Sergei Gotsmanov

Don't normally agree with you! but that is what we really missed. Nobody took the ball to them.

If you knew how the real world works then you would have predicted the referendum result and accurately assessed the impact on the economy of a leave vote. Now we know that the roof has not fallen in I think the line is that the 'economy would have been growing faster'. The trouble is that your exposure to people who voted out is limited to this forum. You are out of touch with the real world. Where of course you are very naive is that EU unity would hold in the event of a Milbrook's 'Trump' style tough negotiating. Do you think when 100,000 French farmers were blocking Paris with their tractors because they had lost a £4bn market, potentially forever, you could just tell them its OK because we are going to screw their financial services. That is hardly going to help them. What about Spanish tourist chiefs - its OK the Brits are all holidaying at home for the next couple of years but you know what, their houses in London are worth 30% less. What about the Danish fisherman - sorry lads you will have to stay in Port now but just to make you feel better, Nissan have made 3000 Mackems redundant and they are hurting too. They would be banging on the Commission's door demanding they sort it out. So yes while it might be a high risk strategy there could be some mileage in it in my opinion.

That certainly would have been the Trump approach and would have plunged Europe into a proper crisis. Amongst all the screaming I expect that many in Europe would have pointed the finger not just at Britain but also at members of the Commission and the whole issue of genuine reform of Europe could have been realistically put on the table. It is likely that we could have been part of that process and could have ended up staying in a reformed Europe which most of us would have approved of. I think you may well have been right and we would have seen how pragmatic Europe could have been if we had opted to press the nuclear button. We may be one market out of 28 but economically it is the equivalent of up to 19 members leaving and that could have been quite an earth quake which would not have been solved by sending Juncker and Selmayr to dinner at Downing Street. Instead we have this softly softly approach put together by an alliance of career politicians, remainer civil servants and big business which has thrown up a fudge that will take an age for us to understand and when we do we will discover we have been shafted once again. That is of course if the now emboldened EU doesn't tell us to go back to the drawing board.

Agree that it will get rid of the absolute howlers which can only be a good thing. It will also generate more goals and that can only be a good thing - I think for every penalty given two are not given. The big issue is will it break a game down and take too much time. Personally I think it adds to the excitement.

I am sure that the black box has already clocked this but I think that VAR is going to dramatically change our game. Referees always tolerated a little bit of pushing and shoving in the box but now they cannot. We will get more goals from set pieces and corners. I think this will mean that players like Gallagher with plenty of height will have more of a value. How else do people think VAR will change the game?

This is what the Saints Forum should be about, not slagging off players and staff but insight like this. It seems feasible.

I always thought that with Alan Mcloughlin we had to pay Swindon a big lump after he had played 30 games. He got to 27 games and they did not risk reaching 30. He ended up being very good down the road. What could have been

Didn't he start against Chelsea and have an instant impact? I remember him scoring a freekick against Wimbledon that helped relegate them.

Jason Dodd, Jeff Kenna, Franny - all players that were given time by the fans. Bridgey was a star from the start

I thought he played well when I saw him. He is only going to get better. Why do young players get written off so quickly by so many.

I am not sure suggesting that the EU is a better democratic model to pursue the interests of the British people is going to end well. The House of commons is elected and every five years at the most we get to vote the prime minister out. The House of Lords is a check and has been doing their job recently. The Queen is just a figurehead who if she wielded even a little of her power would be on her way. She brings a few million tourists in and raises our profile abroad.

It is a lazy argument to just say that people who voted out must have been stupid because a poll suggested that more people who voted in had been to University. More older people voted out and because the older that you are the less likely you are to have a degree does not mean that they are any less equipped to understand the arguments. You could argue that the older you are then the more likely you are to read the news and the more life experience you have.

You are confusing education with ignorance. I would suggest that a lack of exposure to the debate is reflected in an inability to emphasise with why people voted out and to understand the reasons behind the leave vote. You can have as many letters after your name as you like and still be ignorant.

Verbal I would be genuinely interested to know if you actually have any interaction with people that voted leave. Like most people during the referendum the subject came up over the bar or at the dinner table. You gained a pretty even balance of the arguments being put forward. My family was split down the middle, my friends probably favoured remain. I ended up falling the leave side of the line but I was pretty well briefed on the arguments. My suspicion is that your opinions have not been shaped in the same way and because you have not been exposed to the same level of debate you conclude that all leave voters are thick racists. They are of course not.

I caught a Cadburys Cream Egg thrown into the West Stand Easter Saturday 1989 by him.Good catch too!

Good signing. Studying for a law degree in his spare time so must be quite cultured. A good influence in the dressing room.

I am a veteran of the years of struggle in the 90's and so appreciate that you have bad seasons and have renewed all my tickets. I think we will have a better season next season but some things do worry me; 1 The fact that as soon as the renewal date closes we hear that one of the few real entertainers is to leave. 2 The way that loanee players were treated. The fact that Matt Targett was not spoken to when he was having a great run at Fulham. That hardly breeds loyalty 3 The aspirations of our new owner.

We only generally sell our entertainers after people have renewed their season tickets so give it a couple of days.

Boufal will be a good gauge of how good a manager Hughes is. Potentially, Boufal could be sensational, I hope that Hughes is able to milk his talent.

Like what you did there. Not sure the strikers would score enough goals though.

Dave Beasant was actually very good for us. I think he won player of the season.

Or just build Forster's confidence up again.

Not shocking just poor. People were looking for scapegoats in a terrible season and in their eyes he got worse and worse. The crowd then drained him of his confidence. If he was worth £20m at the beginning of last season and is now worth £5m, then the crowd have effectively cost each season ticket holder £681. (Although they have taken Macarthy from being worth £3m to being worth £15m).

Then why did he get picked for England?

Finally a manager who will not be poached and can provide some stability