Joensuu

It refreshes three times a minute (i.e. every 20 seconds) whether anything is updated or not. Baj, sorry, hadn't read the whole thread... it looks like you've got it working really well... think I'll be using if for future games. Thanks for all the hard work you must have put in.

Baj, interesting ordering. Two updates, 15:14 & 15:20 both sorted into the 20th minute... know it's minor, but might help anyhow...

Let's hope that kickstarts his season

Thank you all for the replies, they are really thought provoking. It's good to see what other people would ideally like to see in the club's future. Do people think we can get back to the top of the Championship, or higher, without investment, or solid business strategy? I think returning to our previous (rather amateur?) attempts at running a football club, would only see us fall further through the leagues, unless, of course, we got luckily and found a manager capable of consolidating a team on little money (c.f. Lambert at Norwich). If the Championship is our aim (or if we are hoping for a top flight return), I think that the management need to focus on running the club as a business. Unfortunately, I feel this will mean that we have to accept things such as, higher ticket prices, booking fees, temporary removal of instalment plans to prevent people cheating the system, reduction in perks to ex-players, car parking fees, experiments to raise revenue via controlling IPR of match day photos etc. I agree, some of these seem short sighted, but when they fail, our current management have shown that they will reverse their decisions. I also agree that all of these could have been communicated far, far, more effectively. Desirable as it seems, I think if we want to return through the leagues, we will unfortunately have to put aside notions of the 'affordable pastime'. Thank you Murdoch

So your answer is 'no ... but then again', which I feel is pretty much a 'maybe'. Which I guess puts us in a similar position, i.e. we don't know, but assume that social factors (nurture) can influence what is seen as normal. In terms of sexuality, I think everyone can be seen as being a percentage gay/straight. Some people are clearly one way or another, some experiment with both. Often those most comfortable with their sexuality are the ones most likely to be relaxed when the subject is raised; whereas those who are uncomfortable often act more defensively. As for paedophilia, I think we are using a single word to encapsulate a whole range of different thoughts and activities. How can a 17 year old with a 15 year old girlfriend be considered in the same way as an adult and a toddler? For me there needs to be subdivisions made. Obviously, anything without consent is massively wrong. But at what age can consent be given? The laws of different countries suggest consent varies widely. If you take 14 year olds, many of them are emotionally immature, and IMO couldn't possibly offer consent. However, some at the same age are fully aware of all the variables, and can make a considered, informed decision. Likewise, there are 19 year old who are simply not emotionally mature enough to sensibly offer consent. Then you need to consider power relations. If a relationship has a power imbalance (at any age), even if the weaker party says that they are offering consent, are they actually capable of making that decision impartially? Then there needs to be consideration of physical development. Puberty provides us with a logical, natural point of change. Then there are passive paedophiles, ones who fantasise, but who control their urges. Shouldn't society support these people, try to help them resist temptation, rather than paint them with the same brush. I think the current law is a hash. Simplifying the situation by throwing down an age for consent in a single swipe fails to protect older teenagers who aren't yet emotionally mature enough to make the decision, while cutting the civil liberties of those who are younger and are emotionally more mature. Also, some serious change in the law should occur at the point of puberty (currently there is no legal change), with penalties for adults engaging in pre-pubescent activity being significantly harsher than post-puberty. I think tarring both activities with the same brush is appalling. Perhaps legally, one should continue to be 'Paedophilia', the other 'Pederasty' (which in Ancient Greece mostly involved teenagers, not younger children). However, when it comes to the more difficult post-puberty legality, I think it is hard for any government to get right. Each case is different, and IMO judges and juries should have some flexibility. However, as per the current rape legislation, this can't be allowed to bias against the victims. Last point, IMO, part of the problem with society today is the media-fuelled anxiety against paedophiles. If you read the Express or Daily Heil, you'd get the impression that there is a paedophile in every hedge, and lurking around every corner. We have always had paedophilia, it's not a new phenomena. It has probably increased in line with the increasing population; meaning children are at approximately the same risk they always have been. The only difference is the widespread fear the media have worked the public into. The result is that adults find it awkward to approach children in public; meaning if a child is littering, bullying, swearing, etc, adults now feel less inclined to intervene, and tell them off, for fear of being branded a paedophile. Likewise, if you see a kid playing in public, 40 years ago you might have been able to speak to them, perhaps even teach them something, but not today. We have to stop this irrational fear of paedophiles; it is weakening so much that was once good in our society.

