FloridaMarlin

"Daily Mail in any thin pretence to have a pop at the BBC" shock. Rather than the Mail highlight how much the Beeb hates us (it doesn't, there is a solid knot of Saints fans working for BBC Sport) this story only serves to serves how the Mail ignores us. The Mail fails to mention the fact we only led MOTD once. In fact, other than in the graphic, we don't warrant a mention at all.

Yes it is. Also real are some of the readers' comments below. "And I am sure that there are many who are jealous of how quickly they found their feet again after being in similar trouble as Pompey a few years back. Unfortunately there was no Marcus Lieberr for Pompey at the time they needed it." It's not a case of unfortunate. It's a case of nobody wanting to invest in a club which had no infrastructure, having decided to spunk all their money in one big blow-out (well done Harry). No training ground, no academy, a tumbledown shed for a ground and a wage bill bigger than the GDP of a third world nation. All of which would cause even the most philanthropic of sensible rich men to give it a big swerve. No, I'm afraid misfortune does not come into it. All those who cheered Sol Campbell, David James, Benjani, King Kanu, Tal Ben Haim can ponder and shed brave tears into their beer over those heroes who saddled a club run worse than a village fete tombola stall with an unsustainable, crippling debt. A club and supporters who gave no thought to their future are now stuck in a present which doesn't bear thinking about.

May 2015 Portsmouth chairman Iain McInnes has hinted that next season will be his last at the Fratton Park helm. McInnes unveiled his fourth permanent manager in his two-year spell as chairman and he said he hoped Paul Cook was his last. "We don't want to continue to change managers, that is not the plan," McInnes told BBC South Today, "Promotion is the target, these fans should be demanding it. This guy is going to deliver it for us. "This is one last hurrah now. Paddy Ashdown said if it doesn't work I'll eat my hat. I'm a seven and a half so it'll be a big hat but I will eat it if this guy doesn't get us out of this league." So now we know the real reason Cook is not likely to get the tin tack after failing to get the most expensively assembled squad out of the lowest tier of English professional football. Champagne Iain doesn't want to risk indigestion by tucking into a sombrero. Portsmouth FC - the Josef Friztl in football's basement.

I seem to recall going down to the Corrugated Cardboard Cabin in April 1976, a couple of weeks before the FA Cup Final, and in a game where a young Steve Williams made his debut, Mick Channon's goal in a 1-0 Saints win confirmed P****y's relegation to Division 3. I went with a couple of mates and we had to stand on what was then the north terrace as the Milton End was packed with Saints fans. This was after the police had escorted us past a seething, foaming Fratton End. Channon's goal was quite late in the game and we had to stifle our cheers. It was nice to know that while we were heading off to the Cup Final and glory, they finished rock-bottom of Division Two were beginning their painful slide down an unvarnished banister with no pants on, to their first spell in English football's lowest tier. Although they survived in Division 3 in 1976-77 by the skin of their teeth, they finished bottom of Division 3 and fell through the trapdoor into Division Four in 1977-78 - the same year we were promoted back to the old First Division. So I think we can argue that on that April night in 1976, we pulled out the first jenga brick that brought their house down all the way to Division 4.

Also, if I was a manager going to Everton, I would want some assurances that the reported £100m war chest does not include the proceeds from the sale of the team's spine; Stones, Barkley and Lukaku could all conceivably go this summer. Regardless of the wealth of Everton's new owner, if Chelsea slap down enough cash for Stones, he will want away. Like Morgan, he will consider he gave Everton an extra season and his reward should be a move.

The key to this could be de Boer's resignation, especially as he and Ron share an agent. De Boer has clearly resigned as his agent as told him he will be working in the Premier League next season. Logic says de Boer has quit to take the vacant Everton post, and it's already been offered to him. Either that, or Saints have had the nod from Koeman's agent that he is not going to sign, and they have moved to line de Boer up, and he has left Ajax to take up our vacancy. These things don't happen overnight. All parties - Everton, Saints, Ajax, Koeman, de Boer, agents - would have known for some while - probably since Everton's semi-final defeat - that Martinez would be fired. Everton would have put the first tentative feelers out, and the rest of the pieces would have fallen into place. I'd be very sorry to see Ron go, but it we are going to lose a manager, this summer is as good as any, with some very good ones floating around.

