Wes Tender Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 Not answering the question then. No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 No. Because you know full well why and it destroys your pointless argument. I accept your apology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 9 January, 2015 Share Posted 9 January, 2015 Because you know full well why and it destroys your pointless argument. I accept your apology. As I accept yours Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarniaSaint Posted 10 January, 2015 Share Posted 10 January, 2015 As I said on another thread - You cant see and barely hear the Northam home half end - the itchen north just don't exist HTH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 10 January, 2015 Share Posted 10 January, 2015 As I said on another thread - You cant see and barely hear the Northam home half end - the itchen north just don't exist HTH And as with the first time you stated it, no-one took you seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarniaSaint Posted 10 January, 2015 Share Posted 10 January, 2015 And as with the first time you stated it, no-one took you seriously. LOL didn't think they would .........just live the dream and it is a dream Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 10 January, 2015 Share Posted 10 January, 2015 As I accept yours Let me know when you have written to a the Premier League and the FA to take on this "patently unjust" situation. I am sure Manchester City and Liverpool will be desperate to support you, what with it being "patently unjust" and everything. They must be simply desperate to demand 10% allocation of Old Trafford, simply desperate. Because it is "patently unjust" isn't it? So patently unjust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 10 January, 2015 Share Posted 10 January, 2015 Let me know when you have written to a the Premier League and the FA to take on this "patently unjust" situation. I am sure Manchester City and Liverpool will be desperate to support you, what with it being "patently unjust" and everything. They must be simply desperate to demand 10% allocation of Old Trafford, simply desperate. Because it is "patently unjust" isn't it? So patently unjust. Not that this is about away allocation , the other big clubs can have the same home advantage as. They will only give Utd the same on return if they wish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 10 January, 2015 Share Posted 10 January, 2015 Not that this is about away allocation , the other big clubs can have the same home advantage as. They will only give Utd the same on return if they wish. Pretty sure you're the person who took this thread into the discussion about away allocation and brought up your outrage about the 8,000 tickets we should have at Old Trafford. So Liverpool not getting a 7/8,000 allocation at OT (when they could probably fill it most seasons) is just for them to sort out between themselves, but Saints not getting it (when we don't need it, at all) is "unfair". Good oh. Crystal clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 10 January, 2015 Share Posted 10 January, 2015 Let me know when you have written to a the Premier League and the FA to take on this "patently unjust" situation. I am sure Manchester City and Liverpool will be desperate to support you, what with it being "patently unjust" and everything. They must be simply desperate to demand 10% allocation of Old Trafford, simply desperate. Because it is "patently unjust" isn't it? So patently unjust. When you gain wisdom and maturity with age, you will realise that there are some things that one is unlikely to change on one's own. You might find these sage words from St Francis helpful;_ “Lord, grant me the strength to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.” Changing arbitrary decisions like this falls into the category of the first line, as does expecting you to adopt a more adult posting style. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 10 January, 2015 Share Posted 10 January, 2015 When you gain wisdom and maturity with age, you will realise that there are some things that one is unlikely to change on one's own. You might find these sage words from St Francis helpful;_ “Lord, grant me the strength to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.” Changing arbitrary decisions like this falls into the category of the first line, as does expecting you to adopt a more adult posting style. Why aren't Manchester City and Liverpool demanding their 8,000 rightful allocation at Old Trafford? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 10 January, 2015 Share Posted 10 January, 2015 I refer the right-dishonourable "gentleman" to the reply I gave earlier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 10 January, 2015 Share Posted 10 January, 2015 I refer the right-dishonourable "gentleman" to the reply I gave earlier Why aren't Manchester City and Liverpool demanding their 8,000 rightful allocation at Old Trafford? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 10 January, 2015 Share Posted 10 January, 2015 Pretty sure you're the person who took this thread into the discussion about away allocation and brought up your outrage about the 8,000 tickets we should have at Old Trafford. So Liverpool not getting a 7/8,000 allocation at OT (when they could probably fill it most seasons) is just for them to sort out between themselves, but Saints not getting it (when we don't need it, at all) is "unfair". Good oh. Crystal clear. I believe you are correct. I mentioned it as i believe yet again the big clubs get an advantage. Surely in an even playing field all clubs should get an option to get 10% and then decline if they feel there is not a need.If there is ever a massive game for us at OT, perhaps a must win for both clubs. The reduction of away fans would be a detriment to our chances however little you may believe the impact of support is. I believe in fairness and at present there is not that being applied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 10 January, 