Wes Tender

I'm surprised at such a conclusion from the club's historian, frankly. If MK Dons hammer us on Wednesday, it is equally possible that we could hammer them on the return match at home. Look at their season so far. There have been many instances of them leaking lots of goals and they only have goal difference of 5 against our thirteen. On their away form, they concede as many as they score. So they could hammer us on Wednesday and we could still go on to lift the JPT Cup. Presumaby, if both things happened, our season would not be over. We've already beaten them 3-1 here. Is there any particular reason why we shouldn't beat them there with arguably a better team?

Why isn't it going to happen? There have been plenty enough incidences of it happening before, so what's the difference this year? And of course it is nonsense to state that it isn't so much the issue as to how many games we win. If we were to win all of our remaining games, we would almost certainly achieve our goal, as it is unlikely that any of the other teams above us will win all of their matches too. We can help ourselves by beating the teams above us for a start, which will close the gap between us and them by three points at a time. We are yet to play our second matches against all of the teams above us apart from Millwall and Colchester. So if we beat those teams, it is more in our hands to progress than it is for teams in the top six to lose it.

Debateable. They brought different things to the defence. Claus was the more skillful defender in terms of footballing ability. Svensson was the grittier, braver defender of the two. Together, they complemented each other. I agree that Jaidi and Fonte will be formidable together and Fonte is definitely a cut above Trottman.

It's all the luck of the draw, but we have already had to endure extra rounds and both of those teams would have reasonable expectations to have progressed much further. There are very few teams from our level or below still left in the last 32, so we have done comparatively well, whereas the likes of Man Ure and Liverpool are shock exits at this stage.

Before making any realistic assessment, there are a few imponderables that need to be taken into consideration. The transfer window has not closed yet and has another couple of weeks to go. It is even possible that Leeds might falter from automatic promotion, especially if they lose Beckford. The same goes for any other team in the division; we could strengthen while others weaken. Whilst it is still feasible that we might make the play-offs, I'd still fancy us as favourites to get promoted once there. I would rather we went up this year even by scraping in, rather than as champions next year. Then, next season, I'd be quite happy if we went up again via the play-offs. If we don't manage the play-offs this season, then OK, we will have done really well if we get anywhere near contention, but there is no problem with aiming high as a strategy. With the FA Cup and JPT Cup, I think that we could beat Leeds on a neutral ground like Wembley, especially if they don't have Beckford and we have added some extra quality to our team. It would give us a psychological boost. We could get past Ipswich in the FA Cup, but already getting further than both Manchester Unitied and Liverpool is a great achievement considering our current position.

Wasn't at the match, so only have the Radio Solent commentary to go on. On the basis that Merrington was a player and manager in his time and was at the match, I'm taking it that his opinion ought to have at least the same, if not more validity than that of most on here, even those who were there. Regarding the team selection, it seemed a bit negative to me, which was surprising when Pardew has stated that it was a match that we needed to win. It was asking a lot to bed in three new defenders and also Holmes too. When it became clear that the midfield was outplayed by Millwall's and that we lacked penetration in getting the ball up to the front, Merrington had been calling on Pardew to take off Holmes, who seemed to be exhausted and to replace him with Connolly or Papa , to inject some fresh legs and pace. As it was, Millwall introduced some fresh legs, but it still took some time to respond ourselves. It was a surprise when Antonio replaced James, although it seemed to be effective. How much more effective might it had been it the substitution had been made with half an hour to go, or even 45 minutes, as it was crystal clear at half time that things needed changing. I got the impression that Fonte had a superb game and is a fantastic signing, also that Seabourne did OK. But I look forward to casting an eye of Otsemobor, as I was expecting runs of blistering pace up the right flank from deep, but do not recall the commentary mentioning any. Apparently he is not the most brilliant RB defensively, but his pace is supposed to balance that. What is the point of him if he doesn't make those runs putting pressure on the opposition defence? So on balance, it seems that effectively four new players was too many to introduce to the team in one go. Therefore it appears that the team was too nervously cautious when they ought to have been much more aggressive if they wanted to win the match. We have pace out wide with Antonio and Papa and supposedly with Otsemobor, but didn't make use of it until the match was nearly over, even when it had become abundantly clear by half time that Millwall were dominating the midfield. On the face of it, we might have been smarter to have spent a bit more time on the training ground before introducing so many players into the team, so that they had a better understanding of how we play as a team and how their colleagues play. As for the equaliser, that was just plain naivety. Although Hammond was not on the field, we had three or four others who had been captains of teams. Surely it was not asking too much of any of them to tell their team mates to concentrate, to punt the ball into touch upfield, to keep possession. As for making the play-offs, surely that is still a possibility. Didn't I see it posted on here that to achieve it we need to average two points a match until the end of the season? OK, so we have a point and need a win in the next match to balance it to a two point average. It would have been nice to have had the three points and then only need a draw somewhere else along the line to balance it up, but we have until the 26th to get some understanding between the new players and their colleagues before the next league match and a couple of Cup matches in the meantime. Of course, there are also a couple of weeks of the transfer window in which to make the signings we need to strengthen the midfield or give the attack more teeth.