It's an interesting debate about the physicality of the Premier League. Many moons ago, the perception was that Johnny Foreigner was not suited for English football as it was too physical (apart from Germans and Scandinavians). I clearly remember an older generation of manager (no names, you can pick your own) saying they would not trust foreign players, who were brilliant at the start of the season on lush pitches and in warm autumn weather, but wouldn't be able to cut it in the ankle-deep mud of December, January and February. Of course, the wise owls pointed to the physicality of the Premier League, and English football in general, that held us back in tournaments as skill and technique as possessed by foreign players was far more important. Once big TV money began to drift into the domestic game, English clubs signed foreign players, and we are sold the line that foreign players have improved the PL, and made it the best in the world, possibly at the expense of the England team as young English players can't get a look-in past the imported players. The myth that foreign players can't cut it in winter has been exploded, largely by the vast improvement in the state of pitches, which means they are no longer confronted by Somme-like conditions in winter. However, the Best League in the World (self-styled) consistently fails to win the Champions League and only Scousehampton have prevented a clean sweep of Spanish clubs in both UEFA finals.. So why is the Spanish League so good? I think it's something of a myth to say that European leagues and teams are not physical. Most of them play the game at as high a tempo as the Premier League and when they play PL teams, they are certainly not out-muscled or out-run. I know the argument might be that PL clubs play 38 hard, tough matches every season, while the Spanish giants only face tough games when they face each other as the other teams in the league are weak. And the laws of the game are now more suited to letting skilful players flourish at the expense of the hard men and cloggers who were around 20 years ago. And what is physicality, exactly? Even the smaller players in the PL - Coutinho, Mahrez, Aguero - are pretty bulked up and muscular. English players are conspicuous by their absence from the top foreign teams (apart from Gareth Bale). A large factor in that, of course, is the sheer financial muscle English clubs have thanks to TV money, but even those foreign giants who could afford to pay the sort of wages that might tempt English players, aren't exactly falling over themselves to sign them.

Totally agree with Alpine's post and at the risk of being flamed, I think Leicester's achievement this season shows how we have underperformed. While an improvement on last season is not to be sniffed at, I think we could have done better. To be honest, if you compare Leicester's and Saints' squad, you would have to say ours is stronger in terms of players available. At the start of the season, would you have seen Huth and Morgan as a better central defensive pairing than Fonte and Van Dyke? Look at the choice of midfield player available to Ron, as opposed to Ranieri. GRanted, Drinkwater and Kante have had outstanding seasons, but then you are looking at the likes of Marc Albrighton and Andy King, hardly names you would have expected to shine. Vardy has carried them in attack, but their back-up choices include Ulloa. There was a reason Leicester were mired in a relegation scrap and only escaped by the skin of their teeth last season. Their squad wasn't good enough. What's happened to them is quite amazing in terms of turning individuals and the team around. They took advantage of a one-off season when the top teams were in disarray. That's unlikely to happen again. Chelsea and Man City will be stronger under new managers, United will either allow van Gaal or Mourinho to throw money at it. Klopp will, annoyingly make Liverpool a force. You can see the Old Order being restored. You cannot take anything away from Leicester. Their collection of cast-offs, misfits and bargain signings had the sort of season they will never have again. The annoying thing is it could have been us and it's a fair enough question to speculate why it wasn't.

People have criticised his position play and although it looked bad when he was done by the ball that found Rose, but it's easy to blame the full-back when you give the opposition time - in this case Alderweireld - time and space to ping a ball over the top. I don't recall too many opposition wingers absolutely taking him to the cleaners and he plays that ball into the inside-right channel with aplomb. As well as yesterday, he played a similar ball against Citeh last week and I'm pretty sure these aren't the only two occasions he has done it. Those demanding we go out and buy a new right-back might bear in mind that RK seems to trust him. He doesn't seem to have made too many errors od judgement do far.

In October 2002 Leicester went into administration following their relegation from the Premier League the previous season, with debts of £30m. Despite this, they managed to keep all their players and finished second in the Championship table with 92 points and bounced back to the Premier League. What is forgotten in the mists of time and the feelgood factor of their Premier League triumph is that it was following complaints from other clubs that Leicester had gained a financial advantage from their administration, that the Football League introduced its rule to deduct 10 points from clubs going into admin. So every club that has had points deducted for going into admin can blame Leicester. Oh, and the club they finished runners-up to that season were p****y.

