Wes Tender

OK. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. But it seems to me that you are perfectly happy to be critical of Cortese's supposed lack of communication skills, but allow MLT/Benali and Lawrie carte blanche to say and do as they like, with no obligation towards the reputation of the club, or no forethought of how their reputations might suffer. It rather looks as if they are somehow above criticism in your eyes because of their past contributions. But is it a prerequisite of a football club chairman that they be gifted communicators? I wouldn't have thought that it had that much relevance compared with the ability to ensure that the club was able to be run in a financially astute manner, that attention be given to its investment in the infrastucture encouraging youth development and that the manager was supported when he asked for additional players to gain our promotion. Easy enough for a chairman to delegate the PR responsibility, although he is entitled to lay down the policy structure that he wants. I am sure that Cortese will sit up and take notice whenever you advise him that he needs to improve his communication skills. Not. So Cortese is supposedly tough on others, which means to me that he requires full commitment from his staff, that perhaps he doesn't suffer fools gladly. Maybe he is single-minded in the pursuit of his target for the club (business) that he has the responsibility of running. As far as I can see, those are all positives, but if all he needs to do is improve his communication skills to gain the approval of a few over sensitive fans, the Paparazzi, or ex-players with bruised egos, then I'm happy that he concentrates his energies on other more important matters.

Can't debate properly without recourse to name-calling? No. You proved that by your labelling of Cortese. Grow up.

Le Tiss/Lawrie Mac/Benali continue to make themselves look silly at every turn. Please someone deliver us from these petulant children. I post in the interests of balance. But of course, the difference is that if Cortese left, the whole future of the club might be in jeopardy. MLT/Benali/Lawrie Mac are history and the only affect they could have on the club's future are a few ripples. I respect what they did for the club as players and manager, but I am fast losing respect for them as individuals.

I was being ironic in the light of Dune's labelling of Cortese as the slimey Italian. Besides, what has loyalty got to do with laziness? And I'm really amazed that docker-p hasn't jumped down Dune's throat accusing him of racist remarks. Seems that he only does that when it suits his agenda.

I've highlighted the part that is the important bit. So without concrete evidence, you're going to take the side of the lazy Guernsey man?

Interesting to watch the extended highlights on BBC I-Player. They say that the Chaplow penalty was justified because Kennedy had tugged at Chaplow's shoulder and also that Chamberlain's penalty was dubious, because he was turned away from the oncoming ball, an additional facet to the Sky claims that there was doubt about it because it had hit him under the armpit. So contrary to the idiot Ferguson's claims that their two penalties were justified, whereas our two weren't, it seems that sports commentators with the benefit of technology, appear to disagree with him. I also confirmed my impression from the Sky programme that when they scored the diving header, Whelpdale had an arm over Harding's shoulder, hampering his ability to jump to head away.

I saw it that Harding was pushed before the ball arrived. But I might be mistaken.

Quite. I thought that docker-p had the intelligence to realise that those implications were probably considerations behind Alpine's post and other posters have agreed with his point. But the old leftie class warrior wants to see political correctness everywhere, even as obliquely as here. Presumably, Alpine could equally have stated that he would prefer the sort of European ownership we have over the American model that has hampered many of our top clubs with massive leveraged debt. Would that have been deemed to be racist too?

Darren Ferguson is a chip off the old block, isn't he? He has no good grace about him at all and is a bit of a fantasist if he thinks that they deserved to win. It was one of the all-time great penalty games and Ferguson reckons that we shouldn't have had one for the Chaplow incident, but naturally the one they got against Chamberlain was nailed on. Well, with the benefit of slow motion replay, the Chaplow penalty looked soft. But at normal speed it seemed to me that Chaplow was running so fast into the box that it didn't take much contact to cause him to fall and of course, the referee didn't see the incident in slow-motion and called it how he saw it. But had the cameras shown the Chamberlain incident with the technology available for slow-motion and close-ups, then it would have been equally clear that the ball struck him under the armpit. So at the worst, the two cancelled each other out Mr. Ferguson. Pleased to see two really great training ground routines from our free-kicks, one of which led to Hammond's goal. Shame that we lost 2 points against some other leading rivals, but the difference these past few matches has been the absence of Lallana. When he's back, we will really start motoring, especially as Lambert is beginning to gain form and confidence.

