Saints transfer rumour round up - January 2015

Southampton FC transfer rumours - January 2015

Southampton FC transfer rumours - January 2015

First published in Saints News
Last updated
Daily Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Digital Editor

It's that time of year again, as football's semi annual rumour mill goes into overdrive amid speculation of multi-million pound deals as clubs bid for glory.

Once again, the Daily Echo will be keeping you up-to-date with the latest rumours swirling around involving potential and current Saints players.

These are only rumours, so don't think a deal is nailed on just because it is included in the list - it's up to you to decide which ones you believe and which ones you don't - not to mention which deals you like the look of and hope to come true!

The list will be updated as soon as we discover what the latest whispers are - it could be updated a few times in any one day, so be sure to keep checking back to make sure you don't miss out on the newest gossip.

If you come across a rumour you think is worthy of inclusion, email it to dan.kerins@dailyecho.co.uk along with your name and where you found the gossip, or you can tweet me, using the button next to my face at the top of the article.

Players linked with move to Southampton

Players linked with leaving Southampton

 

Comments (59)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:45pm Tue 30 Dec 14

Chapperall says...

Ashley Young you must be having a laugh!
If it means having to save money do we can buy Anderweld and Bertram I can understand that and so will the supporters. However it's a difficult call as will they both sign up for a team that has a limited squad and therefore struggles during injuries and suspensions.
Ashley Young you must be having a laugh! If it means having to save money do we can buy Anderweld and Bertram I can understand that and so will the supporters. However it's a difficult call as will they both sign up for a team that has a limited squad and therefore struggles during injuries and suspensions. Chapperall
  • Score: -18

4:46pm Tue 30 Dec 14

cotswoldsaint says...

Really DE, "semi annual"? Is that some sort of Americanism? What's wrong with biannual or, even better and less confusing, " twice-yearly"? I know it's being pedantic but these things are important to some of us.
Really DE, "semi annual"? Is that some sort of Americanism? What's wrong with biannual or, even better and less confusing, " twice-yearly"? I know it's being pedantic but these things are important to some of us. cotswoldsaint
  • Score: 21

4:59pm Tue 30 Dec 14

LisaFricker says...

Typical of the echo to get their links wrong - Jordon Rhodes. Sort it out....
Typical of the echo to get their links wrong - Jordon Rhodes. Sort it out.... LisaFricker
  • Score: -9

5:03pm Tue 30 Dec 14

LisaFricker says...

and the Morgan Schneiderlin link is wrong!
and the Morgan Schneiderlin link is wrong! LisaFricker
  • Score: -7

5:04pm Tue 30 Dec 14

Dan Kerins says...

LisaFricker wrote:
Typical of the echo to get their links wrong - Jordon Rhodes. Sort it out....
Erm, the link is correct. The story is in The Sun, and their website is behind a paywall so a link to the article is not available - so instead the link points towards a Yahoo article rounding up today's rumours.
[quote][p][bold]LisaFricker[/bold] wrote: Typical of the echo to get their links wrong - Jordon Rhodes. Sort it out....[/p][/quote]Erm, the link is correct. The story is in The Sun, and their website is behind a paywall so a link to the article is not available - so instead the link points towards a Yahoo article rounding up today's rumours. Dan Kerins
  • Score: 10

5:12pm Tue 30 Dec 14

Dan Kerins says...

LisaFricker wrote:
and the Morgan Schneiderlin link is wrong!
It's working fine for me - pointing towards the Daily Express...
[quote][p][bold]LisaFricker[/bold] wrote: and the Morgan Schneiderlin link is wrong![/p][/quote]It's working fine for me - pointing towards the Daily Express... Dan Kerins
  • Score: 15

5:19pm Tue 30 Dec 14

Dan Kerins says...

cotswoldsaint wrote:
Really DE, "semi annual"? Is that some sort of Americanism? What's wrong with biannual or, even better and less confusing, " twice-yearly"? I know it's being pedantic but these things are important to some of us.
Semi-annual is a perfectly acceptable term in standard English, which I chose as biannual is often confused with biennial by readers. "Semi" makes it clear it's every half year.

In fact, semi-annual is used more commonly and for longer than biannual, according to Google's excellent language history tools.
[quote][p][bold]cotswoldsaint[/bold] wrote: Really DE, "semi annual"? Is that some sort of Americanism? What's wrong with biannual or, even better and less confusing, " twice-yearly"? I know it's being pedantic but these things are important to some of us.[/p][/quote]Semi-annual is a perfectly acceptable term in standard English, which I chose as biannual is often confused with biennial by readers. "Semi" makes it clear it's every half year. In fact, semi-annual is used more commonly and for longer than biannual, according to Google's excellent language history tools. Dan Kerins
  • Score: 26

5:23pm Tue 30 Dec 14

SaintRachel says...

Surely Harry Kane would be more than 10m, especially if anyone would even consider paying 12m for Jordan Rhodes? Actually, I don't believe Poch would let him go right now anyway - he clearly rates him highly and he's scoring goals
Surely Harry Kane would be more than 10m, especially if anyone would even consider paying 12m for Jordan Rhodes? Actually, I don't believe Poch would let him go right now anyway - he clearly rates him highly and he's scoring goals SaintRachel
  • Score: 10

5:32pm Tue 30 Dec 14

NC Fan4Life says...

I fear that a big offer for Morgan will be made and could well be accepted to finance other buys, hope not, but he will probably go in the summer anyway.

J-Rod won't go in Jan as he has to prove his fitness first, therefore we MUST get the best goalscorer we can get, even another loanee, because we don't need to be paying the inflated prices, as we did with Long & Mane.

Elia on loan is only a replacement for Mane while he is away.
I fear that a big offer for Morgan will be made and could well be accepted to finance other buys, hope not, but he will probably go in the summer anyway. J-Rod won't go in Jan as he has to prove his fitness first, therefore we MUST get the best goalscorer we can get, even another loanee, because we don't need to be paying the inflated prices, as we did with Long & Mane. Elia on loan is only a replacement for Mane while he is away. NC Fan4Life
  • Score: -9

5:33pm Tue 30 Dec 14

NC Fan4Life says...