2015 Share Posted 10 January, 2015 I believe you are correct. I mentioned it as i believe yet again the big clubs get an advantage. Surely in an even playing field all clubs should get an option to get 10% and then decline if they feel there is not a need.If there is ever a massive game for us at OT, perhaps a must win for both clubs. The reduction of away fans would be a detriment to our chances however little you may believe the impact of support is. I believe in fairness and at present there is not that being applied. Your suggestion isn't remotely fair. The current system is fair and logical. The ridiculous nature of your suggestion and the assumptions behind it have already been torn apart on this thread by others so I am not going to bother again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 10 January, 2015 Share Posted 10 January, 2015 I believe you are correct. I mentioned it as i believe yet again the big clubs get an advantage. Surely in an even playing field all clubs should get an option to get 10% and then decline if they feel there is not a need.If there is ever a massive game for us at OT, perhaps a must win for both clubs. The reduction of away fans would be a detriment to our chances however little you may believe the impact of support is. I believe in fairness and at present there is not that being applied. What about the smaller clubs like Burnley and QPR who benefit from the 'whichever is less rule' part of the rule which means they don't have to give 3,000 away tickets but only around 2,000? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holbury Saint Posted 10 January, 2015 Share Posted 10 January, 2015 I haven't read the whole thread but I think the best solution would be to put away fans in the Kingsland north corner. That way the northam can be all saints but still next to away fans for the banter and also close enough for the security box to watch them and close to north car park. Keep them in 15 mins after game so saints fans are clear. It would be fantastic to have the whole end as saints and would make s huge difference to the atmosphere. I'm also sure the Kingsland north fans would be happy to move into northam and I'm sure the police could cope with the change Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 10 January, 2015 Share Posted 10 January, 2015 What about the smaller clubs like Burnley and QPR who benefit from the 'whichever is less rule' part of the rule which means they don't have to give 3,000 away tickets but only around 2,000? 10% so no bigger advantage, wheras the big clubs only 5% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 10 January, 2015 Share Posted 10 January, 2015 The best solution would be to move the away fans 2 blocks further into the itchen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 10 January, 2015 Share Posted 10 January, 2015 Your suggestion isn't remotely fair. The current system is fair and logical. The ridiculous nature of your suggestion and the assumptions behind it have already been torn apart on this thread by others so I am not going to bother again.You may believe they have been torn apart but not in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 10 January, 2015 Share Posted 10 January, 2015 You may believe they have been torn apart but not in my opinion. Probably because you don't have a clue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 10 January, 2015 Share Posted 10 January, 2015 10% so no bigger advantage, wheras the big clubs only 5% But the rule is 3,000 or 10% whichever is less, so the 10% rule benefits small clubs in this instance doesn't it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 10 January, 2015 Share Posted 10 January, 2015 Probably because you don't have a clue. of course you do, as you are all knowing, iam amazed you deign even to post on here as you are so superior to everyone else in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 10 January, 2015 Share Posted 10 January, 2015 But the rule is 3,000 or 10% whichever is less, so the 10% rule benefits small clubs in this instance doesn't it. yes, is that fair? A level playing field would be the option of 10% wherever. If we could decide to just give 5% of tickets as per Man U etc it would be easier to have a proper singing home end Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 10 January, 2015 Share Posted 10 January, 2015 You may believe they have been torn apart but not in my opinion. Nor mine. But let him believe he is right, so as not to antagonise his condition (NPD) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 10 January, 2015 Share Posted 10 January, 2015 yes, is that fair? A level playing field would be the option of 10% wherever. If we could decide to just give 5% of tickets as per Man U etc it would be easier to have a proper singing home end There is a level playing field, its a maximum of 3,000 away fans at any game anywhere unless the grounds are smaller and the small club is protected by offering a maxiumum of 10% of the capacity. It seems to be only you and the wind bag Les that seem to think its so grossly unfair that saints who can't sell 3,000 tickets aren't allowed 8,000. If you can't see how that is a level playing field then you're pretty dense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 10 January, 2015 Share Posted 10 January, 2015 Nor mine. But let him believe he is right, so as not to antagonise his condition (NPD) Why aren't Manchester City and Liverpool demanding their 8,000 rightful allocation at Old Trafford? