Danny

Apologies if it has been said already, but I am loving the very excited reaction from some fans on PompeyOnline that they might be taken over by Colonel Gaddafi's son...

I think it's more the point they would have just been reporting what someone else (David Sullivan) said. That said, I'm not so sure Pompey is necessarily the one being referred to in this instance. They're the obvious candidates, but by no means the only ones in trouble.

Kellow's Bootlaces isn't done by the club - it's run by the Express and Echo. Regardless, it is still a good microsite, hence the EDF award.

Boxers but Y front gives that extra level of manliness. Worn, provided it's not too hot. Daily. Ish. Something floral. Me although will happily accept gifts. Sewn in for that extra touch of class.

It was a poor cross which bobbled - and it was 4 and a half years ago!

I would never miss such an opportunity.

Right, I can see I'm going to struggle to convince my boss this is work, ;)however, the FIFA rules (October 2009): http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/administration/66/98/97/regulationsstatusandtransfer_en_1210.pdf Basically, they say, only two clubs can hold a player's registration (permanent transfer) in a season. Loans are permitted but the parent club will continue to hold the player's registration - hence loans are not part of the two club limit. They also have the rules as they were in 2005, which after a quick glance, seem the same as the 2009 ones, which would mean the Rasiak example quoted above is still relevant. http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/administration/50/02/49/status_transfer_en_25.pdf Now, I really have to do some work!

I've just checked - In 2005/06, Rasiak played seven games for Derby, nine for Spurs and 13 for Saints. http://www.soccerbase.com/players_details.sd?playerid=30498

I'm not going to comment on the work of a friend and colleague - but I will say, hand on heart, Adam is anything but lazy. Football fans are never happy with their local papers - I've learnt that over my years both working as a journalist and being a football fan even longer - so it can be difficult to weed out genuine constructive criticism from the people who just like having a rant and a moan. I'm sure the other Saints fans I know on this forum who work in the media (none of them work locally) will back me up on that. I'm sorry you don't like the service, but if the mistake hasn't been repeated, I can only assume you've got what you wanted when you emailed in originally. Now, I only commented on this thread as I was personally being called a 'lazy journalist' (ironically, it is that name that you get called, regardless of what it is you've done, which I think is a rather lazy insult!). However, if you want to have a go at what I've done, please feel free - I'll try and explain what I've done and why as best I can (although admittedly, I don't write loads about Saints by any stretch of the imagination) but I won't be drawn into a debate about anything else regarding the Echo - it would be unprofessional of me to do so. I hope you'll all understand, but I'll only comment about the stuff that has my name on it. I think that's fair enough.

I have no idea (I don't work on the sports desk and I'm not entirely sure where/when the story was), but I would say that rather than being 'lazy made-up journalism' it was - perhaps - an honest mistake? It may have even been written by someone on work experience. I don't know who you emailed but the sport desk get hundreds of emails everyday, so it is possible that yours got passed over. I wouldn't take it too personally if I were you.

Um, I have no idea! I'll find out. I'm not at work today but I'll ask around tomorrow for you, RM.

It is still printed on Saturday evening and in some parts of town you can still buy it then. The fact that it doesn't get sent out to everywhere until Sunday is something that can't be affected by the editorial staff, I'm afraid! Still, you should buy it - else you'll miss out on my fantastic Saints column!

I see. I'll schedule a meeting with Deepthroat straight away.

Sorry to disappoint but the only rumour on that list that I saw on this site first was Brian Stock. Still, seeing as I've clearly labelled it as a round-up of all the Saints rumours, I don't really see why it would matter if I had.

DanK_SFC

I found a link the other day from a construction industry website which said Hants CC demanded changes to the plans, which the club couldn't fund without the introduction of more commercial activity on the site. I can't find it now but it's on the last thread where Stoneham was discussed on here the other week. Edit: Found this from the Indy, but it's not what I was after. http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football-saints-concentrate-on-building-on-and-off-the-pitch-1180834.html

I think there is a fairly straight forward account in Full Time at The Dell, which certainly gives the impression that it was more a decision based on political wrangling rather anything the club did.

I'd have thought that was the one area where Stoneham would blow St. Mary's out of the water, but I guess it could have been one of the reasons.

I think so, but don't forget Stoneham had extras like the athletics stadium, tennis courts etc., as part of the development, which needed to be funded. Why it was never going to be bigger than 25k though, I'll never know. I assume cost, but just don't know.

Why don't you just make a new account on your PS3 just for yourself?

Actually, the Mirror is right when it says he can play for a third team as loans don't count towards the two club limit. While I don't believe there is an awful lot we should be worried about in this rumour, anyone can simply sign him the same way we did Rasiak back in 2006 (he had played for Spurs and Derby that season) - get him in on loan in January and tie up a permanent deal at the end of the season.

I did. Thought he was a useful option to have.

I can think of many things I've been described as, but "little lad" is most certainly not one of them!

Same thing happened to me in the Chapel Stand. It was like Chinese water torture. No-one else around me affected, just me. Brilliant.

Really? First I've heard of it. Which council would run the facilities - can't have been Southampton (it was out of their geographic limits, else they would have been able to grant planning permission) or Hampshire as sports facilities are run by borough and district councils, not the county one) so that leaves Eastleigh - who were against the commercial side (as they believed it would have an impact on their town centre - and probably wouldn't have the financial resources to fund such a project let alone build and run it. However, a quick Google search has just turned up something interesting: http://www.cnplus.co.uk/news/southampton-mowlem-marches-towards-stadium/929833.article The commercial developments were added to fund improvements to the original brief, as demanded by Hampshire County Council - so it was ultimately them and not Lowe responsible for the commercial developments being added. Like I've said before, we have plenty of things to (rightly) bash Lowe with - so why do we need to make others up?