Wes Tender

I quite like three, as I find the right hand end of the stripes annoying aesthetically. I also think that as the shirts are being brought out to celebrate the 125th Anniversary, some sort of mention should be made on the shirt of that fact. The addition of the words since 1885 on the sash in white between the stripes and the club logo would achieve that

Especially as we have taken away MK Dons' best player, Puncheon. OK, he can't play for us, but at least he won't be a threat to us for them. How astute was that, eh? It is almost as if we might have been considering a choice between him and another player, but that this was a factor that swung it his way.

We might have had our fair share of characters and chancers, but Pompey's two fake sheiks are comic genius. It is going down into folklore that they managed to find the only two Arab investors with no money.

Where are you buying your home?

I don't really see the need for another thread on this. But it could be that unless proven otherwise, the Echo might have misreported it, as somebody said that the Flybe sponsorship was due to end by the close of this season anyway. So it might be more accurate to state that they are not renewing the sponsorship, but not that they have ended it when it will be expiring. Also not clear from the other thread, is whether it will just be these special anniversary shirts that will be without a sponsor's name, or whether it is also other kit items. And I'm sure that we probably don't require Flybe's assistance in finding a sponsor if we want one. The people running our club are plenty high-powered enough to have the contacts I would expect.

The Echo says that Flybe is ending the sponsorship deal. Is that correct, or is it Saints who are ending the sponsorship deal with Flybe?

Good news and a nice gesture from Liebherr and Cortese. I'll certainly be getting one as I've also detested being a walking advertisement for the sponsor. By the by, I also detested flying Air Asia because they are proud sponsors of Manchester United and tell everybody about it in their in flight magazine where they sell ManUre merchandise. I suspect that most others from other clubs hated it too. And I also detest seeing referees with the Air Asia sponsorship on their sleeve too. Football is a prostitute to this sponsorship money, but having the referees wear these endorsements is going too far.

Congratulations, Alpine.

What's this play-off birth of which you speak, Alpine? Had Pardew even arrived here nine months before the play-offs?

I sent off an email telling them that we down South considered the mention of Pardew's future to be a work of fiction and telling them to put up or shut up. I pointed out that as this was the very first mention in any media outlet that Pardew's future was shrouded in doubt, that they had an exclusive story, so why didn't they publish it as headline news in their rag and then syndicate it around the World? I don't really expect a reply, but it makes me feel better telling the Jock fantasists what a load of crap they print.

Had to laugh at Warnock saying that Dann dropping down a division would be a retrograde step in his career. So Warnock is totally and utterly convinced that despite the deduction of 10 points and good players like Fonte leaving, the club won't be playing in the third division next season anyway? Warnock's case is considerably weakened by Fonte coming to us. He obviously lacked ambition too. I wonder what Warnock tells players from the Premiership who he is after? It must be difficult to sell Crystal Palace to them as a career move, being as how they would be dropping a division.

I suspect that if questioned, the journalist couldn't even put any meat on the bones, apart from the distant possibility that football is a game full of uncertainties and that it is not beyond the realms of possibility that any manager's career might be under jeopardy at nearly every club. Apart from Ferguson and Wenger that is. This crappo journo could equally say that some World football star was hesitant to sign for Chelsea because the manager's tenure there was under some doubt. It is obviously a ploy to put doubt into the player's mind. I very much doubt whether there is any substance to it all.

But some obviously love them more than others, that is the point. Some are fair weather fans and others are proper through thick and thin fans. OK, the tickets for Wembley will be issued with priority given to those who have either STs or a record of attendance, but let's not have any bleating from those plastics if they can't get tickets when they have proven by their lack of support normally that they scarcely deserve them. At least those at Wembley will have some affinity to the club, whereas when St Mary's was full for the ManUre match, there were probably a fair few who only came to watch United. They are the ones worthy of the most contempt of all, as they will have deprived some of seats who had intended at least to go to watch their local team.

Au contraire. Some Saints supporters are indeed better than others. The obvious case is where some go to every match, home and away, whereas there are some, (the target of this thread, obviously) who only turn out when there is an opportunity of a day out at Wembley, or a match against ManUre) Personally, I have nothing but contempt for those plastics. If having attended, they develop a passion for the team and then continue going, fair does. But if their next attendance is the next time we get to Wembley or play the glory teams in the Cup, then they are worthy of even deeper contempt. As I mentioned above, I make exeption to any who cannot attend regularly because of other pressing commitments, staightened financial circumstances or through problems of distance. But those who live nearby, are financially reasonably secure, but just can't be bothered to support their club unless we are playing a big team or playing at Wembley are not worthy of calling proper fans. The Skates had plenty of them while they were at their peak recently and thankfully most of them are disappearing quicker than Redknapp when the money ran out.

