stevegrant

No problem, good idea. Pretty unfair, IMO. I don't think any of the young players brought in this season have looked out of their depth or lacking quality. Lacking in a bit of strength, perhaps. Who's to say they're better? The vast majority of the more experienced players showed themselves to be utter ****e last season under three different managers. No argument here. Unfortunately, the second word in that sentence is probably the key one. Askham, I would imagine, is more than happy sitting at home having (I think) retired with plenty of money in the bank. He paid the square root of **** all for his shares in the first place, which then obviously got multiplied when the reverse takeover happened, so even if his shares went for a penny each, he'd still be likely to get back more than he paid for them. I suspect it would take somebody making him, personally, a very good financial/positional offer for him to switch allegiances. I would rank Askham much higher on the list of SFC-related figures to hate, as at least Lowe and Wilde have done "some" work (be it good or bad) and put in some effort to aid the running of the club in recent years. Askham has sat on the board but seemingly offered no input and still took plenty of "expenses" (quite what for, I've no idea) out of the club even in his later years as a non-exec. In an ideal world, yes, but I can't see it happening until: a) we're on the verge of administration and someone makes them some sort of rubbish offer in a "well, it's better than the 'nothing' you'll get when the CVA is drawn up" deal, or b) someone proves that they have ideas and a bit of funding to help the club out of the mess it finds itself in. I would be very interested to hear whether Lowe and/or Wilde (and indeed Crouch) would accept a SISU-esque share placing in exchange for a substantial cash injection now, considering the way everything's lurched even further downhill in the last year. I also wonder whether they regret not accepting the SISU deal...

So who's going to buy Lowe/Wilde's shares? Who's going to be able to convince the bank that they can reduce the debt in a reasonable time-frame while keeping the club's cashflow acceptable? Who's going to be the new manager, given that there's no money to spend and the majority of the players are under the age of 20? Plenty of "ideal situations" being thrown around without any thought whatsoever as to how it's achieved and by whom.

As soon as I hit "Submit Reply", I knew someone would reply saying something like "Saints got a point". Glad you didn't disappoint.

Yes. Quite what it means, I don't know - for all I know it might just be a restart of his original contract following his loan spell at Hertha Berlin.

I saw the Spitfire flying overhead when I was walking home from the King Alfred after the game on Saturday. Was there some sort of special occasion?

I heard some interesting news regarding Skacel a couple of days ago. On the latest FA bulletin, it seemed to suggest that he had signed a new contract on 7th August...

Service-wise, Virgin is almost certainly the best. Unfortunately, you'll pay a premium for it. I've never had a problem with BA, and they've got a sale on at the moment (finishes tonight, so you'll have to be quick!). I've just had a quick look and you can get a return from Heathrow to JFK for £298.60, which I'd say is pretty decent.

The compensation figure hasn't actually been confirmed anywhere, and it'll be a looooong time before Sheffield United get their hands on any money as you can guarantee there will be appeals left, right and centre from West Ham. I personally think any compensation should come jointly from West Ham (the offending party) and the Premier League (the numpties who didn't have the balls to enforce a proper punishment in the first place).

Yes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nu41PrgBxPc

Wasn't the referee's fault. He's believed the linesman is in the best place to judge whether it's crossed the line and hasn't factored in the linesman's abysmal lack of perceptive vision.

I'm surprised Coppell has said that. You can guarantee that if the Reading players had said to the referee "hang on, what the hell are you doing? We've clearly not scored there", Coppell would have torn shreds into them at half-time and any player involved would probably be on the transfer list. The "win at all costs regardless of the repercussions" attitude is prevalent until the final whistle's gone, when nobody can then do anything about it. Also, I'm pretty sure Boothroyd's said in the past that if a player cheated to win them a game, he'd be fine with that, so I've got no sympathy for him.

