Wes Tender

But Mackay isn't all sweetness and light about the match, as this report shows:- http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/299352/Southampton-1-Cardiff-1-Malky-s-mad-at-ref-justice Shame that he didn't acknowledge that the referee overlooked the other two claims which were better shouts, or that it is arguable that their goal should not have stood.

The proverbial game of two halves. But whereas Cardiff shaded the first half, we totally and utterly dominated the second half. Perhaps we were a bit nervous the first half, either that, or Cardiff wanted it more, because they closed us down, were often first to the 50/50 balls and some of our passing was a bit wayward. Frankly, with the team we had out there, I expected more, what with the team being pretty well full strength apart from Hooiveld. I had listened to glowing reports about Puncheon in the Milwall match, so was keen to make my own judgement on him tonight. Well, he had a cracking game, certainly a better player than when I last saw him play here before he went on his travels. A lot of the link up play went through him and there were several good passes and incisive through balls feeding the attack from him. I was certainly amongst his detractors, but if he carries on like this, he will carve out a place on the team sheet every week, especially bearing in mind that he is not yet at full match fitness. I thought that I saw a handball just before Cardiff scored and one of our players followed the referee back to almost the centre circle to remonstrate with him. I think that we had two good penalty shouts before we got third time lucky. And Lambert showed Crystal Palace how to take a penalty. Whereas we were a bit tentative and lacklustre in the first half, almost from the second half whistle, we seemed like a different team. I don't know what Adkins said to them to gee them up, but the transformation was remarkable. This was much more like the team that carved out that record breaking sequence up to Christmas. We played with the sort of verve and mobility that few teams could live with. We played with width, closed down Cardiff quickly, often robbed them of the ball with some great tackling, denied them possession and mounted wave after wave of attacks. They were hanging on with some desperate last ditch defending for most of the second half and hung on for the point. Whenever they counter-attacked, their finishing was woeful. When Lee came on for Puncheon, it was good to see him play for the first time at St.Mary's. I thought that he had a great debut and could become a bit of a legend, judging by his pace, skill and commitment. The guy gave 100% and was all over the pitch, with some neat touches demonstrating some good skills. During the first half, player ratings would have been fairly low, but during the second half, I can't single out any player who put in a below par performance. Honourable mentions to the "new" boys, Puncheon and Lee and although I had my doubts about Martin playing on the left CB, he really gets better every match since he was afforded the opportunity to step up.We still need another CB in my opinion, but now with Sharp giving Adkins another selection headache up front, provided that we don't have any key injuries, we now have a squad that can take this division by storm and gain automatic promotion. When we had our hiccups against the teams at the foot of the table, people looked nervously over their shoulder at West Ham catching us up and overtaking us. But now West Ham have gone down big time against another such lower placed team themselves and we close the gap on them again and keep Cardiff beneath us too. Psychologically, that is not as big a boost as we would have had from beating Cardiff and going back top, but of the three teams, I still think that we can take most from tonight's results, especially when we will have Sharp up front next match and Chaplow back soon too.

If the Skates were in administration, then what you say would be true. But they aren't - yet. Although it is arguable that they might conceivably be insolvent at the moment.

I'm sure that you helped your feeble-minded Skate supporting colleague by illustrating a simple comparison scenario that was within his limited mental powers to understand. If not, perhaps this example might assist him to comprehend. Explain the situation whereby a Saints fan lost control of his car when it skidded on some ice and unfortunately a pedestrian was killed when it ploughed into him. A Portsmouth fan however, was found guilty of several serial murders. However, in your colleague's mind, presumably they were equally guilty, as both had killed people.

A Skate born and bred. His heart wouldn't be in playing for us. Besides, the kid's a youngster with limited first team experience. This club is headed for better things and should seek to sign better than him.

Surely the only way that the Skates were allowed to carry on pretty much as they were, was because it was conditional on oldco being liquidated to enable a forensic examination being carried out on their accounts. As far as I know, there was no name change for the newco, they carried on playing their matches at the same place with many of the same people running the club and the same players. As newco retained the golden share and carried on at the same level in the league as oldco left it, then essentially it is still the same entity as before, barring some small technicalities. If they were a different entity, then why would they still be entitled to the parachute payments which were earmarked to oldco?

