The Kraken

That's very true Nick, and I'm one of them. It doesn't mean that we can't ask genuine questions of the club's actions though; the two are not mutually exclusive.

Really? Burley hardly ever moved from his standing position in the technical area, waving his arms around continually. I always thought he was not sat in the dugout enough where he could actually think some tactics through, rather than continually standing by the sidelines using the same old arm movements which I'm sure the players must have soon learned to just ignore as they offered no new insight apart from "try harder". As for "getting rid of players on the cheap", I'm pretty sure it wasn't Burley who set the price for departing players. And one thing that Lowe certainly can't be criticised for is holding out for top value for players leaving the club. Even the prices we got for players in the Wilde/Crouch madness were very reasonable.

Fair enough point, but it's much less of an issue next year. If people assume that the installment plan is not going to be there then they still have months to save up to pay up front by July. Its the lack of notice that has caught out many this year. What I consider most worrying is that, despite having surely received many complaints about the sudden shelving of the installment plan, the club have still not formally commented publicly on the matter. If the club are going to promote themselves through the medium of a fans charter and then choose to re-write certain sections of that document just months later, I think we (the customers) deserve a little more explanation than "it costs too much, end of".

OK, before I start I will confess that this is a complete "mate of mate" story and I have absolutely no idea if it's true or not. But I've been told that the away shirt is a very dark grey (almost black) with slightly lighter grey stripes. There we go.

Badger supports Sheffield Wednesday.

Depends if his heart is in the job, IMO. First full season I quite enjoyed watching "his" team at times, the playoff push was mixes of joy and sincere frustration but we did look a good team on quite a few occasions (though other times we looked pretty shocking). Final season he looked like he couldn't care less and neither did his players. If Palace get "that" Burley, they're doomed.

Jay-Z was indeed a cracker; nice little cameo from Kanye for just one track as well! Orbital on Saturday night and The Courteeners on Sunday afternoon were other highlights for me.

Maybe something like this then...

I think Paul McCartney may indeed be God; such a great set. My hangover is a disgrace though.

Really like it. I've been waiting for Saints to bring out a white kit for ages so I can wear it for 5 a side, so this one will be going on the shopping list.

First of all, it doesn't really matter if it's the Trust or this site that gets the club to engage. My point is, the club sees the Trust exactly as we do, a moribund association that is being held up by a handful of people. Therefore by not acceding to the Trust's wishes for a meeting, they're effectively denying a meeting in the same way as if I alone emailed in and asked for 30 minutes of Cortese's time. Go back 18 months or so though, when the Trust did have its 800 or so members, then they were a proper fans association which perhaps may well have been able to put more pressure on, but now they no longer can. Or SISA for that matter. As for your question about whether I have contacted the Echo; sadly (on my behalf), yes I have. On the issue of the Trust I have contacted them on a number of times asking for clarification on why they continue to quote "Trust chairman" and not "Nick Illingworth" when they know they are a dead organisation. I've furthermore asked the same question of your mate Danny on this site, but have had no response from either. Sad I know, but there you are.

I'll refer you to the very first post on this thread. "It is a distinct possibility that Saints Web Forum is the largest paid membership unofficial fans 'thing' that Southampton FC has. We obviously represent a wide snapshot of the opinions of the fanbase and as such could be seen as being better served then an organisation like the Saints Trust to represent fan opinion." For what Illingsworth has done on this issue, I agree with his stance to try and get the club to comment. However, I've personally disagreed with a number of comments that have been made by "The Trust" in the past. The club know that The Trust are made up of a very small number of people and therefore, as a pressure group of sorts, they are completely powerless. Having the backing of hundreds/thousands of fans behind you however changes the issue. I'd prefer to have a situation whereby I didn't feel the club needed to be questioned over every decision they make. That said, I also don't agree that the customers should not be able to hold the club to account over broken promises. And whether you agree with it or not, quite a few people on here have disagreed with the way the club have bypassed their Fans Charter in the past few weeks, and as yet we've had no proper explanation from the club as to why. If the forum's influence can be used to extract an answer in this situation then I think it can only be a good thing, so long as it is done in the right way.