Both homosexuality and Pederasty were all the rage in ancient Greece. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece It may seem like a totally alien concept to us, but here is an example of a society which publically accepted both. Reproduction was still maintained, as most men were married and fathered children as well. It may seem weird to us, but if it was the social norm that you were born into and brought up with, would it still seem weird? Not engaging would have made you the isolated person doing something different. My guess is that almost everyone would have participated, had bisexuality been the done thing.

No Hypo, I'm not dismissing your views or Steve's. I'm willing to accept that there may be more going on than is publically known. But the evidence for it that is known just doesn't stack up. Reminds me of when politicians asked the country to trust them that the secret evidence they had seen was compelling proof that a foreign nation posed a direct threat to us within 45 minutes. I questioned the lack of evidence then, and continue to find that a sensible policy to base decisions on. There is a verygood reason why the law assumes innocence until proven guilty. I will treat Cortese in exactly the same way. Evidence not rumour.

That's a lot of posts in a short time. The videos of the game should settle to booing debate, as already discussed, so no point revisiting that. But this comment deserves a response. IMO the total opposite is true. Those backing Cortese are calling for the benefit of the doubt to be given, especially in the absense of evidence. We just want Cortese to be given a chance, and not perpetually undermined. In my experience, your polarisation is very much the other way round. People considering the evidence are cutting him some slack, whereas people jumping to conclusions seem desperate to keep slating him. I'm most interested in why some of our better informed posters have turned against Cortese. Is is just on the basis of the rather dubious rumours that are circulating, or is there some substance behind the negativity? Perhaps it can't be reported publically?

Ossie, I assume the increase in attendence is mostly to do with us having performed well against Wednesday, this being our first home game since then and all. I would also guess that many Cherries will be hiding in the wrong end, going with Southampton mates etc. Don't kid yourself, this is not a derby. When you were promoted there was a small cheer at St Mary's. Many of us look out for your results, and are hoping you do well. I'm sure some of your fans will try to start a rivalry, and I'm sure some of our yoof are stupid enough to react. Hope that helps...

Am still slightly disturbed.

And the award for first name calling on this thread goes to...

Fair enough... NB, the term ADHD only came into use in 1987, possibly explaining why it was unheard of when you were at school, depending of course upon when you were at school... There were of course still kids with behaviour we'd today term as being ADHD before 1987...

If anyone does dig this video out, it'd be really interesting to see. There are no videos of the booing online that I can find. It would be good to watch it, to at least work out which part of the game it happened in. That should help clear up, or back up the Mawhinney & Mexican suggestions.

That would certainly change things. It would be interesting to re-watch.

JustMike, you do realise that by stating that ADHD is 'made up' you are contraticting the advice given by the American Psychiatric Association's 'Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders'. The evidence for ADHD may well be debated, but you are in one sentence dismissing the current results of the most comprehensive studies that have been undertaken in this area of medicine, on what appears to be a hunch.

Turkish, what are you talking about? What exactly did Ian Wright do which prompted him being reported? We don't know. You have jumped to the assumption that it was 'banter', based on nothing. Hey, at least it allows you to have a go at the fans who aren't 'ard and abusive. How very dare they sit in their seats and enjoy the game in their own way?

Because only certain areas of the crowd seem to have heard it. Listen again to the video on a previous page of this thread... hear any booing? Edit: Oh, and hopefully not 'desperate'. Frankly, I don't care one way or another. I'm just trying to apply logic to events.

