itchen

Don't understand this sentence "We have the backing of our local MPs increasesnd Portsmouth City Council." And this is just bizarre: "It is imperative that there is full disclosure about the funding and terms of any other bid for the club. "As a trust we have been transparent about how our bid has been funded and structured." Really?

Any sign of Orville?

Putting aside the other flaws in the plan, at least now when it is introduced it won't discriminate against married gay couples. Will still discriminate against couples who choose not to marry. And the people who don't earn enough to benefit from such arrangements and end up paying a higher proportion of their lower income in tax.

I'm nicking that too. Well done.

Thought we did well. As well as our two goals we hit the post and their keeper made an astonishing save from the ricochet off Morgan. We also had at least one reasonable shout for a penalty. Disappointed to draw in the end but it leaves us about where we were. No real need for some of the histrionics on here. I can#'t be bothered to read any more.

Maybe. But he is a troll.

This is good too: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2013/jan/19/southampton-sacking-nigel-adkins-folly

Tend to agree with this. I've never been critical of NA and don't think he has been treated well. I was really angry yesterday. But that's football and one reason why managers get paid such ridiculously large sums of money. He'll have no trouble getting another job and presumably has received a fair pay off. It doesn't make the decision right or fair but only the timing is unexpected. NC, for all his many faults, clearly has massive ambitions for the club and doesn't believe that NA is the man to realise them. Whether he's right about the new bloke remains to be seen. But we move on.

As he didn't have the internet he was forced to paste posters around Southampton and to stand on street corners and sing broadside ballads.

Yep. My original reaction was anger and disgust and I'm still annoyed at the way Nigel has been treated. But that's the way with football. I assume he's had a decent payoff and will pick up another job fairly quickly. Apart from a token protest which I'm sure will happen Monday, we need to get behind the new man. If he gets a couple of decent results that will help. After all, who's still holding a candle for Pardew?

Bellowhead. That is all.

Thing is, you can't be sure that isn't a nutjob on a wind-up. Surely even Pompey fans aren't that self unaware?

Is he better than what we already have at our disposal?

Well I never thought I really wouldn't care when my team got stuffed 5-1 but I really don't. As long as Fonte isn't too badly injured I don't mind. Odd.

Chris Packham is 51. Even aprta from that, I have no idea why you think it might be him. We've been asked not to make libellous statements on here. I suggest you don't. Why not just read the other speculation on Twitter? There's a name there that makes a lot more sense than Chris Packham.

I don't pretend to know anything about how football transfers work or what Luke Shaw might be thinking. But those comments from NA in the Mail were fairly unequivocal. He did not even hint that the right offer might see Shaw go in January. He's not for sale and his remark about "ask the chairman" and "good luck with that" indicate that he and NC are in agreement. Shaw is one of our best players. We have no need to sell and every need to keep him in the team. He's under contract and, in my opinion, is unlikely to do a Kenwynne and go on strike. What he'll do at the end of the season is a different matter and, I suspect, largely dependent on where we finish.

Absolutely. The other team should have taken this into account. Simple.

I think it's fortunate that Guly missed that shot. Otherwise the usual suspects would have nothing to have a go at him about given his very good performance both in attack and defensively..

Happy with that. But what has happened to SRL? Seems to be shy of shooting or even getting into a shooting position.

Hate to be picky but please can we spell the thread title correctly? Makes us look like Pompey Online.

Blimey. How did they know that's what I was doing?

Well said again. There are people here who deliberately misunderstand a reasonable request and show how sophisticated they are by mocking it, making stuff up (Haringey has always been Haringey, for example) and showing us all how proud they are of their ignorance. As I said a couple of pages ago, if anybody uses the two terms you complained about, I will think less of them and discount more or less anything else they say. I realise that the people concerned could not care less about my opinion of them but I can live with that.

Well said the OP. Most people leave terms like "mong" and "spaz" behind when they leave primary school. Some carry on into secondary school. Unfortunately, a very small number of them continue even after that. And they all seem to be on here. If I were in a face-to-face conversation with anyone who used these terms, I'd think less of the person using them. The same applies on here. It's not being PC, it's just treating people with decency and not showing yourself to be a fool with limited vocabulary.

Yep, that's probably enough of a disguise to fool the phew.

Plastic.