Wes Tender

Seems fair enough to me, but it unfairly victimises the Skates, so will not be tolerated. They already have enough of a complex about how the rest of the footballing World has got it in for them and this sort of action might tip them over the edge.

I agree totally. Everybody should also be paid the same regardless of their qualifications or responsibility. At the same time, what they spend their earnings on should also be restricted so that nobody has a better house of car than anybody else, or a more exotic holiday. Of course, if somebody wishes to spend their money on privately educating their children because standards are better in the private sector, then that should be their right. Don't forget, they also probable pay taxation at a rate double the average which includes education provision from the State that they don't use. You don't see them bleating about the injuustice of that and the same goes for their private health insurance costs. Life is considered unfair to those who see others earning and spending money on what they cannot themselves afford. That is how it is and will always be, unless there is a revolution and we are governed by the Peoples' Proletariat whose thinking is akin to yours.

If there's far too much, then it's perfect fare for freezing the surplus for another time. Next time, get a bottle of stout/Guiness to cover the ingredients, or as Keith says, the red wine.

Thus making their rag even less relevant to its readership. Nobody is going to buy it because of this puerile campaign, but many who bought it to read match reports involving us will now not bother. Brilliant! What affect do they think this will have on us? Most Saints fans will just read the match reports elsewhere, in the numerous alternative places, as will the fans of the teams we are playing.

Well, the journos from the Red Tops aren't exactly notable as shining examples of honesty and integrity, are they? If they are unable to fill their rags with proper news, then they are entirely capable of fabricating stuff, or publishing rumours dressed up as facts. All they have to say is that they are reporting sources close to the club/mangement/company/celebrity. If what they say is challenged, they state that they are not prepared to compromise their source. I was trying to recall how the Red Top journos were portrayed in Spitting Image. Hyenas? Whatever it was, it was very fitting as many are the scum of the Earth.

Who cares if this arse-wipe comic takes this childish and puerile stance? They're not even bright enough to realise that the end result will be that we gain loads of free publicity from it and everybody will take far more notice of us, especilly when we're topping the division. Some of the lower IQ "readers" might even believe that they're talking about the Skates.

I'm devastated by this news. This man meant a lot to me and although I had never met him personally I loved him for what he had done to save our football club. My thoughts are with his family and loved ones. Rest in peace, Markus.

So circulation is less than 3 million, but 2.98 million of those readers are ABC1's? I take it all back. Clearly there are only 20,000 thickos reading it and the rest are the intelligentsia.

Ah! so the only way that one can read the Sun is if one buys it, right? Issues of the rag that are left on a pile at the Barbers or on a train seat are strictly not for consumption by anybody else apart from the individual who purchased it, right?

Matthew Le God: Steve Grant: So what the Echo meant to say but didn't, was "refusing all photographers access to home matches with the exception of the club's photographers". So MLG was right; it was a reporting error. I wouldn't be such a pedant about it if you had not used the

You are normally a poster who uses well reasoned arguments, but here as far as I can see, you have shot yourself in the foot. If the bit highlighted is true and I think it is, then although the revenue that might accrue to the club is not great, then on the other hand you are not talking about a good reason why the press are getting in such a huff about it are you? It is pure hypocrisy for the Nationals to go harping on about it when they hardly print much about our matches, let alone print any photographs either. The reason that they are making a story about this non-event is to sell copy, nothing else. At the same time, as astutely observed by Deppo, the club's profile is also considerably raised in the public consciousness. Who knows whether the reasoning behind the whole thing wasn't to achieve exactly that objective? As to the poor fans unable to attend the matches because they lived far away, then that is a total red-herring. You said yourself that the nationals were unlikely to give us more than a few lines. And you only have to read the match reports from on here to know that any two posters have a different view on whether a player was good or bad. Who is therefore to say that a Sports Journalist's opinion of how the match was played is accurate? People unable to attend the match have any number of better places to visit to get an idea of how the match panned out and they could do worse to read several posts on our forum to gain some idea of balance and also to see the odd photo or two posted by fans at the match if they want pretty pictures.