Absolutely Wes. Tiny numbers of people could have started isolated booing. This booing could have been intially directed at any number of people/events. The probability that booing for Cortese was not uniform across the stadium seems to be minimal. I guess there are countless examples of this sort of thing. Take the centuries of people believing the Sun must orbit the world. It's so easy to jump to conclusions unless you study all of the variables. I think it fair to say, that there is limited evidence that the booing people heard was directed at Cortese. I think it unfair that it is used against him.

I think we need to map this. It seems obvious from the videos, and from many posters, that the booing was in isolated pockets. We should get a plan of the seating up, and try to pin-point which small sections of the stands heard booing. We might find that fans were reacting to something else, you know, like when a different part of St Mary's has seen something wrong, say, a handball or something, that nobody near you has seen. I only suggest that the fans were reacting to 'something else' in small pocket(s), because it seems to be the only sensible explaination. It's obvious from the videos that there is nothing but applause audible where the camera is. I, and other posters have confirmed the same from our postions around the stadium. As such the vast, vast, majority were clearly supportive of Cortese. Statistically the small percentage of fans with negative opinions towards Cortese should statistically be spread fairly evenly throughout the stadium. However, they only seem to have been heard in isolated pockets. As such, it would seem that people booing Cortese were somehow drawn to similar areas of Wembley. Perhaps there is some relationship with ticket price, or preferred view and disliking Cortese? Otherwise, statistically, the fact that booing occured in small pockets, makes little sense, unless of course Cortese wasn't the target of the booing, and in fact the small pockets were booing something else that only their section of the stadium could clearly see: perhaps an on-pitch event, or perhaps something an opposition fan was doing. I'm not saying that the booing didn't occur, just that statisically it makes no sense, unless either something attracted like-minded people to sit together (possilbe), or the booing was targetted at something other than Cortese (probable).

Torres, I might be naive, but I can't find a swear word to fit between 'expensive' and 'pad', with only 4 letters. Everything I can think off changes the utility of this 'pad' quite extensively... (oh, btw, I'm sure total saintsweb income would buy what, 10 sq foot of a 'pad' in the worst parts of London...)

Me: Ideally, Arsenal (low budget, focus on youth, but still mixing it at the very top). But I guess, Fulham would be fine, you know, basically back where we were 6 years ago. I think anything less than Fulham would be a little disappointing for me.

adriansfc - entirely agree. Can't wait to see the whole thing implode. The end of the 'players' with diamond earstuds.

Success, I guess, is whatever you personally think it is. For a Chelsea fan the bench mark is both dometic and European success; I'm sure most Cherries feel that they are riding on a wave of success right now. For 27 years we clung on, not centre stage, but at the edge of the limelight. Sure, you might be seeking a higher level of success than this, I would love to dream higher than this, but as Steve Grant rightly mentioned, not if it's bought, only if we can develop it organically. For me, I got a lot more out of the matchday experience when we were clinging on in the top division, than in subsequent years, the crowds were bigger, the atmosphere louder, the songs funnier, the sense of joy when you scrapped a last minute home draw against a 'big' team nuch greater, the fact your mates who supported other teams had heard about the result, the fact Match of the Day repeated it. For me, much as I'd love to be able to say that the lower leagues are where you can find 'real' football, regrettably, the top flight was (for me) far, far, more enjoyable.

I guess it's not easy for a club to engage with supporters. Many forced attempts will sound contrived. Community development programmes are a good way to go, as is respecting club legends. Obviously, there is a fine line to tred in the latter, paying respect is great, but at what point do the freebies and perks cross the line to being 'taken advantage of', instead of 'paying respect'? (Wasn't one of our former players getting rent-free office space inside the stadium to run their own business (or similar)?) Embracing the local media is a different thing altogether? Sure, offer them a fair chance to behave professionally, but if they double cross you more than once, why not cut them out? Bit like buying rounds, if you notice one of your fellow drinkers is shirking their round, do you carry on and keep buying them more?

So, if we were in the Championship, people would prefer not to win promotion? So we'd aim to finish 8th in the Championship each season then?