Frank's cousin

Either way, its it really such a big deal?

Thought your ego needed massaging again Di ck - had not heard you mentioned for some time, so thought you might be worried we had forgotten you.

Nor do I, but just pointing out that from what I have heard form my sources - and this includes those close to parents of a first teamer, many on here have it wrong. The point is there is ALWAYS going to be pressure to play a 7mil signing, even if one for the future - matter not where it comes from. I dont believe, pressure of this nature is always a bad thing either - its just that we seem stuck in teh time warp where the manger must be king and do everything himself - yet its not the situation in many countries where they have success - where the manager has to get on with the players provided and coach the best out of them. In fact when a club has invested 30 mil in new players, I would expect there to be pressure to play find the best way in training etc for them to fit into teh side and develop a system and style that works with the players you have available. That said, our injuries have not helped, nor did our start. I just find it strange that in this modern era where managers at the top clubs do NOT have 100% say in signing decisions or contract clauses, we seem to think that MUST be the case here or its 'interfering' - (yes Fergie probably does, but I suspect he is now the last of the breed). One persons 'interfering' is anothers 'colaboration' with multiple coaches who observe players in training coming together to provide input.

Hyp, I know Derry. I hav sat with him at games in the past - and I dont always agree with his perspective on a game or what we should do, and we have enjoyed a good debate about it in the Itchen. He is a smart and Does have teh xperience you mention, and like all in football, opinion will always be divided on what is the solution...which is no bad thing. But when someone who was at teh game, has years of experience in the game makes an observation that the officials agreed with in real time, I am not sure that invalidates that experience when viewed in replays or from different angles. Officials make mistakes - as they have only one chance and no benefit of slo mo replays - all Derry was saying was that from where he was sitting, i real time, he had no complaints about the decision. When viewed later on the TV he may well change his mind - but either way, just because you dont agree with everything he says, not sure for the need for the crappy attacks... as I said, you never used to.

Thing is Kracken, its just as easy to assume that Nige was TRYING to fit him in, that it worked well in training as he may well have had a big say in the signing - which at 6-7mil will have put pressure on him. There is no real evidence either way and its just what we chose to believe. To date the opinion that there was pressure from other parties to play a player out of position is just rumours. Yes there may be truth in them, but I dont believe expecting some sort of eveidence before we strat assuming the worst is too much to ask - especially as we have as a club progressed so rapidly. The concept that our poor start was due to inexperience, naivity, injuries and getting new players to gell, especially defensively is the 'positive' view for sure, but its seems equally logical to Nige being presuurised - especially when you look at the quality of the opposition we have faced recently and the attcking side of the performances we had against City and Man U.

Yes lets all laugh... sorry Hypo, you have been hangin out with bad uns too long and are begiining to think its all really funny to just take the **** out of folk ... Derry freely admits he was level, and in REAL TIME as with the lino he was happy with the decision... as he would have made the same, as would most - benefit of replays and different angles may show it to be wrong un... **** thats been part of football for donkeys so who cares...., yet if it pleases you to take the ****, merely suggests some bad habbits have rubbed of from your new 'mates'. You used to have more respect for folk than that, what happened? Worried about ending up on the wrong side of Turkish and his stalking?

Great result Alternatively its not too illogical to simply assume its taken 10 games or so for NIge and the lads to start settling down after a very difficult start. the performances against City, Man U etc showed we had some quality, but paniced at the wrong time... and its then easy for losing to become a habit... which seems to be a more realistic 'speculation' than all the conspiracy theories... We have also played two sides that were woeful which is great for our confidence - the tests will come when we play sides firing on all cylinders - or will any defeat from now on be a sign of NC and Reed interfering again....?

Depression is an illness, and not something that you 'get yourself' in Hypo.

It may be that all the local businesses do inded hate Nasty Nic and are 'boycotting' as a result - or it could be that 20k-30k a years for corporate entertainment is one of the first things that small local businesses have to forego in such economic climes - the choice is yours. Some will tell you though that its all Nasty Nic's fault.

Sorry ****, Can I call your ****, Dicky or do you prefer Richard? Would hate to offend. You need to read posts in context, rather than isolating quotes... unless you are simply trying to get a reaction, naturally.