It sounded as if Millwall should have won on the balance of play, but having had many more chances, particularly in the first half, their finishing let them down. That reminds of the Saints of recent history, so a nice change. Lambert's goal was against the run of play, so very satisfying that when the chance came, we were able to grasp it. When the team was announced, it was a pleasant surprise to hear that players like Barnard, Puncheon and Jaidi were back in the frame, but disappointing that as a result and with players like Hooiveldt missing, we fielded a team of returning players, a makeshift defence and also blooded a couple of youngsters. So bearing that in mind, it was a creditable performance, as several of the team were not used to playing together. The one player that I long to have back though, is Chaplow. When he is back, with the additions of Lee and the Spurs loanee, things will look quite bright again for the rest of the season. On the plus side, we are still in the draw tomorrow and might have the incentive of playing either an lower down team, or a glory team after Millwall at home. We had the chance to have a look at a couple of the youngsters and Bialkowski's confidence will have had a boost. So not really much reason for disappointment and plenty of reasons for some optimism.

You know this for a fact then? The selection of the ST holders attending isn't random? Those selected are fed questions to ask? They are briefed before attending on what they can or cannot discuss?

Surely it isn't. Is there any evidence that if somebody writes something addressed to the Chairman, or any other representative of the club, either in the form of a snail-mail letter, or an email, that it is ignored? Also, I am led to understand that there are people at the club who pay some attention to opinions expressed by fans on forums such as this.

And in a relaxed and convivial environment, they will be able to have an informal discussion on several matters that either they are concerned about, or they will be able to voice their opinions on things that the Chairman of the club wants feedback on from the Club's paying customers. Apart from petty jealousy, I don't see why anybody would have a problem with it.

I wondered whether it was feasible to put some sort of index onto this thread, as at 1000 pages, it has become a tome like War & Peace. It would assist posters and readers alike. Something along the lines of page 1 - x, Al Fahim (Fake Sheik), Pages x - y, Al Faraj. (Non-existent Sheik), pages y - z, Chainrai's first coming, etc. Any way that it could be done? That way also, anybody interested in a particular chapter/episode, (such as investigative journalists, degree students writing their thesis on it ) could be guided to read the relevant pages/posts such and such....

I thought that ignorance was no defence under the law. But as the amounts involved are considered to be so small by Harry, one wonders whether it is worth it, adopting that "I'm really a bit thick and semi-illiterate" stance, when he makes himself a laughing stock in the process. The fun that we've had on here gives a good indication of the much greater exposure he is likely to endure in the media when the likes of "Have I got News for you" pile into him. And presumably his chances of ever managing England have been dealt a fatal blow too, even if he does somehow manage to wriggle out of it.

And if we banned them, I would withdraw my full membership when it next became due. They're the reason that I pay it. Where else can one get such good entertainment value for a mere 10p a week? The fact that we allow them on here, proves that we are enlightened enough to accept rival views and opinions. That they disallow us, proves that they are blinkered and will not accept criticism. Although perhaps the reason could also be that our tendency to use words of more than two syllables might be confusing to their members. Or perhaps they just cannot abide being told by us that once again, Southampton has regained their rightful place as the number one team in the South.

It did happen to us when Lowe was in charge, and of course for a miniscule debt compared to yours. But whether it would happen under our current ownership is extremely unlikely and unlike your past few owners, the Liebherrs would be good for the money. Yes, it was possible that it could happen to other Premiership clubs, but as it only happened to yours, that must be indicative that other clubs could cover their debts, whereas you couldn't. In your case, the owner/s who had paid for the overpaid players, put the money back into their pockets when they were sold. What would you expect them to do? Put it back into the club? And yet again, I have to remind you when apportioning blame, that "the club" is not just the owners, but the players, the fans, the staff, etc. You obviously get the owners you deserve. As for inviting comment on the sensitive information regarding your ownership, which is currently being investigated by the journo, you surely wouldn't expect us to comment on it when the newspaper hasn't even cleared it with their legal eagles yet.

I'm no good at the photoshop lark. Could somebody with that skill compose a photo featuring TCWTB wearing a balaclava, holding a gun? Should be easy enough to place him in a Barclays bank environment, wearing his Skate regalia, with the apposite badge "Beware stupid person" the comedy hat, clowns shoes etc.

