Joensuu

Last post of the day for me... Alps, I don’t think trolling is necessarily intentional. You demonstrate several of the key symptoms. More than 5 posts a day - check ( 9.8 ) Consistantly take a different opinion from the majority - check Consistantly annoy other posters (however well intentioned your views) - check Sure you don't seem to flame, or deceive, but even you must acknowledge that you have the knack of rubbing other posters up the wrong way. I call this trolling, you might not agree with that assessment. Sure you're not actively malicious, like the StuBensonSaints or Stanley's this world, but surely you must recognise, that your tendancy to annoy is not a positive trait? Let me step you through a few example scenarios: Scenario A: 'New young player signs from lower divsion, rated by former club' SWF concensus: 'lets see how he develops, and give him time' Alpine's view: 'Why are we wasting money on unproven players, is he going to be good enough for the Championship?' Scenario B: 'No signings for first week of transfer window' SWF concensus: 'plenty of time, don't want to rush into the wrong deal, don't panic yet' Alpine's view: 'Need more action sooner. Won't be ready for season. Missing out on talent' Scenario C: 'Team draw away on a field of mud' SWF concensus: 'Rather annoyed, but these things happen. Team will bounce back.' Alpine's view: 'Awful. Even Brighton won their 2 months ago. Should have made more signings.' Scenario D: 'Major upgrade to stadium/training/backroom staff' SWF concensus: 'Good news. Right direction. Moving forward' Alpine's view: 'Why are we wasting money on this and not on first team' Scenario E: 'Team trailing by one goal at half time' SWF concensus: 'Hope this gets better. We can create more.' Alpine's view: 'Sky has collapsed. Manager must be ousted. Players should be burnt at stakes etc'* *okay, a bit of an exageration... Scenario F: 'Team win 4 nil way' SWF concensus: 'Who's for a pint?' Alpine's view: ....... [has anyone seen Alpine? Wonder where he is today] ... Can you see how frustrating this is for other people? It's all so predicatable, so negative, so reactive. Sure it's not deliberately goading, or nasty, but it is repeative and consistantly OTT. Whether you are honest enough to recognise your own trolling or not, is neither here nor there, the fact is, most posters on this forum would consider you to be a classic example of a troll. BTW, I'll put my hands up to feeding the trolls on the political threads. I simply can't sit back and read diatribe that makes Thatcher look a bit too wooly and liberal, without letting the intolerances to go unchallenged. Who thought training meat-heads how to type would be a good thing?

Spot on. Although, you have calmed down a lot from thedelldays of 2 years ago, so much so you have probably dropped from the loft heights of 'troll'. The other two must surely have accumulated hundreds of infractions, but yet bizarrely still get to post and in so doing destroy virtually every thread on here. Just like Heskey must have had some dirt on the FA which kept him in an England shirt, I can only assume that these two trolls know something which they are bribing the admins with. Otherwise, why hasn't their racism, sexism, violence fixation, and homophobia been stomped out, with lifetime bans? It's not as if their IP isn't known, or their posting style neutral enough to allow them hide under a different moniker for more than a week. As genuine as your intentions are Alpine, even you must be able to see, that your continuous negativity rubs a lot of people up the wrong way. I don't know how you manage to see the downside in everything, but even when you hear positive news, you seem to find a hypothetical negative to focus on. You come across a bit like a spin-doctor in reverse, like Alistair Campbell dosed up on Diazepam. I feel sorry for you if your 'genuine emotion' is so consistently negative, it must be like living with a permanent headache. When this headache is broadcast over the various threads on this board, it merely serves to aggravate other members. And, when you annoy others on't interweb, you cease being a poster, and have become a troll.

Love the second comment: "Any story or article regarding our club should be accompanied by Benny Hill music."