Sorry Duncs, disagree. I think it was more NA stamping his mark on things - he must get sick and tired of those that say he had it easy inheriting that side - it was NA showing he had balls IMHO, rather than some sort of 'party line' - the reason it looked out of character is simply because it was - he is normally so 'positive and chipper' that when he does say something liek thsi we find it odd. I think he is frustrated that some maybe dont give him teh credit he deserves, and if anything it could also have been a message upwards. Does a chirman need to be liked? No. He needs to get the job done. Everyone will make mistakes and naturally some jump on those he makes - for whatever reason. End of they day they cant win anyway. We do well, and its the players and manager, we dont and its interference or not acting quick enough - acts too quick and he's a 'hire em fire em'. Respect and trust? will all depend on what characteristics you feel are most important to earn these - in our case, he will not have it from those that feel the club should be more aligned with fans and community, yet we often the forget the excellent work done by the Saints foundation... often we want 100% perfection and when someone is only 50 - 60% right, we focus on the 40% feck ups - human nature I guess. The pressure, the media spotlight and the unforgiving nature of press, fuelling speculation (something not helped by the remianing quiet on 'controvercial' issues) - create a false impression, driven by those who have an interest in doing so. The reality is that 99% of those with either a positive or negative impression or perception, do so without any real understanding of the person, or what has contributed to the decisons made on which we base it - the other 1% think they do. Ultimately, the vast majority want success on the pitch - respect for the club and the way it opperates is 'nice' but given the choice, would we prefer a cuddly loverable type who fawned over fans, but failed to progress beyond the CCC, or one that had ambitions and drive, that meant some areas were overlooked. We may wish and believe that both are possible at the same time, but I suggest that examples of these 'amazing people/chairman' are few and far between.

I dont think anyone would NOT condemn any wrong doing - its NOt a case of my club right or wrong, but one of 'benefit of the doubt' which given the lack available and only one side of the story is IMHO fair enough. I would hope that there is a genuine reason for what has happened, if not, then like others have said its well out of order. Two questions: 1. Is it right to judge the club and NC on this without any knowledge of why this occured? Sure the club have had an opportunity to make its case, they chose not to, but I for one would still prefer to hear their side of this issue before taking sides - afterall it IS my club and I get no joy out of seeing it exposed in this way, so want to be 100% sure before condemning its actions - as a 'supporter', I struggle to see what is wrong with that attitude. Seems some are quick/happy to condemn. 2. Is it right what some media and fans on here seem to be insinuating, that because of this one example, the club is somehow crap in all its transactions? The problem on here seems to be that this is and always has been about more than this story - NO ONE who cares about the club would defend it if its fecked up on this and there is no justification for withholding teh FINAL payment. The ajudication and court decision make it clear that from a legal standpoint the club must pay up. BUt I want to know why they held this back before condemning what is afterall MY club... I am not a lawyer, or a contractor, just a fan/supporter so I have that luxury. The club is never always right - it has made and will always make mistakes - there will be personalities involved at teh cub that I may not like if I ever got to know them - who knows. I also believe its right to ask questions of the club when as fans we feel it has done wrong - its a duty of care. BUt I also find it stange how some are so quick to condemn, without having the answers to those questions. Yes its frustrating that the club remains silent on most issues - but that is not always an admission of guilt. Yes in this case, it appears like the club has indeed behaved wrongly. No excuses, just as it is indeed MY club, I still do not feel comfortable condemning without hearing their side of the story.

Another Gem. Illustrates once again that you read much and comprehend little. That was clearly refering to the 15% outstanding to the 85% paid for thsi particular contract - NOT all bills....

Indeed a very good principle - which is why the club paid the previous installments on time and in full - my guess is something we dont know about went wrong which led to the dispute ... in my reckoning thats about 85% good v 15% bad, So if I acknowldge that something wrong with the clubs attitude for not paying the last 15%, will you acknowledge there is something right with teh clubs attitude in paying the other 85% on time and in full ... plus the countless other monthly payments? This is what's called perspective

Hilariously, Turkish cant differentiate between defending a 'hero' and defending a principle - Cortese is irrelevent in all this - it could be anyone and I no opinion on whether he is a good or bad....

