Joensuu

I've always disliked Starbucks but perhaps I should have come up with a better reason that 'their coffee isn't very good'. Now that I know they are indoctrinating children, and encouraging their regular attendees not the ask questions about the nature of the world, I think I might have a found better excuse to go to Pret instead. Perhaps all the answers can be found written in the scriptures on the back of the sacred serviette? IMO, the only good part of religion is the beautiful architecture; a point Starbucks can't (yet) compete on - sort it out Mr Schultz.

Source?

Not that you're biased at all

Suspicious isn't it. Just putting 2 & 2 together, but leftback reminds me of this quote from one of the people at Cortese's meal: "When they took over, he was surrounded by ex directors, players, sponsors and other hangers on who all wanted something for nothing e.g. former players who wanted to be paid £70k a year to be “ambassadors” - to which NC’s response was “fine, if you bring in £200k”. He has cut down Saints presence in the Board Room hospitality to eight - and has now told away teams they too must restrict their numbers. This was one of mnay examples of how costs are being cut." http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?25114-Cortese-Questions&p=847241#post847241

So according to you Les Reed is an oaf. What makes you say this? Have you met him? Sorry, but they are all oaf's now? What? I take it you have met them all? Otherwise, what's the source for your info? Right, so Cortese is 'insufferable'? Can I ask where you get this info from? A taxi driver perhaps? Andrew Surman's former hairdresser? Again, what's your source? Where is there any evidence for any of this? Either you are ITK, but with limited typing experience, or you are making up BS to fit an agenda.

Of course The9, last March we had a cup final to prepare for, and didn't know which division we'd be in this year. Ticket prices etc would have probably been on-hold. Imagine if in May while ticket prices were being discussed, Cortese stumbles across the fact that many defaulters have been getting in for free. His first action would have been to delay any decisions being made about ticket pricing, and then get some quotes from automatic ticket machine vendors to see whether they could meet the budget & timescales. It could easily have taken a month or more to get a tender out, then get quotes back... meaning you could well be going into July still unsure whether you will be able to offer the installment plan for the following season... I guess some form of public statement should have been made in June, but what could the club say other than: 'We recognise that supporters are waiting longer than they are used to for ticket pricing information, but as of yet we aren't sure what we will be doing, as we are waiting to see if we can install automatic ticket machines. As such we have no information to give you. However, there is a good chance that if we can't install machines before the start of next season, that we will have to put an end to the installment plan. So in the mean time we'd suggest that fans who might have previously relied upon installments to get a 0% credit card, or start saving asap, just incase we can't offer you installments'. Of course I don't know the sequence of events... but this all sounds plausible to me.

It's annoying isn't it. I guess he only does it to provoke. New Labour were/are a right of centre party. If anything they were far too Tory.

JB, I've never knowlingly agreed with you before, but even from my liberal left of centre viewpoint this is exactly how I see it. Labour overspent, wrecklessly. The bankers gambled, wrecklessly. Labour's PFI was possibly the most disgusting example of financial incompetence I've ever heard of. Both government and bankers share the blame. As for the topic of this thread. Large government cuts will reduce tax income, increase dole queues, and reduce high street spending. No government cuts will necessitate tax rises, which will increase dole queues and reduce high street spending. The solution has to lie between the extremes: careful reduction in government spending. Government spending should be addressed in lots of areas, but special consideration should be put into encouraging people off of welfare (by combining both carrot and stick - aka the generous Swedish model), and by saving the NHS, not by privatising it as many are suggesting, but instead by breaking the golden 'free for all' rule, and having each treatment come with a minor fee attached (say £2.50 per visit to a GP) - that would quickly minimise unnecassary visits to see GP's, without stopping anyone from receiving treatment. Then sit back and watch NHS spending drop by £5-10 billion, without effecting either treatment or service.

Oh, I have... don't even get me started...

I agree with that. If you wanted to keep queues down at the ticket office, you'd skew the balance of the booking fee so that more people bought online... To be honest, for me this is just a minor quibble, I'm not that bothered, I just resent paying any 'additional fee' for anything. Think the point is, that my biggest quibble with Cortese is a minor side issue. I really can't understand why so many people have seemed to take such a dislike to him over the last few weeks based on nothing but rumor.