I'll reserve judgement on this until I've seen what he brings to the table. Undoubtedly judging by the disappointment that has been expressed by the MK Dons fans at his departure and the good game he had against us here, he does have some talent and also good mobility and free-kick prowess. I also believed that we needed a midfield general type and Schneiderlin has not proven to be that player yet. But the problem probably is that players with those credentials are difficult to find in the Premiership, let alone in this division. It is said that Puncheon can play anywhere across the middle and it could be that Pardew sees possibilities of him playing centrally rather than wide. Certainly we have several options, as although Papa is a candidate for playing out wide or up front, presumably he could also play behind the strikers as an attacking midfielder too. So until we see what Pardew has in mind for Puncheon, it is early days to form some valid opinion. What is interesting is why Plymouth let him out on loan when he has apparently done such a good job in helping MK Dons' cause this season? It smacks of a fall out, a personliy clash with the management at Plymouth. Pardew rather interestingly describes him as "a bit of a maverick". Nothing wrong with that provided that the manager can control him and there is a mutual respect. Also that needs to apply to his team mates too. But what I do appreciate is our ability to target these players that clubs wish to keep and prise them away. But it would still be nice to hear that later today we have done the business with Danns too. It does appear at the moment that with Hammond or Schneiderlin out, we are too one-dimensional and lack bite and direction in midfield.

I'd excuse the fans from abroad, because they will have made some considerable effort and expenditure just to attend one (or maybe two) matches. Likewise, I'd give a degree of latitude to those who live in the Outer Hebrides, or those who the week before came out of a long coma. Other than that, I'm sure that we would see a lot of Johnny Come Latelys. And I will have nil respect or gratitude for them. I am pleased that the club is making some sort of effort to at least to tie them down into buying tickets for other matches. The name on the database thing is a bit weak though, as it could stem from when we were last in the Premiership.

Don't be ridiculous. Of course I'm not suggesting making alterations to the stadium now. I merely pointed out that it seems apparent in the light of the fuss that is being made about the positioning of the away fans and the difficulties of Policing them, or inconvenience caused to the corporates, that it appears that the mistake was made with the original plans for the stadium. You might not agree and think that the best plan was adopted. I don't. And it would seem that anybody who has posted on this thread wishing to alter the current set-up doesn't either. Your first paragraph tends to suggest that it is you who have the smaller mind, if you have to indulge in such a childishly sarcastic tone. But that is obviously far easier than having to argue your position intelligently, so I can understand why you would do it.

Jesus, Delldays, the stadium started life as a drawing on a piece of paper. It was the archetypal blank canvas. It might assist you to look at an aerial picture of the stadium. http://www.bing.com/maps/default.aspx?v=2&ss=southampton%20football%20club&cp=sghxh3gwhmtv&style=o&lvl=1&scene=4321377 Why do the facilities for the boxes have to be at the so called front of the building? People who use the corporate facilities only need to be along the longest touchline which is also the Kingsland stand, not only the Itchen. They don't come for the view over the cement works, they come for the view of the pitch. Those who come to the stadium for the conference facilitities again probably couldn't care less about the view from the windows. The boxes would have the same view of the pitch as they have now, but wouldn't be troubled by the proximity of the away fans. They would have the same distance to walk to their cars as they currently do. But Cowen, or whoever, was obviously also small-minded enough as to not understand the shortcomings of the design he chose. But then again, Lowe and Cowen were not ones to consider primarily the requirements of the fans, were they? So we find ourselves in a situation where the number of corporate customers has dwindled right down and is far less of a consideration to the scheme of things. I'm pretty certain that they'll all be back when we're playing in the Premiership and wouldn't have been too fussy if the boxes and corporate suites were over the Kingsland, provided that the prawn sandwiches were of good quality and that in between munching on them and quaffing champagne, they could catch the occasional glimpse of Rooney or Drogba knocking in a goal or two.

Please do try and read again what I said. I thought I had expressed myself quite clearly. The away fans need to be in the Itchen corner because as you say, it is the closest exit point to the road for their departure and therefore the easiest place to Police. But there is no necessity at all for them to intrude into the Northam end as they do at the moment. With me so far? The corporates should have been over the Kingsland. There is no reason at all why they had to be at the front of the building. They can't park there for a start. The car park adjacent to the Saints store could have been utilised for them and they would only have to walk a few yards to the entrances around the corner at the Kingsland or provision might even have been made for an entrance from the Chapel end car park. There would even have been scope for some of the function rooms to have been positioned at the Chapel end as well. Cowen, or whoever, probably planned the layout on the basis that the positioning of the corporates was the most important consideration, which it is not, as this debate proves. He should have started by positioning the away fans into the Itchen corner with access acceptable to the Police and then worked on from there to position the corporates to the opposite side of the stadium, thus allowing the home fans who wished to be close to the away fans much more scope as to where they could sit.

Kindly read my original post on this. Half of the away support is behind one of our goals, rather than in the corner. The whole essence of this discussion is that the club want a Kop end behind the Northam, so that the away fans have to be moved. They cannot be placed in the Itchen corner, because of the proximity of the Corporates and boxes. They are difficult to accommodate in the Kingsland/Northam corner or the Chapel/Kingsland corners because of possible objections by the Plolice because of the difficult exit next to our fans. It is a mess. Had the original plans placed the away fans in the Itchen corner but the boxes and corporates along the Kingsland stand, no such problems would have arisen. That is why it seems that the original plans for the stadium were a c*ck-up.