I think our debt situation is pretty clear to everyone FC. We owe around £16.5m on the CVA, around £3.5-£4m to Gaydamak and allegedly have a loan of £10.8m to Antonov. That's it. Chainrai has a charge on CSI which he says means anyone wanting to but PFC needs to pay him the price he agreed with CSI for us - but that's not a Pompey debt and it's unlikely that if a buyer does come forward (and a bid's already been made) Chainrai has to decide whether to hold out for the full amount or take a hit and accept a lower offer. And of course, apart from the debt you list, there is the debt to HMRC, there are the running costs, the inflated player's wages, etc. No ground, no training ground, no land around the ground. What a bargain the club is! The reason the FL docked you points quickly is because SLH going into admin was caused by the financial actions of the club. Or more correctly the fact that Barclays pulled the plug on us for a relatively small amount, when they reduced our overdraft facility. CSI going into admin was nothing to do with PFC. Yes, it's caused us problems but the shortfall we now face is due to Antonov's problems and the money he was putting into the club was approved by the FL so to keep saying "Pompey" were overspending is a gross simplification. If the Liebherr's pulled their funding tomorrow you'd be facing problems too. So are you overspending? Or are you following a business plan that includes cash injections from a wealthy benefactor? What's the difference? The difference is that our wealthy benefactors are respectable business people, ethical, reliable, trustworthy. None of these adjectives apply to any of the past few owners you have had. Furthermore, the level is debt we have is miniscule against the value of assets owned by the club and also against the returns achievable by the return to the Premiership. So our owners are making astute investments, whereas yours were laundering money/picking the bones of your carcase/speculating funds they didn't have. Do you see the difference now? ywear Do you really not understand after all this time that gate money isn't the prime concern in the PL when each club gets £40m a year from SKY? Not to mention the fact that our gate income was actually a lot higher than a lot of PL clubs anyway, largely due to the fact that many Northern clubs charged way less for tickets than we did. Our turnover the year we won the cup (is anyone bored of me saying this yet?) was £70m. Yes the wages to turnover ration was high but no higher than many other PL clubs. It really isn't rocket science. And yet for all your bleating about how other clubs had similar gate receipts and also similar wages to turnover ratios, yours was the first club in the history of the Premiership to go into administration. So crooks and puppets running the club yet "the club" is to blame. Hmmmmmmmm As I said above, the club isn't just the crooks and puppets. What an absolute crock of ****. See above for our turnover the year we won the cup and compare it to many other clubs. Higher than plenty in the PL. The point is, as I've said many times that when the finances crumbled we sold over £70m worth of players and if that money had been used as it should have we wouldn't be where we are now. The fact that our finances are in the state they are would seem to strongly suggest that someone bled a considerable amount of that money out of the club and didn't pay what was owed. How else would you suggest we amassed the debts we did? As for the pathetic "mercenaries" argument, get over yourself. Players go to who'll pay them the most. Otherwise why would players you've had like Bridge, Walcott, Bale and on and on have left. Why aren't they still with you? I love this argument. All Pompey fans do and think this, all Saints fans do and think that. Like we all move with a hive mind Of course, it was a sweeping generalisation. All I can go by is the anecdotal evidence that I have mentioned, that several seemingly intelligent businessmen who are Skate fans, seem to think that even though the club might go into oblivion, the success of a few short years in the sunshine made it worthwhile. On the other hand, most Saints supporters I encounter in my business circles were quite content to take the relegation to the third division as the price payable to rid ourselves of Lowe and his cronies to rebuild to where we are now. Do you have any anecdotal evidence that suggests that any Saints fans you meet in the toy industry envied you and wished that Southampton had gone the same route as the Skates? No, I didn't think so. And what is your position? Was it all worth it, or would you have been happier with say a steady place in the second or third division, where you would naturally have been had you lived within your means?

I agree entirely with your sentiments. However, I have business clients who are Skates, ST holders. They are people who in all other matters give the outward appearance of being sensible intelligent individuals. And yet, when you ask them whether it was worth it, to spunk money they didn't have on buying players they couldn't afford, even though it could kill the club, they say yes. They believe it was all worthwhile for the memories they had of the several visits to Wembley for the play-offs, the FA Cup matches, etc. Naturally, they also like to gloat to us Saints fans that they have a more successful recent history than us, even though we counter it by saying that they bought the FA Cup with players they couldn't afford. But that's the difference between them and us. We played by the rules, took steps to cut our debts, played the kids in an attempt to make ends meet and frankly I have more respect and pride in what we have achieved. If we did as they did, we wouldn't be a club that I would feel comfortable about supporting, but they're a shameless lot and got the owners they deserved. We have the moral high ground. For those of their fans who feel that the success was justified even for the price that it will eventually cost them, let them rot in hell. Bring on oblivion.

