Wes Tender

Another tedious thread posted by the resident sh*t-stirrer digging up a topic already done to death. Roll on next Saturday.

That rather depends on the circumstances, doesn't it? There are blind people who attend matches. Also some whose eyesight is below par when required to see what happened the full length of the pitch away. On the other hand, some who did not attend might have viewed the match on TV and have the advantage of video replays, slow-motion and analysis by pundits. Even by listening to the match on the radio, one is still able to hold a valid opinion about the team selection or the formation, tactics and substitutions, surely? I suspect that you did not personally attend the World Cup. Would you therefore feel incapable of an intelligent analysis as to why the English team or the selection or tactics were crap?

Correction. We were NOT forced to play youngsters. We could have played a mixture of youngsters and experienced players, but Lowe had probably harboured a desire to experiment with a team comprising almost all youngsters and Portvliet and Wotte were the two who he considered capable of having a good stab at making it work. Agreed that we had to get shot of one or two high earners whose wages we could not afford, but Pearson had a decent blend of age and experience and IMO could have pulled off our survival in the Championship had Lowe let him continue. The Skates have a few oldies in their squad, but with the transfer embargo in place, feel that having to play the kids is unfair on them, as they have been used to having several International standard players in their squad. From that point of view, I agree with you that they should live within their means for once and stop belly-aching about their position which was inevitably caused by their own profligacy.

I think that you're quite right and I've also expressed the same opinion along with others. Thank God at least that we have the diversion of the Skate thread, started ironically by the same person that started this one too. Imagine how much worse it would have been without the Skates' precarious position to distract us.

If Liebherr hadn't bought the club, then yes, somebody else probably would have. Let's see; somebody like Pinnacle, minor businessmen living at home with their mother, photocopier salesmen, those were the sort of tyre-kickers we had attracted before ML appeared on the scene. Alternatively of course, we could equally end up with the sort of penniless Arabs, fallen despots, Iron Curtain Mafia or illegal arms dealers that have been associated with them down the road. Instead, we have an owner wealthier than the people who own Liverpool and ManUre. I think that I'm quite content personally that we didn't have to take the chance on anybody else.

No it isn't. Southampton is a club and clubs or associations don't have a legal obligation to admit people they don't want to.

Be careful, John; CB Fry would call that a 6th form analogy. The case regarding Anthony Pulis is conclusive that he is not a great and skillfull player, or he would have been playing at a much higher level than this. The other matter is not open and shut, therefore those holding contrary opinions or not wishing to jump to conclusions cannot be labelled as stupid. Circumspect, cautious, reticent maybe. Stupid or thick, I don't think so.

Not at all. It's really easy to label others who do not agree with an opinion as thick, isn't it, at the same time puffing up your own ego because your opinion must by implication be intelligent. But as Hypochondriac's statement contains the word "if," the hint that it is an opinion shown by his "which in my view" and the jumping to conclusions with his "pretty obvious", then there is plenty of scope for accommodating alternative views without being labelled thick for holding them.

A lot of emphasis has been placed on the position of the clubs, should the Skates have gone back to Fulham to have upped their offer, should Richards have got himself involved, etc. But surely another pertinent factor is what Crouch wished to do. He might have preferred to reunite himself with Redcrap, considered that his chances of playing for England or in Europe were better with Spurs, liked playing alongside Defoe, all sorts of reasons. So although the Skates desperation for money up front might have been a major factor, Crouch may have indicated his preference to go to Spurs regardless.

Well, this sidetrack discussion over player sales is loosely connected, as the Skates have brought about HMRC going back to court to have the FCR's rule overturned, amonst other things. It's inevitable that side issues will be debated as stocking fillers before the metaphorical Christmas arrives for us on 3rd August.

I know my limitations and I bow to you as the master patroniser of this entire forum. I couldn't hold a candle to you when it comes to smugness either, so better that I admit to recognising your infallability. I also accept that there is nobody better qualified to recognise pie in the sky when you see it too. But surely you don't think that I was offended by the childish name calling? Why would I be offended by something so puerile? Water off a duck's back I'm afraid. Sorry to disappoint.

Quite so, Sue, but be prepared to be labelled a moron for holding such opinions. You and I, along with other perfectly sensible posters, can see that the withdrawal of the FCR will mean that clubs will be more circumspect regarding their dealings with clubs in financial trouble, but for some reason apparently, they will be powerless against the players and their agents who will insist that their fees and salaries should rise to compensate them for the loss of the FCR safety net .

"A classic troll tries to make us believe that he is a skeptic. He is divisive and argumentative with need-to-be-right attitude, "searching for the truth", flaming discussion, and sometimes insulting people or provoking people to insult him. A troll is usually an expert in reusing the same words of its opponents and in turning it against them." CB Fry. Classic symptoms. To avoid this accusation, he really ought to be more circumspect in his postings.

The analogy is as lame as your refusal to acknowledge that you could possibly be wrong, that your opinion can only be the right one, no other argument or debate can be tolerated. And your having to resort to childish name-calling just because I dared to question your opinion, speaks volumes to me that you have lost the argument. There are several others that have questioned your assertion/opinion that the removal of the FCR would not make clubs more circumspect, so are you also calling them morons too? It is obvious that your comprehension of the English language is also not great, as I inferred that it would be you that might book up a holiday with a company without ABTA bonding. I would be much more circumspect. And what a hypocrite, advising me that life is all about the broader perspective, when your views are so narrow that they will not countenance any other view or opinion that questions yours.

