stevegrant

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.

My belated thoughts: Davis was excellent, once again. One thing I've really noticed about him this season is that his distribution has improved a hell of a lot. One pass he made perfectly into the running path of Nathan Dyer in the first half which put us on the attack would have had journalists creaming their pants if Steven Gerrard or Frank Lampard had done it. As Long Shot has pointed out, he's not great on crosses, but then he probably knows this, hence why he doesn't come for many. Those he did come for (I recall 3), he claimed quite comfortably, though. Defensively, we were pretty awful. Surman looked good when he was in the opposition half, but suddenly transformed into a Sunday league player when he went back into our half. Lloyd James needs a rest, IMO. He had an absolute shocker last night (although I don't think he's been particularly good or solid all season). I would expect Wotton to play at the back with Perry on Saturday, with Cork moving across to right-back. The midfield looked "ok", but far too often found themselves either too far forward leaving the defence exposed or too far back leaving John and/or McGoldrick too isolated to do anything once we got the ball back. Lallana looked good again, but there's only so much he can do without help from those around him. Also, I don't think there's much point in playing a 4-5-1/4-3-3 switching formation if one of the wide players isn't going to stay wide. McGoldrick spent most of the first half drifting all over the place, and I lost count of the number times Wotton or Gillett had the ball in decent areas in the middle and clearly wanted to get the ball out wide on the right where we had space, but DMG was stood somewhere in the middle. While the ethos behind the system is that positions are, to an extent, interchangeable, it does still require a vast amount of positional discipline. I think last night's performance was the worst of the games I've seen so far this season, but in that sense I'm pleased we still managed to get something out of the game. Ipswich should be there or thereabouts for the playoffs this season, they've brought in a number of seemingly high earners, so a draw against them isn't a "terrible" result, IMO. We looked dead and buried at 2-1, the heads dropped and we had a 10-15 minute spell where we couldn't even pass 5 yards to a team mate, but they got their heads sorted and showed some bottle to come back. Yes, the equaliser may have been a bit fortunate in terms of how it fell to Pekhart, but you've got to be in the position to capitalise on opponents' mistakes. If only Dyer had done likewise at the start of the second half...

I thought it was £35k?

Not a clue what flybe's finances are like, but they won't be anywhere near as strong as Ryanair and easyJet.

Assuming they can ride out the storm, I'd agree. Plenty of low-cost alternatives are going to hit the wall in the next year or so, by the look of things, which will leave Ryanair and easyJet, I guess. They've generally been the main ones anyway, but they'll probably be the only ones left in the not-too-distant future.

Not really saying much, is it?

It's also quite opportunistic by LTSB. They're in a pretty strong position at the moment, particularly with HBOS' problems and the relatively low exposure they had to the US sub-prime market investments. Could be a good time to buy HBOS shares right now - they won't go much lower than they are now while the merger talks continue, and if it goes through, they'll probably at a reasonable price then.

In order to legally get tickets for England away games (i.e. from the FA and not from touts), you'll need to be a member of englandfans+, which costs about £70 for two years. In order to guarantee yourself tickets for games, you'll have to have built up loads of "caps" by going to previous games. If you're not guaranteed a ticket, you'll be in a ballot, although most games at the moment don't seem to be needing one due to the massive drop in demand in the last year or so. Of course, you should be able to get tickets on the black market, but generally it's more hassle than it's worth, particularly with often-harsher punishments on the continent than in the UK for that sort of thing. The best-value accommodation and flights are booked up months in advance. Basically as soon as you know when a game is taking place and in which city, you will need to have booked up within 12 hours of the announcement to get the best deal. Some companies run package deals, but a lot of those are the England equivalent of the Saints travel club.

Given that he/she/it always puts a smile there, and that he/she/it almost always writes complete crap, that's a fair assessment