I hadn't bothered to even look at what the Sun were doing, as to my mind the comic is an irrelevance to me and I'm sure that most serious minded people don't bother with reading it either. But out of curiosity, I read their article on that other thread that I hadn't bothered to read also (because there were several other threads going on this subject of the press ban) and I re-established the reason why the Sun is mainly read by either people of a low IQ, or those who get their jollies looking at the page three girls with their kit off. This is what I read together with my comments, the article written in typical over-the-top language and making allegations dressed up as fact, much as some on here do. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TODAY we are printing the most one-sided match report in the history of The Sun. First prize for totally exaggerated hyperbole! While applauding Plymouth's amazing victory we are deliberately ignoring one of the hottest title favourites in history. Again, what a load of crap! A team expected to win the division is beaten narrowly by a team that was in the division above until a few months ago. David and Goliath it wasn't, especially as some of our key players were absent. All this is down to Southampton's draconian executive chairman Nicola Cortese. His totally crazy decision to ban national and local newspaper photographers from the game will hurt his club more than he thinks. No it won't. And how does a journalist for a rag think that he can understand what is in the mind of a Swiss Banker? What exactly do they have in common that enables him to guess at what Cortese thinks? This senseless move will not make him extra money but it will turn the fans and, more importantly, sponsors away from the club. So the fans are going to stop supporting the club, are they? And arguably the extra publicity garnered by this story might actually make the club more attractive to sponsors, not that I'd expect the Sun to realise that. After so many dismal years of decline Southampton need all the publicity they can get while they fight their way back up the divisions. And thanks to the Sun, publicity is exactly what we are getting. What they don't need is a dictator who thinks he knows what's best for the club by denying fans the pictures they deserve in their No 1 paper. Who cares whether we have pictures of the team in the Sun? Apart from the Sun, of course. And whilst we are talking about dictators, the name Rupert Murdoch sprung into my mind. We apologise to the supporters who have stuck by their club through thick and thin. We make no apology to Cortese. So there are fans who have stuck with the club through thick and thin, but who will be turned away from the club according to the Sun a few lines above. Contradiction alert. I should imagine that Cortese is quaking in his boots that a comic like the Sun have a vendetta against him. Anybody with any intelligence would realise that the Sun couldn't care a toss about us normally and are only using this as a device to sell more newspapers to gullible idiots, much in the same way that the Plymouth rag is.

Just back home from the match. It was a tough game and Bournemouth deserve credit for their efforts. However, we perhaps made it tougher on ourselves by playing some second string players like Seagoon, Wotton and Chamberlain, but it was an opportunity for them to get a game under their belts and to rest others. After the first 15 minutes or so, the match was pretty equal and by half time there wasn't a lot to choose between the two sides. Our defence seemed solid enough and looked in control, but then so did theirs. It took a quite magnificent curling shot beyond their keeper and into the top right corner from Lallana to break the deadlock. Having taken the lead, Bournemouth had to chase the game and opportunities opened up for us. Harding was effective when he came on and got to the byeline to put over a couple of good crosses. He also made some great last ditch tackles and is back to Mr. Reliable after a less impressive game on Saturday. But a mighty roar lifted the crowd when a typically hard-working Barnard made way for Lambert. Almost immediately it seemed to count up front and caused a few jangling nerves in the Bournemouth defence after some desperate scrambles. Alex O-C had not been noticeably great in the match until he latched fast on to a long ball and caused their goallie to come for it. When the ball rebounded off the keeper, Alex O-C pounced and coolly and calmly placed the ball into the net. The sense of relief in the stadium was palpable, as it was potentially a banana skin game, but ended as quite a comfortable win. So respect for Bournemouth's performance and to their fans for their support. With luck, when they next visit us in the league we will be fully fit and functioning on all cylinders with the strongest team fielded and make the win much more convincing.

The waters in the Solent around Portsmouth are polluted enough already without introducing the effluent from that cesspit into them.

I miss the cut and thrust of debates we had then too. But the situation is entirely different now. Then, we debated major issues regarding the shareholdings, reverse takeover, the new manager every season, EGMs, etc. The debate was fractured basically between those who came to be known as the Lowe Luvvies and the antis who wanted him gone from the club, but unless I'm mistaken, the standard of debate was higher then than it is now. Why, we have even had threads recently where several serious posters from that era have decried the fall in standards of debate and said that they rarely post now as a result. That is sad. Inevitably there will be others joining the forum who prefer the atmosphere to be confrontational and juvenile and so the standards of debate will drop even further and be self-perpetuating. If the Mods do not wish that to happen, then the time to nip this in the bud is right now.

Bought my ticket at 2pm and apparently the Northam is sold out. Had to get Itchen block 4 instead

Your posts are always well reasoned, interesting and informative and in the spirit of good honest debate. I usually find myself in agreement with most of your opinions and respect your right to state those with which I disagree. That is how it should be. But as you say, there are several on here who when they encounter others who disagree with them, resort to rubbishing them using juvenile and abusive language. Granted that the moderators do a difficult job and cannot be everywhere at once. But as we both are in agreement that there are too many threads for example on this issue of the photographers' ban, then the solution is simplicity itself. Instead of a Mod adding to the number of threads on this subject with one of his own, all except one of them should be shut. Anybody who feels inclined to add their thoughts to the subject could add it to the remaining thread. If the multiple threads on one subject were reduced to the one where the subject matter was contentious, the moderators task would be simplified. They would find most of the infractable stuff only on the contentious threads and fewer of them to watch over. Perhaps in the interests of those like you and I, who have expressed opinions that this constant bickering is becoming tedious, it might be worthwhile the Mods doing something along those lines.

