The Kraken

The OS lists last night's game, and the game against Torquay, as a WIN. Perhaps someone should let them know they've apparently got it wrong....

Oh good, a separate thread. Because this hasn't been discussed at all in any of the match threads....

I remember watching him play at St. Mary's; think it must have been a reserve game though. He was utterly, utterly terrible! Laughably bad, in fact.

Great draw....

I went down to the ground today to pick up tickets; arrived just before 3pm and there was a queue of at least 20 people before me. Apparently it had been that way all day. Admittedly a lot were probably buying tickets for the JPT, but good to see nonetheless (apart from the cold wait in line).

The law was not intended to be a murky area, it was intended to be simple. Which is why the law doesn't differentiate, as you seem to believe, between whether the striker would have scored or not. It's a simple question; was a goal-scoring opportunity denied by the handball. And the clear answer is yes. So, yes, I can say his decision was incorrect. Watch the replay again, it's on bbc iplayer. There is no doubt whatsoever that, without the handball, Lambert would have had a clear header. Whether he would have scored, missed, had it saved, cleared off the line, is irrelevant. The "opportunity" to score with a header from 6 yards out was denied solely by the handball, therefore its a red card.

There's no right answer for this one IMO; only hindsight will tell us what the best outcome was. If we play a strong team, win the game and the players all come through unscathed then it will be a huge boost to our confidence and keep hopes alive of picking up some silverware. When the team are winning games no player wants to be dropped, and enjoying a victory over one the strongest teams in the league would be a great shot in the arm. Playing a severely weakened team and getting beaten just won't allow for that and could be seen as a backwards step. However, if we have an injury such as Murty's against Birmingham (again a cup game) then there will be accusations that players should have been rested for the promotion push. I'd prefer to see us play a strong team, though I'm all to aware of the risks it poses.

Incorrect. The rules state it is a sending off offence for "a deliberate handling offense to deny an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by any player other than a goalkeeper in his own penalty area". Nothing about whether it will be a pretty certain goal or not, simply that a good goal-scoring opportunity was denied. Denying an otherwise unchallenged header from literally six yards out clearly falls into that category.

Who told me it? A friend who spends half of the year living out there. He's said the difference he's seeing over there is just staggering. I think I'll take his word for it.

I know Pompey fans who are saying that already.....

I agree totally. You have to look beyond the football club alone to see how great this could be for Southampton and the surrounding area. South Africa is undergoing an enormous modernisation throughout the country because of the WC next year, some of it well overdue but it just wouldn't have happened without football instigating it. Having the World Cup would be a huge boost for the city not just for 3 matches, but from now until well beyond the tournament.

My dad could beat your dad up.

Very true, and well put. My point is though, that at the start of the negotiations the club would have had their assets valued, and their cash in hand determined. That would have been the basis for a "value" of the business to be ascertained by the various interested parties. In the weeks that followed, through the protracted sale of the club, the asset value of the club was reduced by £3m in terms of player sales. Though this of course should impact on the cash in hand value. But in addition, the cash in hand figure was also reduced during this period, through the fact that we had to pay wages yet had no meaningful income through either ticket sales or season tickets. I'm not saying for a minute that I know the actual figures, of course I'm not. I'm pretty sure that I don't and never will understand all the ins and outs of the deal. But what I am saying is that to completely write of the £3m in sales as irrelevant to the final sale price is absolutely wrong, it simply has to be taken account when considering our total spend in the summer.

You're clearly choosing to ignore previous posts on this very thread in order to carry on your tirade. But I'll humour you... Of course I can't tell you how much was paid for the club; no-one will do that. But my point stands; if you think the sale price of the club would stay the same while the club lost £3m of assets overnight, then you're deluded. I can just see the negotiations...."so the club is worth £3m less than it was yesterday? Sure, I'll still pay the same price for it." Probably no-one will ever know how much effect this had on the exact sale price of the club, but to dismiss it entirely as you have done is clearly wrong. And I've already agreed with you; hardly any clubs in this league buy big like we have. No-one, especially me, is going to argue with you with the fact that we've spent much more than the other clubs, and we can pay higher wages than most other clubs. But that just HAS to be allied to the fact that we lost so many senior players for a very larrge sum of money, and those players had to be replaced in a hurry. And I guess that's where our differences lie; I see the purchases we've made thus far as us playing "catch up" as fast as we can with the other big boys in this league. In any case, the January transfer window will be a good indicator of where our finances lie. If we go out then and splash another £1M or more on players then I may well defer to your views. Until then, I think they're a bit exagerated.

