Wes Tender

I reiterate - If they just wanted a delapidated old ground with ancient facilities and no training ground, but a football club for sale regardless, then Pompey fitted the bill. However as I have pointed out, if they are planning to invest money into the club to buy a new stadium, a decent training ground, some infrastructure, then they might as well have placed that money into buying a club that already had those facilities. You ask for a list of clubs, but as somebody else has already indicated, most clubs are for sale apart from those in the upper reaches of the Premiership. Hell, they could have bought us for not too much before we went under. So doesn't it suggest to you that the Ruskies aren't wealthy enough to buy such a club already with a decent infrastructure, or that they are just happy to have their name attached to a football club in a printed portfolio of their assets, merely for effect? And the people who read that portfolio of the Ruskies' sporting assets would only see a club with history, two FA Cups, league champions etc, although most of the glory was in the distant past and the recent glories led to your club being the first to go under in the Premiership? If it's all about image and perception, surely there are few football clubs nowadays that have a poorer image than the Skates. Portsmouth is the equivalent of the Trabant motor car. Perhaps that's the attraction. But hey-ho, Ho, we mustn't forget that the Russian mafia weren't the only people sniffing around the rotten carcase. There were other vultures and carrion too, or would the more likely comparison be flies buzzing around a pile of sh*t?

This really has to be one of the most feeble bits of reasoning to issue forth from you, Corpse. They wanted a football club to fit in with their portfolio of sports businesses and they must be really proud to have the first Premiership club to enter administration, one with a low capacity derelict ground, falling attendances, no training facilities that it owns and debts from the previous owners still needing to be settled. And the only reason they bought you was because you were available? As has already been pointed out, for the money they paid and the money that would additionally be required to improve the infrastructure if they were serious about making the investment, they could have taken their pick of numerous other clubs in this division or even the third division, several clubs with far better prospects than your poxy little club. I can't figure out their real reasoning, unless of course they're idiots, but your reasoning that it was just because you were available, is not exactly credible either.

Your understanding of the English language is a bit lacking if I may say so. I qualified it by saying that they could sing anything they liked provided that....you know, it's the same as "apart from", "excluding", etc. But your use of "mong" as an insult tells me a lot about your level of intelligence.

I agree that Lowe deserves credit. If he hadn't totally f*cked the club over, we wouldn't have got shot of him, Askham, Richardson and other hangers-on and replaced them with Markus Liebherr and Nicola Cortese. We're already ahead of where we were when that lot left us in the lurch and heading in the direction that will take us higher than we ever managed under Lowe's regime.

People who pay their hard-earned dosh to attend matches, are perfectly entitled to sing or chant anything they want, provided that it is not racist, homophobic, or otherwise deemed to be non-PC by Guardian readers. I very much doubt that they will pay too much attention to posters on here who get a bit precious over it and consider themselves the only arbiters of good taste or what is cool. Comments from those who label them mongs should especially be disregarded.

In your first line, you say that NA hints on bringing in new players in January and doesn't rule out a loan signing before then. In your last line you raise the question as to what we can expect. Well, reread your first line for the answer. You say that the present team is largely Pardew's yet he brought in 13, but 10 were either here, or brought in later by Adkins. But in any event, the time span that Adkins has been here is not much different to Pardew's tenure, so it is now debateable as to whether those were just Pardew's players, but are now Adkin's team. Six players have been brought in by Adkins, those players presumably identified by our scouting network, wanted by Adkins and sanctioned by Cortese. Pardew had to do more in the way of new players, because urgent action was required at the time to change the team he inherited. What exactly are you trying to say?

It wasn't a point; it was a few throwaway lines. Don't you know the difference?

Who's struggling to win an argument? It was Frank who suggested that Turkish must be a Skate and nobody would accuse him of not being capable of holding his own in a debate, so it must be first class trolling to illicit that response from him. And who are these people comparing us to those elite clubs? Certainly not a comparison I've made. OK, Cortese states that he wished to emulate Barcelona's policy of bringing through their youngsters via their academy and I seem to recall that somebody mentioned that Ajax had that policy too, but if somebody reckons that is comparing us to clubs like like them, then they are a bit incapable of English comprehension somewhere along the line. Perhaps when the Northam chants that it's just like watching Brazil, or that Lallana makes Messi look sh*te, your mates are taking it literally.

Frank I don't recall Turkish's name from the Lowe era, or on Keith's forum. I don't mind feeding the troll in an idle few moments for mild amusement. Funny you should suggest that he's a Skate. Somebody else suggested that too, at the time that Corpse hinted that he posted on here under a pseudonym. He thought that the Turkish name was suggestive of the moon symbol on the Skate badge.

Neither did I say that you hadn't said that there was Premiership interest in him. I just made the point that if he had played at Champions' League level and several Premiership clubs were sniffing around, it inferred that they must think that he is capable of stepping up. But I note that merely by suggesting that it would be interesting to see whether he can make the step up, you infer that you have your doubts, although you're happy with him at this level at least. I'm confident that he can make the step up when we're promoted.