Ah, but I would like to continue laughing at you and your blinkered view that somehow the removal of the safety net of the FCR will not cause clubs to be more circumspect about to whom they would sell their players to. By way of illustration, let's assume that you're going to book your holiday in the Caribbean and are attracted to the operator who offers a substantially lower price than most others. You realise that they might be a cowboy outfit, as generally you get what you pay for and you have heard dark mutterings that financially they might be bit precarious. But you go ahead anyway because you reason that if they go belly up, you will probably get your money back if they crash before your holiday starts, or flown back home after your holiday, because they are ABTA bonded, so you have little to lose. But would you book up your holiday with that company and pay up front for the tickets if that safety net of the ABTA bonding wasn't there? Yes, based on your thoughts on the football parallel, I suspect that you probably would.

You have deliberately provided an example exagerated beyond reason in a vain attempt to prove your point and the fact that several disagree with your position whereas only you persist with it, is probably the reason that you have had to resort to this tactic. Why would one club be offering twice as much money as another for a player? Is their chief executive so out of touch with good business practise that he does not recognise that it is unecessary to pay twice as much as another bidder to buy a product? The reality is therefore that bids to buy players would be much closer together, making the deciding factor of which club would be likely to renege on the deal because of administration much more pertinent. And what precisely do you mean by the bit in bold type? I'm sure it makes sense to you, but I suspect that I'm not alone in not following your reasoning. As things stand at the moment, they have a nice little get out if things go tits up, as they are repaid 100% of the debt. Where is this get out if the FCR is abolished and they have to accept 20p in the pound likes the Skate's creditors?

What arrogance and pomposity! Just because you don't like the idea of us returning to our original historic kit to commemorate the 125th Anniversay of our beginning, doesn't mean that others cannot have their own appreciation of it. And if they wish to fork out their hard-earned dosh to buy it, then I think that they are perfectly capable of making that decision without you telling them that they must be gullible, insinuating that they are like gormless sheep, incapable of independent thought.

Yes, you could well be right about the FA and FL being worried about many of the overseas stars not coming here if the tax regime was altered so that they didn't have enticements to high earnings because of the FCR and image rights. But on the other hand, we did appallingly badly in the World Cup because the English youngsters cannot find places in the top Premiership teams because of all the foreign stars, whereas Spain and Germany fared a lot better with their home grown players and less imported ones. However, much of the revenue coming into the British game is from TV rights where our matches are screened around the World and where the big teams have already established a brand awareness and following that will be hard to displace. Longer term, our dominance will decline anyway through other factors, like the rise in popularity of football in the USA and also possibly in India, China and other parts of the Far East where the Premiership is watched avidly.

Agree. Fine to have it as a bit of gossip originally, but nothing of much substance has been added since. Until any further facts emerge, there is little point in going round and round the houses repeating platitudes and conjecture.

If so, the counter argument would be that in that event, player values and prices would also fall and become more affordable to those lower league clubs. At the moment the gap between players' prices at the top and lower down are far too wide, exacerbating the gulf between the Premiership and the divisions below. But I agree with your point; it's long overdue that clubs are encouraged to live within their means instead of doing deals on the never never.

First you admit that we don't know all the facts and are unlikely to. Then you go and make the statement that there has clearly been an indefensible attack on all our freedom of speech. There HAS NOT clearly been an attack on all of our freedom of speech. This is exactly the problem with many of the posts on this thread, assumptions are made, conclusions are drawn from scanty or inconclusive evidence. If you draw your own conclusions based on what you have heard from one side, bully for you. But don't disparage those who will not draw the same conclusions without further evidence from both sides. Everybody has feet of clay, including you and me.

I fail to follow his reasoning behind that statement, unless he is trying to justify it on grounds of the trickle down of funds into the lower leagues because the Premiership gravy train benefits from the players maintaining their astronomical salary levels at the expense of us taxpayers and other unsecured creditors. And in any event, what about the counter argument? Smaller clubs suffering, or small businesses, charities and schools suffering instead as in the case of the Skates. Seems pretty clear cut as to which it should be to me.

If you're getting tired of them, just imagine how much more tired the rest of us are.

There's that IF again. And there you go stereotyping Cortese as an Italian, when he is an Italian Swiss. But hey-ho, you know what the Italians are like, eh? All corrupt and bribable. Perhaps Nick Illingworth ought to have slipped a £20 note in with his application. Yes, we have a strong tradition of free speech in England and it also covers the freedom of clubs to have admission policies and to blackball those whom they do not wish to admit. The two freedoms go together and that is how it should be. In many instances, clubs and associations do not even have to justify why they might refuse a membership or disbar a member. Nothing illegal has happened here, so feel free to join the others who do not know the full facts from both sides, but who feel quite justified in jumping to their own conclusions regardless.

ROFLMAO. This would be the same British Gas where you probably have to contact a call centre in India on a number costing you 12p a minute. You will be given several menu choices that direct you to several other menu choices until you get to the one you want. Then you will be informed that your call is important enough for them to keep you hanging on the line for hours whilst they play musak. As for your assertion that if a customer was treated this way there would be uproar, I beg to differ. I haven't noticed marches of banner waving protestors in the streets of the nation's major cities, banner headlines in the newspapers, or mentions on News at Ten. Far more likely that the uproar would be a letter from "disgusted" of Tunbridge Wells writing to the Guardian. The equivalent of the posts on this thread.