Also is there any news about offering Jack Cork a new contract ?
Also is there any news about offering Jack Cork a new contract ? NC Fan4Life
  • Score: 17

5:49pm Tue 30 Dec 14

Clever Dick says...

OK all you neggies, are you ready to go. Have a bit of a rest tomorrow and then you can really lay into Les Reed , RK and Katarina on Thursday morning. There are going to be plenty of rumours around regarding our players because they are so good, but keep a big piece of humble pie ready for the end of the window when you all get proven wrong yet again.
OK all you neggies, are you ready to go. Have a bit of a rest tomorrow and then you can really lay into Les Reed , RK and Katarina on Thursday morning. There are going to be plenty of rumours around regarding our players because they are so good, but keep a big piece of humble pie ready for the end of the window when you all get proven wrong yet again. Clever Dick
  • Score: 19

6:10pm Tue 30 Dec 14

Baddesley Bill says...

Dan Kerins wrote:
cotswoldsaint wrote:
Really DE, "semi annual"? Is that some sort of Americanism? What's wrong with biannual or, even better and less confusing, " twice-yearly"? I know it's being pedantic but these things are important to some of us.
Semi-annual is a perfectly acceptable term in standard English, which I chose as biannual is often confused with biennial by readers. "Semi" makes it clear it's every half year.

In fact, semi-annual is used more commonly and for longer than biannual, according to Google's excellent language history tools.
Hi Dan, there's a rumour that the wum "boat builder" may be transferred off these threads during the window. Any truth to this?
[quote][p][bold]Dan Kerins[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cotswoldsaint[/bold] wrote: Really DE, "semi annual"? Is that some sort of Americanism? What's wrong with biannual or, even better and less confusing, " twice-yearly"? I know it's being pedantic but these things are important to some of us.[/p][/quote]Semi-annual is a perfectly acceptable term in standard English, which I chose as biannual is often confused with biennial by readers. "Semi" makes it clear it's every half year. In fact, semi-annual is used more commonly and for longer than biannual, according to Google's excellent language history tools.[/p][/quote]Hi Dan, there's a rumour that the wum "boat builder" may be transferred off these threads during the window. Any truth to this? Baddesley Bill
  • Score: 15

6:26pm Tue 30 Dec 14

Saint Clements says...

SaintRachel wrote:
Surely Harry Kane would be more than 10m, especially if anyone would even consider paying 12m for Jordan Rhodes? Actually, I don't believe Poch would let him go right now anyway - he clearly rates him highly and he's scoring goals
Agreed - would love him, but Poch will never sell now. Usual tosh from echo, dragging up a story from October.

Echo - please do some actual research and bring us a scoop...
[quote][p][bold]SaintRachel[/bold] wrote: Surely Harry Kane would be more than 10m, especially if anyone would even consider paying 12m for Jordan Rhodes? Actually, I don't believe Poch would let him go right now anyway - he clearly rates him highly and he's scoring goals[/p][/quote]Agreed - would love him, but Poch will never sell now. Usual tosh from echo, dragging up a story from October. Echo - please do some actual research and bring us a scoop... Saint Clements
  • Score: -11

6:47pm Tue 30 Dec 14

J7junctionseven says...

Baddesley Bill wrote:
Dan Kerins wrote:
cotswoldsaint wrote:
Really DE, "semi annual"? Is that some sort of Americanism? What's wrong with biannual or, even better and less confusing, " twice-yearly"? I know it's being pedantic but these things are important to some of us.
Semi-annual is a perfectly acceptable term in standard English, which I chose as biannual is often confused with biennial by readers. "Semi" makes it clear it's every half year.

In fact, semi-annual is used more commonly and for longer than biannual, according to Google's excellent language history tools.
Hi Dan, there's a rumour that the wum "boat builder" may be transferred off these threads during the window. Any truth to this?
Beat me to it ......no answer from Dan yet though????
Maybe you should ask it again but use some American terminology....that might get a response..:o)
COYR
[quote][p][bold]Baddesley Bill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Kerins[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cotswoldsaint[/bold] wrote: Really DE, "semi annual"? Is that some sort of Americanism? What's wrong with biannual or, even better and less confusing, " twice-yearly"? I know it's being pedantic but these things are important to some of us.[/p][/quote]Semi-annual is a perfectly acceptable term in standard English, which I chose as biannual is often confused with biennial by readers. "Semi" makes it clear it's every half year. In fact, semi-annual is used more commonly and for longer than biannual, according to Google's excellent language history tools.[/p][/quote]Hi Dan, there's a rumour that the wum "boat builder" may be transferred off these threads during the window. Any truth to this?[/p][/quote]Beat me to it ......no answer from Dan yet though???? Maybe you should ask it again but use some American terminology....that might get a response..:o) COYR J7junctionseven
  • Score: -3

6:54pm Tue 30 Dec 14

J7junctionseven says...

J7junctionseven wrote:
Baddesley Bill wrote:
Dan Kerins wrote:
cotswoldsaint wrote:
Really DE, "semi annual"? Is that some sort of Americanism? What's wrong with biannual or, even better and less confusing, " twice-yearly"? I know it's being pedantic but these things are important to some of us.
Semi-annual is a perfectly acceptable term in standard English, which I chose as biannual is often confused with biennial by readers. "Semi" makes it clear it's every half year.