Interesting article that puts us top of a table for once. http://www.cityam.com/240359/forget-leicester-city-southampton-and-everton-are-a-better-bet-for-future-premier-league-success-according-to-new-management-index

The reason Howe was meh! at Burnley was domestic. His wife hated t'north, and didn't move up there. Howe is a big family man and perhaps his heart wasn't totally in it (which maybe doesn't speak volumes for his professionalism). There would be no such issues if he came here. For all his love of Bournemouth, my understanding is that he would jump at the chance to come here, and the myth that he previously turned us down can be discounted. At the time the myth 'he turned us down' was being created, he was actually being touted and offered to us by Eddie Mitchell who was desperate for the cash. We, in fact, spurned Mitchell's advances and said ' no thanks' and the myth that Howe turned us down was created as a bit of face-saving on Mitchell's part.

I haven'tread this piece yet (I will get around to it) but to most supporters, good football is winning football. Most supporters don't give a tinker's cuss how their team play, as long as they win. Playing attractive football is a bonus, but results are often the arbiter of what is or isn't good football.

Aren't the Football League supposed to soon be issuing a report on their investigations into Leicester wiping off £50m worth of debt in their promotion season? Should make interesting reading, but will be lost in the clamour of the Greatest Football Fairy Tale Ever Told. As somebody above said, the reward is greater than the risk.

If that is true, we can expect the club to fine him heavily. No doubt the statement will be issued during the week.

You sometimes have to be a bit of egotistical arse and a pain in the neck to be the chief football writer on a national newspaper, and I'll be the first to admit there are some right muppets you would not give the time of day to. It's a fiercely competitive industry and like any competitive industry there is huge pressure on people to come up with the goods. That's not defending them (I wouldn't and couldn't do that) and they could always get out of it if they choose and the pressure gets too much. But while agreeing there are arseholes who work for national newspapers, there are far more decent, honest hard-working journalists who are respectful, aware of the responsibilities of the their role and are generous with their time and advice for those trying to make their way in the profession. While I can't mention names, some of those who are the nicest guys would surprise you. Unfortunately, the names of the arseholes will also come as no surprise to you. I know we're straying a little off-topic, but I think you are unfair to tar all journos as pillocks. I don't know what you do for a living but I'm sure you have a proportion of muppets in your profession. It doesn't mean everybody is.

I bet he was popular in the Basque country. Born in Durango in the Basque country, fled Spain in 1936 to escape the ravages of the Civil War, went back, turned down Athletic Bilbao, the footballing standard-bearers of Basque identity, and went to play for hated Castillians Real Madrid, who during that time (and long after) were Franco's pet team. Blimey.

If you read my post you will see that I accepted most people would not care what his attitude to the media was like. But I think you are a bit disingenuous to label all journalists as jerks and whatever is covered by your asterisks (I can guess what letters they are). There are bellends in every profession and perhaps the media has more than its share. But the vast majority of journos do a good, honest job in bringing truthful, engaging and sometimes important news to people. That's especially the case in the regional media where journos are very committed to their profession and passionate about what they do and who they cover. I don't suppose it would make any difference to your view to know that I know of at least two good, honest hard-working journos who were driven to a nervous breakdown and early retirement by Lawrie. In fact, you would probably revel in that news. Don't get me wrong. I appreciate and admire what Lawrie did for Saints and as I said in my earlier post he gave fans the best times in the club's history. But that doesn't mean we have to fawn over him. He's a human being and has flaws and it's right they should be aired and discussed.

Nobody could argue what he did for the club, and the great times he gave supporters - possibly the best ever for Saints fans. I don't think anybody who wasn't around at the time can appreciate how huge the Kevin Keegan signing was. As a Saints fan, you were able to walk six inches off the deck, and for that alone if nothing else, Lawrie should be appreciated and held in esteem. But it might well have been from that time that his ego began to spiral. As other people on this board with connections will verify, he was an absolute nightmare to deal with from a media point of view. I realise that most fans won't give a tinker's cuss about the problems he caused people and to an extent, why should they? But while he came across (and still does) as a big genial Geordie, and carefully maintained his status as folk hero, he always acted out of self-service and as a result rode roughshod over most people he dealt with. While he is - rightly - a hero to fans, you won't find too many people in the media who have a good word to say about him. He burned too many bridges. Unfortunately, his book might well be a good read, but it's 20 years too late. I'm not sure the current generation of fans can relate to the players who played under him.

Are we sure we will get four CL places next season?

That can't be true. He's apparently crap.

They cheered Le Tiss to the rafters when he played at the Tumbledown Temple for Alan Knight's testimonial. If I recall, they even praised him and saw the funny side for his cheeky humour in revealing his Saints shirt. Perhaps their delusion comes from the fact he wore a p****y shirt that day.