Agree. 'Lowe luvvie' is a biased term, used to put down people who were pro-Lowe. Using 'pro' or 'anti' comes with less bias, I consider it merely as a way of grouping people together to make it easier to explain your point... By using pro and anti, I'm just trying to help make my arguments clearer, not get a 'win' on what you rightly point out is a petty internet argument! I think pro and anti are useful descriptions, whereas 'luvvie' or 'obsessive' are merely used by some to provoke and antagonise (as such, I think it's okay to contine using pro and anti, do you agree?). What I mean is it's very hard to talk about what some other posters are talking about unless you have some term to collectively refer to their line of argument (pro and anti are collective terms, which are about as unbiased as I can think of). FWIW, I guess I started off being 'pro' Lowe, but from about 2003 onwards (when Strachan wasn't sensibly replaced, when club funds were instead used to artificually inflate the share price rather than invest in the team) I felt Lowe's bad decisions had begun to outweigh his good decisions, do I drifted from being 'pro' to being broadly 'anti'. I don't feel that you are always fixed in a category, it's a temporal thing, over time, people's opinions change, and anyone can move from being broadly pro to anti or vice versa. I think this holds true for Lowe, Cortese, Labour, Tory's, pretty much anything really.

Good point. I agree with you there. I just hate 'additional fees', especially the ubiquitous 'booking fee' surcharge (as such I'll never fly Ryanair). I like all costs to be kept simple. I don't understand why it's £3 in advance (phone/web), but £2 on the day (via ticket office). Surely the processing time is similar? Is it postage fees? Anyhow, I'm going off topic. I'm not slating Cortese over this, I don't consider it to be a mistake, just I always get annoyed whenever anything has addtional fees attached. All I want is to be told the cost, and pay the price, without someone then saying that there is a 'transaction surcharge' or something.

I categorise myself as 'pro', simply because I seemed to be in a tiny minority who were defending him over the past fortnight. As such, I assume, I am more willing to give Cortese the benefit of the doubt than most seem to be. I don't know the guy, I don't know the reason behind his decisions, but so far I like what I hear, I like the decisions he is making, I like the way he seems to be bringing a professional edge to the role. As such, I consider myself to be 'pro' Cortese. Perhaps you're right, and I should no longer consider myself to be 'pro'. But, when you find yourself consistantly agreeing with something, you tend to naturally consider yourself to be 'pro' that thing. As a neutral, at what point would you consider yourself to have become 'pro' or 'anti' something? Lets say, this some group has made 20 decisions, you support 13 of them, are neutral on 4, and object to 3 of them, are you still neutral, or have you crossed to becoming broadly pro? You can be simulaniously 'pro' and critical over some of the decsions. Acknowedging that you agree with someone over most things, doenst mean you can't criticise (constructively), over some of their decsions you are less happy with.

A week ago Cortese could do no right, and the 'pro' Cortese posters (like myself) were suggesting that we should judge his actions on their merits, and criticise constructively. Now, in the light of the new information the 'anti' Cortese posters have now started to argue the same thing, but they seem to be trying to make out that the 'pro' Cortese group are still somehow suggesting that Cortese is above criticism. We're not. Don't try to undermine the argument with a straw dummy. We are still saying Cortese should be judged rationally, that he should be criticised where he has made mistakes, and that we shouldn't leap to conclusions without evidence. As such, my position on Cortese has not been changed at all this week, I still see him as someone very professional, who has made few mistakes, but who should be rightly criticised if he has definately messed up (of which I have seen no evidence). I will continue to criticise him over the ticket booking fee (just add an extra £3 to the cost of the ticket and be done with it), and on his photographer ban (the reversal of which demonstrates that Cortese is willing to back down, he's willing to acknowledge when he has made a mistake, and is willing to try out different ideas).

At least at St Mary's you can buy tickets in other areas of the stadium. At Wembley last year I was on the edge of the sitting/standing areas, you had children in the standing area who couldn't see a thing, and conversely two muppets standing in a section of fans who were sat... blocking loads of people's views. I think standing's fine, so long as the person behind you agrees. If they can't see, then you should sit.

Think the answer SOG is to be consistent. Treat each manager or chairman neutrally, and only change your opinion based on what you see happening. Lowe used club funds to artificially hike the share price in 2003 (wonder if any people in the city managed to make a killing?). He also appointed some dubious managers. However I disagree with some on here, I still think his largely prudent approach to wages and fees was the only sensible thing he could have done. He certainly didn't deserve flack until he had made definately mistakes (which for me were all after 2003). Cortese has IMO so far not made any cruicial errors. He has not been top notch in communications, but has a very good reason for it. He has made one or two dubious decisions, but has shown that he is willing to correct himself where he was obviously wrong (ie photographers). To direct flack at him already would be crazy. He's not had 11 years or so like Rupert had, and he's definately showing determination to progress the club. Right now, supporting Cortese is the only logical choice, anyone set to target him is IMO attempting to undermine the club. So, given that he's only had less than 15 months, and that there are obvious signs of significant progress under his stewardship, and that all of the negative reports are without evidence, I think it's only fair that we treat Cortese with more respect than we reserve for the discredited Lowe.

