CB Fry

We were the main match on the ITV Championship show for the second week of the season. If anything Sky have a bias towards Saints - we are on Sky tons more than similar clubs of our stature and current standing. At the moment we seem to be on Sky more than Futurama.

He's not a "so called manager" with a "so called record" - three seasons, two clubs, three play off finishes, two play off finals, one play off win. There's nothing "so-called" about that. Grow up you silly child. He's been out of work for a year, but then lots of managers with decent track records are out for similar periods and longer. You have absolutely no idea what job offers he's had or turned down. Err, yes, unless you really think Preston North End are some footballing megapower with money to burn. And Derby were pretty skint and rubbish when he took over, and he only spent any money in January when they were top of the league. Preston were not a "hideous route one stuff" team, and this "hideous route one stuff" is just wildly exaggerated by a few Saints fans that seem to have not forgiven Davies for, errr, celebrating when his team won at SMS and drone on about "route one stuff" to make them feel superior to a team better than we were that season in every single department. A Manager celebrating a win, eh? Crime of the century, I know. Let's hope we never have a manager that celebrates when his team wins a match. That would be quite awful.

For god's sake solentstars, leave off the childish Billy Davies bashing, you're getting as obsessed as Dalek is about Hoddle. Davies's "level" for the last three seasons he's managed in this division were three solid top six finishes (I think a fourth, a fifth and a third) two play off finals and one play off final win. You spouting childish nonsense about him doesn't change that. You don't like him, fine. We get it. You don't need to be tediously silly about it. He has a track record of success in this division that I wager absolutely none of the people you want instead could match.

Michael Wilde, Rupert Lowe, RM Withers, Guy Askham, Cheviot Asset Management, Michael Richards, Charles Stanley & Co Ltd, Andrew Cowen, Dave Jones and Keith Wiseman. Your boys took a hell of a beating.

I'm more of a Ton Lokhoff man myself. SBV Excelsior are top of the league, FFS.

What? Why are my opinions "intangible" and yours not? Looking forward to you not complaining at all about our league position for the rest of the season as being relegated to L1 will be such a fantastic experience for all concerned and we should all embrace it. You seem to have completely disregarded the fact that Leicester have already "passed us" on the way down. They are in League One and you swooning over them like a love sick puppy as if they are some gold standard football club doesn't actually change that. How many Leicester fans wouldn't want to be in the CCC right now? Or is that a "juvenile" question from someone not all cleva like what you are? Utterly clueless.

And if roles had been reversed, and we had been relegated and Leicester had stayed up, would you be saying the same thing? I think you'd be grizzling like a ***** about how unfair life is How many Leicester fans would swap a League one place for a season in the second tier with local derbies with Forest, Derby and Coventry ahead of them as well as a shot at the play offs and the gravy train? Go on, how many Leicester fans, smart arse? Notice you've not mentioned Forest who spent three seasons in the top six of League one week in, week out and now are "sitting pretty" errr, below us. Sorry, any old dinlow can cherry pick a team that's won a couple of games and then extrapolate how great it would be if only we were them. Frankly it's retarded, and people that think we'd be better off a league below are completely retarded. Mandaric could sack Pearson before Christmas. Then what would your point be? Because your point that all clubs that drop to L1 inevitably come back fantastically stronger is fairy story stuff. Tell that to Leeds, Bradford, Wimbledon, Millwall, Luton, Oxford United or Swindon, all teams that have been in the top flight in my lifetime. :rolleyes: . So rolly eyes all the way, sunshine.

Wasn't he chairman at Leicester last season and didn't they "consequently" get relegated to the third tier for the first time in their history? How is that "going in the right direction"? I look forward to six weeks time when the knee jerk divs alight on their next club that they can whine "oh why can't we be like them life's so unfair they've got everything right" Previous winners of the knee jerk "ohhhhh why can't we be like..." award are: Reading Derby Ipswich Bolton Leeds Leicester (at the start of last season, amazingly not at the end of last season, and now again :rolleyes: ) Watford Bradford Charlton Blackburn etc etc etc Only on this forum could a club that got relegated to the league below only four-odd months ago could be described as "going in the right direction". God bless you bunch of spanners. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

....although he had won the league and cup in France - ie slightly more experience than managing Dutch amateur league teams

We got played off the park by Blackpool. The only reason the scoreline didn't reflect that was because fundementally Blackpool aren't that good, just a lot better than us. And, when Kelvin Davies is Man of the Match in a 4-1 defeat, I call that something of a spanking too. And I wasn't there, but Ipswich didn't seem to be overly troubled with us, and we were fortunate to scrape a draw. We're getting worse. I was at Derby, I saw us turn them over in the second half, and I want it to work. But inexperienced manager plus inexperienced team is highly unlikely to work and we've got worse, not better, since Derby. The only thing that is being exaggerated is this idea that we are sitting on a load of wonderkids, when in fact most of them are just so-so reserve teamers promoted above their station. The key exaggeration is the notion that, say, Simon Gillet is some spectacular diamond overlooked by (about five) successive managers because they have some prejudice againsts young players. Maybe, just maybe, Gillet wasn't good enough at 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 and maybe he's still not good enough. We're not a very good team, and we need an excellent manager to sort it. Billy Davies (or someone like him) would be just the job.

That's odd, because we seem to be getting more disorganised and far less effective as the season goes on. The last three games have been our worst performances, suggesting far from progress on a learning curve and suggesting more a team that was keen but directionless to begin with to a team that has already run out of steam and already been worked out by the rest of the division. Let's see if all this wonderfull learning (also known as getting spanked) gets put into practice on Saturday. Davies in.