Dear God, this is getting tedious. No-one is arguing the fact that we're a much bigger club than those you just mentioned. Arizona has repeatedly stated that our income is around £6m per year higher than such clubs, hence we can afford to pay bigger transfer fees and wages than these clubs. But your analogies to Chelsea and Man City are just not valid; both of those clubs operate at massive losses. Our owners have indicated all along that we are being run as a profitable business, we won't be run as a loss making exercise. You seem to conveniently write-off the £3m of player sales in the summer because they were made prior to the club's purchase. But Mr Liebherr was involved in negotiations for the club well before these player sales, and if you think for a minute that having £3m worth of assets removed from the company accounts would have had no effect on the price he eventually paid for the club, then it's you who are severely deluded. This summer we found ourselves in a position whereby we had lost 7 senior players from our squad. Players who would have walked into probably any team in this division. Those players needed to be replaced, and quickly. Yes, we've spent a fair amount of money to do that. No-one really knows the actual figures as the majority of the fees are "undisclosed", but we can be sure its quite significant. And yes, we've spent more than any other club in the division. But, although you just don't want to do it, that HAS to be offset against the players that have left the club in the summer. It's a redundant exercise without doing that, no matter how much you argue it.

So apart from Delph, all other players out of the door went on frees, and none to clubs in a higher division. We lost McGoldrick, Dyer, Surman, Wright-Phillips, Euell, John and Rasiak. All to teams in a higher division, and quite obviously our better players. Leeds and us are two completely different scenarios.

It's a bit of both really. No matter where the money for Surman, DMG et al went, they were players that were in our first team last season that we lost, they brought in a significant amount of money, and they needed to be replaced. However, there are not many other clubs in this division that the likes of Lambert, Hammond, Murty, Waigo etc would have gone to, both for the transfer fee/wage that we can now pay, and for the fact that we're one of the biggest clubs in the division. I agree with Arizona that it's not irelevant when the players were sold, the sales would have had some form of impact on the price of the club. And while we have certainly spent alot on new players we're certainly not the "Man City of League 1", we're just a bigger and wealthier club compared to most other teams around us.

Best league game? - Southampton 3 Sheffield United 2. Last game at St. Mary's 2007/08. Best cup game? - Saints 4 Spuds 0. Best goalkeeper? - Antii Niemi Best centre back? - Michael Svensson Best full back? - Wayne Bridge Best winger? - CMFG Best striker? - James Beattie Best youngster to come through? - Gareth Bale Best manager? - Gordon Strachan Overall player of the decade? - Antii Niemi Favourite away game? - Derby play off semi. Favourite home game? - Southampton 3 Sheffield United 2. Best away fans to visit SMS? - Man Utd. Best Saints fans performance (home)? - Dell last game Best Saints fans performance (away)? - FA Cup final

With 20 league games gone, I decided to search inside for my inner geek, and came up with the following.... The Gillingham game, our 11th league game, I have taken as the turning point; the 10 games before that were completely different in terms of performances and results. Since then, we’ve scored 23 points from 10 league games, so an average of 2.3 points per game. If we assume the top 6 clubs will continue their total season form, and take Huddersfield who are in 5th place, they have a total of 32 points from 20 games at an average of 1.6 points per game. So, assuming both those trends continue for the rest of the season..... Huddersfield have 26 more games to play, at 1.6 points per game, which would equate to 42 more points and give a season total of 74 points. Saints have 26 more games to play, at 2.3 points per game, which would equate to 60 more points and give a season total of 82 points. So it’s clear to see we have to continue the form of the last 10 games to be in with a shout. I personally don’t think we will continue that form all season, but there’s no reason we can’t be too far away from it. And if we’re in the mix come March or April I’ll feel more confident over ourselves than the likes of Swindon, Huddersfield, Colchester etc. So, it’s definitely possible....

And that was sort of the point of my answer. No-one, as far as I can recall, suggested any of the signings we made in the summer and since. So I have faith in the management team signing who they think is the best option. Don't get me wrong, I love the sentiment that we have money to spend in January on players, its a great thing. Maybe I've just been swayed by the relentless bickering on this site of late from pointless idiots who want to debate how a win is a draw, and how 9 wins out of 13 is a bad thing.

I'd just let Alan Pardew do his job. As he has proven so far, it's one that he can do in a more than capable manner. AP has brought in a number of players since arriving here. And all of them, in their own way, have proven to be a successful signing. But, more to the point, pretty much no-one on here has predicted their signing, let alone suggested it. It's easy to sit back and play fantasy manager and criticise from afar. I'm happy for our manager to sign who he sees fit; his choices are bound to be much better than the suggestions that come from the plethora of clowns on here.

And it was the football league that imposed the -10 penalty; not the FA. Not having the best of mornings, are you...

Simon Gillett in shock loan recall in time for Boxing Day Saints clash.

This whole thread is pointless and embarrassing. Its like an argument in a school playground.

You really are quite an oddball.