In fact, semi-annual is used more commonly and for longer than biannual, according to Google's excellent language history tools.
Hi Dan, there's a rumour that the wum "boat builder" may be transferred off these threads during the window. Any truth to this?
Beat me to it ......no answer from Dan yet though????
Maybe you should ask it again but use some American terminology....that might get a response..:o)
COYR
Howdy Danno
You ain't dog gone an answered this guy Bills question yet buddy.
Shoot....we's all waiting for yo to give an affirmative answer to the guy coz the guy he's talking about is lower than a rattle snakes belly and the rest of the posse are staring to get twitchy trigger fingers.
Come on Marshall do your job and clean up this town!!
Hi Ho Silver ......Away!!
[quote][p][bold]J7junctionseven[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baddesley Bill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Kerins[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cotswoldsaint[/bold] wrote: Really DE, "semi annual"? Is that some sort of Americanism? What's wrong with biannual or, even better and less confusing, " twice-yearly"? I know it's being pedantic but these things are important to some of us.[/p][/quote]Semi-annual is a perfectly acceptable term in standard English, which I chose as biannual is often confused with biennial by readers. "Semi" makes it clear it's every half year. In fact, semi-annual is used more commonly and for longer than biannual, according to Google's excellent language history tools.[/p][/quote]Hi Dan, there's a rumour that the wum "boat builder" may be transferred off these threads during the window. Any truth to this?[/p][/quote]Beat me to it ......no answer from Dan yet though???? Maybe you should ask it again but use some American terminology....that might get a response..:o) COYR[/p][/quote]Howdy Danno You ain't dog gone an answered this guy Bills question yet buddy. Shoot....we's all waiting for yo to give an affirmative answer to the guy coz the guy he's talking about is lower than a rattle snakes belly and the rest of the posse are staring to get twitchy trigger fingers. Come on Marshall do your job and clean up this town!! Hi Ho Silver ......Away!! J7junctionseven
  • Score: 10

6:55pm Tue 30 Dec 14

mack chinnon says...

J7junctionseven wrote:
Baddesley Bill wrote:
Dan Kerins wrote:
cotswoldsaint wrote:
Really DE, "semi annual"? Is that some sort of Americanism? What's wrong with biannual or, even better and less confusing, " twice-yearly"? I know it's being pedantic but these things are important to some of us.
Semi-annual is a perfectly acceptable term in standard English, which I chose as biannual is often confused with biennial by readers. "Semi" makes it clear it's every half year.

In fact, semi-annual is used more commonly and for longer than biannual, according to Google's excellent language history tools.
Hi Dan, there's a rumour that the wum "boat builder" may be transferred off these threads during the window. Any truth to this?
Beat me to it ......no answer from Dan yet though????
Maybe you should ask it again but use some American terminology....that might get a response..:o)
COYR
Yes. He has been quiet. Still hungover?
[quote][p][bold]J7junctionseven[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baddesley Bill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Kerins[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cotswoldsaint[/bold] wrote: Really DE, "semi annual"? Is that some sort of Americanism? What's wrong with biannual or, even better and less confusing, " twice-yearly"? I know it's being pedantic but these things are important to some of us.[/p][/quote]Semi-annual is a perfectly acceptable term in standard English, which I chose as biannual is often confused with biennial by readers. "Semi" makes it clear it's every half year. In fact, semi-annual is used more commonly and for longer than biannual, according to Google's excellent language history tools.[/p][/quote]Hi Dan, there's a rumour that the wum "boat builder" may be transferred off these threads during the window. Any truth to this?[/p][/quote]Beat me to it ......no answer from Dan yet though???? Maybe you should ask it again but use some American terminology....that might get a response..:o) COYR[/p][/quote]Yes. He has been quiet. Still hungover? mack chinnon
  • Score: -5

6:55pm Tue 30 Dec 14

jls217 says...

Dan Kerins wrote:
cotswoldsaint wrote:
Really DE, "semi annual"? Is that some sort of Americanism? What's wrong with biannual or, even better and less confusing, " twice-yearly"? I know it's being pedantic but these things are important to some of us.
Semi-annual is a perfectly acceptable term in standard English, which I chose as biannual is often confused with biennial by readers. "Semi" makes it clear it's every half year.

In fact, semi-annual is used more commonly and for longer than biannual, according to Google's excellent language history tools.
Struggling to give a semi-bi **** to be honest.
[quote][p][bold]Dan Kerins[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cotswoldsaint[/bold] wrote: Really DE, "semi annual"? Is that some sort of Americanism? What's wrong with biannual or, even better and less confusing, " twice-yearly"? I know it's being pedantic but these things are important to some of us.[/p][/quote]Semi-annual is a perfectly acceptable term in standard English, which I chose as biannual is often confused with biennial by readers. "Semi" makes it clear it's every half year. In fact, semi-annual is used more commonly and for longer than biannual, according to Google's excellent language history tools.[/p][/quote]Struggling to give a semi-bi **** to be honest. jls217
  • Score: -3

6:58pm Tue 30 Dec 14

J7junctionseven says...

J7junctionseven wrote:
J7junctionseven wrote:
Baddesley Bill wrote:
Dan Kerins wrote:
cotswoldsaint wrote:
Really DE, "semi annual"? Is that some sort of Americanism? What's wrong with biannual or, even better and less confusing, " twice-yearly"? I know it's being pedantic but these things are important to some of us.
Semi-annual is a perfectly acceptable term in standard English, which I chose as biannual is often confused with biennial by readers. "Semi" makes it clear it's every half year.

In fact, semi-annual is used more commonly and for longer than biannual, according to Google's excellent language history tools.
Hi Dan, there's a rumour that the wum "boat builder" may be transferred off these threads during the window. Any truth to this?
Beat me to it ......no answer from Dan yet though????
Maybe you should ask it again but use some American terminology....that might get a response..:o)
COYR
Howdy Danno
You ain't dog gone an answered this guy Bills question yet buddy.
Shoot....we's all waiting for yo to give an affirmative answer to the guy coz the guy he's talking about is lower than a rattle snakes belly and the rest of the posse are staring to get twitchy trigger fingers.
Come on Marshall do your job and clean up this town!!
Hi Ho Silver ......Away!!
Is that possibly a tad to stereotype.....maybe
??
[quote][p][bold]J7junctionseven[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J7junctionseven[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baddesley Bill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Kerins[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cotswoldsaint[/bold] wrote: Really DE, "semi annual"? Is that some sort of Americanism? What's wrong with biannual or, even better and less confusing, " twice-yearly"? I know it's being pedantic but these things are important to some of us.[/p][/quote]Semi-annual is a perfectly acceptable term in standard English, which I chose as biannual is often confused with biennial by readers. "Semi" makes it clear it's every half year. In fact, semi-annual is used more commonly and for longer than biannual, according to Google's excellent language history tools.[/p][/quote]Hi Dan, there's a rumour that the wum "boat builder" may be transferred off these threads during the window. Any truth to this?[/p][/quote]Beat me to it ......no answer from Dan yet though???? Maybe you should ask it again but use some American terminology....that might get a response..:o) COYR[/p][/quote]Howdy Danno You ain't dog gone an answered this guy Bills question yet buddy. Shoot....we's all waiting for yo to give an affirmative answer to the guy coz the guy he's talking about is lower than a rattle snakes belly and the rest of the posse are staring to get twitchy trigger fingers. Come on Marshall do your job and clean up this town!! Hi Ho Silver ......Away!![/p][/quote]Is that possibly a tad to stereotype.....maybe ?? J7junctionseven
  • Score: 2