I dont disagree with your logic - I just struggle how you can extrapolate such a negative conclusion from this case considering how many suppliers and firms are paid each month in comparison - of which we dont see or hear any stories. This is what I mean about balance. Of course 'local firm pays local company for quality service' is not a story of any interest, but some perspective is needed. I dont like the idea of my club being crap in these things - but i also dont believe this is some sort of policy or strategy to screw over local businesses - even Cortese is unlikely to see any commercial benefit in alienating local companies that advertise and support the club. If there was an issue with thsi foirm, or not, I would love to know, but I dont have access to that information, So we can assume one of two things, which is the point - the worst, or that its an issue between the two firms, that does unfortunatey happen. Cortese, may indeed be all the things some think he is. I dont know, never met him, never seen how he operates, never seen him dealing with employees or suppliers on a day to day basis, and until we see accounts in 2014 for this season, we wont know how well he managed the transition and expenditure - It may well be full of holes, but I am not going to ASSUME it is, simply because of rumours and speculation, which has only ever come from sources with obvious grievences. Markus trusted NC - for some reason they were close friends. I dont believe Markus would have placed that trust in someone who has been characterised as a complete vindictive type some are insinuating. If I am wrong, I will be the first to admit to it - but I simply dont believe in teh conclusions some are drawing from what is still only one side of the story.

NOtice you ignore the fact that your 'FACTS' were shown to be inaccurate with respect to pompey = saints....

There is nothing wrong in asking those two questions - but you assume you already have the answers... If you actually ASKED questions, no one would have an issue with you - its teh fact that you present your opinion as factual answers to your own questions which removes any credibilty...

True, its is indeed, but debate is about presenting the facts to an argument from both sides - this was less about promoting debate, but bodering on propoganda - nowt wrong with that if you read it with your eyes open and aware of its true purpose

Sorry wrong again - to keep it simple.... Pompey have NOT paid a large number of local firms anything- and they are never likely to get a penny Saints did not pay a final 15% to a single supplier due to some dispute that we know nothing about - which they ahve now been ordered to pay - which I suspect they will - its possible saints had no justification, or they felt they did, we dont know, but they will pay, and no children will go hungry so you can rest easy. No conjecture, just FACTS

Come on, you can do better than that... you know exactly the picture it is trying to paint.

the point being though, that whatever the reasons, guilt, rights or wrongs of this iniviual case, its surely not enough to use it to paint a picture of a serial non-payer that does not give a flying feck about the local community, with 'mouths to feed' - highly emotive language which is not factual, but designed to protray the club in a certyain negative light...based on one case for which the blogger has only one side of the argument... The issue I have is quite simple. Some have made a very valid point that as fans we have a duty of care to question the club. 100% agreed. But if this is to be seen as more than just an execise in club bashing for the sake of it, it requires balance - both in recognising that the media is not always presenting an unbiassed opinion... and in that before drawing conclusions and spreading them as gospel, some proper research needs to be done - FACT finding, rather than gossip mongering, all sides of the story, rather than treating the whinge and moan of a few displeased as the correct information, just because its currently the ONLY source of information. Otherwise, like some journalists, the end result is lazy, incomplete and lacks any credibilty.

The Turkish defence...

Fair enough, but one would assume that the club would also have taken legal advice on such an issue. I am frequently frustrated by the club's lack of communication, especially around those issues that either effect fans or reflect on the image of the club we support, because like most, I have a natural curiosity and hunger for information, but also because their silence leads to so much negative speculation and provides ammunition for those determined to find them guilty - as a result I have just enough self awareness to recognise this results in an almost zealot like defence, but I stand by my point that if we want to judge a situation fairly, we need to hear from all sides if wanting to make a truely informed opinion, whether it be this issue, or one of the others.

Yep they would have done within the eyes of the law - no one can argue with that. (assuming you feel that adjudicators and teh courts alays come to teh correct decsion... naturally). My point is that its just as easy to assume that Saints withholding the final 15% was because they felt there was something wrong with the end product / failure on timelines etc, even if legally this was not going to hold up (have you never had a dispute with a builder, that you had to pay in the end, but were far from happy about it?) as it is to assume its 'just another example of the club being bad payers' which has been suggested by the same old in numerous threads now...