I think image rights are about rewarding a player for additional income which has been gained through the use of their image. This encompasses all additional income they generate, but boils down to the player wanting a cut of all of the extra tickets, shirts, programmes, pies etc which wouldn't have been sold if a they had not signed for the team. Essentially, only the best couple of players in each team can realisitically claim to increase sales (I wonder how many shirts LA Galaxy sold in China before Beckham moved there?; I wonder whether without Lambert our attendance would drop by, say, 100 per game? (which over the course of a season might add up to say 100k increase in income just by having Lambert in the team - perhaps he could justifiably claim 25% of that?)) Problem is, some teams have been using image rights to avoid paying tax on wages, for players who won't sell a single extra shirt, like say, David Nugent. Sure, Nugent's image has some value, I'd say for marketing purposes his face must bring in at most around £10k-15k pa. If he is paid around 25% of that in image rights, I think Pompey might be able to justify the payment in court; however if he is paid substantially more than £3-4k, I feel it will be very hard for them to justify. Of course, there is a very simple way to close the loophole. Allow image rights to be paid. Don't cap the amount a player can be paid in image rights. Don't bother having to have court cases to establish a player's 'image value'. Instead simply tax image rights at the same rate as other income, and make employers, not employee's responsible for it's payment.

Interesting article about image rights & tax from last April. http://www.accountancyage.com/accountancyage/features/2260593/tax-image-rights-face-money It seems like any case challenging image rights will study individual cases, and assess: whether the image rights agreements had a value – such value was dependent on the players’ value, not as footballers, but as recognisable personalities; whether the payments made under such agreements were excessive when compared with the players’ value for wider commercial exploitation; what evidence there was that the football club intended to exploit the players’ image rights; whether there was any other commercial reason why part of the players’ remuneration might have been paid under the image rights agreements, eg. a pay ceiling. According to the article the last time HMRC challenged this the case focussed on Bergkamp ('Evelyn') and Platt ('Jocelyn') - both of whom I can see passing the litmus test of whether their image had a value to Arsenal. According to the Pompey 'Report to Creditors' the following players are owed a share of image rights to the value of £3.044 million: Nugent ('Marigold'); Kranjcar ('Daisy'); Utaka ('Poppy'); Kanu ('Lilly'); Ben Haim ('Florence'); Diarra ('Helena'); Lauren ('Lucy'); Muntari ('Laura'); Campbell ('Katoy')* Question is, will each of these players pass the four rules (in the bullet points) above? * Obviously fake names, appart from Sol, who really likes being a Katoy.

Sutton were definately a good squad, solid, and above all determined. Saints looked like their priority was trying to avoid picking up injuries. Saints stuggled in the first half, with several players out of position (I agree with experimentation, but it says something when you are playing left sided players in the middle of hte park, and a defensive midfielder supporting the lone forward. We just couldn't string any attacks together in this formation, with Lambert essentially getting little in the way of support. It didn't improve things when Dickson went off, instead of sorting out the players being out of postions, Doble was tried as a forward, (allowing Hammond to drop back into midfield) While Doble tried hard, the team really couldn't string attacks together. The balance just didn't seem to be right. Sutton definately had the best of the first half, their goal came from a Jaidi mistake (who had a mixed game, with some strange decisions). Sutton should have had a second, when they hit the inside of the post, and thankfully the ball bounced back out. Barnard's introduction seemed to changed the game. Saints seemed to have a balance back, with Lambert sitting back, winning headers, which Lee chased down. For the last 20 minutes or so, Saints looked fluid and comfortable. They were creating opportunities, and could have netted a couple of times. I think avoiding injury was a high priority, and as this was a friendly, despite what some on here say, the result really doesn't matter. The team know how to win, but their not going to be putting 100% into a preseason game, why risk being injured in a 50-50 tackle in a pointless game? While we are obviously going to be disapointed by the scoreline, I think we learn't some valuable lessons, and got a good runout. Results during preseason only matter if a team has low moral. We certainly don't. Yes we can't expect to win ever game, but I expect when it matters we will start making the 50-50 tackles again, and stop experiementing with players out of position. I'm sure a couple more signings will galvanise this team: a leader in the middle, and pace upfront. While not a great result, it's certainly not worth slitting your wrists over, and there were plenty of signs of promise.

Indeed, however, you have given Pulis a potential ablity of 105... with injury proneness of only 10... (Surely that should be closer to PA 85 IP 20?)

