Victor

What on earth does "quite a unique record" mean? If it's not unique, then he is not the only forward to have got more yellow cards than goals.

No, it all started when Frank Worthington left - we've finished lower in the league ever since then. Come back, Frank we need a smile!

I did NOT criticise the club, but I was hoping you were going to be able to persuade me that the club were perfect. At least in one way. I admit to be cynical. I also believe in blind faith being a wonderful thing - I just wish I had it.

How do you know they were "perfect"? Against which set of criteria did you assess their service - FIFA's, UEFA's, the FA's, the Premier League's, the Football League's? And there is a difference between being helpful (PR) and giving you a thoroughly researched and accurate answer.

Come on, nickh, only yesterday I was apologising to you and now you've got up my nose again. It is you who has read into Fitzhugh's post a link with our leader - Fitzhugh didn't mention him. I certainly couldn't see a connection .............!!

You're right, I probably was unnecessarily agressive, and I apologise. I did not make any claim that that SMS was responsible for the club's demise, but I do believe we would have fared better if some of the Dell's characteristics had been replicated. You are also right in saying that getting a building such as SMS built is a complex procedure and no single architect will know at the outset everything that he will have to take into account; the important thing is that he must know what questions to ask, who to ask them of, and what he can do to interpret them to get the best building possible. Because buildings and Saints are 2 of my passions I feel strongly that SMS could have been so much better. I admit I do not know the respective dimensions but those at SMS seem to me to be vastly in excess of the figures you got from the FA/league, and seem much more than those at some other new grounds such as the Emirates. This is subjective and I would be intrigued to know the figures. It also seems there is an excessive distance between the front row and the hoardings - plenty of room, for instance for the Filth to chase miscreants unhindered and, even more fun, for the Southend fans to do their conga.

Since you ask, I will attempt to summarise. I do not offer opinions about the financial position of the club as I do not know any facts regarding the position, do not have the time to study the accounts and am, in any case, sceptical about whether they tell the truth. I do not offer opinions about takeovers as I have never been privy to any of the facts regarding the goings-on of any of the consortiums. I do not offer opinions about administration as I have no knowledge of, nor particular interest in, the legal position or responsibilities of plcs, or whoever. I do offer opinions about football. It is, as they say, a game of opinions. I do actually know a little about football e.g. I know the offside rule and I know Phil Boyer was a fantastic striker and that David Armstrong was an equally good left-sided midfielder. I feel this knowledge gives my opinions some credence. What I do know quite a bit about is getting buildings built, having qualified as an architect nearly 40 years ago. (‘architect’ is a legally protected term that can only be claimed by those having successfully completed a 3-part qualification that takes at least 7 years – I state this not as a boast, but as support for any claim I may have made to know more about it than Nickh and my opinions of how SMS could have been better). Nickh claimed there was a law saying there had to be room for ambulances to pass between the bye-line and the hoardings. I made no point, but asked him to say what this law was as I was unaware of it. He has singularly failed to do so but has gone on and on and on trying to justify his statement by chiefly relying on his blind faith that the club said so, so it is so. If I were to make a point in support of the original contention of the thread, it is that I agree. I think SMS is less intimidating than the Dell and I believe an opportunity was lost. I believe the ground should have had a more enclosed feeling with a steeper rake and the supporters nearer the pitch. I believe the external appearance should have been more distinctive and that it should have included some feature that made it immediately identifiable as the stadium of Southampton Football club. I believe this could have been done within the budget and compliance with the Building Regulations and any other legislation that applied. So, to answer your questions: a) I do not know why the stands are where they are b) I did not say the club ‘lied’ – they probably just fobbed him off as they did not know the answer as it was not they who designed the stadium. I made no mention of a conspiracy, but it is not unusual to be accused on this forum of making statements or claims that were not made. I have no more to say on the subject and apologise to those who feel I have laboured my enquiry – or ‘point’, as some would have it - but offer in my defence the ability of nickh to get up people’s noses. I know I shouldn’t let it happen but I am but a weakling.

Oh dear, are you sure he's a proper barrister and not just some pettifogging legal clerk?

Keep digging, it's fun watching you. Good luck with your spat with the local authority - you will need it because, as you yourself said, they know the law!

I remember watching the Reserves lose 5-0 to Brighton and none of those players looked interested; not even MLT. He didn't look much of a player either. Just before THAT game against Newcastle, I think it was. Anyway, whose job is it to motivate them. Sack that man who, by his own admission, has singularly failed to do so!

I said I had concluded my correspondence with you but you are so stupid that I shall rescind that decision to explain. Despite admitting you don’t know what you’re talking about you continue to talk yourself into a deeper and deeper hole (I advise a minimum depth of 2.25 metres, but there is no law, so feel free to go deeper). You have told me I should go by what is advised by those you call ‘the planners’ (though it is not actually their responsibility, as I have already explained), but above you are now telling me I should have ignored them. However, I accepted their interpretation that, although the track was existing, the new building was ‘new build’ and therefore its access had to be to current standards. (I won’t reprise the fire officer/Building Control - performance standards/prescriptive standards bit as it is clearly beyond your comprehension. As your ability to take in simple information is so limited, I advise, despite your obvious interest and the time you spend on here suggests unemployment, against embarking on the minimum 5 years full-time at university followed by 2 years in an office that is the requirement to qualify as an architect.