I think we could afford him (anyone who really thinks we couldn't afford Pearson really is deluded) and I think he would take the job if it was offered to him before Christmas (ie before we were too far gone). And he is exactly what a team of keen as mustard but disorganised youngsters need. He would be brilliant for us. And he'd work with Lowe, no problem. He likes a scottish bit of rough.

Oh, the ironing.

Says who? Le Tiss is just Shearer's mate. If you've never over-egged your salary, your house value, the adventurousness of your missus or your sexual conquests to your mates, then you're a better man than me. I got the jist of the original post - I took it to mean exactly how you have interpreted it. But the original poster didn't do himself any favours, by refusing to confirm that (pretty bloody obvious) link and then getting all uppity like he was the keeper of some grand secret. Shearer might or might not be Saints manager in the future, In fact I have written before on this forum why I think it likely he will be (his missus and her family, for a start). The original poster could have written "Shearer told MLT that he would take the managers job if this takeover goes through". No harm done, and he would have got no abuse from anyone. But he didn't - he couldn't resist sexing it up and then getting all abusive, which is typical of the wallies that post on here, I'm afraid and why this forum has a bad name of being full of bullsh it t ers. It takes some doing to post up a picture of yourself next to MLT and still end up looking like a bull sh itt ing plank. Bit of a pity, really.

What a fuc king hilarious thread. Straight from the horse's mouth means the person you are talking about told you themselves. It doesn't mean someone who knows that someone told you. I would expect a eight year old to know that. You pathetic back track (I didn't mean I heard it..LOL) and then resorting to abusing everyone is representative of all that is wrong with this forum. Next time you start a look at me attention seeking post, try not to lie in it for effect. Then you wouldn't have got any abuse. It's pretty simple.

LOL. Steve Claridge falls over himself to be nice about Saints every time I hear him on the radio. And there are still people who think he's "got it in for us". I am waiting for someone to say that Sky were biased against us yesterday, despite the fact the commentators were still raving about how great we were even when we were three down. It was only when we they hit the fourth the two commentators realised they were being a bit silly and started giving QPR some credit, and remembered that Kelvin had kept us in the bloody game. Blatant, blatant pro Saints bias yesterday on Sky, but it won't stop any of you wallies dribbling on about how Sky "don't like us" next time out.

Well, I can remember which club Hall went on to, and can remember how his towering defensive ability stabilised their defence and I remember their stunning fight against relegation. We did not "pay a huge price" for letting Fitz f u cking Hall go. We made a profit on a player who wasn't, and still isn't, Prem standard. But who cares, we've just lost again, so I'll leave you to mop up your lap.

Anyone who still goes on about Fitz Hall like his absense was the reason we got relegated clearly knows fu c k all about Saints, or football. Oh, hang on, this is Alpine. He knows fu ck all about Saints, or football.

You thinking I've contradicted myself shows your lack of understanding in percentages more than anything. You can't eat more than 100% of a single cake, but you can bake a bigger cake next time that represents 110% or 200% or whatever of the previous cake. So a master baker can say with my next cake I's going to be 200% of the last one. (Clumsy English, but not wrong). You can't measure "effort" as a cake with a finite size, so there is no such thing as 100% effort. In fact of all the percentages you can effectively use for effort, 100% is the one figure you shouldn't use. If you are managing people, you are either asking to perform above themselves (hence 110%), or you are asking for more from them ("we were 75% there today"). What manager says "that was just enough lads and we can't possible give any more ever again". So as a figure of speech (which is what this is, nothing more) then use any number you like 110%, 1000%, 200%, 50% just not 100%. The pedants thinking anything other than 100% is wrong are the people that are actually wrong. And that is my final dull contribution to this silly debate.

Well, you're wrong. If we're going to be completely pedantic, you cannot measure "effort" in terms of percentages - your capacity to try is not like a glass with a finite, measurable limit. How do you know the athlete who has just beaten his personal best has put in more of his % of "effort" compared to the person that finished sixth? You don't. So you can't measure "effort" in percentage terms of a whole. You can only measure effort in comparative terms (ie more effort than last week), and when you are talking about comparatives, then of course you can have more than 100%. 20 is 200% of 10. You can have 300%, 400% and 1,000% increases. So you could give 200% effort compared to previously. Meaning "we're going to give 200%" is a perfectly acceptable thing to say.

It's 2008, you silly old woman. When are you ever going to get over it?

Look, this is Alpine we're talking about. We need enough centre backs to stop him moaning about lack of centre backs, but as soon as we hit that number he'll start moaning about why we aren't playing so and so and moaning about what a "bloated squad" we have and why have we got so many players not playing, we can't afford this Lowe hasn't got a clue etc etc etc Alpine will just bleat, whinge and moan, whatever happens.

That one is quite good, actually, and is in the style that might work for us. Simple shape, one or maximum two key images/symbols, name of club, year. Nice, clean and contemporary but not horribly "modern" like Swindon or Bournemouth. And no mention of boys clubs.

Sorry MLG, I don't like your design at all. If there is a case for changing it then the last thing you would keep from the current badge would be the bloody scarf and ball. Your design takes thr worst bit from the old badge and adds in something "traditional" that doesn't actually mean anything to anyone apart from a couple of octogenerians who remember the boys club. SFC is not a boys club. SFC "tradition" started, like most football clubs, from the sixties onwards and only really got going under Ted. Boy's clubs from hundreds of years ago just do not feature as our "tradition" whether you like it or not. A new Southampton badge, if we need one at all, needs to look different otherwise what's the point. Your design is just the same badge but with a slightly different (and worse) middle bit. Of the current badge, the new forest tree, southampton water and city rose are probably the best bits and would be the elements to keep. Sorry, back to the drawing board.

We didn't have any fu cking choice in the matter. End of.