Wes Tender

I don't recall any great queue of all the great clubs to sign Mr Wu. How many goals did he ever score? The point about comparisons with Ronaldo and some other greats is that they played in the top teams in the World and received great service from their team mates. MLT's team mates were mostly distinctly average. Of course, you conveniently ignore the fact that several top clubs did vie for MLT's services, but he turned them down. But that doesn't fit your contention that he was judged a true football legend outside of our club, does it? It's the same scenario with Lawrie Mac too; his achievements were all the greater because he managed to get us performing way above our level with limited resources. There we are; I've now given you an opportunity to have your customary rant about your two favourite Aunt Sallys. Go ahead and cast doubt into the minds of others that you are truly a Saints fan.

It's all a bit of a storm in a teacup. We're only talking about having this strip for one season for crissakes. I'm entirely happy with the idea that to commemorate this important anniversary, we revert to a strip that we had when we first started. Any who don't approve don't need to buy it, do they?

A couple of reasons to laugh before bedtime at our dear friends along the road. The result of the meeting that the Skate delegation had with the Premier League seems to have been that they have made matters worse for the club, if that is possible. Some wag commenting on the article reporting the outcome suggested that Saints supporters couldn't have done a better job of screwing it up. I get the feeling that they didn't manage to convince the PL that they were a special case and shouldn't be docked the 9 points if they went into administration. Also that Chainrai would be subject to intense scrutiny, something that upsets them, as Chainrai is seen to be a possible saviour for them. Secondly, the Guardian reports on the situation as it stands with the club and prospective new owners. Storrie-teller hints in typical estate agent fashion that there had been a prospective buyer interested for a while, but that now there were two. So that first buyer had better get a move on, eh, lest he loses the opportunity. And then this quote, which had me in stitches:- He conveniently skims over the details of the amount owed to Gaydamak, which appears to be a further £33 million! Any sensible potential investor will not in any event be putting his money into a Premiership club that by the end of the season will be a Fizzy Pop club next season with a lot of debt and a small stadium without the capacity to bring in enough revenue to service the debt. I recall that it wasn't that long ago that we were having the debate about whether it was better to be us in the third with a decent stadium and a billionaire owner, or them in the Premiership with their crap stadium and debts. There used to be several tame Skates who came on here and tried to convince us that they were in the better position and some on here agreed with them. I'm not hearing much from them now about how the Skates are better off than us.

Taken from a Skate fans' forum:- I wonder how it all went? Regarding number 3, you have to admire the blind optimism that the Premier League will let them off the points deduction due to the unique circumstances of their current plight. So they feel that if they go into administration and wipe off all their debts, they do not see that they will then have an advantage over several other clubs who might remain in straightened financial circumstances and therefore restricted on their levels of expenditure on players, wages, etc. Talk about naive!

So you won't mind at all if we ditch the current badge and replace it with one that had a lot more history behind it? Although I've grown used to it, I personally agree with the opinion expressed that it looks exactly like what it is; a badge designed for a competition. SaintJackoInHurworth I don't dislike that.

I bow to your superior knowledge of the internal workings of the club. You obviously have intelligence gathered that proves that there was a PR initiative that deliberately had the article placed in the Express as a direct way to show NC in a good light. I shan't ask you from whom you obtained this intelligence, as I realise that your source would prefer to remain anonymous and would undoubtedly deny that there was any PR initiative instigated by Cortese anyway. We'll just have to accept that as you're such a respected and creditable poster, that what you say is true.

Yes, he was part of of his father's dynasty, but it says on Wikipedia, if correct, that he returned his shares to the family before starting his own company which turned into the Mali Group. Now, he might have therefore had the working capital to begin this new venture, but it was in a different field to the family Crane enterprise and drew on his background gained from his university studies in engineering. I don't think that it is too far wide of the mark to say that he therefore built up his own fortune from scratch. As for Cortese, agreed that people of his calibre as chief executive material are much more widely available, but as it stands, it is his personal relationship with ML that is key. Without it, ML would not be our owner. So I am entirely happy to accept that ML's judgement in business matters which was sufficiently sound as to make him a billionaire is probably a good enough to cover those who act on his behalf as employees or friends.