7:00pm Tue 30 Dec 14

J7junctionseven says...

jls217 wrote:
Dan Kerins wrote:
cotswoldsaint wrote:
Really DE, "semi annual"? Is that some sort of Americanism? What's wrong with biannual or, even better and less confusing, " twice-yearly"? I know it's being pedantic but these things are important to some of us.
Semi-annual is a perfectly acceptable term in standard English, which I chose as biannual is often confused with biennial by readers. "Semi" makes it clear it's every half year.

In fact, semi-annual is used more commonly and for longer than biannual, according to Google's excellent language history tools.
Struggling to give a semi-bi **** to be honest.
A lot of people seem to be getting semi's on over it ......:o)
[quote][p][bold]jls217[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Kerins[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cotswoldsaint[/bold] wrote: Really DE, "semi annual"? Is that some sort of Americanism? What's wrong with biannual or, even better and less confusing, " twice-yearly"? I know it's being pedantic but these things are important to some of us.[/p][/quote]Semi-annual is a perfectly acceptable term in standard English, which I chose as biannual is often confused with biennial by readers. "Semi" makes it clear it's every half year. In fact, semi-annual is used more commonly and for longer than biannual, according to Google's excellent language history tools.[/p][/quote]Struggling to give a semi-bi **** to be honest.[/p][/quote]A lot of people seem to be getting semi's on over it ......:o) J7junctionseven
  • Score: 0

7:10pm Tue 30 Dec 14

jls217 says...

Am I right in thinking Ings is working out his contract and therefore will be avail free at the end of the season? Sounds like our sort of player if so.

Not sure about Rhodes given the £12m tag.

I thought the Elia deal was for 4m if the loan period proves successful - think I read it on here.

The Norwegian wunderkind will be going to Manure but I would love us to shove one up them to scupper that deal.

Spuds won't sell Kane even if as a make weight for the JRod deal (if he decides to go)

Spider is as good as gone already probably to the Gooners but who knows for sure.

Sneijder - Would do nicely but way beyond our finances I'm afraid, nice to dream though.

Any side with a Jesus in it has to be with a shout surely. Any one know anything about him. Hope the nail holes in his feet don't rub when he's got his boots on.

Love this time of year and all the speculation - we always end up disappointed though!
Am I right in thinking Ings is working out his contract and therefore will be avail free at the end of the season? Sounds like our sort of player if so. Not sure about Rhodes given the £12m tag. I thought the Elia deal was for 4m if the loan period proves successful - think I read it on here. The Norwegian wunderkind will be going to Manure but I would love us to shove one up them to scupper that deal. Spuds won't sell Kane even if as a make weight for the JRod deal (if he decides to go) Spider is as good as gone already probably to the Gooners but who knows for sure. Sneijder - Would do nicely but way beyond our finances I'm afraid, nice to dream though. Any side with a Jesus in it has to be with a shout surely. Any one know anything about him. Hope the nail holes in his feet don't rub when he's got his boots on. Love this time of year and all the speculation - we always end up disappointed though! jls217
  • Score: 1

7:25pm Tue 30 Dec 14

TPFKARTSNINZ says...

Pedants corner is alive & kicking today it seems!

I prefer this to the Chelsea goat's senile drivel though.

I would prefer Charlie Austin to Ings or Rhodes, but I don't think we will see any more signings after Elia though.
Pedants corner is alive & kicking today it seems! I prefer this to the Chelsea goat's senile drivel though. I would prefer Charlie Austin to Ings or Rhodes, but I don't think we will see any more signings after Elia though. TPFKARTSNINZ
  • Score: 3

9:50pm Tue 30 Dec 14

Oldfan says...

I do not know who is available and willing to come that is proven premier league quality. Top four still tantalizes but we will need more strength in the squad.
I do not know who is available and willing to come that is proven premier league quality. Top four still tantalizes but we will need more strength in the squad. Oldfan
  • Score: 3

10:10pm Tue 30 Dec 14

cotswoldsaint says...

Dan Kerins wrote:
cotswoldsaint wrote:
Really DE, "semi annual"? Is that some sort of Americanism? What's wrong with biannual or, even better and less confusing, " twice-yearly"? I know it's being pedantic but these things are important to some of us.
Semi-annual is a perfectly acceptable term in standard English, which I chose as biannual is often confused with biennial by readers. "Semi" makes it clear it's every half year.

In fact, semi-annual is used more commonly and for longer than biannual, according to Google's excellent language history tools.
Dan, you make my point for me as Google is American and its language history tool is not the definitive reference for modern English usage. As a journalist and editor for more than 30 years, I find the use of "semi annual" jarring and certainly not commonly used in this context. In fact, I suspect it is more likely to refer to a plant that lives half a year. I also think it is a tad arrogant to presume your readers won't know the difference between "biannual" and "biennial" though, as I said, I accept that the terms can be confusing, which is why I suggest you use "twice-yearly". Much clearer, which is what good journalism should be all about.
Still, enough pedantry for one evening. Let's get back to the footy.
[quote][p][bold]Dan Kerins[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cotswoldsaint[/bold] wrote: Really DE, "semi annual"? Is that some sort of Americanism? What's wrong with biannual or, even better and less confusing, " twice-yearly"? I know it's being pedantic but these things are important to some of us.[/p][/quote]Semi-annual is a perfectly acceptable term in standard English, which I chose as biannual is often confused with biennial by readers. "Semi" makes it clear it's every half year. In fact, semi-annual is used more commonly and for longer than biannual, according to Google's excellent language history tools.[/p][/quote]Dan, you make my point for me as Google is American and its language history tool is not the definitive reference for modern English usage. As a journalist and editor for more than 30 years, I find the use of "semi annual" jarring and certainly not commonly used in this context. In fact, I suspect it is more likely to refer to a plant that lives half a year. I also think it is a tad arrogant to presume your readers won't know the difference between "biannual" and "biennial" though, as I said, I accept that the terms can be confusing, which is why I suggest you use "twice-yearly". Much clearer, which is what good journalism should be all about. Still, enough pedantry for one evening. Let's get back to the footy. cotswoldsaint
  • Score: 5

9:50am Wed 31 Dec 14

OSPREYSAINT says...