It'd be an awful manager who made a signing based on FM stats alone. It would be a worse manager who dismisses the potential of the FM database althogether. It won't tell you how good a player actually is, but it will help identify targets, and get an impression of their relative stats (i.e. if FM says they have a pace of 19 and a tackle of 2, you should have a good idea what sort of player you're looking at.). Dismissing it outright is nothing short of stupid.

Perfect story to convince other potential signings of our size and ambition, while sheltering them from the media spotlight.

To be fair he wasn't bad last night, he didn't stick out in the first 20 minutes as being worse than the other players on show. However, I don't agree with Twitter that he was our best player before the injury, to be honest we didn't show much at all in the first 20 minutes, Martin was probably our best player at that point in the game, although the trialist had also got himself noticed (certainly Farnborough's right back noticed him, and seemed to be getting annoyed suggesting that he was going over rather too lightly... (Looked like a headless-chicken with pace, think he needed to settle and relax as he was often out of position, but looks like he might be worth a punt.)) Anyhow, back to Pulis, why should he change career (as some of you have suggested)? I'm sure he is hoping he can pursuade another club to take him on, and why not, afterall he's probably been on a salary of about £45k pa at Saints (c. £750-800 per week), which I wouldn't turn down, especially as it comes with a free gym pass, 24-7 medical benefits, and no real fear of being asked to actually play a competative game. I wouldn't be surprised if he manages to get himself another paid contract at somewhere like Hereford, or perhaps a Conference team, afterall, his dad has connections, and he has Southampton on his CV (oh, and he once graced the skate first team, albeit brought on in the 90th minute, but probably best not mentioning that one to a prospective employer eh... but it still puts it all into perspective, even after 2 years of hanging around Staplewood, Pulis has still played more for the Skates than he has for us).

Ambulance turned up for Pulis, but he just spoke to the paramedic then went back to the changing room. One of the medical team gestured to the shoulder, and said 'just popped back in' with a shrug. So panic over

Apparently has had some form of back trouble, but played the last 30 minutes of their game yesterday. Apparently he "looked lively" and "linked up well" http://www.getbracknell.co.uk/sport/football/readingfc/s/2074949_nk_celje_1_reading_fc_0

Sure you'll be aware of it already, but www.kayak.com is a superb flight-finder...

Superb news. More season tickets sold than last year, with plenty of time for the number to increase further. I'm sure some people will have lost out by the removal of instalments, but I honestly feel most will have begged or borrowed the money. I doubt the total number of people who have been unable to reneue exceeds 100 in total. It's probably closer to 50. Obviously, I would like to extend sympathy towards these few individuals. Some on here have argued that if a single person has been forced out by the pricing, this would justify the position taken by SRS. However, by extension, there are countless other people in Southampton who were already unable to afford the season ticket price, surely the price should have been lowered to avoid anyone missing out. If fact let's take it further still, but charging anything, someone will be missing out. All tickets should be free. Err... Quite simply, the club is a company. They have devised pricing and marketing strategies, which they hope will maximise income, without adversely affecting the fans. By exceeding last years season ticket numbers Cortese has demonstrated that he has successfully managed to improve both numbers and income. Have the fans been adversely affected? A tiny minority which appears to be less than 1% certainly have; the vast, vast, majority haven't been directly affected, certainly not to the extent of forcing them not to purchase a season ticket. As for StuDaveRomseyJonesBensonSaintPhilips, by all means argue the case of the tiny minority, point out how they have been let down, or overlooked, but stop with the Cortese bashing. Cortese isn't perfect, but he is a heck of a lot better than our previous chairman. His decisions are forward thinking, decisive and professional. Yes, he seems to be a man who it's best not to cross, but he also seems to be a man who is directly leading saints in very much the right direction. Thank goodness these character traits make it unlikely he will be concerned by the whinging of a tiny group of oddballs online. All of the 'evidence' that you have stacked against Cortese is hearsay and unfounded. All of the real evidence, the development both on and off the pitch have been superbly progressive. Just because he seems hard-nosed (which is often a trait in business), why have you taken it upon yourself to try to undermine him at every opportunity, in spite of the evidence against your argument? Liebherr and Cortese are the best thing that has happened to Southampton in years, it seems apparent that they trust each other, and have entered into the ownership of the club as a team. An attack on one, is an attack on both. The more I hear the tiny minority of 3 or 4 trolling posters who highjack every thread and argue against Cortese, the more it sickens me. What do you stand to gain from undermining the club? I smell fish, and the smell isn't coming from the Romsey branch of Goodies.

