Dig Dig

It's funny you should say that because you pigeon hole and make sweeping statements about posters based on their views on individual scenarios quite often

Michael Owen

Kevin Phillips

This. No one should be surprised by many results in this league.

Well, I would be surprised if the boxes and lounges are empty this time next season. Your experience sounds far more enjoyable than mine btw. All I'm saying is, in the long run, the club won't lose out in the fall out of this. For every one fan who would pay to see LM, in a few years, there will 10 more who would rather see Rickie Lambert.

It may have temporary impacted corporate sales, I haven't a clue if it has or hasn't. But assuming this is correct, I can't see if being a long term issue for the club. There will be other ways to drive sales then the appearance of a p i ssed up legend. Ultimately, all these issue's between the club and former players/legends are only really known to a very small percentage of Saints fans. Even less will actually care. If you think that it's shame and concerns you then fair enough but the club don't stand to lose in the long term. The great thing about football is that history is made as you go.

It won't harm the club. We're top of the league and your average fan on the street would most likely be done the wiser. If it's charity we're all concerned with, our club is generating over 300k per year for various charities.

I'm not saying that it does constitute much effort. But the decision not to support it is clearly not new news. From an ex-saints perspective, they must clearly know what the reaction will be, unless there is something concrete which suggests otherwise.

The point is everyone has known about the clubs stance on Charity for a while now. So why do people find this such a shocking revelation worthy of more dissection? Why even ask the club in the first place when you clearly know what the answer will be?

Only if Matty pays for his half of the lunch

From your location note it seems you're rather fond of ML. I know that many are for obvious reasons. If NC is such a grade A ****, why would ML only proceed with buying Saints if NC was running it? Why would a multi-billionaire with clearly brilliant business acumen and a seemingly good, honest and moral man entrust his wealth (for years prior to Saints) and extend his friendship to a man some people portray as "a little monster"? It's strange how one is put so highly on a peddle stall from some of the same people who so readily oppose the other

To be fair, as the CEO, this is exactly what he's paid to do. With ongoing issue's with members of the charity, is anyone surprised even if the OP is true?

Yea because you never demand threads to be locked do you

No I didn't. You implied that me critising MLT's part in the Pinnacle bid was the same as someone claiming that his contribution was the same as his mothers who worked at Tesco. That's twice now you used that when directly quoting me and I've never said it or believe it. And you call me weird. Maybe try to acknowledge a post on it's own merits without trying to group everyone into some scientologist NC loving dead eyed cult. My stance is pretty consistent. No one person is unfallible and above criticism, from MLT to NC and everyone else inbetween. But you can come back, quote someone else and try to pack myt opinion into a little NC loving, MLT hating little box if it makes you feel better.

Sorry, I forgot I'm speaking to the saintsweb charmer that is CB Fry....have you ever posted without an aggresive undertone? How many posters have you slung insults and patronising, ram it down your throat, opinions at? Where have I got uppity and offended? If you're accusing me of thinking NC is untouchable then as i've explained, you're wrong.

You're wrong Roger. I've got a big warm glowing heart. I'm off now to go seal clubbing using only the cutest little puppies

You're allowed Roger, I think you have the mental age to pull it off.

I've been more vocal in my praise for NA then I have been of NC, as it should be. He's the chairman and will make good decisions and bad ones along the way as they all do. At the moment we're sat at the top of the table and,on the back of a promotion, blowing away some teams along the way. That tells me that overall, he's probably got a hell of a lot more things right then wrong. Why's it not possible to judge every scenario on it's merits? Just because I don't agree he's done much wrong in this scenario doesn't mean I am part of some Cortese loving cult. But I do think he's doing a good job.

Yes he was a great footballer and I still watch his best goals on youtube every now and then. But the way people go on about a man with flaws and faults like anyone of us like he's some kind of untouchable demi-god is truly embarrassing. Grow up. I stopped believing in superheros when I was a kid.

Well if you think that Matt had no part in almost destroying the club then by association you don't think the Pinnacle bid would have been disatrous. Ok, we wouldn't have been liquidated but it would have caused more misery and instability to our club. He was naive and stupid to front that bid. Anyone could have done their homework and realised it was a scam. Especially when it concerns something you supposedly love.

not saying we would have, but had the Pinnacle bid gone through, there is no way in a million years we'd be sat at the top of the Championship now.

Where do you think we'd be now had the Pinnacle bid gone through?

Stelling just tore into NC on sky

Exactly. Not sure why hypo is getting his little wet panties in a twist again. In answer to a qestion about paying a player 200k a week, he said only if the club was in the champions league and we had a 55k stadium. What's wrong with that?