Firstly, ML doesn't appear to be the meddling sort, unlike our former Chairman. Secondly, Cortese shows no signs of wishing to take the media to court, so comparisons with the former chairman along those grounds are not justified. Thirdly, I don't think this situation makes us look bad. Most of the rest of Britain couldn't care a toss about it, even if they have even heard about it. Fourthly, you somehow assume that the Echo will not be able to cover the Wembley match should we manage to get there. Do you really believe that Cortese has the power to dictate who sits in the Press boxes? The Echo continue to report on our affairs and match results as best they can. It is just that they are not privvy to the sort of exclusives they might have been offered had Murray behaved himself and often they have to gain their information second hand. And why is it incumbent on Cortese to be knocked down a peg or two? Why can't Murrays boss read him the riot act?

Well, you'll bloody well not be sat in our seats, I can tell you. If you are, you can argue your rights with the stewards.

I believe that somewhere between your position and Up and Away's could be where the truth lies. Markus Liebherr and Nicola Cortese are pretty astute businessmen, as Markus wouldn't have accumulated such wealth from scratch and neither would NC have gained such respect in the banking field otherwise. But although there are other ways of gaining wealth through many forms of investment, few can be as much fun as owning a football club. I think that Up and Away is possibly right that it is a rich man's toy, but there must also be an element of challenge that appeals to both of them in taking over a club in the third division and taking it up to the top league in World football. Not only will the sense of achievement be greater starting lower down the leagues, but also the expectations are lower, so the gratitude of the fans is greater, especially as he saved us from oblivion. Apart from the fun he is undoubtedly having with this project of his, I think that there are some subsidiary benefits that are a plus for him. He raises his profile considerably on the World business stage, especially if he succeeds in getting us into the top 20 again and there could be potential for his profile to be raised even further if we get into Europe. He can make some very important connections that could benefit his core business along the way. Even at this stage, his connection with us does no harm at all to his family's crane business which already had connections with the city and port. I think that it is indeed possible that ML treats NC like a favoured son. Under this scenario with him as our chief executive, NC considerably improves his reputation in his former banking circle specialising in sports finance, if he succeeds in getting us back to the Premiership within a five year timescale. I suspect that if he wishes to return to that field at a later date, his experience would probably be unique. I would like to hope that if this was a 5 year project at least, with plans to sell the club at a good profit when their goals have been achieved, that by that time they will have grown such an affection for the club and the people of this City, that they decide that they are reluctant to give us up.

Yes, I read a conspiracy theory written by a Skate fan on one of their forums that speculated on this. It appears that there are connections between some of these people involved in this fiasco, shared directors on boards of other companies, use of the same solicitors, etc. Also, the appointment of a convicted fraudster overseeing their finances can't exactly fill their fans with confidence either. It all looks very bleak for their future prospects. Chainrai was reported back in November to be only interested in putting them on an even keel before selling on. But it must be nerve-racking to see that amongst the vultures hovering overhead, there are those whose backgrounds involve property development.

So when there is a point of principle that favours the press, then that is allowable, but when it is a point of principle by a private individual (or one made on behalf of a company that he is chief executive of) then a totally separate set of rules apply in your mind. And this coveted freedom of the press you talk about; surely that has to be earned through the respect of the readership. The right to freedom to report the news is fine if it is done objectively, but it is something that can be abused when a media outlet uses its powers to put across propaganda or to push an agenda on behalf of vested interests. Should they have carte blanche to be able to do that in your opinion? Russia had two national newspapers called Pravda and Isvestia, which roughly translated meant Truth and News. The joke was that there was no truth in the one and no news in the other. Happily, there are regularity bodies where abuses of press and media freedom can be challenged and this prevents the worst excesses, together with the rule of law allowing injured parties to sue them for libel or to prevent some stories to be published. Beyond that, the Chief Executive of the newspaper group can fire a maverick editor, or the public who subscribe to the newspaper can vote with their feet and boycott it is they feel that it is not behaving in a responsible manner. Your counter-example about how Cortese might react in the reverse circumstances is a poor one, as he would have recourse to placing the story in any number of other outlets. Also, your statement that the Echo is a business out to make money and therefore it might lose revenue by not holding off publication of a story for 24 hours is seemingly contradicted by virtue of their actions. They have forfeited any future rights to exclusives, thus negating any small increase of circulation they might have achieved that evening. You seem to have summed up Murray to a tee. Well done. Quite. As you say, the profits of the newspaper are dependent on them producing reports that their readership is interested in. If you can see it, why can't Murray?