Ay, that's why I've let mine elapse... To be fair there are only 3 of 4 posters who really seem to run amok. Just wish the Admins made more of an effort to stop them wrecking it for the rest of us...

No offence intended btw... Always fancied Malawi and Madagascar (another French one...). If I ever have a year, and can get a group together, the whole, team of say 3+ 4x4s driving from Cape Town to London appeals... (route: Namibia, Botswana, Zambia, Malawi, Tanzania, Kenya, Sudan, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Turkey, etc...) Your budget will stretch further if your stay in cheap countries. As skintsaint mentions £30 per day is just about survivable in Japan, but in Thailand it will buy you pretty much everything you fancy (good food, plenty of drink, admission to everything, transport and good accomodation). In fact, if money is the limiting factor, why not avoid the expensive destinations, and have a longer holiday in a cheaper place? 3 weeks in Norway or Japan, could easily cost you the same amount as you'd spend on 2 months in Thailand/Laos. [i spent 14 days in Laos, which cost a total of $210 USD in 2005 - i.e. c. £10 per day (while still averaging 3 litres of beer (or a bucket of whiskey) each night... NB, beer was $1 USD for 750ml (a wine bottle portion))] Sounds amazing... I'd love to do this. Were you watching the budget? I mean, were you scrimping on anything? As £30 for food/transit/hostel/admission/& alcohol, sounds a lot cheaper than I expected Japan could be done for... (Frankly you'd be hard pressed to visit the UK on a budget of just £30 per day, a short train journey, taxi ride or car rental will cost you more than £30 before you've even found a b&b or had any food... talking of which I haven't seen many B&B's for less than £30 per night...) I didn't know Japan could be done so cheaply...