Can I add Lee Evans, James Corden, & Gervais...(unless already in OP (can't view pics)). Not sure about Fielding though, he can be very hit and miss, but some of his surreal stuff can we really well worked...

Err... when was the photographer ban lifted? It's still in place isn't it?

This thread confirms my impression of Cortese. It has felt like I've being fighting against the tide on here for weeks when I've been trying to argue that Cortese's actions can all be explained rationally. People have been jumping to conclusions, and have pointed to 'rumour' or 'string of c*ck-ups' instead of evidence. I hope Cortese will grow more comfortable with the communication side of his role. In his previous career communications were formal, trusted, and scheduled; with a football club communications should be just as accurate, but can't be scheduled, rumour needs to be nipped in the bud. As for the media, good on Cortese, they generally do mislead and twist a story out of a half comment. Cortese should stick to his guns and not react to their drivel. Good to see that he is thinking of re-introducing the season ticket installment plan, after the system has been tightened to stop the non-payers. So for me, my only remaining bone with Cortese is the £3 booking fee, and only because I resent paying booking fees ever, for anything (why not just add £3 to the base price of the ticket and be done with it?)

The worst thing that Cortese has done to date is, err, kept his mouth shut. In any other business keeping things confidential is called being 'professional', in football it seems to be a cardinal sin. We demand a chairman who leaks dirt to journalists, spreads muck in the papers and appears on Question of Sport, not a professional one who keeps stum, FFS... er...

Sounds like someone at Scünthorpe is leaking info to the press. Saints sound like they are trying to be professional, but are being let down by other parties. The only thing we can say with any certainly is that Adkins is one of the favored candidates (he might even be the front runner). What we don't know is whether the deal with Adkins is off entirely, or whether there are still discussions. Other mangers might still (and may have all along) been in the frame.

Wonder if the pastor is getting his copies of the Koran from an Islamic publisher. If I were a publisher I'd supply him with hundreds of copies of an Arabic translation of the Bible and make sure I charged him the full RRP. BTW, what a nasty hatred insighting bigot this pastor is. If I wanted to believe in an invisible flying teapot orbiting the earth and someone wanted to publically smash my teacups or slash my teabags I'd be properly cheesed off. Thank goodness for secular rationalists like Bertrand Russell.

I can't believe it. I agree with you....

Two days ago I knew little about Adkins. to me, Scünthorpe were just a small team who were lucky to be in the Championship, and who had annoyingly not swapped Gillet for Stock last Janurary. I knew nothing of Adkins or his playing style. Since his name has been rumoured I've read up on him, and have to say I've become more and more impressed. If he can replicate the team playing style and spirit that Scünthorpe I think we will all be very happy. Many wanted MON, but while he's a cracking manager, he would have been off like a shot of Old Trafford came calling. He would have commanded instant respect, and no doubt attracted some top players. He would have also consolidated resentment towards us from other teams in the league, and possibly have been less familar with the lower leagues than someone who's recently taken a team out of the third tier. Obviously the proof is in the pudding, but Adkins is as good as we could have hoped for, and IMO a lot better than a whole host of names we were linked to (Hart, Brown, Adams, Curbishley, Dowie etc). He has to hit the ground running though, as too many loses and he will be out of the door by Christmas. I'd suggest he look to the loan market asap. Oh, and this most certainly isn't the cheep option. We have a contract to buy out, making him more expensive than any of the unemployed manager (bar MON). If anything this is one of the more expensive options. All in all, well done Cortese. Adkins may either achieve of fail, but irrespective, Cortese has made a sensible decision given what we know now.

I think quite the opposite. OC alone is more than we could hope for as a third tier club. But as MLG points out there are other kids following on not far behind him (very highly rated ones at that, thought Spurs and Man U were sniffing around one of them). What I think you are missing is that we are third tier, and being in this division we have pumped out plenty of third tier quality players (Gillet, James, Gobern, McNish, Mills etc), and also some second tier (or higher) players (e.g. Surman, Lallana). The thing is, third tier players aren't good enough to break into our current first team. Likewise, you can't expect any third tier club to regularly churn out Championship/Premier League quality players, but yet Saints have produced 2 of these in the last couple of years, and look very much like they are about the produce another one in OC. This is why comparision with other teams in our division is a very good method of assessing our youth output. I don't give a monkeys about other teams youth either, but I do give a monkeys that our youth is better than our rivals, and IMO it most certainly is.