Dan Kerins wrote:
cotswoldsaint wrote:
Really DE, "semi annual"? Is that some sort of Americanism? What's wrong with biannual or, even better and less confusing, " twice-yearly"? I know it's being pedantic but these things are important to some of us.
Semi-annual is a perfectly acceptable term in standard English, which I chose as biannual is often confused with biennial by readers. "Semi" makes it clear it's every half year.

In fact, semi-annual is used more commonly and for longer than biannual, according to Google's excellent language history tools.
You don't have to be clever to know what was being referred to, but perhaps using Season rather than Year would make it clearer?
[quote][p][bold]Dan Kerins[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cotswoldsaint[/bold] wrote: Really DE, "semi annual"? Is that some sort of Americanism? What's wrong with biannual or, even better and less confusing, " twice-yearly"? I know it's being pedantic but these things are important to some of us.[/p][/quote]Semi-annual is a perfectly acceptable term in standard English, which I chose as biannual is often confused with biennial by readers. "Semi" makes it clear it's every half year. In fact, semi-annual is used more commonly and for longer than biannual, according to Google's excellent language history tools.[/p][/quote]You don't have to be clever to know what was being referred to, but perhaps using Season rather than Year would make it clearer? OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: -5

11:28am Wed 31 Dec 14

mickey01 says...

jesus always gets a mention at this time of year
jesus always gets a mention at this time of year mickey01
  • Score: 3

12:48pm Wed 31 Dec 14

Chokkie says...

personally the Martin Odegaard rumour seems the most likely (even if it is from the Daily Star). 16 year old highly rated midfielder, he would fit in perfectly with our ethos. Also good to see Dan commenting again - he used to do it much more often back when we were in league 1.
personally the Martin Odegaard rumour seems the most likely (even if it is from the Daily Star). 16 year old highly rated midfielder, he would fit in perfectly with our ethos. Also good to see Dan commenting again - he used to do it much more often back when we were in league 1. Chokkie
  • Score: 7

1:42pm Wed 31 Dec 14

saint phil says...

IF MORGAN WISH TO GO THEN LET HIM GO AS LONG AS WE £25 TO 30 .
IF MORGAN WISH TO GO THEN LET HIM GO AS LONG AS WE £25 TO 30 . saint phil
  • Score: 4

2:02pm Wed 31 Dec 14

DellBoy2 says...

saint phil wrote:
IF MORGAN WISH TO GO THEN LET HIM GO AS LONG AS WE £25 TO 30 .
Yup, but in the Summer only. No point trying to keep him for yet another year, despite he has 2 years to go, as to me his mind is made up. Regrettably I'm expecting him to pursue leaving in the Summer, but, and I say it again if my club lets this guy go for south of £27m there'll be hell to pay. I'm confident Les and Ronko are on the case as we speak for replacement/s.
I still have the horrible feelin', it just won't go away, that Clyney's contract talks have gone on toooo long and he's another who will jump ship in the Summer IF we don't hit top four. Hope I'm wrong, but again I reiterate I have complete and utter confidence that Les and Ronko have a plan B.
Happy New Year to you all.
[quote][p][bold]saint phil[/bold] wrote: IF MORGAN WISH TO GO THEN LET HIM GO AS LONG AS WE £25 TO 30 .[/p][/quote]Yup, but in the Summer only. No point trying to keep him for yet another year, despite he has 2 years to go, as to me his mind is made up. Regrettably I'm expecting him to pursue leaving in the Summer, but, and I say it again if my club lets this guy go for south of £27m there'll be hell to pay. I'm confident Les and Ronko are on the case as we speak for replacement/s. I still have the horrible feelin', it just won't go away, that Clyney's contract talks have gone on toooo long and he's another who will jump ship in the Summer IF we don't hit top four. Hope I'm wrong, but again I reiterate I have complete and utter confidence that Les and Ronko have a plan B. Happy New Year to you all. DellBoy2
  • Score: 4

2:08pm Wed 31 Dec 14

DellBoy2 says...

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
Dan Kerins wrote:
cotswoldsaint wrote:
Really DE, "semi annual"? Is that some sort of Americanism? What's wrong with biannual or, even better and less confusing, " twice-yearly"? I know it's being pedantic but these things are important to some of us.
Semi-annual is a perfectly acceptable term in standard English, which I chose as biannual is often confused with biennial by readers. "Semi" makes it clear it's every half year.

In fact, semi-annual is used more commonly and for longer than biannual, according to Google's excellent language history tools.
You don't have to be clever to know what was being referred to, but perhaps using Season rather than Year would make it clearer?
Welcome back Dan. We've missed you for a while.
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Kerins[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cotswoldsaint[/bold] wrote: Really DE, "semi annual"? Is that some sort of Americanism? What's wrong with biannual or, even better and less confusing, " twice-yearly"? I know it's being pedantic but these things are important to some of us.[/p][/quote]Semi-annual is a perfectly acceptable term in standard English, which I chose as biannual is often confused with biennial by readers. "Semi" makes it clear it's every half year. In fact, semi-annual is used more commonly and for longer than biannual, according to Google's excellent language history tools.[/p][/quote]You don't have to be clever to know what was being referred to, but perhaps using Season rather than Year would make it clearer?[/p][/quote]Welcome back Dan. We've missed you for a while. DellBoy2
  • Score: 0

2:10pm Wed 31 Dec 14

DellBoy2 says...

cotswoldsaint wrote:
Dan Kerins wrote:
cotswoldsaint wrote:
Really DE, "semi annual"? Is that some sort of Americanism? What's wrong with biannual or, even better and less confusing, " twice-yearly"? I know it's being pedantic but these things are important to some of us.
Semi-annual is a perfectly acceptable term in standard English, which I chose as biannual is often confused with biennial by readers. "Semi" makes it clear it's every half year.