Can't post too much at the mo, as I haven't renewed my subscription (and can't see myself doing so while the tiny number of obsessive posters (the depressives, the anti-Cortese, the violence lovers and the racists) are allowed to continue wrecking every thread without Admin restriction). Anyhow, to answer you post: 2 weeks isn't long enough to do any of the destinations you mention justice. If this is all the time you have, your only feasible option (of those listed) would be to head to Scandinavia, you certainly don't have time to cover it all, but say, bits of Norway, Sweden (or most of Iceland/Denmark) could be covered in the allotted time. If you want to push it a bit more try the Baltic countries - good travel, cheap beer, interesting culture and beautiful women. Finland probably has less to offer that the other North European countries. It's best for a ultra-cold winter break... saunas and suicide. Airfares to much of Scandinavia can be cheap, but appart from the Baltic countries (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, not Scandinavia I know), expect to spend about £250 a week on hotels, beer, transport, and enterance fees etc. Adventure rating: 3/10; Fun: 5/10; Culture 5/10 You really need at least a month for the long haul destinations: China is by far the most adventurous of the countries you listed (and in my book one of the most interesting). It is far too large to cover in 4-6 weeks, but you will be able to scratch the surface (either by having a mad dash 'see all the big destinations', or a more leisurely focussed effort to absorb a specific area in more depth). If the latter, you need to pick an are of the country to focus on, Beijing and the north makes sense (Greak Wall, Forbidden Palace etc), Shanghai and the modern coast is another possibility, likewise Guangzhou and Hong Kong, or possible Xian and the centre, but my possible pick would be Yunnan (Dali, Leaping Tiger, Kumning, possible getting up as far as Tibet if you have the time). Also China is one of the cheaper options that you picked. However it is also a real challenge with language (few speak English, and if they do they are obviously educated and tend to want something (aka, Speak English you can get a well paid job, why are you hassling tourists in the street unless somehow the pay is better?). Oh, and no concept of special dietary requirement, want nut free, or veggie, prepare to struggle. For 6 weeks budget at least £500 flights + £1000-£1200 spending. Adventure rating 8/10; Fun: 4.5/10 (& blimey can it get tough - armed police rummaging bags at midnight, spitting strangers (coughing flem-balls everywhere), open-plan public loos, smoking in buses, hard-seats (aka, stand and you lose your seat), lack of comfort-food (forget finding edible: milk, wine, chocolate, bread etc). Culture 9/10 I've never been to Japan, so can't really comment, but with shocking disregard for my own inabilities, I'm going to proceed to do just that. But I'd love to go there. It's obviously the most expensive of your selected countries (although Scandinavia isn't far behind, albeit a much cheaper plane ticket). The country is much longer than many thing, ranging virtually from the arctic to the semi-tropical islands. Most of the interesting places are on the main island, and I imagine a trip to Tokyo, Kyoto, Edo, Hiroshima etc would be a very fulfilling (and expensive) experience. For 6 weeks budget c. £600 flights + c. £1800-£2k spending. Adventure rating 7/10 Fun: 6/10; Culture 9/10 South Africa has never really appealed to me. It hasn't ever struck me as having a lot of interesting places to visit. Sure there's a few national parks (Kruger etc), and a few old Boer was battlefields, and some gorgeous scenery... but not a lot else really... (Cue a Sud Ifrican ex-pat pointing out all of the countries' wonderful cities, sights, sounds and smells...) One thing it has going for it is the exchange rate (I admit I might be wrong, but...) last time I looked South Africa was faring worse than the UK, meaning it was one of the few countries that were now cheaper for the UK tourist to visit now than they were pre-recession (think Turkey was another one). Violence is the thing everyone will mention, carry anything looking like a laptop bag too far around Jo'burg and don't expect to get too far. Of course now that the 'World Cup courts' with their instant fines and imprisonment have closed shop, I'd expect the crime rate to return to normal... but who knows. Flights from c. £450, 6 weeks budget an extra £1300 or so. Adventure rating 7/10; Fun: 5/10; Culture 6/10 New Zealand is on my list to visit. Everyone I've met who has been rates it highly. Sure it's not exactly adventure travel, but it sounds like almost everything you can dream up has been packed into this country. White-water, skiing, whales, glaciers, mountains, bungee, helicopter rides, boring suburban estates, annoying accents ("you mean Beer doesn't rhyme with Bear, come of it") it's got it all. Unless I'm mistaken, airfares are another jump again for NZ. Expect to pay at least £850. Also living costs are not far off of visiting the EU, so budget c. £250 per week (or £1500 for a 6 week venture). Adventure rating 5/10; Fun: 9/10; Culture 3/10 Hope some of this is useful...

What sort of 'travel' are you interested in? There is a whole range of travel destinations, which start at the club 18-30 'sand, sea and sex' punters, right up to the full on culture and hardship 'what's a beaten track' adventure. You'll find that the average age of fellow traveller rises the more adventurous you become. So if your thing is watching 19 years old girls entering wet t-shirt competitions to win as much lager as they can drink, before stumblling home vomiting nobly escored by a bleach blond, molestation-minded 'Brad', 'Hayden', or 'Cody', head to Queensland/NSW. If you fancy throwing in a lot more culture, but still having plenty of sun, sea and strippers, look towards South East Asia. If you want to push it a little further by seeing more culture than cleavage (perhaps even slightly challenging the average Western comfort zone) , look towards countries such as India, Mexico, Guatemala, Egypt, and Peru. If you want to push the boat out, look towards any country you haven't heard of too many people going to: Mali, Libya, Moldova, Azerbaijan, Iran, Malawi etc. If you have a death wish coupled with the urge to have the most pretentious trump card to play at the next King's Road dinner party you happen to attend, make North Korea or Somalia your first port of call. Oh, and whatever type of traveller you are buy a Lonely Planet, that way you can either gravitate towards slimilar people, or know in advance which hostels to avoid, so as not to bump into an ex-pat version of Essex on tour. Also, the boring bit, (sorry!) keep an eye on: http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-country?action=noTravelAll#noTravelAll.

Mind you, we often seem to have had good results in pre-season, but disappoint once the league games begin. I'm hopeful that this awful pre-season is going to pan out in exactly the opposite way.