Agree entirely. Surely the purpose of the moderators is to close down threads that merely regurgitate the same old rubbish that is already being spouted on other threads. But then another thread was added by a moderator to the others b*tching about the photographers' being banned from the ground, so I am not anticipating that action will be taken in a hurry to bring some order to the forum. It is all becoming very tedious and having only recently renewed my membership, I wonder a few days after whether it was the right decision. Alpine made a decent enough suggestion that there ought to be a dedicated thread solely for the purpose of providing an outlet for all those who wish to have a dig at our chairman, instead of hijacking every other thread to do the same thing, but surprise, surprise, that thread was locked. How about locking this one too, Mods? Some consistency might be nice.

Puncheon had one of the best games I've seen from him. Just goes to show how two people can have diametrically opposed views.

I'm a bit surprised that an administrator sets the example of starting a new thread on a topic that is currently covered by another thread. The link to this cartoon had already been posted on the other thread. It's going to be a bit difficult for another mod to close it now, isn't it? But if the Plymouth local rag is anything like ours, cartoons would be appropriate, as that's also a comic. They really must have loved the opportunity to extend the possibilities to extend their coverage by several more column inches because of their righteous indignation and petulent foot-stamping. But now that issue is fish and chip wrapping and will soon be a distant memory, so they'll have to think up some other issue at next week's game.

Yes, of course we're financially stable, but I'd be pleased to hear how in your opinion we are unstable otherwise. Seems to me that we have a settled team, have been able to keep the players we wanted to stay, the same manager, new personnel appointed to key administrative posts, etc. Surely you cannot possibly be referring to a few dissenting posts on here as being indicative of us being unstable?

Did you miss the part where I said that they would sit up and take notice when we were winning matches on the way up the Championship and into the Premiership? But I agree that where we are now isn't much cause for them to get excited. For them, they mainly like to print stories of bad news, whereas a stable, well financed club like us isn't what they're after anyway.

A belated report, as I wanted to marshall my thoughts first. The first half display from us was pretty good and it seemed that a goal would surely come from our superior possession and neat passing play. Puncheon had a really good game in the first half and was allowed acres of space which he exploited well. Lambert would surely have got a brace at least from chances provided by Puncheon. Those who said that he was not a league player or had been crap since his first few games here must have been watching some other match. The new boys were also largely solid, especially Dickson. The defence seemed good apart from Harding and Jaidi making the error that allowed Plymouth's goal. Fonte had a great game and got up the pitch and proved a threat to their defence. A couple of dodgey kicks from Kelvin, but otherwise he had nothing to do the entire game apart from their goal. Their keeper was the busier and made a good save from Lallana? in the second half. IMO, there were a couple of points that could have changed things had Pardew observed them and got the players to take note. A lot of the passing was sideways, where a diagonal forward ball would have put Plymouth on the back foot. What's the point in passing across the pitch allowing time to cover it? We need a playmaker in the centre, somebody able to pick out the pass capable of putting pressure on a defence. Perhaps we needed a player out wide to make the run to invite the pass. Could Oxlade-Chamberlain have provided the pace out wide if brought on late to run at a tired defence? The other thing I noticed yet again, as I had most of last season, was the bunching of players into one half of the pitch top to bottom. Why can't we have at least one wide player to stretch the packed midfield and allow some passing where there is less congestion? A packed midfield plays into the hands of the less skilled team, the team of cloggers. Twice in the early part of the second half, Reid seemed to have realised that the players were all bunched into one half and he did have a player out wide. Twice they found that wide player in acres of space and he attacked the byeline where Harding was caught out as a result and had to scramble back. Is Reid better tactically than Pardew? Why has he not figured this out yet? Once they got the goal from their one and only shot on target, inevitably they packed their defence to hold onto their lead and we didn't have the guile to break them down. Lambert might well have scored at least once from the two or three free kicks in promising positions. An impact sub like Antonio or Weigo or indeed O-C might wll have made a difference. Lallana did make a bright cameo appearance and had he been fit and on from the start, he might have got the goal in the first half that could have had them opened up to have to go for the point. I reflect on us not having won the first game since we beat Coventry, who beat the Skates yesterday. Furthermore, I console myself that we sit with a goal difference of -1, whereas Norwich who went up as Champions had a goal difference in their first game last season of -6, IIRC.

Do I detect just a smidgeon of sarcasm there, Deppo? That must have been the glory days when we were in the Premiership and the Nationals were investigating the dodginess of the reverse takeover, writing articles quoting Graham Souness saying that he hadn't come across anybody else called Rupert in football, investigations into Wiseman's term as chairman of the FA, betting scandals involving Bruce Grobelaar when he was here, etc. We were also newsworthy when we were in the Fizzy Pop division because of the EGM and the takeover by Wilde, the infighting between the various egos, the madcap Dutch experiment and playing the kids. It went very quite last season once stability had replaced strife. Now all they can do is gnaw on the bone about petty little incidents like this, or call us the Manchester City of the third division. Good, isn't it?

No he won't. We will have a successful season and the media will be banging on our door for stories to fill their rags. If they don't they will just be cutting off their nose to spite their face. It is they who need to sell extra newspapers, whereas the media will not be affecting our attendances if we are winning matches and climbing towards the Championship and then the Premiership.