Rallyboy is one of the best posters I look forward to reading on the subject of the Skates' situation. His posts are always sensible, measured and entertaining. Just because the Skates somehow managed to wriggle out of becoming toast so far, doesn't mean that there might not come a time in the near future when they might they might implode. This reasonable team is still one that they struggle to afford with the low attendances they have and their latest in a line of dodgey owners don't seem to be pouring money into them to transform them into anything brilliant. They now have an inexperienced manager that nobody had heard of before they appointed him. As others have said, if you're not interested in what is currently written on here, go elsewhere.

Well, he managed to play in the Champions' League didn't he? And according to the article, several Premiership clubs have been sniffing around him, so they must feel that he could cut it in the Premiership, or else that part of the story is just a ruse to bump up his price. I hope that we get him and he and Fonte go on to forge a Killer/Claus type partnership.

Now you're just being ridiculous and you are not using my logic, you're using your logic, or your idea of what constitutes my logic. Historical precedent is not evidence that something will ever happen again, so asking for evidence is not something that anybody can provide. Historical precedent is an indication that something is feasible, not that it is likely. Even Sour Mash admits to the possibility, although sensibly he says it is unlikely. But unlikely as it seems, it is possible. But we have never ever in our history been in such a position as we find ourselves in now in terms of our ownership and infrastructure, so at least some allowance needs to be factored in to any debate for that.

I love your simplistic view that just because we haven't managed to achieve higher than 2nd in all our history, that that means we will never ever do it again.

So you really don't see the point I made, do you? You mention individuals to prove your point. Those top clubs took one individual from one club. The whole point of the article was that we would be able in future to bring on ultimately three players of the calibre of Chamberlain/Walcott/Bale. And at the same time, there are perhaps half a dozen other players appearing on the British scene elsewhere of decent potential. And players from countries around the World who have been identified by these top clubs' scouts. When you factor in that these top clubs are also able to attract top youngsters to their own academies, how many players do they need to bring in from elsewhere to warm the bench occasionally? Allowing for squads of 22, those 4 teams need 88 players. Mostly their teams comprise costly imports from around the World. There comes a point when they don't need to pay exhorbitant amounts of money for 17 year old kids, but if they did, we could sell three at once and net £45 million the next time around. Oh, and even Man United can't hang on to players, Ronaldo for example. And when you are talking about the past 100 years, saying that the top clubs have taken the best players most of the time, I can well remember back half a century when the top clubs weren't all the same as they are now, when Liverpool didn't become a real force until Shankly, when Spurs were above Arsenal for example and as we both know, Man City certainly weren't were they are now. But if you think that the current situation is set in concrete for ever more, then ignore history. I didn't claim that things would change tomorrow, but I'm old enough to have some historical perspective that enlightens me to possibilities that appear to escape you.

There's a lot you get wrong. You can't wait to see this team, but I'm afraid it will take some considerable time, several years of building. And no, it won't be easy. But it might be assisted by other factors along the way, things like a level playing field being imposed by the football authorities. And the dynamics of the divisions themselves change over time. For example, a couple of years ago, you probably wouldn't have had Man City on your list, would you? And both Arsenal and Liverpool have had very forgettable seasons of late. And when all's said and done, there are only 11 players in these teams who can play on the pitch at any one time and probably another 11 back-up in the squad. And those clubs have all the players in the World to choose from, when there is a premium price put on home grown players. When we don't wish to sell, we can demand silly money, which might put off some when cheaper players can be had from abroad. So for those reasons, I don't rule out the possibility that we might at some time in the future be able to keep more high profile players rising up through our academy than we have currently managed.

No, you don't actually know that I think it's only a matter of time before we dominate Europen football like Barcelona, because I've not thought that and certainly not said it. You are correct to accept that anything is possible though. Your reasoning regarding Beckham, Scholes, Giggs and the Neville brothers is not sound, unfortunately. They achieved their status because they played for Man Utd and were young enough to forge an understanding together that made them an exciting and dynamic team capable of beating most other teams. They played together for long enough to achieve their legendary status as United players. I have already made comparisons with them regarding several recent Saints players like Bridge, Walcott, Bale, Chamberlain and Lallana who showed IMO equal promise at the same age as those United players. The comparison only has validity though if Saints were able to have kept those players to play together as United did. If that were to happen, we would be very hard to beat too and people might well talk about that legendary Saints team many years down the road. I don't see you arguing that those Saints academy products were not the equal of those United players at the same age, so we are as capable of producing star players as they are in recent times. It hasn't happened that we have been able to keep that standard of player here previously, apart from the likes of Le Tiss, but when we are back in the Premiership and doing well, it will become easier and more frequent. Walcott, Bale, Chamberlain and Lallana might become legends as individuals, but it is not impossible that a future team could comprise several highly talented players who stay together at Saints. You read that the foundations of that team are being laid at our academy and sneer. I don't. Only time will tell who is right.

