Yeovil Saint

Agreed Weston, great memories, but a sense of "what could have been" mixed in with that. I just have a feeling that in 20 years time this board will be posting stories about the year we came 8th and if that side had stuck together for a another season or two it might have been winning a cup or getting into Europe. Maybe I'm spoilt, just too young to remember 1976, but I do remember promotion, league cup final, signing Keegan, regularly playing in the UEFA Cup so I don't believe that mid-table in the Premier League is as good as it can ever be. A club should always have the ambition to go just that extra step forward, in our case from mid-table to joining that next tier of clubs alongside Spurs and Everton. Instead we're going to have a new team, Koeman's a good manager and assuming he's got the funds available he will be able to field a decent mid-table Premier League side. However for me it's a bit like the Grandfather's Axe paradox; the Southampton team of 2013/14 was completely different to the side I started watching in 1980/81, even playing in a different stadium, different manager, different players, different kit and badge, many different fans, over time almost everything's changed but the it is still the same Southampton FC. But now, is too much changing too quickly that it can't feel like the same Saints. You can call me a bedwetter if you like but I'm not saying that this new Southampton can't be successful, but it feels like it's going to be a different team, like the Saints I know and support isn't there any more. I wish Southampton FC all the best and wish I could be like the rest of you but I feel like I'm no longer a fan.

Exactly my point Bearsy as the bit you decided not to quote made clear. Do you think this shows the board to be competent?

I've been on the fence on the optimistic/pessimistic divide but this news has firmly pushed me onto the glass half-empty side. I no longer believe that the current board have the ability to run a successful football club. Assuming that everything on the OS is true we had months of discussions before deciding to end our contract with adidas. Fair enough but wasn't part of that discussion what kit we would wear instead? Why wasn't ending our deal with adidas immediately followed by a signing of a new deal with another manufacturer. Instead of getting a new supplier we spent three months talking to adidas and then found out that adidas couldn't do us a new kit even if they wanted to. If adidas don't have enough lead time, surely Puma, Warrior, Kappa doesn't take less, so what are we going to get, 25 sunday league outfits down Sports Direct? There's also the pledge to be transparent. I can get the reason not to announce the initial contract break, if it was the new board's wish to resume the contract then they could have done it and we need never know, but why announce it now and not in March. Why not explain what the board is going to do now rather than in the next couple of months, it better be within two months, in two months and two days we're playing our first league game of next season. The only reasons not to tell us now are that they don't know what they are going to do yet or they know and know that we're not going to like it. You might think that I'm going overboard about shirts when there are more pressing matters like our manager and half our team potentially jumping ship but think about it this way, organising a set of shirts for the team to wear next season should be easy. If our board can't even do the easy stuff, can they do the difficult task of building on this team and getting us ready for european competition?

Does Cortese think that there's something more sinister going on? As he's Italian, he'll be very aware of the Calciopoli scandal where a number of the top clubs had connections with the referees association and influenced their assignment of referees to specific matches. Mark Clattenburg's one of 16 Premier League referees, by chance he should have officiated at three or four of our 58 Premier League matches since our promotion, he's actually refereed 7 of them. That's the only reason I can think of why he's trying so hard to push this case.

In a completely unforeseen turn of events, #factless has now been labeled a scummier by the loyal port sea natives. Unless this is one of us on a wind up.

If Harrison Reed was born on 27th September 1995 then he would be eligible as this season's FA Youth Cup is for any player born between 1st September 1995 and 31st August 1998 inclusive. But Wikipedia has Harrison's date of birth as 27th January 1995.

That'll be the almost promoted sides of 1985 and 1986 and the finally promoted side of 1987, you know the one that only graced the First Division for a season and then almost made it two relegations in a row the season after. I'd forgotten just how well Pompey snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in 1984/85 and 1985/86. First they lost promotion on goal difference to Manchester City despite having lost only twice against top half teams. They had managed to lose six times to bottom half teams though and that doomed them. 1986 was even more delicious for any nutjob, at the end of March, they were 2nd, behind runaway champions Norwich, but still 7 points clear of 3rd placed Charlton and 9 clear of 4th place Wimbledon. Just seven games to go and this was the last season before the playoffs so top three were promoted. Sadly for our fishy friends, Pompey lost four of the next six and even a 4-0 win over Bradford in their last game didn't stop them failing for a second successive season.

Why not show it, the Swans have a great story. Maybe next year BBC will do a documentary on us. I get that you're not interested and in the days when we had one, two or four channels you would have had a point, but everyone's got access to at least fifty channels now, watch something else. The few Swansea fans in Southampton will be grateful to watch, just like the few Southampton fans in Swansea would like to see a documentary on us if we win something.

That is the correct answer which makes the OP's question even more baffling. This government has split the Royal Mail into two parts, The profit-making mail delivery service and the £38bn loss making legacy pension liabilities and selling for a pittance the profit-making part while hanging onto the loss making part. and it is a pittance, the sell off will only raise £3bn for a company that's currently making £200m profit per year. The privatisations of the 80s did make sense in the sense that we owned companies that were losing money and the government weren't politically able to make the tough decisions to turn around or close the businesses. Thatcher didn't split up British Steel or British Leyland into the good part and bad part, only selling the good part, she sold the whole thing and ensured that we didn't lose any more money. But all the privatisations since have been bad deals for us. Rail privatisation in the 1990s now means we pay far more subsidy to the rail industry than we ever did to British Rail, We could only sell the nuclear industry by not selling the older nuclear power plants and agreeing to be on the hook for waste disposal and that's currently estimated at £100bn. We sold Northern Rock to Virgin by only first splitting off the bad parts into Northern Rock Asset Management. Northern Rock (the "good" bank) was sold for £750m, an estimated £140m less than the land value of its branches, Northern Rock Asset Management (the "bad" bank) remains in public ownership, servicing £50bn of old mortgages but with a strange deal where if it ever goes back into profitability that money gets given to the old Northern Rock shareholders. Why on earth are we agreeing to a deal where if NRAM makes a loss we pay for it, but if it makes a profit we don't see a penny. The NHS privatisations are happening with the same sort of deal as Royal Mail, the profitable parts are going out to tender, the loss making parts including all the pension scheme liabilities will remain with us. We're being robbed by this government, and the last government too, this isn't a party political point, and we're not noticing it. Despite all the cuts this government have made, we're borrowing more money than we ever were before. That missing money is making a lot of rich people even richer.

It's just a case where the specific law (Abortion Act 1967) overrides the general law (Equality Act 2010). If Parliament had intended the provisions in the Abortion Act then they should have made that clear.

Looking at the top division stats it's odd how similar our records are against the teams we have played most often, our worst winning percentage out of teams that we've played 30 times or more is Sheffield Wednesday (7 wins out of 38 ), ahead of Arsenal (16 wins out of 72), Man Utd (15/72) and Derby (7/34). Also how few teams we beat the majority of times, only Bradford (4/4), Bristol City (3/4), Reading (2/2) and oddly Sunderland (16/31).

I got the less obvious one and completely forgot the more obvious one. Most wins in the top flight v Tottenham 23 v Man City 21 v West Ham 20 v Everton 20 v Aston Villa 20

From the Skate's Trust's own mouths http://www.pompeytrust.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=563:pompey-stars-turn-out-for-the-trust&catid=34:demo-category Go towards a community share? So they aren't expecting to cover £1,000 after expenses? WTFILN.

Fulham two up and QPR are lucky that it's only two

So an exciting Wednesday for nutjobs everywhere - what will be the Trust's reason for the latest adjournment? Who do they have left to blame now? How much closer can CF say they are to taking over the club without actually taking them over?