In fact, semi-annual is used more commonly and for longer than biannual, according to Google's excellent language history tools.
Dan, you make my point for me as Google is American and its language history tool is not the definitive reference for modern English usage. As a journalist and editor for more than 30 years, I find the use of "semi annual" jarring and certainly not commonly used in this context. In fact, I suspect it is more likely to refer to a plant that lives half a year. I also think it is a tad arrogant to presume your readers won't know the difference between "biannual" and "biennial" though, as I said, I accept that the terms can be confusing, which is why I suggest you use "twice-yearly". Much clearer, which is what good journalism should be all about.
Still, enough pedantry for one evening. Let's get back to the footy.
My Cotswoldsaint, you've certainly got a way with words. Happy New Year, and keep commentin'.
[quote][p][bold]cotswoldsaint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Kerins[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cotswoldsaint[/bold] wrote: Really DE, "semi annual"? Is that some sort of Americanism? What's wrong with biannual or, even better and less confusing, " twice-yearly"? I know it's being pedantic but these things are important to some of us.[/p][/quote]Semi-annual is a perfectly acceptable term in standard English, which I chose as biannual is often confused with biennial by readers. "Semi" makes it clear it's every half year. In fact, semi-annual is used more commonly and for longer than biannual, according to Google's excellent language history tools.[/p][/quote]Dan, you make my point for me as Google is American and its language history tool is not the definitive reference for modern English usage. As a journalist and editor for more than 30 years, I find the use of "semi annual" jarring and certainly not commonly used in this context. In fact, I suspect it is more likely to refer to a plant that lives half a year. I also think it is a tad arrogant to presume your readers won't know the difference between "biannual" and "biennial" though, as I said, I accept that the terms can be confusing, which is why I suggest you use "twice-yearly". Much clearer, which is what good journalism should be all about. Still, enough pedantry for one evening. Let's get back to the footy.[/p][/quote]My Cotswoldsaint, you've certainly got a way with words. Happy New Year, and keep commentin'. DellBoy2
  • Score: 1

2:13pm Wed 31 Dec 14

DellBoy2 says...

Baddesley Bill wrote:
Dan Kerins wrote:
cotswoldsaint wrote:
Really DE, "semi annual"? Is that some sort of Americanism? What's wrong with biannual or, even better and less confusing, " twice-yearly"? I know it's being pedantic but these things are important to some of us.
Semi-annual is a perfectly acceptable term in standard English, which I chose as biannual is often confused with biennial by readers. "Semi" makes it clear it's every half year.

In fact, semi-annual is used more commonly and for longer than biannual, according to Google's excellent language history tools.
Hi Dan, there's a rumour that the wum "boat builder" may be transferred off these threads during the window. Any truth to this?
REMEMBER PEOPLE, no matter how much you drink tonight, DON'T ever respond to Boatbuilder. That way he'll go away eventually
[quote][p][bold]Baddesley Bill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Kerins[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cotswoldsaint[/bold] wrote: Really DE, "semi annual"? Is that some sort of Americanism? What's wrong with biannual or, even better and less confusing, " twice-yearly"? I know it's being pedantic but these things are important to some of us.[/p][/quote]Semi-annual is a perfectly acceptable term in standard English, which I chose as biannual is often confused with biennial by readers. "Semi" makes it clear it's every half year. In fact, semi-annual is used more commonly and for longer than biannual, according to Google's excellent language history tools.[/p][/quote]Hi Dan, there's a rumour that the wum "boat builder" may be transferred off these threads during the window. Any truth to this?[/p][/quote]REMEMBER PEOPLE, no matter how much you drink tonight, DON'T ever respond to Boatbuilder. That way he'll go away eventually DellBoy2
  • Score: 2

8:34pm Wed 31 Dec 14

John Gillham says...

Jordan Rhodes 12m? That's 10m too much. He's Championship and no more. Our young ones are better than that.
Jordan Rhodes 12m? That's 10m too much. He's Championship and no more. Our young ones are better than that. John Gillham
  • Score: 4

1:44pm Fri 2 Jan 15

techsture says...

Matt Holland medical?
Matt Holland medical? techsture
  • Score: 1

2:17pm Fri 2 Jan 15

TPFKARTSNINZ says...

techsture wrote:
Matt Holland medical?
I've just seen him at Fleet services - on his way!
[quote][p][bold]techsture[/bold] wrote: Matt Holland medical?[/p][/quote]I've just seen him at Fleet services - on his way! TPFKARTSNINZ
  • Score: 1

4:34pm Fri 2 Jan 15

billycake says...

John Gillham wrote:
Jordan Rhodes 12m? That's 10m too much. He's Championship and no more. Our young ones are better than that.
What!
[quote][p][bold]John Gillham[/bold] wrote: Jordan Rhodes 12m? That's 10m too much. He's Championship and no more. Our young ones are better than that.[/p][/quote]What! billycake
  • Score: 3

6:21pm Fri 2 Jan 15

shesaint says...

cotswoldsaint wrote:
Dan Kerins wrote:
cotswoldsaint wrote:
Really DE, "semi annual"? Is that some sort of Americanism? What's wrong with biannual or, even better and less confusing, " twice-yearly"? I know it's being pedantic but these things are important to some of us.
Semi-annual is a perfectly acceptable term in standard English, which I chose as biannual is often confused with biennial by readers. "Semi" makes it clear it's every half year.