Not sure I agree there. Unless some sort of white knight investor had come in over the summer and at least provided *some* financial assistance by way of covering portions of our debt, the vast majority of the high earning players were going to have to leave the club, regardless of who's in the board room. I have no doubt that Leon Crouch would have been forced into similar moves. Agreed. In fact, I'd go as far as to say it's practically impossible to assess the number of fans who are "boycotting" because of the presence of Lowe and/or Wilde. I agree, and it's a hell of a risk for the board to take. While I was impressed with the way we played in the early games this season, pretty much since half-time in the Blackpool game we've struggled. We've not been "awful" (think of the performances at Bristol Rovers and Hull and at home against Plymouth last season as a benchmark of ineptitude) so far, although the Ipswich and Barnsley games have been far from great, but in order to take a bit of the pressure off the players, they need to get results under their belts. I don't have a crystal ball, I don't know whether this experiment will work or how long the board will persist with it if it starts to crack under the pressure. As I say, it's certainly a risk, but given that throughout last season we were crying out for a team of players who actually WANT to play for the club rather than just wander around collecting their over-inflated pay cheques, it's one that seems to be along the lines of what has been sought by a lot of fans. Whether they've gone a little bit too far in its implementation is another matter, but I guess if you're going to go down the route of playing kids with energy and pace, you might as well go the whole hog rather than a half-arsed attempt at it. It's entirely possible that, even though lots of people support the idea of players "playing for the shirt" with an emphasis on home-grown talent, they have a bitter taste in their mouths because it's Lowe who's implemented it. I don't think it would have worked with Pearson. His style of play is very much an "up and at 'em" sort of game, quite direct with an emphasis on being "brave" and strong. I don't see an awful lot of physical strength amongst the youngsters, and wouldn't expect to, really. Agreed. I think the club were expecting a significant contribution from Jason Euell this season, who showed what he offered the team under Pearson towards the end of last season, and by all accounts looked good in pre-season. Unfortunately injury has scuppered that somewhat. He's got a bit of strength about him, as well as plenty of ability, and he'd have been ideal as a foil for Lallana, IMO. Totally agree. If I didn't have a season ticket, I really don't know whether I'd be willing to pay £24 to watch us at the moment. That's not because I'm against anyone at the club or anything like that - the off-field situation makes no difference to me in that respect - it's simply because I don't think it would be worth the money, and I am very surprised that it seems as though nothing has been done by the club so far to try to address the current attendance situation coupled with the economic problems this country is facing at the moment. I guess one of the problems is this: if the club were to reduce matchday prices to those with a season ticket (i.e. buying extra tickets on a per-match basis), it's possible those tickets may have been bought by those people anyway, and the club has just lost money for tickets they'd have sold regardless of whether they'd reduced the price. Of course there could then be more people willing to pay the matchday price if it was cheaper, but it's a risk. A risk worth taking? Who knows...

He asked to be.

Doug, I've got absolutely no problem with people venting their frustration, and yes, that is what a forum is for. Value for money certainly isn't being provided right now, as borne out by the falling attendances. I don't think many would argue with that. However, there appear to be a number of people who are very one-sided in terms of how they use the forum. The vast majority of those on here, while they may not be happy with the situation, can at least debate things and offer suggestions as to what they might do that's different to how things are currently being run. Others, SaintRichmond being one of the main protagonists, seem to have a "grenade" approach, whereby they bang their fists on their desk, throw in their opinions and wait for it to explode with responses (i.e. people picking holes in their arguments). Yet strangely, when those responses come, they're nowhere to be seen and never have an answer to questions posed in response to their own views. As I said, the vast majority aren't like that, fortunately, and can debate until they're blue in the face, regardless of which way their bread's buttered. We all have our own opinions, but in my opinion it's a bit of a futile debate when the loudest shouters refuse to engage in debate with people who either disagree with all of their views or ask for clarification or more information on them.

So pray tell us, oh wise one, what you would have done in the same circumstances. You (and many others) are more than happy to whinge at how Lowe and/or JP are running things, and yet hardly anyone offers an alternative idea that is realistic.

Video replays are unnecessary, IMO. I'm all for bringing in technology to decide clear-cut decisions, such as whether the ball crossed the line or not, but it should be technology that doesn't slow the game down. For the "ball over the line" type of incident, it should be possible to put some sort of microchip in the ball (which various groups have experimented with but so far haven't really progressed it very much) which triggers sensors placed inside the goalposts. This sends a signal to the referee to tell him the ball has crossed the line. Simple. It's also not entirely beyond the realms of possibility that that sort of technology could be extended to lower levels of the game, so long as they can prevent the cost of implementing it being prohibitive. The vast majority of other decisions are based on a matter of opinion. If, in the referee's opinion, Darren Moore has assaulted Stern John in the penalty area (which he clearly felt he hadn't on Saturday), he gives a penalty. Another referee might a) not see it, or b) not think it's a foul. While it's inconsistent, it's also the "human" nature of the game and why it develops so many more talking points than rugby. I think cricket's got a decent balance of technology and human decision-making. For run-outs, it is pretty much a black-and-white decision of whether the batsman is in the crease when the bails are broken, but it's mostly very difficult to tell with the naked eye whether a marginal decision is "in" or "out", so to use technology (via the third umpire) when it's available makes sense. Umpires still hold the power when it comes to LBW and catch decisions, which is fine by me. The umpire may make a bad call every now and then, but they do tend to even themselves out over the course of a game.

Why hasn't PES made an "Official Man City v Pompey match thread"? Latest score: Manchester City 6 Portsmouth 0

But they might not, and if they don't, the club's just p!ssed away £12 x 15,000 people (or equivalent discounts given to season ticket holders etc).