Pathetic and idiotic response. There is nothing racist about Alpine's comment at all.

This is the essence of the whole thing. Had it been any ordinary fan, there wouldn't have been any ripples at all. It would have been assumed that said fan had misbehaved or broken some term or condition applicable to the ST. Because it is Nick Illingworth, different assumptions are being made by his mates, the Echo, the handful of Saints Trust members, the ex-SISA brigade, TUI readers, Uncle Tom Cobbley and all. Additionally, there are the few malcontents who despise Cortese and avail themselves of every opportunity to stick the knife in. As St Marco points out, this is going round and round in circles and as nobody posting on the thread has access to the other side of the coin, it is pointless adding to the already overblown thread until any facts emerge from the Club. It's long overdue for the thread to be closed.

Congratulations, VW, for one of the very few posts on here which is based purely on facts rather than conjecture, speculation or inuendo.

You continually persist in leaping to conclusions based on one side of the argument. As has aleady been pointed out to you, NI has not been banned, but again, you are not entitled to conclude that Cortese's actions are "disgusting" nor that he has f ucked up over it. And anyway, the time period that a person held a ST is not necessarily a reason in itself whether that entitlement to the ticket should continue. There are terms and conditions attached to it that could be breached regardless of the length of tenure. You do not know whether that was a factor anymore than any of us, so kindly stop the accusations against the club until you have any basis for them.

So, easy to see your perspective on things. Some things good, plenty not so good. So the scales are tipped against him, eh? But of course, no sensible person would think so, as the "few" good things include pursuading Markus Liebherr to buy us, whereas the "plenty of not so good things" include rather petty little things, like this matter. Where did I say that criticism of the club was detrimental? My reply was to docker-p who seems to believe that getting rid of Cortese would be best for the club. I'm sure that docker will be happy for you to respond on his behalf. Firstly, he seems confident that if Cortese went, the Liebherrs would remain, which I have my doubts about. Then he says that Cortese should be replaced with a Chairman experienced in running a football club. Well, of course all Chairmen started with nil experience at the beginning, but the last one we had here brought in with experience was Hone. Happy with that, was docker? As an aside, I suspect that docker's agenda commenced when Cortese dared to swap his beloved stripes for the sash and it really must gall him that in a poll, half of the fans prefer it.

Which was its hour of need? When Lowe returned with Wilde? When the Pinnacle Bid was on the Table? Fialka?

And you know for a fact that everybody is not for him now, eh? I could certainly furnish a list of posters on here who seem to have taken against him, but then that would only amount to a couple of dozen. What I think would be best for SFC would be for certain individuals to get behind the club rather than bed-wetting themselves over trivia. If they can't manage that, perhaps they're better off suporting Peterborough, whose renta-quote Chairman is probably more their type, or else a glory team.

I'm trying to work out whether you're unhappy because NI is your mate, or whether it's because you can't abide NC. Pardon me if I get the impression that you have some agenda here, as your posts suggest that to me. Apologies if I'm mistaken, but you seem to be the proverbial dog with a bone. The most sensible posts on here have concluded that as only one side of the story is in the public domain, then it is futile piling in with all this conjecture as to what the reasons and motives were for the Club refusing to issue a ST to NI. I'd certainly hate to be before a court where some on here were on the jury, as clearly some are prepared to issue the guilty verdict without having heard the case for the defence.