In fact, semi-annual is used more commonly and for longer than biannual, according to Google's excellent language history tools.
Dan, you make my point for me as Google is American and its language history tool is not the definitive reference for modern English usage. As a journalist and editor for more than 30 years, I find the use of "semi annual" jarring and certainly not commonly used in this context. In fact, I suspect it is more likely to refer to a plant that lives half a year. I also think it is a tad arrogant to presume your readers won't know the difference between "biannual" and "biennial" though, as I said, I accept that the terms can be confusing, which is why I suggest you use "twice-yearly". Much clearer, which is what good journalism should be all about.
Still, enough pedantry for one evening. Let's get back to the footy.
I for one always get biannual and biennial mixed up, but fully comprehend semi annual. Google may be an American search engine, but that doesn't necassarily mean that the articles found will be. What I cant understand is why someone with more than 30 years journalistic and editorial experience would even comment on another persons work. I was always taught that it was rude to do so. Maybe you could reference some of yours for us to read. Or better still, why don't we just stick to talking about the transfer rumours instead of trying for one up man ship.
[quote][p][bold]cotswoldsaint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Kerins[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cotswoldsaint[/bold] wrote: Really DE, "semi annual"? Is that some sort of Americanism? What's wrong with biannual or, even better and less confusing, " twice-yearly"? I know it's being pedantic but these things are important to some of us.[/p][/quote]Semi-annual is a perfectly acceptable term in standard English, which I chose as biannual is often confused with biennial by readers. "Semi" makes it clear it's every half year. In fact, semi-annual is used more commonly and for longer than biannual, according to Google's excellent language history tools.[/p][/quote]Dan, you make my point for me as Google is American and its language history tool is not the definitive reference for modern English usage. As a journalist and editor for more than 30 years, I find the use of "semi annual" jarring and certainly not commonly used in this context. In fact, I suspect it is more likely to refer to a plant that lives half a year. I also think it is a tad arrogant to presume your readers won't know the difference between "biannual" and "biennial" though, as I said, I accept that the terms can be confusing, which is why I suggest you use "twice-yearly". Much clearer, which is what good journalism should be all about. Still, enough pedantry for one evening. Let's get back to the footy.[/p][/quote]I for one always get biannual and biennial mixed up, but fully comprehend semi annual. Google may be an American search engine, but that doesn't necassarily mean that the articles found will be. What I cant understand is why someone with more than 30 years journalistic and editorial experience would even comment on another persons work. I was always taught that it was rude to do so. Maybe you could reference some of yours for us to read. Or better still, why don't we just stick to talking about the transfer rumours instead of trying for one up man ship. shesaint
  • Score: 0

7:44pm Mon 5 Jan 15

markodarko29 says...

Maybe Jermain Defoe could be worth a punt on a 6 month deal ,would be a good signing ,out and out goalscorer just what we need at the moment
Maybe Jermain Defoe could be worth a punt on a 6 month deal ,would be a good signing ,out and out goalscorer just what we need at the moment markodarko29
  • Score: -1

11:48am Tue 6 Jan 15

InsideOutCat says...

Dan Kerins wrote:
cotswoldsaint wrote:
Really DE, "semi annual"? Is that some sort of Americanism? What's wrong with biannual or, even better and less confusing, " twice-yearly"? I know it's being pedantic but these things are important to some of us.
Semi-annual is a perfectly acceptable term in standard English, which I chose as biannual is often confused with biennial by readers. "Semi" makes it clear it's every half year.

In fact, semi-annual is used more commonly and for longer than biannual, according to Google's excellent language history tools.
"Google" and "excellent language"? Isn't that an oxymoron to rival "Police Intelligence" and "Microsoft Works"? I know language evolves but we don't all have to start speaking like twenty-something Californian internet nerds.
[quote][p][bold]Dan Kerins[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cotswoldsaint[/bold] wrote: Really DE, "semi annual"? Is that some sort of Americanism? What's wrong with biannual or, even better and less confusing, " twice-yearly"? I know it's being pedantic but these things are important to some of us.[/p][/quote]Semi-annual is a perfectly acceptable term in standard English, which I chose as biannual is often confused with biennial by readers. "Semi" makes it clear it's every half year. In fact, semi-annual is used more commonly and for longer than biannual, according to Google's excellent language history tools.[/p][/quote]"Google" and "excellent language"? Isn't that an oxymoron to rival "Police Intelligence" and "Microsoft Works"? I know language evolves but we don't all have to start speaking like twenty-something Californian internet nerds. InsideOutCat
  • Score: 1

12:06pm Tue 6 Jan 15

SaintJD says...

SaintRachel wrote:
Surely Harry Kane would be more than 10m, especially if anyone would even consider paying 12m for Jordan Rhodes? Actually, I don't believe Poch would let him go right now anyway - he clearly rates him highly and he's scoring goals
That article is dated October 2014 and, like the Ashley Young one, things have changed significantly since then so neither of these is even worth thinking about.

Some interesting and exciting rumours here, but most seem to be lazy links to anyone who is either Dutch, has played under Ron previously or is in the Dutch league. Not saying they don't have substance, but it's like throwing loads of stuff at a wall and guessing that one will probably stick.

In terms of outgoings, I believe Ron has publicly stated nobody leaves the club in the January window, so I'm happy with that but aware that if truly crazy deals or player swaps are available that might change.

I'm pretty confident though that any such deal would have to be nailed on good for the club (i.e. Ron knows a better replacement who would be available for half the price).
[quote][p][bold]SaintRachel[/bold] wrote: Surely Harry Kane would be more than 10m, especially if anyone would even consider paying 12m for Jordan Rhodes? Actually, I don't believe Poch would let him go right now anyway - he clearly rates him highly and he's scoring goals[/p][/quote]That article is dated October 2014 and, like the Ashley Young one, things have changed significantly since then so neither of these is even worth thinking about. Some interesting and exciting rumours here, but most seem to be lazy links to anyone who is either Dutch, has played under Ron previously or is in the Dutch league. Not saying they don't have substance, but it's like throwing loads of stuff at a wall and guessing that one will probably stick. In terms of outgoings, I believe Ron has publicly stated nobody leaves the club in the January window, so I'm happy with that but aware that if truly crazy deals or player swaps are available that might change. I'm pretty confident though that any such deal would have to be nailed on good for the club (i.e. Ron knows a better replacement who would be available for half the price). SaintJD
  • Score: 1

12:11pm Tue 6 Jan 15

SaintJD says...