You just don't get it do you - I was trying to make the point that if there was an emergency the game WOULD be stoppped and the ambulances COULD go on the pitch and the distance between the pitch and the hoardings would be irelevant, you dimbo. Anyway, you clearly know better, so I will conclude this correspondence only by saying that, although the fire brigade once insisted to me that a track to a farm should be widened to the full 3.7 metres, the decision is ultimately with Building Control, and I successfully won the case that it should not be widened in a 4-page report, one of my arguements being that the lane that led to the track was itself less than this dimension. There are no laws - just accept that. The designer - for I suspect no actual architect was involved with SMS - has to take into consideration a whole rack of legislation, codes of practice etc. when designing a building, and at the end of the day, even if he complies with every one of them, still has a duty of care, and can be sued for negligence. That's why I asked if you could help and advise me of the law you were quoting.

Visualise the scenario if you will. There is trouble in the away section and people are injured; the ambulance enters the stadium and passes between the linesman (sorry, assistant referee) and the hoardings to reach the injured. It then proceeds around the pitch as it can't turn round without going on the playing area, but it cuts across the corner at the Chapel end as the driver isn’t sure he can get round the corner flag. While this is going on the visiting side, attacking this end, scores the only goal of the game (highly probable) but Saints object to the league claiming that their players were distracted by what was going on. The league point out that the club had complied with their guidelines and there was plenty of room for the emergency services to get on with it unhindered while the match continued. Nickh appears as a witness for the league, stating that, in fact, having sufficient room is the law of the land. Objection overruled. There are a few murmurings in the press that maybe, just maybe, the referee was a tad insensitive in not stopping the game while people were being crushed and that maybe also the Local Authority should have had the common sense to allow emergency vehicles to go on the pitch in such circumstances, but they agree that the law is the law and, after all, the space was there.. Do me a favour!

You said there WAS a law - I simply asked for a reference - I made no claims. You also said the LAW (which doesn't exist) stated that there had to be room for ambulances but all you have come up with is an 'advised' dimension which would be totally inadequate for ambulance access (B.Regs. figure is 3.7m for a fire engine when they ask for access). Details for making a building safe for occupation are the resposibility of Building Control via the Building Regulations - totally separate legislation from planning law. Neither the football league nor the FA have ant statutory power. Give up, you don't know what you are talking about and I was simply pointing out that you should not therefore make statements of fact about such matters. You said it was law - it ain't!

Seven? Thought it was 10, but we didn't turn up for the first three.

Oh. I see, you took the answer the club gave. My guess is they knew you wouldn't know better so gave you a bland, unsubstantiated reply that you gratefully accepted without question. More fool you.

You utter tosser and apology for a man. I bloody care. And I think you'll find the majority who state their affection for Brett are not slagging off DMG, and nor are they trying to claim Brett was one of Saints' best players. I think you'll find they appreciate good, honest effort that makes a worthwhile contribution to the side. A player picked by the manager can only give of his best - it's when they obviously don't that they get booed. More like Brett in the side and all those other problems you want us to get depressed about will seem less important.

Against WHICH law? I am an architect so would be very interested if you could point me in the direction of this legislation as it is essential for me to know, ignorance being no defence in the eye's of the law. I suspect, however, that you are guessing from a position of ignorance, and anyway, in SMS's case ... 3 ambulances side by side? I am sure it would be possible to argue with Building Control that if there were a situation where ambulances needed to enter the stadium that the game would be halted and the ambulances could drive on the pitch.

The only trouble he is likely to cause to defences is by reoffending before his case comes up.

C.B.Fry is pushing up daisies.

the Yardbirds the Pretty Things Downliners Sect the High Numbers the Nice Them Mark Leeman 5 Stones Animals Troggs Most promising newcomers: Sex Pistols Theatre of Hate Joy Division

Better learn how to spell 'bate' correctly or you'll be marked down for spelling!

OK, I apologise, on reflection I agree you're right. Dodd and Gorman were just getting a really good run of results together that would have propelled us to the play-offs, and then along came Pearson and all their good work was undone. We dropped back down the league only to be saved on the last day by the fact that there were 4 teams even worse than us. He is just a ballboy masquerading as a football manager, he hasn't got a clue. His wife is ugly and his children bite the heads off worms. They will soon find him at Leicester for the charlatan that he is. A pox on you, Pearson.

Yep, Pearson deserved praise for taking over a demoralised team that was heading for oblivion and shaking them up so that the unthinkable was avoided. Very different situation from that at the club now. If things were to change between now and the end of the season I shall be delighted to praise anyone I feel was resposible for the turnaround.