The person who comes out of this looking childish and petulant, is Coleman. He's like a baby throwing his toys out of the pram. OK, he's upset because he couldn't buy another player without first getting money for Elliott, but he ought to grow up and accept that the deal isn't done until the contract is signed, the same as any other legal transaction. He talks as if there is some code of honour and ethics that exists in football and if he believes that, he is more naive and gullible than he ought to be as a manager. Thank God we didn't get Coleman or Ransom at this club.

It's early days in the transfer window, so not bad business for this stage. Undoubtedly as in the Ward case, there are negotiations in progress for players we want and then another player offer is accepted that we prefer. Somebody else hears that Ward is now available, so that is how it goes. There could be players on our wish list that we are expecting to go elsewhere and they could become available to us, just as Ward has become available to some other club. Clubs now know that we have money and might be placing daft prices on players to see whether we bite. We have done ourselves a favour over the Ward episode, letting them know that we are not patsies. We have the immediate signings we wanted and can now play poker with some others, seeing what develops and putting in late bids when some other club blinks and gets desperate to take our money or get nothing.

It seems to be that I'm pretty well the only one to come up with anything that took a bit of thought and didn't mention him being shot in the bum or us having difficulty with his name. If anybody doesn't like my effort, can they please say why not? Perhaps some on here are too young to know the song Solitaire, or maybe it's considered not cool enough, or something. I'd welcome any suggestions to improve the words, but I think that the basic concept has possibilies and the name fits and scans well. With further thought, I amend it to this. To the tune of Solitaire by the Carpenters:- Otsemobor is fast and that's for sure attacking wide you couldn't ask for sure and there's no doubt inall our minds he's one of Pardew's finds With deadly speed he plays his game and when he plays it always ends the same three points to lift us up once more thanks Jon Otsemobor

OK, we've had our fun making up songs about him being shot in the behind, but the rival fans wouldn't have any clue about what that was about, any more than we would have had if we heard the song sung by the Norwich fans when we play them. There is a song called Semaphore that might have possibilities, but I can't get to hear it and it probably wouldn't work anyway. But one good possibility with a well known tune and words is the Carpenters' "Solitaire" and Otsemobor happily has the same number of syllables. Otsemobor plays right back for our team and every time he plays is like a dream and no need for us to pretend we're going to score again With deadly speed he plays his game and when he plays it always ends the same three points to lift us up once more we played Otsemobor

Well, it wouldn't be the same song, would it? It might be the same tune, but the words would be different. Do you see the difference now?

Against the two wide men that we would have against the opposition four, on that basis excluding what you call the wide men, we would outnumber their midfield 3 to 2, therefore expecting to get considerably more possession and ability to boss the game. But four across the pitch doesn't make two of them wide men in my opinion, whereas five across does. I agree with Fergie's analogy, that you defend as 8 and attack as 7. When you say that you'd have your wide men marking the wing backs out of the game, you are tying up two of your midfield, leaving us with the midfield three, so we play through the middle when the opposition are weaker there and then when they have to defend the centre, we play out wide. When all's said and done, it is another option that could be considered depending on the relative strengths of the players that we have at our disposal at any given match and also dependent on the weaknesses that Pardew discerns in the opposition team. Some managers probably identified James as our weakness at RB and Lallana as the weakness when he didn't track back to cover Harding. It remains to be seen whether the additional players we have brought in have addressed those problems and strengthened our defence or not, but it's a radical plan, not to be dismissed because other teams don't play it much anymore.

Surely playing wing backs adds width, not makes us narrow? How can we be narrow with 5 across the midfield or the back? And if the wing backs have pace, surely that is harder to defend. What has annoyed me almost more than anything this season, is looking at the goalkeeper clearances to see that all of the players are contained into one half of the pitch front to back. A 3-5-2 would mean that the players spread themselves more across the pitch and the opposition would have to respond, allowing the team with pace and quality of passing to prevail.

I was thinking along the same lines when we signed Otsemabor. His main attribute seems to be blistering pace, but he appears to lack the requisite defensive qualities for a really great RB. But then we have added Fonte as a CB and he is not only a solid defender, but has skill of playing a ball out of defence. For me, Jaidi and Fonte would leave me confident they could make it work, but Seabourne is the unknown quantity, although I am happy that Harding could provide good cover for him. Otherwise, 5 in midfield and two up front would make us a real handfull for most teams, especially if we had that devastating pace down the right wing, with perhaps Papa ahead of Otsemabor. The midfield five ought to be able to gain the majority of the possession over most teams in this division and provided that when necessary, the midfield 5 switched into a back row 5 when we lost possession, it could be very interesting.

Another thirty goal a season striker would just about tip the promotion in our favour, so I'll go for one of those.