Kent have somehow managed to collapse against Lancashire. They only needed 163 to win but were bowled out for 90 in their second innings, which puts them out of the title race. Current table, including accrued bonus points: 1. Nottinghamshire 14.5 164 2. Somerset 14.5 164 3. Durham 14.5 161 4. Hampshire 15 160 5. Lancashire 15 152 6. Kent 15 151 7. Sussex 14.5 144 8. Yorkshire 14.5 141 9. Surrey 15.5 124 Somerset and Yorkshire are heading for a draw, which would give them 4 points each (plus probable bonus points for more runs and wickets in Yorkshire's first innings). Durham and Sussex likewise, as Sussex are in their first innings. Notts will almost certainly be top of the table by the end of tomorrow with a win over Surrey (Surrey are 6 wickets down and 190 runs behind in their second innings), which will put them on 178. That will make it almost impossible for us to win the title, although technically would still be in our hands as we play Notts in the final game. A win with maximum bonus points, while restricting Notts to a maximum of 3 bonus points, would see us finish above them. Unlikely though...

Not negative at all, people have different priorities. Personally, while I'd love us to be winning every game 5-0, I know that's an unrealistic expectation. I generally come away from games "happy" if we've either: a) got a decent result (regardless of performance) b) played well enough but been unlucky and not got the result the performance merited (be it thanks to decisions made by the officials or outstanding performance(s) by opposition players). So far this season, we've fulfilled one of those criteria for the vast majority of games. Even the Ipswich game, which was the worst performance I've seen so far this season, ended with a reasonable result. Ipswich are a decent Championship side, make no mistake about that, and to recover from a goal down against them is fine by me. I'm not *overly* fussed about who plays and what formation we play, so long as I come away from the game thinking that each player has put in the effort to earn their money, whether it be one of the experienced players left over from the last couple of seasons on £10k a week or one of the youngsters on relative peanuts. Essentially, I want to feel proud to support SFC. If the players look like they care (whether they actually do or not isn't the issue - fans are the only "permanent" fixture at football clubs) and are putting in the effort and, to a lesser extent, performances, I will have that feeling.

He's certainly an option, but I was under the impression that his salary was quite high. If he was prepared to take a pay cut to join us, I'd be more than happy to see him back here. As you rightly say, after a sticky start he was playing pretty well towards the end of the season.

Fair point. One way of getting around the issue would be to have a performance-related deferral agreement. We've seen in the past that Lowe is decent at contingency planning (re 50% wage reduction on relegation clauses), so perhaps they could draw up an agreement whereby Rudi's appearance fee is deferred until the end of the season. If we sell him for a set fee (or more) either in January or next summer, he gets all that deferred money from the transfer fee. If the company finances recover to the extent that we can afford to pay that money (25 games at £4k per game is £100k, so it would be a tough one to justify) at the end of the season if we don't sell him (based on an agreed reduction of company debt), he also gets the money - or a percentage of it, depending on how well/badly the finances recover.

As for who should be playing left-back, I would like to see a "proper" left-back. Both Surman and Skacel are makeshift full-backs at best. Looking at the Premier League squads, there are quite a few defenders who are not playing for their clubs at the moment and might be available for loan: Arsenal: Gavin Hoyte (hopefully not as rubbish as his older brother!) Aston Villa: Stephen O'Halloran (been there, done that, realised he was crap) Blackburn: Tony Kane Bolton: Jaroslaw Fojut Chelsea: Wayne Bridge Fulham: Frederik Stoor, Chris Baird Hull: Matt Plummer, Liam Cooper Man City: Shaleum Logan, Sam Williamson, Ryan McGivern Man United: David Gray Middlesbrough: Seb Hines, Rhys Williams Newcastle: Ben Tozer Skates: Richard Duffy, Djimi Traore, Mark Wilson Stoke: Dominic Matteo, Ritchie de Laet, Lewis Buxton Sunderland: Michael Kay, Peter Hartley, Jean-Yves Mvoto Tottenham: Dorian Dervitte, Ricardo Rocha, Paul Stalteri West Brom: Pele , Neil Clement West Ham: James Tomkins, Orn Eyjolfsson, Joe Widdowson, Bondz Ngala Obviously some of those are more realistic than others, but they're all players who either haven't played at all for their clubs so far this season or who have played one game but in a weakened Carling Cup team.

I would imagine any such conversation would go as follows: RL: "Mr Agent, we'd like to renegotiate Rudi's contract so we can afford to actually play him. We would like to remove the appearance bonus." Mr Agent: :lol: While I'd love to think that Rudi's the sort of bloke who'd rather be playing if it meant taking a small hit in the pocket, something tells me he (and particularly his agent) is probably not like that.

I'd be content with finishing 19th or above this season. That would represent progress - albeit very slight - but given the circumstances would be a reasonable achievement.