OK. Everything in the garden is lovely, so no mess exists, does it? Therefore there is no point to this debate and all the posts on it are a complete waste of time, eh? The mods might as well close it now, as you don't think there is anything to discuss. If you think that the situation is satisfactory, that half of the area behind one of our goals is occupied by away fans, then good for you. But as far as I can see, there is nothing to have prevented the original design of the stadium being set up in such a way that all of the problems that have been raised in this debate could not have been addressed at the outset. Unless anybody can throw some light on it and either dispute that the set-up could not have been altered from what we got, or that it was not Cowen responsible for the specification as to where the various elements were placed, then it seems that it was he who c*cked it up.

It occurs to me that the way that the original stadium plans were drawn up had presented us with these problems that are now hard to resolve. The problems are caused by having the away fans taking up half of the Northam and if they were to be shoved into the Itchen corner, then problems arise because of their proximity to the corporate boxes. And then there are issues with the away fans being placed elsewhere because of them exiting the stadium and the difficulties in policing it all. OK, these things are with us and give us these problems now. But I wonder whether some idiot in charge of the plans for the layout of the stadium did not think very clearly about this. I get the impression that the main responsibility for the layout and designated areas fell onto the shoulders of Andrew Cowen. Whoever it was, whether him or Lowe, it is plainly obvious that the away fans should occupy the Itchen corner and that the entire Northam end should be for home fans. The corporate boxes should be along the Kingsland stand. That way, no problems with the exit of away fans, home fans behind the Northam goal, a decent group of home fans on the other side in the Itchen/Northam end and no problems with the Corporates either. Any reason why the legacy of blame for this mess doesn't sit fairly on the shoulders on Cowen? Have I got it wrong somewhere?

There was a very simple reason why the atmosphere was flat yesterday; there was an immense gap between the small Stockport fans section and the home fans in the Itchen and Northam. Therefore there was no banter to encourage an atmosphere. Because of this, one or two of the yoof at the back of the Northam showed little imagination and resorted to the only thing they know, their hatred of the Skates. It wasn't helped by Stockport chanting the play up Pompey chimes either, although we changed it to Pay up Pompey. I really do not know why when there is a small attendance from the away fans, why we can't open block 43 and 44 to home fans. I suppose that the dividing partitions in the concourse might be a problem, although that is surely not insurmountable. It seems strange when the club are debating the possibility of having a Kop end in the Northam and yet when the circumstances arise like yesterdays, we do not grab the opportunity to fill most of those empty seats behind the goal with home fans, to improve the atmosphere.

As everybody else says, the first half was dire. Without Lallana, we lacked creativity and the impression given was that we were just going through the motions, couldn't be too bothered. Stockport seemed more up for it than we did and won a succession of corners through their early pressure and commitment. Thankfully, our defence has been massively improved, especially with the arrival of Fonte. Otherwise, Seabourne didn't do too badly either and with Jaidi and Thomas on the bench, we have some good strength in depth. The left and right back positions still look a bit weak with Mills and Otsemobor and IMO would be much more secure with Harding and Murty when he returns. Mills didn't have his best game yesterday and my first glance at Otsemobor gave a reasonable impression of him, but so so. Time will tell. I suspect that our defence of last season would have conceded something, but this defence didn't look too troubled. Stockport didn't have strikers that had a real cutting edge and one wonders what a better team might have achieved. The bleached blond (or albino ) midfielder Perkins (their 25) stood out from a sea of mediocrity in midfield and he could have improved our first half if playing for us with his bustling, combative style. For over an hour, we huffed and puffed with little imagination, no real penetration and not much service to Lambert and Barnard. Lambert looked tired and Barnard had good movement and desire, but one worries that if he fails to score in the next two or three matches, whether his confidence might take a dent. Our main threat in that time was undoubtedly Antonio, who at least gave us a bit of width and caused them problems with his pace and direct running at defenders. Although the team looked a bit more committed after Pardew had probably read them the riot act at half time, it seemed that that alone would not have been enough to guarantee a result. The introduction of Papa Weigo changed the match virtually from the second he came on. All of a sudden, his pace and movement instilled some uncertainty into the Stockport defence. Our team also seemed to be transformed and Schneiderlin suddenly found an outlet for some excellent raking passes to Papa's feet. Holmes also was encouraged to make some runs to the byeline and the extra width stretched Stockport in the midfield and made it easier to penetrate up the middle too. I think that Papa has made a good enough case for himself to be included into the scheme of things, either to start, or to be introduced as an impact sub, but please Pardew, not in the last five minutes. He showed us what he can do with at least half an hour, when the pressure he brought snuffed out any further threat from Stockport and we cruised to the final whistle. Considering that he has not played as frequently as he could have, I thought that his attitude and determination were exemplary. The way that he took his goal illustrated that he does have some good skill and technique and he can certainly cause defences some problems. I'd like to see us buy him at the end of the season if Fiorentino are amenable to letting him go.

Why not? Although instead of the numbered ticket, the Disney type barrier queueing would work with this, as it wouldn't matter if the barriers were permanent.