played at first team level cannot counted towards this minimum team level? So if that is true, they cannot play the academy players for example? They have just loaned out one such academy player to Frome. He isn't a kid, he's 19, older than Bale, Chamberlain and Walcott when they played for us. So on a tecnicality that the lad hadn't played for the first team, he can't play now, when they are short of players? Ludicrous!

Au contraire, Corpse. Most on here have been pretty clued up on the list of chancers who have bled your club dry, attracted like flies to the steaming pile of sh*t that is your poxy little club. We all know about the gun-runner, the fake sheik, the non-existent sheik, the loan shark and the Russian Mafia. We also acknowledge the part played by those such as Storrie and Daniel Azougy. So if you reckon that we are just coming around to realising this, then you obviously haven't been paying much attention. Or is it that you have difficulty in comprehending the English language. Most on here seem to be quite capable of expressing their thoughts in a fairly lucid fashion and have commented on these parasites of yours pretty well as they appeared on the scene. Just as a matter of interest; why do you think your poxy little club attracts such characters?

Fox is acceptable but has his faults, which many on here have listed. He is improving since he came here, thankfully. Richardson for me is the better defender than Fox. As for Harding, there are areas of his game where he is better than Fox and there are parts of Fox's game where he is superior. Of the two of them, I accept now that Fox would be the first name on the team sheet, but I'm not that worried whenever Harding is selected, as he is good back-up and always gives 100%

Really? They're a lazy and unimaginative lot then, aren't they? After all, it must be incredibly easy to gain independent opinions from fans of any club. Easy enough to go to the stadium before a match, as the Football League show did. Or if the local media wished to have some different opinions from a greater array of support, then they must have regulars who they receive comments from. If they are impressed with the intelligence of their comments and feel that they are expressed in an erudite way, then easy enough to suggest that they might like to express an opinion on current club matters as they arise and to ask whether they would mind contributing something if they were contacted. What is pitiful, is when they dress it up as being on behalf of Southampton Trust, or Southampton Independent Supporters Association or such like, when those organisations are currently pretty well non-existent and a total irrelevance.

The irony of AA insisting that PKF ought not to be the administrators because of a conflict of interest is breathtaking, considering that AA is also the current administrator of the holding company CSI who owned the Skates. So even if PKF were not allowed to be the administrators, then the likelihood of AA being acceptable is even less acceptable because of a greater conflict of interest. I don't really see what AA might gain by challenging PKF's appointment, only to see him being refused the job too.

Quite why the media make a beeline to him as a voice of the Saints fandom is a mystery. But certainly on this matter he has voiced the opinion not only of us, but what most other fans must think about the disgraceful shenanigans that the Skates get up to. It is a travesty that they continue to bleat about their shortage of fit players and yet refuse to play the reserves and kids like other teams in a similar situation would have to.

Well, it seems that despite all Fat Sam's anger about the injustice of Matt Taylor's red card, wiser counsel has prevailed and having studied the video evidence carefully, he obviously realises that rather than have the red card rescinded, there was a real risk that the suspension could have been increased by one match. http://www.kumb.com/story.php?id=126028 You got your penalty for Noble's dive, Fat Sam, and yet the article still insists that Sharp went down "theatrically". Having seen the incident on the video, I don't think that he did, but even if he had, do you think that your team should have the monopoly on cheating, Sam?

"Je pense donc je suis"?

Perhaps instructive to look back a short while to recall the anguish of certain individuals after the loss against Millwall and the draw against Birmingham and the poor run in some games just before them and to contrast the sense of euphoria that comes from fine wins against the likes of Burnley and Derby. Going back top, hands us a massive psychological advantage over West Ham and sends a clear message to the other rivals for promotion that Saints are back in the groove again and firing on all cylinders. It is clear that because key players have returned to the team from injury and that significant signings have been made to strengthen the squad in the January window, that we have gained a new impetus to boost our chances of automatic promotion. When we play a team like the one chosen yesterday and they play their roles well, there really is no team in this division that could live with us. Who do the defenders mark? Lambert? Lallana? Sharp/Lee? And what can they do when you have your two centre backs scoring from set-pieces. 4 goals from 4 different players and none of them from Lambert and Sharp. It was eminently feasible that when Hooiveld went off, that Fonte could also have scored. I rack my brains to think of an occasion when goals have been scored by three different centre backs. Anybody know of such an occasion? As has also happened recently, one struggles to pick any weak link in the team in that game. The reason for some optimism for the future, is that we did not have our strongest line-up with Richardson out. Hopefully he will return and the injury to Hooiveld is not serious. Lee on his second half showing, could be a revelation when he and his team mates are totally on the same wavelength. Great to have that extra mettle that Chaplow brings to the team and he will gain extra bite with improved match fitness. Sharp seems a good prospect too and perhaps needs to hone his physique a little as Lambert did. But the great thing is that Adkins has some serious selection problems. Who is the strike force between Lambert, Sharp, Lee, Connolly, Guly and Barnard? What options to have to change a game from the bench. And what a midfield, with the likes of Lallana, Cork, Schneiderlin, Hammond, Puncheon, Chaplow and De Ridder. And then there is the additional prospects of a couple of promising youngsters who might yet break into the team, players like Ward-Prowse and Ben Reeves. I wonder whether we can put together a run of results like we did last season when we were chasing Brighton and Huddersfield were chasing us and every time they won, we did too. It begins to look very possible.