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 10 January, 2015 Share Posted 10 January, 2015 Why aren't Manchester City and Liverpool demanding their 8,000 rightful allocation at Old Trafford? Read up on your condition here http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/npd.htm, recognise that you have a problem and then go and seek professional advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 10 January, 2015 Share Posted 10 January, 2015 Read up on your condition here http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/npd.htm, recognise that you have a problem and then go and seek professional advice. A lovely hysterical reaction to a simple question you refuse to answer. But coming from someone who shrieks "patently unjust" at something so utterly harmless, logical and completely fair that's no great surprise. Feel free to answer the question any time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 10 January, 2015 Share Posted 10 January, 2015 A lovely hysterical reaction to a simple question you refuse to answer. But coming from someone who shrieks "patently unjust" at something so utterly harmless, logical and completely fair that's no great surprise. Feel free to answer the question any time. OK then, you're in denial. That's altogether to be expected. But I'm sure that other posters will make allowances in future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wurzel Posted 10 January, 2015 Share Posted 10 January, 2015 There is a level playing field, its a maximum of 3,000 away fans at any game anywhere unless the grounds are smaller and the small club is protected by offering a maxiumum of 10% of the capacity. It seems to be only you and the wind bag Les that seem to think its so grossly unfair that saints who can't sell 3,000 tickets aren't allowed 8,000. If you can't see how that is a level playing field then you're pretty dense. You're looking at it the wrong way round. Small clubs - i.e. clubs with 96% home fans. If all grounds have 90%home / 10% away available THAT is a level playing field. (Whether the 10% is always required is another matter0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 10 January, 2015 Share Posted 10 January, 2015 You're looking at it the wrong way round. Small clubs - i.e. clubs with 96% home fans. If all grounds have 90%home / 10% away available THAT is a level playing field. (Whether the 10% is always required is another matter0 It isn't required, that's the point. We don't need it and expecting Man United to bin off season ticket holders on the off chance that Burnley or West Brom are going to suddenly demand their 8,000 seat allocation is utterly ridiculous. The system in place is perfectly logical and fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 10 January, 2015 Share Posted 10 January, 2015 OK then, you're in denial. That's altogether to be expected. But I'm sure that other posters will make allowances in future. That's your default position when your arguments have been proven nonsense. Answer my question any time you like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 10 January, 2015 Share Posted 10 January, 2015 That's your default position when your arguments have been proven nonsense. Answer my question any time you like.it would help if you answered questions put to you. i asked a question of you earlier in the thread and you didnt but went back to the same old thing. I do wonder if actually stating something that may in time seem to be wrong, worries you or you cant face of being proved wrong. it is a forum of opinions and it is not a crime or any shame to be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 10 January, 2015 Share Posted 10 January, 2015 It isn't required, that's the point. We don't need it and expecting Man United to bin off season ticket holders on the off chance that Burnley or West Brom are going to suddenly demand their 8,000 seat allocation is utterly ridiculous. The system in place is perfectly logical and fair.but it is not logical or fair. The fair way is to have it as an option of 10% (something that we have to provide) and if the club does not wish to take the option up they give the go ahead to sell to their fans. Again, if for example we had a must win game against our nearest rivals at the end of a season, if they came to us they would have the backing of 10% of the ground compared to us going to theirs we would have 5% or less, potentially giving them an unfair advantage. If you think that is logical or fair no wonder we have trouble seeing eye to eye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 10 January, 2015 Share Posted 10 January, 2015 There is a level playing field, its a maximum of 3,000 away fans at any game anywhere unless the grounds are smaller and the small club is protected by offering a maxiumum of 10% of the capacity. It seems to be only you and the wind bag Les that seem to think its so grossly unfair that saints who can't sell 3,000 tickets aren't allowed 8,000. If you can't see how that is a level playing field then you're pretty dense.Yet another who feels that their opinion is always right that they feel they can bandy around derogatory insults. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 10 January, 2015 Share Posted 10 January, 2015 it would help if you answered questions put to you. i asked a question of you earlier in the thread and you didnt but went back to the same old thing. I do wonder if actually stating something that may in time seem to be wrong, worries you or you cant face of being proved wrong. it is a forum of opinions and it is not a crime or any shame to be wrong. What question did you ask? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 10 January, 2015 Share Posted 10 January, 2015 What question did you ask?Apologies, I have looked back and you did indeed answer me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffo Posted 10 January, 2015 Share Posted 10 January, 2015 Telling Puncheon he can sh**t where he likes at Palace...well worth the journey Your journey was worthwhile because you sung an unfunny song to a player that doesn't play for us? Each to their own. No wonder our support is getting worse though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 10 January, 2015 Share Posted 10 January, 2015 but it is not logical or fair. The fair way is to have it as an option of 10% (something that we have to provide) and if the club does not wish to take the option up they give the go ahead to sell to their fans. Again, if for example we had a must win game against our nearest rivals at the end of a season, if they came to us they would have