Several posters on here have given possible reasons why this action has been taken, but of course in the absence of any confirmation from the club, they are just conjecture. Just as solentstars' assertion that the club is in the wrong is pure conjecture without any evidence to back it up. The club's refusal to give a reason does not speak volumes at all. I thought that most accepted that the new regime is not any longer comprised of individuals who feel the need to bleat in the press about every little facet of the running of the club. I suspect that this matter rates very low on their radar, whereas it seems only to have generated interest on here or in the Echo largely because of Nick's status as "Supporters' chief"

Ah! So you can't produce any evidence to support your contention that there was no good reason for the club refusing to allow NI to renew his ST, but you still manage to arrive at a conclusion that the club was at fault. I see.

Glad to enlighten you. Had they alluded to him being the head of the Saints Trust or of a supporters group, there would not be a problem. But the all encompassing title that they gave, encourages the illusion that he is an accredited spokesman for all of the supporters, which is nowhere near the truth. I'd go as far as to say that were there to be a poll on whether they wished Nick Illingworth to act as a media spokesman on their behalf, the majority would vote no.

You know for a fact, do you, that there was no good reason for refusing NI's season ticket? Perhaps you might be good enough to tell us all how you know this for a certainty, as the club have not commented on it.

A position that has been perpetuated by rags such as The Echo, who are too damned lazy to make any attempt to seek other sources of comment from the large local fanbase. NI was current and valid at the time of the reverse takeover or during certain events of Lowe's era, but now he is just an anachronism, the figurehead for a largely defunct and totally unrepresentative body of fans which has no purpose, no influence and no validity. The Saints Trust is a dinosaur organisation, irelevant, as is its leader. Seemingly, it doesn't matter how many times this is pointed out to the Echo. It is obviously far too much bother to send a reporter to the Stadium to tout for an opinion from a really independent fan who might be there to buy a match ticket, or merchandise from the shop. Much easier to make a quick call to "fans' chiefs" Nick Illingworth, Perry Macmillan or Richard Chorley or other defunct voices of fans' past discontent.

No, it was dire though. Now I feel a right Charlie.

After that dire first half performance, I was preparing myself for losing. We improved during the second half, but there were all sorts of negatives after the blissful euphoria of our performance agianst ManUre on Saturday. Somehow Chaplin and Schneiderlin didn't seem to be bossing the midfield as they had agianst the Premiership leaders. Chamberlain seemed to be better shackled by the Exeter defence than the United defence. Questions were being asked by the Solent commentators on whether Davis was due to be replaced by Bialkowski and then Davis produced a World class save, although poor judgement on his part had gained Exeter the lead. I had been wondering whether Lambert had been substituted, as I had not heard him mentioned for some time and then he pops up and scores. Even then, I'm musing that mentions of Exeter being the 1-1 specialists would be better than losing, but a terrible anti-climax after Saturday and we really ought to win against Exeter having beaten them so convincingly at St Mary's. Even when Lambert scored his second to tie up all three points, I felt relieved somehow, rather than euphoric. Perhaps with a little reflection, although it was a shame that Bournemouth can beat Swindon whilst we can't, at least we pulled back two points from Brighton's lead and the Skates lost to QPR. And on the bright side also, N'Guessan seems to have done very well indeed. I can't help but feel that Lallana has been a big miss against United and tonight and I can't wait until he returns to add some flair and sparkle. Also, I'm pretty sure that Guly would have been a threat tonight and there is also Forte to cast an eye over too. It could be that these points won tonight in this nail-biter will be vital at the run in, so I'll reason it that the sign of a good team is that they can grab the points when not playing particularly well, that they can win ugly, that they can steal a match within a few minutes of the final whistle.

No allegedly about it. I was there. As if the jeans weren't bad enough, he slouched up the aisle with his hands in his pockets too. Somehow it just seems to epitomise the sort of person he is by showing that lack of respect for the occasion. It could be overlooked if he was a brilliant player, but his career is suggestive that several managers have liked what they saw initially, but grown disenchanted with his attitude somehow. If he had Ormerod's attitude and determined application, he would be one hell of a player. He might yet decide that the faults lie with him and not the various clubs that he has left in his wake. Lawrie Mac said that a team needed Road Sweepers and Violinists. Ormerod was a road sweeper and Puncheon is a violinist with broken strings.