Yes it does potentially. Either because if it got sold as development land a substantial amount of money would find its way into ML's pockets (if indeed the Farm is owned by him since the administration) and he might feel inclined to spend it on the team. Or, as has been rumoured on here, the land might have some useful function as a training ground.

Good to see one of our very own house-trained Skates again. You lot have been a bit thin on the ground recently. Corporate Ho appears to have taken up monastic orders, when he used to be a fixture on here, never failing to gloat at how lucky you lot were with all of your Arab wealth. It doesn't really matter what the fans of other clubs say, as they don't know any more about the internal affairs of other clubs than you or I do about theirs. When the original thread was posted in a similar vein, many on here would have wished to have been in your position because you were a Premiership club. I suspect that in light of our current owners and what they have done for us, compared with your current owners and what they are doing to you, the balance has shifted firmly in our favour. Many now think that it is not impossible that we will be passing you on the way up as you fall down a division next season. I appreciate that as a true fan of the blue few, you will not readily admit that your main local rivals are in a better position than you in the medium term, but I hope that you are being honest with yourself at least.

Your point and SOG's was a fair enough observation by itself and I didn't take it myself that you were having a pop at Cortese. But as you say, whenever the former Chairman's name enters the conversation, there is inevitably somebody who makes comparisons and credits him with getting us the new stadium, which more accurately we got almost despite him, rather than because of him.

Well, Sad Old Git started it with his post 56. Then Canada Saint picked up the ball and ran with it. Up until then, Cortese's predecessor hadn't been mentioned. But when he had been, it was predictable that some luvvie would credit him with getting us St. Mary's. Nobody seems to be able to put some flesh on this Benali story.

Of course it was. But people need roads to get to the other sporting and entertainment facilities on the site and once there, they also need spaces to park their cars. The infrastructure of roads and car parks would have been shared by all of the facilities sited there, the hotel, restaurants, athletics track, tennis courts, bowling alley, ice rink, night club, etc. Therefore the bulk of the cost of the infrastructure would have been picked up by EBC, as the club would only have utilised it once a fortnight, whereas many of the other facilities would have made use of them more regularly

According to Clown Prince Al Fahim, Pompey are the greatest investment opportunity in British football for somebody with £100 million to spend. http://www.sportspromedia.com/notes_and_insights/_a/sulaiman_al-fahim_advises_bids_for_portsmouth_west_ham_and_leeds_united/?utm_source=Syndication+Websites&utm_campaign=Syndication+Websites&utm_medium=syndication_websites I think that on the contrary, they are the best prospects for some wealthy lunatic with more money than sense to flush his fortune right down the drain.

It's like the halfway stage in the 10,000 metres. We're about halfway down the field, having got off to a slow start. We're still within reach of the leading pack. Some of them may have gone off too fast and we might manage to catch them. We know that we have a fast finish in us and are running comfortably within our ability. If we can get on the shoulder of the leading pack and put in a sprint around the final corner, we will have the psychological advantage that might see some heads drop around us.

What? In the same way that it is Southampton Airport or Southampton Parkway railway station? Quote:Torres Weren't there posts about fans from down here flying up north to Hartlepool recently? Whereas I suspect that it isn't many, I'm sure that some would find it a convenience flying in from other regional airports with budget airline tickets. More to the point is the motorway link right on the doorstep and the main train services to Parkway. Quote: Inflenced. com Not at all. I drive in early at midday, park within walking distance of the St. Mary's stadium, go into town for lunch, leave wife in town for shopping. I was thinking much more of those living in Bournemouth, Poole, Eastleigh, Winchester, Andover, Totton, New Forest, Hedge End, Basingstoke, etc, all of whom would find the journey to Stoneham much easier. Anyway, I'm just being a tad mischievous talking about the possibility of the resurrection of the Stoneham stadium and the ground-share with the Skates. Better keep it hushed up, as ML and NC might think that the idea has legs.

The likelihood of the Skates bring relegaated has grown as the season progresses. I believe it to be almost a certainty. By contrast, after a slow start, we have come on in leaps and bounds and if we succeed in bringing in the calibre of player that we are chasing, we will be in with a decent shout of scraping into the play-offs. If we achieve that, I am fairly confident that the impetus we will have and the confidence in the squad will give us an edge over the other four teams. So although by no means nailed on, it is certainly not beyond the realms of possibility.

Yes, St. Mary's is a better location for those in the city, but not as good for those living outside the city, where the transport infrastructure of air, rail and road favours Stoneham. Of course, somebody of ML's wealth could afford to resurrect the Stoneham project and sell the land at St. Mary's for redevelopment as luxury accommodation alongside the water edge to re-imburse the expense. He could dismantle the kit-form St. Mary's and re-erect it at Stoneham. We could then ground-share with the Skates, overcoming any reservations that the Police would have with a Southampton city centre stadium. It would be but a short walk from the Airport for Markus from his private jet Scary prospect, eh?