the backing of 10% of the ground compared to us going to theirs we would have 5% or less, potentially giving them an unfair advantage. If you think that is logical or fair no wonder we have trouble seeing eye to eye. If it is so unfair, why are the biggest clubs not changing it? Liverpool and Man City would love to take 8,000 fans to Old Trafford but can't under the current "patently unjust" system. They are several times more likely to be able to take that number of fans too - more so than bloody Burnley anyway. So its so unfair, which you can see so they must be able to see it too. So why don't they change this unfair system? Any ideas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wurzel Posted 10 January, 2015 Share Posted 10 January, 2015 It isn't required, that's the point. We don't need it and expecting Man United to bin off season ticket holders on the off chance that Burnley or West Brom are going to suddenly demand their 8,000 seat allocation is utterly ridiculous. The system in place is perfectly logical and fair. I included the proviso that the full 10% may not be required in which case the home club can sell the unwanted ones. Fair would mean equal for all i.e. my suggested 90/10 split at all grounds. Logical would mean based on logic. The current system is based on no logic whatsoever i.e it does not take into account demand for either home or away tickets, nor the suitably/ability of ground layout to segregate h&a. It's a totally arbitrary figure. So your statement is wrong on both counts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 10 January, 2015 Share Posted 10 January, 2015 (edited) I included the proviso that the full 10% may not be required in which case the home club can sell the unwanted ones. Fair would mean equal for all i.e. my suggested 90/10 split at all grounds. Logical would mean based on logic. The current system is based on no logic whatsoever i.e it does not take into account demand for either home or away tickets, nor the suitably/ability of ground layout to segregate h&a. It's a totally arbitrary figure. So your statement is wrong on both counts. That's fine, because it's a lovely little solution that SFC need to change absolutely nothing, but other clubs have to change things which would impact their season ticket holders, their members and general fans. Of course because it seems to benefit Saints you conveniently interpret as fair. You're asking MUFC to take out 5,000 seats away from their season tickets and members to put on a hold until a month before a match when, quelle surprise, Burnley, West Brom say they don't want any more than 2,500 - 3,000. How that is fair to Man United or its fans I fail to understand. You seem to think they should be punished for having a bigger ground. It's their ground, not yours. But it seems "fair" if you view the world entirely through the lens of Southampton Football Club so that's all right then. Lastly, on logic. All Premier League Clubs offer the same away allocation for all matches - 3,000 - is perfectly logical. The same number for all travelling fans. Same number. Exactly the same. Logical. With a nice caveat for clubs with smaller grounds. Same number, for everyone, except for the handful of clubs with grounds a little too small. Adding ones own pointless percentage yardstick does not render that agreement illogical. Edited 10 January, 2015 by CB Fry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 10 January, 2015 Share Posted 10 January, 2015 but it is not logical or fair. The fair way is to have it as an option of 10% (something that we have to provide) and if the club does not wish to take the option up they give the go ahead to sell to their fans. Again, if for example we had a must win game against our nearest rivals at the end of a season, if they came to us they would have the backing of 10% of the ground compared to us going to theirs we would have 5% or less, potentially giving them an unfair advantage. If you think that is logical or fair no wonder we have trouble seeing eye to eye. Which is exactly what does happen. Clubs get offered the full allocation or a reduced one. I believe the reduced allocations at St Mary's is 2,300. I'm also pretty sure if clubs take the full allocation and don't sell it they're liable to cover the cost of any unsold tickets. So I'm sure you wouldn't be complaining if the club put up home tickets by a few quid to cover the cost of the £200,000 bill we get every time we have 5,000 empty seats at old Trafford. But still at least you and Les will be happy what with it being do unfair and all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 10 January, 2015 Share Posted 10 January, 2015 I included the proviso that the full 10% may not be required in which case the home club can sell the unwanted ones. Fair would mean equal for all i.e. my suggested 90/10 split at all grounds. Logical would mean based on logic. The current system is based on no logic whatsoever i.e it does not take into account demand for either home or away tickets, nor the suitably/ability of ground layout to segregate h&a. It's a totally arbitrary figure. So your statement is wrong on both counts. Brave of you to risk the derision of Fry and Dorkish by expressing an opinion contrary to the perceived wisdom of such towering intellects as theirs. It can't be long if you persist in arguing your viewpoint that you will be labelled as thick, or of talking b*llocks. What we thickos fail to realise is how grossly unfair it would be for the wealthiest club in World football to have to say to their fans, look, we can only sell season tickets to 90% of you instead of the 96% that we are currently allowed to offer. Fry seems to believe that the main problem with altering the current rules is his touching concern for the fans of Man United who might be inconvenienced by having to face up to the humiliation that they would have to allow the same percentage of away fans into their stadium as they are allowed to send to away matches, even if the situation would not arise very often. You're asking MUFC to take out 5,000 seats