You used up one of your three daily posts only to say that? What's the matter, Steve? Running out of excuses for your poxy little club and its crooked owners? Or is the situation so convoluted because of your past administration, the number of recent owners and what they are owed, the rules of the FL regarding points deductions or the early payment of parachute payments, that you cannot comment on what the legality of the situation now is? Will you be toast, or do you think that the chancers who run your club, or the bent administrator of CSI, have some ace up their sleeves to gain you a stay of execution? Why aren't you your usual bullish self this morning? Didn't the Rosie Lee paint a bright picture of your future when you had your morning cuppa? That's a thought though Steve; Harry didn't name his dog after you by any chance?

At last, recognition of an astute businessman! Seems that many experts on here would wish him to do it the other way around, spend more than a player is worth and sell for less than a player is worth. And clubs and agents will respect us for our policy and realise that we are not a soft touch they can take advantage of. If we have a player that they want, they will have to deal with us and pay the price we want. If you reckon that they will stop dealing with us, then great. We get to keep the Oxlade-Chamberlains, Bales and Walcotts of the future.

So everybody who doesn't agree with you on a matter that you do not know anything for sure about is a half-wit? What a half-witted thing to say. Especially half-witted is your contention that Cork, Chapper, Lee, etc, are cheap options, therefore by your half-witted reasoning no good. Presumably bringing in players like them, Hooiveld and De Ridder doesn't count as investment for some reason. Although we are second over halfway through the season, if we stayed there and got promoted, it will disprove your little theory, because as you say, we have not invested.

This post is the biggest load of guff on here in a long time. Either Dune is totally deluded, or he is on a wind-up, as he does not have the slightest inkling of what in in Cortese's mind. Pathetic.

Is it hate, or is it just the ranting of people fed up and frustrated at this continuing saga involving this unprofessional, arrogant misfit? And do people need to have evidence of what caused this fall-out between Puncheon and the club? This is a player who has played for a succession of clubs and seems to leave under a cloud each time. The impression is gained that although undoubtedly a talented player, he is a disruptive influence to the teams he plays for. Although we don't have much to go on from his former clubs, at least we now have the evidence of his childishness currently, throwing his toys out of the pram on Twitter. Posters have formed their own opinions based on what they have heard elsewhere and what has happened here with Saints. And why should you conclude that Guly will be the next recipient of vindictiveness? As far as I know, he gets on well enough with his team mates, has the right attitude, scores valuable goals. Some have their own opinions on the players and like some but not others, but the situation regarding Puncheon is unlike that of any other player at the club and does not have a parallel in all the years I have been watching Saints. Although you yourself do not have any more idea than anybody else what caused this spat between player and club, feel free to show compassion with Puncheon if that is what makes you happy and deride anybody's else criticism as hateful. I'll align myself with the chairman and manager, as I have a damned sight more respect for them than I do for this petulant player. My trust in them is strengthened by the impression that apart from Puncheon, this is a happy and confident bunch of professionals we have in our squad at the moment. For whatever reason, he is a misfit. Sent from my desk PC using typing with fingers on my keyboard

Yes, it is scandalous. Is their situation different in some way to the last episode, Nick? You see, I haven't seen you voicing the opinion that they will get away with it this time around.

Agreed. That's how I remember it too. The idiot 12, was responding to somebody else, whose comment was the one in inverted commas. I took it to read that he thought that they did not have to pay off the CVA, because that was the obligation of Oldco. Speaking of Baker Tilley, I don't recall them issuing any report to say that the Skates had a clean bill of health in their financial dealings. As it has been almost a year since they began their investigations, why is it taking so long?

This particular idiot amused me:- Brilliant ploy that, to liquidate the old club so that the new one wouldn't have the CVA. So they can't be docked points for not exiting the CVA. Genius! And do the creditors realise that by agreeing to liquidate old co, they have done themselves out of any prospect of ever seeing any of their debts repaid, not even the 20% over 5 years? Is his user name his IQ? Or is it one of our lot on a wind-up?