Its not for communication with the club though; its for communication with the press (ie The Echo). It's all well and good "The Saints Trust" asking, through the Echo, for a meeting with the club but the club know full well that The Trust doesn't exist apart from two individuals. The Echo putting pressure on the club with however many potential hundreds/thousands in a poll from here is, however, completely different and actually starts to give some credibility to a supposed groundswell of opinion. There doesn't need to be a 100% consensus so long as it is explained, for example, "of 968 people polled on the Saints Forum, 79% said that they believed the club had acted poorly in cancelling the ST payment scheme with no notice, and should make a comment explaining their decision". OK, the figures are made up of course, but you get the idea.

To add to what Colin has responded with; the forum also has the facility for obtaining, in a short space of time, a poll on any given issue. The spokesperson can then give accurate figures in terms of percentages and number of people polled on any particular subject. It doesn't need to be siding for one particular argument, just reflective of a significant amount of opinions.

Exactly right. This is what I said on the other thread... It all depends on who the "elected" person is as to whether it would work or not. When making press comments Illingsworth very rarely expresses his views as just his own, and McFeat is even more forthright in proclaiming what the entire Trust are feeling at any given time. Quite how they would know is anyone's guess but there they are speaking apparently for close on 1000 members However, without wishing to shine a light up his @rse, Steve Grant's comments in the Echo always seem to come across as very balanced, and are usually expressed as a personal view even though he appears in print as a moderator of the forum. Whether Steve would actually want the role of forum spokesman is another matter altogether, but I for one would welcome it in place of the current arrangement of rent-a-quotes who claim to speak for all their members but in actuality only speak for themselves. I think the role can work, but the spokesperson has to ensure that they do not try to suggest what the majority of forum members are thinking, but simply raise a concern that a sizeable amount of people have raised certain objections to something. You'll never get a common consensus on anything and therefore should never claim to do so. But a comment along the lines of "a large number of people have, through the forum, expressed sincere disappointment at the lack of consultancy and notice prior to the announcement by the club to scrap the payment plan" is factual and should offend no-one.

I posted on the other thread, but would be more than happy to see this happen, Steve always gives a very balanced view. And if it keeps professional gobsh!tes Illingsworth and McFeat away from speaking for "nearly a thousand Saints fans", all the better.

It all depends on who the "elected" person is as to whether it would work or not. When making press comments Illingsworth very rarely expresses his views as just his own, and McFeat is even more forthright in proclaiming what the entire Trust are feeling at any given time. Quite how they would know is anyone's guess but there they are speaking apparently for close on 1000 members However, without wishing to shine a light up his @rse, Steve Grant's comments in the Echo always seem to come across as very balanced, and are usually expressed as a personal view even though he appears in print as a moderator of the forum. Whether Steve would actually want the role of forum spokesman is another matter altogether, but I for one would welcome it in place of the current arrangement of rent-a-quotes who claim to speak for all their members but in actuality only speak for themselves. I think the role can work, but the spokesperson has to ensure that they do not try to suggest what the majority of forum members are thinking, but simply raise a concern that a sizeable amount of people have raised certain objections to something. You'll never get a common consensus on anything and therefore should never claim to do so. But a comment along the lines of "a large number of people have, through the forum, expressed sincere disappointment at the lack of consultancy and notice prior to the announcement by the club to scrap the payment plan" is factual and should offend no-one.

F*ck all; the amount of trophies Anders Svensson won with Saints. Edit; I give up, can't keep up with Turkish.

Cute. A description of Anders Svensson's wife.

Please don't, we've had enough of the muck-raking that's infiltrated this forum of late.

No doubt. Despite the fact that BBC and ITV have announced their lists of pundits and AP isn't on either. But don't let the facts get in the way of a good, unsubstantiated rumour.

Yep, you don't have to go too on this forum far to dig up some criticism of the chairman.

I can't believe believe are moaning about Smirking Saint moaning about my moaning, when really I wasn't moaning but just making a (poor) joke. Bloody hell, you know people are starved of football when something like this gets their backs up. That World Cup can't start early enough; roll on Friday.

I would never get tired of repetedly slapping Corden's jowelly face.

Frank, have a read back again. It's not the decision to cut the payment scheme that is the bone of contention here, it's the fact that the club has performed a complete u-turn from a number of fundamental issues in their recently published Fans' Charter. A charter that was intended to promote transparency and dialogue with the customer has effectively been bypassed in less than 12 months. Your points about revenue maximisation etc are all valid, but that's not addressing the real point of how the club have misleadingly published a set of operating directives and then at the very first instance chosen (without discussion with or notice to the customer) to completely reverse some of their ticketing policies.