So would I be right in thinking that as a creditor, Chanrai would have been entitled to have applied for the club to go into administration, but as the owner he cannot do it? So what is he playing at? It almost smacks of him wanting the club to go down the pan so that his property development company can get the land for development. But what is the value of that land for development anyway? It is hardly in a salubrious area where high value housing could be built. It is a scabby part of Portsmouth surrounded with industrial warehousing, railway sidings and poor terraced housing. Furthermore, presumably the Council would have a say in what was put in there too and might not be happy to change the designated use of that land which is already the stadium, thus further devaluing the land surrounding it.

As an historian, surely you realise that it is usually the loser in the war that sues for peace and has to accept the terms imposed on him by the victor. Why should Cortese make the move and then risk having Murray snidely claim that he forced Cortese to negotiate a settlement?

I'm with you all the way here. Although there has been conjecture over the original fall-out, I personally will not be making any judgements on this unless we have heard Cortese's side of it. Murray has badly tarnished his side of it all anyway by the the petty childishness of what the Echo has printed since, the list you have provided. I'm sure that others have done as I have done and brought this to the attention of the chief Executive of the Group, Murray's boss. There have been calls on here for Saints fans to boycott the paper. By indulging in this petty sniping at the Chief Executive of the local football club, a large proportion of whose fans contribute to their readership figures, they are doing their best to commit commercial suicide. For somebody allegedly wanting to rebuild bridges with Cortese, Murray is hardly giving the public impression that is his aim. It smacks of him believing that the power of the press will have Cortese grovelling on his knees begging for forgiveness. He is going to be sadly disillusioned, as the club don't need the paper more than the paper needs the club. In these days of mass communication, they need to realise that through the wonders of the internet, people have several routes to access news and that his tawdry little rag is increasingly becoming an irrelevance. Murray might think that he is a modern day Citizen Kane, but he is hardly one rung higher that many of the bloggers on the internet.

Quite right. Avram is a modern day William Gladstone. It is a disgrace that the Sun have outed him, as being the modest, unassuming guy that he is, he didn't want to take credit for his good works.

And he wouldn't have had it because he would have lost it.

I wondered the same thing, why Chainrai would be able to somehow hive off assets of the club and not forfeit them in the event of administration or liquidation. Also, Clapham Saint, who seems to know what he is talking about, said that the club's directors were not legally permitted to place the club in administration whilst it was subject to a winding up order.

The shirt is produced as a commercial item to attract sales. Therefore to maximise profits, it needs to be attractive to the largest number of fans who might buy it. If that is a throwback to something that Umbro produced in the early nineties, then it really doesn't matter whether you consider it a monstrosity, provided that the vast majority like it. It needs to be populist, rather than something that will win fashion design awards. Already on here, there have been many opinions expressed as to what some would like and others would dislike ManUre's plastics would buy a red bin liner provided that it had the ManUre badge on it. We have also had a chevron on our shirts before, so that is nothing new. It is no more than an interesting excursion into a hypothetical range of designs and pure speculation as to what we will be getting. I'll reserve my judgement for when it is launched.