I wouldn't expect you to provide examples, in the same way the person I know in HMRC cannot reveal individual details for fear of breaching the Official Secrets Act. However, if your couple of examples have been pursued aggressively by HMRC there is probably a reason for it. Without knowing the specific details, HMRC will get on somebody's back if they think they have failed to provide correct information, if they persistently fail to provide returns or information, or if they think there is something amiss. And that attitude certainly hasn't changed in the past two years or twenty. The taxman (whether in his current guise of HMRC or previous incarnation of Inland Revenue) has ALWAYS aggressively pursued those they are able to, if they think they are not being up front and honest. I might be wrong, buy you appear to be saying that HMRC are chasing the little man more aggressively as they cannot touch the big boys. That's not a view I would adhere to from my experience, and is a claim usually pursued by those tasting sour grapes as HMRC have been on their case. And, as I say, there is usually a reason for that. If you feel HMRC have changed their attitude in the past two years and are pursuing the little guy more, you have to ask yourself why that might be. The latest figures show a £34bn shortfall in tax collected and what should have been collected. That figure includes both tax evasion and avoidance. Perhaps that eye-watering figure suggests HMRC hasn't changed its attitude enough.

I'm sorry, but this is just wrong. HMRC, will not screw you for every penny they can squeeze out of you. They will try and obtain what a person should have paid, no more, no less (that includes any interest penalties that may have accrued through late payment). They do not bend the tax laws to suit themselves. They are there to enforce the laws as they exist. As HMRC will only seek to gain what should be due, they will do pretty much anything they can to assist taxpayers. It's amazing what they will do if you actually speak to them and are honest and up front with them, and explain any problems or difficulties you might have have in paying your bill. They will set up payment plans, offset payments, and be amenable to other arrangements such as adjusting your tax code so that you do not have to pay a big lump sum, as long as people are honest with them. They actually want to help people pay their bills. In fact, the nasty, horrible taxman tends to write off a lot of smaller outstanding payments because it is not economically viable to chase them down. I know closely somebody who works for HMRC and they constantly tell me how frustrated they are that as civil servants (that's people who serve the public, by the way, which is what they try and do) they have to play by the rules and apply the laws strictly, objectively and fairly, while people will employ any method they can to circumvent them. They are also pretty brassed off at the public image of image of them as portrayed by the Mail and other papers. The Mail has performed some wonderful journalistic gymnastics this week. The same paper which stands foursquare behind the government's austerity policies and demands further cuts in what they still describe as tea-drinking (not true, they don't get tea breaks), feather-bedded pensioned (not true, Civil Service pensions are not what they were and even then civil servants pay from their salary than other sectors of industry) pen-pushing civil servants, had the temerity this week to criticise HMRC for not doing more to track down non-payers from overseas tax havens (conveniently forgetting, of course, the Mail's proprietors live in France so they can avoid tax as non-doms). Perhaps if they were provided with the resources to implement the laws and policy, they would not seem so vehement to some people, in chasing the little guy. But this government is not going to provide that, as it might enable HMRC to extract the correct taxes from those who can afford to evade it.

There is no such thing as a EU privacy law. This is another fallacy cobbled together by the Daily Mail and others as part of the fallacy that we are all subject and mercilessly browbeaten by crazy EU laws, imposed by unelected eurocrats in Brussels. The UK is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, which in its Article 8, sets out the entitlement of individuals to privacy. THE ECHR's dichotomy is that Article 10 governs Freedom of Expression (which includes the ability of individuals to speak their mind and is most often used by the media as a justification for invading an individual's privacy). The Mail-prompted fallacy is erroneous in that the ECHR is nothing to do with the EU. The ECHR was drafted in 1950 by the Council of Europe to safeguard certain human rights in the aftermath of WW II. The main driving force behind the convention was not your slimy Frog, duplicitous Eyetie or intractable Dutchman, but us. There is no such thing as a specific privacy law as such in this country. Those who can afford it use other legislation to protect their privacy (Data Protection - Naomi Campbell, Breach of Contract - Michael Douglas and Katherine Z-J). Ironically, the reason we have no specific privacy law is the reluctance of successive governments to enact one for fear of upsetting newspapers and their proprietors who claim it would impinge on their ability to operate. Nice irony there that the influence of Murdoch, the Barclay Brothers, the Rothermere family and Richard Desmond on Dave not to implement privacy laws post Leveson inquiry, could be the means for people to poke their noses into his business and fail to provide him with the security blanket of 'privacy' to hide behind.