away from their season tickets and members Now, I'm not sure how up to date the figures are currently, but as of last April, they had 55,000 ST holders, so plenty of scope to introduce this change if the authorities had the guts to do it. I expect that the situation regarding the expansion of OT might possibly have preceded this attendance ruling, in which case it could be that whereas the previous capacity was not so out of kilter with others, the subsequent expansion of an additional 8000 or more seats in the past 8/9 years has rendered the ruling obsolete and high time that it was revised. But as the revision of the ruling would take away the advantage that is currently held by the biggest clubs with the most vested interests and therefore the most influence, I won't hold my breath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 10 January, 2015 Share Posted 10 January, 2015 (edited) Brave of you to risk the derision of Fry and Dorkish by expressing an opinion contrary to the perceived wisdom of such towering intellects as theirs. It can't be long if you persist in arguing your viewpoint that you will be labelled as thick, or of talking b*llocks. What we thickos fail to realise is how grossly unfair it would be for the wealthiest club in World football to have to say to their fans, look, we can only sell season tickets to 90% of you instead of the 96% that we are currently allowed to offer. Fry seems to believe that the main problem with altering the current rules is his touching concern for the fans of Man United who might be inconvenienced by having to face up to the humiliation that they would have to allow the same percentage of away fans into their stadium as they are allowed to send to away matches, even if the situation would not arise very often. Now, I'm not sure how up to date the figures are currently, but as of last April, they had 55,000 ST holders, so plenty of scope to introduce this change if the authorities had the guts to do it. I expect that the situation regarding the expansion of OT might possibly have preceded this attendance ruling, in which case it could be that whereas the previous capacity was not so out of kilter with others, the subsequent expansion of an additional 8000 or more seats in the past 8/9 years has rendered the ruling obsolete and high time that it was revised. But as the revision of the ruling would take away the advantage that is currently held by the biggest clubs with the most vested interests and therefore the most influence, I won't hold my breath. There are two clubs with the most to gain by pushing a change to this "patently unjust" situation through, and are probably the only clubs with a genuine chance of getting anywhere near selling 8,000 odd away tickets season in, season out. So why aren't Manchester City and Liverpool demanding their 8,000 rightful allocation at Old Trafford? Edited 10 January, 2015 by CB Fry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 10 January, 2015 Share Posted 10 January, 2015 Yet another who feels that their opinion is always right that they feel they can bandy around derogatory insults. So you can't understand that every away club is entitled to exactly the same amount of tickets unless the ground is so small that it's higher than 10% of the stadium isn't a level playing field? That's not my problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 10 January, 2015 Share Posted 10 January, 2015 What we thickos fail to realise is how grossly unfair it would be for the wealthiest club in World football to have to say to their fans, look, we can only sell season tickets to 90% of you instead of the 96% that we are currently allowed to offer. Not only would that be unfair, then as far as I'm concerned it would be entirely ludicrous from a business point of view to tell a club that they can't sell 5,000 season tickets on the off chance that all clubs in the Premier League might want to bring 7000 or 8000 fans to an away game. I feel that if any club are willing to undergo the risk of spending a huge amount on a big stadium, the least they should expect is that they can be allowed to fill the vast majority of those seats with home fans only. If Saints ever extend the stadium then its only a good thing that we do not under any circumstances have to give up any of those seats to away fans. The 10% / 3000 rule works very well. It's telling how well it works, in that there is not a single dissenting club claiming it should change. All clubs recognise that it is the best solution. Which kind of makes this whole argument redundant, because the rule certainly isn't changing any time soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 10 January, 2015 Share Posted 10 January, 2015 I included the proviso that the full 10% may not be required in which case the home club can sell the unwanted ones. Fair would mean equal for all i.e. my suggested 90/10 split at all grounds. Logical would mean based on logic. The current system is based on no logic whatsoever i.e it does not take into account demand for either home or away tickets, nor the suitably/ability of ground layout to segregate h&a. It's a totally arbitrary figure. So your statement is wrong on both counts. So you say the current system isn't logical and a 90/10 split would be more logical we can't even sell out a 96/4 split? Yeah that's logical pal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nta786 Posted 10 January, 2015 Share Posted 10 January, 2015 This thread has gone from how to increase the 'passion' from our supporters at St Mary's to a couple who think we should get 8000 at Old Trafford. Jesus Wept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarniaSaint Posted 11 January, 2015 Share Posted 11 January, 2015 This thread has gone from how to increase the 'passion' from our supporters at St Mary's to a couple who think we should get 8000 at Old Trafford. Jesus Wept. LOL but it diverts from the OP.........BTW the half home end is a joke........sorry if it offends but that's the way it is ..........LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now