You obviously don't and I therefore have to bow to your expertise, being as how you are so closely connected to the Academy system at the club. But the way I see it, it is a bold claim, therefore it probably isn't made lightly and without belief of some substance behind it. It is arguable that recently the likes of Bale, Chamberlain, Walcott and Lallana (and before that Le Tiss, Bridge, the Wallaces, Shearer etc) are the equals of Beckham, Scholes, Giggs and the Neville brothers at the same age, so why is it so incredible to believe that with the investment we are placing on the Academy infrastructure, we could potentially produce as promising a crop of young stars such as those. It isn't as if we don't have any commendable record in the past to point to. Or do you believe that those Man United players mentioned were a unique exception, never to be repeated anywhere else?

Sonny, you are obviously too thick to understand the differences between our administration and yours, even though simple analogies have been made to assist your feeble brain processes. Go and do some more digging and post up the links to the articles showing the VAT man, charities, schools and local businesses owed money by us. What? You can't find any? Quel surprise! Accusing us of hypocrisy and bleating, only adds to our enjoyment on here, as we can see that it hacks you off, so thanks. There's still much more pleasure to be derived from this thread, especially as you lurch from one lot of dodgey owners to another, so we'll look forward to your future wriggling with discomfort as we poke fun at you and your fellow troll Corpse.

Will they be selling it off to raise money to put against their debts?

Look here sonny, I run my own business, so don't come the "pitch up your tent with the anarchists outside St Pauls" with me. The truth, if you were unblinkered enough to acknowledge it, is that under our system of capitalism, there are checks on businesses living beyond their means, a legal aparatus exists to discourage companies from trading whilst insolvent. Quite why the football governing bodies allow clubs like yours to get away with it and run up such a preposterous level of debt with a 19000 seat stadium is a mystery. Perhaps they didn't wish to tarnish the global image of their illustrious Premier League by having a club go into administration. But you managed it anyway and congratulations for being the first one in the history of the Premiership to achieve that accolade. You must be so proud of your club and the crooks that brought it about and continue to make you a laughing stock. Some good might come of this sorry chapter that you brought about, if the football authorities actually put into place a mechanism that prevents other clubs "doing a Portsmouth". I'm sorry to disagree with you, that you believe that it means nothing to me how you cheated your winning of the FA Cup. I don't hate that you won it; I hate that you cheated in the winning of it, the result being that the Cup is tarnished because the price you paid for it caused taxpayers, local businesses and charities to suffer for your hour in the sunshine on Southsea Common. Frankly, I believe that it is the green-eyed monster that keeps you coming back on here. You just can't stand it that the pendulum has swung away from your five minutes of superiority and that once again we are the number one club on the South Coast and that you've sunk to third, back where you belong.

Look, I don't really care how much you deny it and attempt to excuse it as pure chance that the luck of the draw favoured you, it was cheating, pure and simple. It obviously needs to be explained to you again, so I'll make it as simple as I can so that you'll understand it. The team that won the Cup comprised individuals of such stature and who were paid at very high salary levels commensurate with their skills that you could not afford them and that resulted in your financial downfall. You say that you were in debt, but not in financial trouble. It is clear to everybody else that the level of debt required to bring in players of that calibre was something that you could not afford, therefore you obtained an unfair advantage in possessing such a squad, which is a form of cheating. Exactly the same thing has happened after the FA Cup and the administration, where you continued to obtain players that you could not afford, players that other bigger clubs, higher up the leagues say that they could not afford to match what you offered. So bluster as much as you like about how lucky you were with the draw and the top teams illiminating each other, but I'm afraid it doesn't wash on here. Cheats.

Really, who cares? All this tweeting sounds like the sort of stuff that kids indulge in in the playground, rather than proper journalism. So the Coventry journo supports his oppo in our local rag, the Echo and there are dark mutterings that their journos here aren't given a cosy warm berth in the Press Room and might have to watch the match surreptitiously posing as ordinary fans like you and I. That might actually be beneficial to them and give them a perspective they might otherwise not have had. Perhaps the Coventry journo would have been better off writing about the match than poking his nose into matters that are of no interest to their fans and only of passing interest to a small faction of ours. An excellent summary by Minty, by the way.

Would they? I've just been reminding myself who we had then and certainly there are some illustrious names. But they were mixed in with some not so illustrious names. And look at how many names there were who played that season; the list below gives some idea. Jones, Niemi, Lundekvam, Oakley, Tessem, Dodd, F Hall, Kenton, Crainey, M Svennson, Higginbotham, Fernandes, Folly, Telfer, A Svennsson, Delap, Baird, Prutton, Ormerod, Phillips, Beattie, Griffit, Pahars, Mc Cann, Le Saux, Marsden, Delgado and a few other bit-part players. OK, they had some notable victories that season, but the number of players consistently in that team was not as consistent as those we are playing now and it could be that the team spirit and the understanding forged between the current team could give them the edge. Several of that list didn't play much because they were injury prone like Delgado, Pahars & Killer, or they were getting on a bit like Dodd, Marsden and Le Saux, or just not very good like Griffit, Folly, McCann, Crainey, Tessem, Kenton, Delap (at the time So it rather depends which team from 2003 turned out if there was a hypothetical match against our best current team. I believe that the current team would beat some of those teams that we put out that season.

*yawn* I'm entirely satisfied that we do our talking on the pitch and through the league tables. What is this "twitter" that people are going on about nowadays?