Pomp and Circumstance every time - the perfect mix of Shakespeare and Elgar, albeit set to lyrics of empire, bloodlust and a manifest belief in some higher being who has bestowed greatness upon the country (and here was me thinking that was our exploitation and enslavement of West Africans...) 'God save the Queen' is awful, not only is it musically naive, it also inflicts upon us crass lyrics about some magical invisible and unfounded deity called 'God' and his earthly sidekick and representative of gross inequality, the 'Queen', who are both objectionable to my Guardian reading, sandal-wearing world view. But above all, just listen to it, embarrassingly plopping like a school kid learning to play the tuba, 'derr derr derr DERR derr der...': all the musical grace of Cowell releasing his trapped morning bowel wind. (And it's a British tune, and this thread is about an 'English' anthem....) 'Jerusalem' is no better, its rose tinted wish to recreate some mythical heaven on earth, which apparently first occurred two thousand years ago when the son of the aforementioned invisible deity, allegedly strode upon the soil of Cornwall while trying to buy some tin. Of course, I forgot this fictitious Romano-British golden age, when the rich built extravagant mosaics and ordered amphora of the finest wine, while the poor were trained to throw spears and wield a gladius thousands of miles from home, against people who were desperately fighting to prevent being repressed. 'Jerusalem' also coughs up lashings of this religious mumbo, which is frankly offputting to many. As for the Holst’s Thaxted adaptation, I'm sure we all share Spring-Rice's sense of divided loyalties, err... after all, I'm sure on a daily basis we all find ourselves questioning our devotion to our country, especially when the evidence for the existence of another 'country' in the afterlife is so, er, conclusive. Shame all four songs tiptoe close to the edges of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, why can’t we have something with the uplifting thunder of Elgar’s Pomp and Circumstance, or Holst’s Jupiter, coupled with lyrics that don’t exclude 28.4%* of the country. *based on the 2001 census?

Calm down dear. I'm confident that we will see a couple of additions over the next few weeks. Probably a young pacy winger (on loan?), and hopefully a cultured defensive midfielder. Any other signings we make will be purely as cover. There are three players in the squad who don't seem to have a lot of cover (Rickie, Frazer & Kelvin), however if Harding/Martin are okay on the right, and Bart stays, then it's just really upfront where we might like to bring in an addition. However, I can't think of any tall players, who are both talented enough for us to consider taking on, but who would also be comfortable with signing a contract for a season of watching Lambert from the side lines. IMO, some of our least impressive displays last season involved speculative long balls in Lamberts direction, coupled with a lack of midfield support. I'm hoping Pardew demands we keep the ball down more, and use the obvious strengths of players such as Lallana and Puncheon, passing and creativity. If we kept the ball down, we might find that not only do we give the ball away less, and keep the opposition on the back-foot, but that we aren't as reliant on Rickie's height - and as such might not need a direct replacement. Keep the ball down, and the line could at times be led by Connelly and Barnard.

You don't have to name whoever your source is, and we don't care if he is HUGE, perhaps he should go on a diet? But it would be a little bit more interesting if you clarified whether Cortese's attitude to his staff, and the amount of training undetaken last year is a positive of negative thing. All you have told us so far is that this has caused you to change your opinion, am I safe in assuming that previously you belived the Stanley-Stu consiracy theory, but that now your HUGE source has confirmed what the majority are suspecting, that actually Cortese is taking the club in a positive direction?

Is it rude to quote myself from 28 days ago?

Actually, if this was a poll, might the result be conclusive enough to stop the tiny band of anti-Cortese nutters from spouting any more ****? On second thoughts I'm sure one of them would soon start up a new thread about how Cortese dared to visit the training pitch, or how he is rumoured to have bribed the medical staff to 'fail' Calderon just to spite Pardew, or some other completely fabricated, club-undermining nonsense. Stu, Stanley (etc), why not go back to Fratton if you hate the Saints so much?

Only a one year deal mind... it's not like Walsall are taking any risks. This sounds like it's a make or break season for Ollie, if it's not successful I doubt too many proffessional clubs would be interested in giving him another chance.