Am I mistaken, or as there not to be a forensic investigation of PFC's account when Oldco was liquidated? There seems to have been a deafening silence about anything being unveiled there, so why would another administrator turn up anything that had hitherto not been uncovered?

Easy to just make the distinction between the secured and unsecured creditors. Then you can say categorically that not a penny has been paid to the unsecured creditors via the CVA.

Because there is not any clarity regarding the ten point penalty that has been imposed onto the Skates for going into administration, I have written to the FL, to seek clarification and urge others to do the same. I have pointed out to them that Skate fans and the local newspaper, The News, both conclude that they have "got away" with solely the ten points deduction. I have suggested to the the FL that surely this cannot be the extent of their punishment, as this is the second administration event that they have been involved in within a two year period and furthermore, none of the unsecured creditors from the last CVA has yet received a penny of the agreed twenty percent they were due. I told them that I assumed that a further meeting would be held when the discussion would take place regarding additional deductions to reflect these other factors. I have suggested that an example needs to made of Porstsmouth FC to send a clear message to the Football leagues, that clubs spending money they don't possess to gain a competitive advantage, will not be tolerated. I also gave my opinion that the Skates still possessed a very strong squad, their chief executive even having boasted that it was the second most expensive in the division and that therefore they could still escape relegation, even with the 10% points penalty. I await their response with interest. It would be very timely if others, especially the fans of rival clubs, wrote to the FL urging them to impose stiff penalties on the Skates.

Tell him that if he's a ref, then hes's another example of how refereeing has declined in this country, if he doesn't appear to know the current rules. What he really is, is a blinkered WH fan whose team can do no wrong, even when outclassed and outplayed. The scumbag was Noble for diving when Sharp didn't even touch him.

I'm not surprised that Fat Sam and the cretin Abrahams have not had the good grace to apologise for their knee-jerk reactions. That would take a certain amount of humility, a commodity that neither possesses. What I can't see the sense of though, is them appealing the sending off, as it is inevitable that the video and photographic evidence that has since surfaced, will show that firstly Taylor's hands made contact with Sharp's face and that secondly Sharp did not roll around play-acting. If this then categorises the appeal as frivolous and the suspension is accordingly increased to 4 matches, then so much the better. Maybe Fat Sam will be a bit more circumspect in future and engage his brain before opening his mouth and putting his foot in it. Simultaneously, we can make out a pretty decent case when that video footage is examined, that Noble dived to gain the penalty that was the catalyst for the ensuing incident involving Sharp and Taylor. We are entitled to feel pretty aggrieved that because he fooled the referee, we went a goal down, when instead Noble should have received a yellow for simulation.

I'm sorry Rallyboy, but this cannot be true. At the time when Andropov took the Skates over, I put it to the Ho that as the club had no ground, no training facilities or other infrastucture, was still saddled from debt from the last CVA, and couldn't shift several overpaid players from their contracts, the only really viable reason why the Russian Mafia might be interetred in buying them, was for purposes of money-laundering. He pooh-poohed the notion as being somewhat naive, as he assured me that it would not be feasible to use Pompey for money-laundering purposes, as they would be under a microscope and would therefore never hope to get away with it. However, despite ruling out money-laundering as the reason for buying the Skates, he never actually came up with a feasible alternative reason, beyond some vague notion that they might be a recognisable brand within their Convers sporting portfolio.

This bloke is just a mediocre actor. All he does is recite lines in a play or film, nothing significant or momentous. What does he know of anything else that qualifies him to expect that his opinions will carry any weight? And what qualifies him to speak on behalf of the World? Why doesn't he address his thoughts towards China and their occupation of Tibet instead? Or is the World today tolerant of Chinese colonialist ideology? Why isn't this imbecile addressing his futile rants towards the White House about that?

You stated in defence of your criticism of Guly that furthermore he played no part in either of the goals. And when it was pointed out that he had in fact played a quite significant part in one of the goals (the one that wasn't a fluke), you seek to minimise the part Guly played by saying that any non-league player could have provided that pass. Now, regardless of the fact that in your opinion it was a simple pass, nevertheless it was the pass that led to the goal. So he did play a part in one of the goals. Or are you going to argue your way out of that one too and make yourself look really ridiculous? Nobody is using that pass to demonstrate evidence of his greatness; it is merely used to refute a point you made which was incorrect.