Getting there is probably going to cost a bob or two, but staying there not necessarily so. Here I must acknowledge the one strategy that was employed by he who must never be named that made much sense; the development of the Academy as a source of future less expensive players. It has already been made plain by Cortese's plans for Staplewood that it is a part of the future strategy to produce some home grown talent via this route. The problem with the last lot was that any decent home grown talent was to be utilised as a cash cow to keep us afloat through their sale, rather than as a device to improve our team. Decent players were sold and then part of the proceeds were used to replace them with two or three mediocre players, any surplus profits being used to pay dividends. It would be nice to believe that an academy with great facilities and an ambitious club, could attract our equivalent of Giggs, Scholes, the Neville brothers, Beckham etc that served ManUre for so long. We used to be able to produce some prodigious talent ourselves, such as Shearrer, Le Tiss, the Wallace brothers and more recently Walcott and Bale. But it has always been the case that we couldn't afford to keep those players here if a big club came knocking on their doors. Now, it seems that if we want to keep a player, provided that the player also wants to stay, we can tell other clubs to sod off if we want. I can foresee a situation in five or six years whereby we could have developed a crop of promising youngsters with a love of the club and an afinity with several others from that academy background that encourages them to stay and play for us provided that we pay them a fair sum for doing so.

I have not submitted a design myself, so how do you know what it would be like to be able to pass comment? You might be imagining something entirely different to me. But presumably you do accept that as the shirt is being produced as a commemorative item, that some sort of indication ought to be placed on the shirt to show what that is? Yes, the dates under the crest could suffice, but as that has not been suggested on those designs by Gecko, then presumably you'd accept that his designs suffered that simple ommission. My business background is in Marketing / Advertising by the way. I accept though that it could be that a large percentage of those who might purchase this shirt could be Matalan shoppers and not the cultured aesthetes that you are crediting them to be. Had you considered that? Anyway, as has already been pointed out, it seems that the design has already been chosen, so any discussion of what we might like it to be is purely academic.

Exactly. Playing devil's advocate is the preserve of somebody intelligently attempting to bring in some balance to a debate. SOG's position is compromised by the stance that he has taken too often in the past of defending the position of the past regime, when most would have said that it was indefensible.

Your post is mainly conjecture. I will rely on Pardew's judgement as to what we actually need as a team rather than yours. Puncheon had scored seven goals for MK Dons thus far and as a midfielder, that is pretty good and might go some way to contributing to their high position in the league. It will be interesting to see how they fare without him. But when they last played us, he was a major threat and hard for us to handle, so I for one am happy that he will not be playing agianst us next week. I have already stated that I was in the camp that wanted a midfield general, but also acknowledged that they were difficult to find even in the Premiership, let alone at this level. Who is to say that Pardew doesn't consider that we have a decent enough central midfield with Schneiderlin and Hammond and that with a fast running winger like Puncheon, who can also apparently play inside the middle too, that he wasn't the part of the jigsaw that satisfies Pardew? It could be that Pardew was contemplating a different formation for some games and some circumstances where key players were absent through injury, or unavailable through suspensions and a player like Pucheon gives him increased scope for changes. So I will reserve judgment until we have seen what Pardew has in mind and where and when he plays him. In the meantime, I still think that MK Dons not having him available to play us next week gives us a distinct edge and if we win the JPT Cup, it will give us a confidence boost.

Your argument might have some credibility if it wasn't so easy to produce examples of the opposite scenario. We bought Lambert and Barnard as two of the top scorers in the division when their clubs did not want to part with them, but the amount of money offered and the wages we were prepared to offer the players made it virtually impossible for them to refuse. How do you justify the comment that Lowe and Cortese are cut from the same cloth? That really is a laughable statement to make. Also, the scenario that we are now in is totally different between the tenure of Lowe and that of Cortese/Liebherr. Before, we were run by minor local Solicitors and Accountants with a Chairman from a background of middling success in the City, but who subsequently owned a little retirement homes business. All of those connected with the club in its 125 year past have been minnows compared with the wealth that is possessed by Liebherr. It is also arguable that we have also never had such a high profile Chairman as Cortese. So any comparisons between this current regime and the last one, are totally spurious.

We just have to have a chorus of "where's your Puncheon gone"