John Gillham wrote:
Jordan Rhodes 12m? That's 10m too much. He's Championship and no more. Our young ones are better than that.
He cost them about that much, thus the fee quoted. A decent player in my opinion, but I'd prefer Ings. I'm confident Rhodes could step up though and he's young.

I don't think Burney would sell Ings until the summer anyway (they'd be mad to sell for any price given the loss of Premier League income) and, to be honest, it would be worth waiting to get the better price in the summer, same, potentially, for Austin if we ever wanted him.
[quote][p][bold]John Gillham[/bold] wrote: Jordan Rhodes 12m? That's 10m too much. He's Championship and no more. Our young ones are better than that.[/p][/quote]He cost them about that much, thus the fee quoted. A decent player in my opinion, but I'd prefer Ings. I'm confident Rhodes could step up though and he's young. I don't think Burney would sell Ings until the summer anyway (they'd be mad to sell for any price given the loss of Premier League income) and, to be honest, it would be worth waiting to get the better price in the summer, same, potentially, for Austin if we ever wanted him. SaintJD
  • Score: 0

12:15pm Tue 6 Jan 15

SaintJD says...

saint phil wrote:
IF MORGAN WISH TO GO THEN LET HIM GO AS LONG AS WE £25 TO 30 .
Surely we could get £100 quid for him. I think you are seriously undervaluing him.
[quote][p][bold]saint phil[/bold] wrote: IF MORGAN WISH TO GO THEN LET HIM GO AS LONG AS WE £25 TO 30 .[/p][/quote]Surely we could get £100 quid for him. I think you are seriously undervaluing him. SaintJD
  • Score: 4

12:43pm Tue 6 Jan 15

SaintJD says...

Chapperall wrote:
Ashley Young you must be having a laugh!
If it means having to save money do we can buy Anderweld and Bertram I can understand that and so will the supporters. However it's a difficult call as will they both sign up for a team that has a limited squad and therefore struggles during injuries and suspensions.
'And so will the supporters'. Are you trying to tell us something Chapperall?

Slightly surprised you are still carrying on with this thinly veiled negativity about our squad and continuing to suggest the board might have an agenda to save money or take money out of the club, because the evidence isn't there to back these assumptions.

Yes, our 'limited squad' lost a couple of games to some of the best teams in the league (narrowly and unluckily bar Manchester City), but the same limited squad then beat Everton and Arsenal and drew with the best team in the league (steamrollering Palace away somewhere in between).

What in your opinion defines a 'limited squad' anyway and who are you comparing us to to make that statement?

Find me a squad that would cope any better with our volume of injuries and you'll be left with maybe Chelsea and Man City, two of the richest, highest bankrolled clubs in the world.

So if you aren't happy with us sitting in fourth position and still find any reason to feel we are a poor relation you need to consider who you are supporting, because as a Saints fan our 'limited squad' is on the brink of making history.

Yes, aim high, want to compete, be ambitious, but give the board, management and players a bit more respect and credit for the amazing job they are doing.

After last summer I for one will understand and back any decisions made this January - it would be disrespectful and I'd have a very short memory not to trust their judgement 100%.

Same applies to Toby, Morgan and Ryan. I trust we'll do everything in our power to keep them all at the club and show them how much we want them, but I also trust the board won't do anything to keep them that will either disrupt the wage structure, team spirit, financial stability or what they are trying to build here.

I'd be interested on your take on the current situation at St Mary's and what you'd like the club to improve on/what you find frustrating about our current situation, because I can't see any reason not to give the club a 10 out of 10 rating for the season so far (based on our historical performance, not any ambitions of winning the league).
[quote][p][bold]Chapperall[/bold] wrote: Ashley Young you must be having a laugh! If it means having to save money do we can buy Anderweld and Bertram I can understand that and so will the supporters. However it's a difficult call as will they both sign up for a team that has a limited squad and therefore struggles during injuries and suspensions.[/p][/quote]'And so will the supporters'. Are you trying to tell us something Chapperall? Slightly surprised you are still carrying on with this thinly veiled negativity about our squad and continuing to suggest the board might have an agenda to save money or take money out of the club, because the evidence isn't there to back these assumptions. Yes, our 'limited squad' lost a couple of games to some of the best teams in the league (narrowly and unluckily bar Manchester City), but the same limited squad then beat Everton and Arsenal and drew with the best team in the league (steamrollering Palace away somewhere in between). What in your opinion defines a 'limited squad' anyway and who are you comparing us to to make that statement? Find me a squad that would cope any better with our volume of injuries and you'll be left with maybe Chelsea and Man City, two of the richest, highest bankrolled clubs in the world. So if you aren't happy with us sitting in fourth position and still find any reason to feel we are a poor relation you need to consider who you are supporting, because as a Saints fan our 'limited squad' is on the brink of making history. Yes, aim high, want to compete, be ambitious, but give the board, management and players a bit more respect and credit for the amazing job they are doing. After last summer I for one will understand and back any decisions made this January - it would be disrespectful and I'd have a very short memory not to trust their judgement 100%. Same applies to Toby, Morgan and Ryan. I trust we'll do everything in our power to keep them all at the club and show them how much we want them, but I also trust the board won't do anything to keep them that will either disrupt the wage structure, team spirit, financial stability or what they are trying to build here. I'd be interested on your take on the current situation at St Mary's and what you'd like the club to improve on/what you find frustrating about our current situation, because I can't see any reason not to give the club a 10 out of 10 rating for the season so far (based on our historical performance, not any ambitions of winning the league). SaintJD
  • Score: 6

2:25pm Tue 6 Jan 15

lowe esteem says...

Positive, Negative, English or Transatlantic whatever.

Still the know-nothing "Dream Teamers" thrive like rats, and will be disappointed with whatever happens in the "Post Fall transfer window"
I like that Saints are still second guessing these fools, as we did with Cortese, with the added bonus of also succeeding on and off the field, just where it counts, with those nice people Liebherr, Koeman and Co.

I also trust that Spider doesn't have another one of his rushes of Gallic (and Teutonic?) blood and miss being integral to our forthcoming European tour.
Positive, Negative, English or Transatlantic whatever. Still the know-nothing "Dream Teamers" thrive like rats, and will be disappointed with whatever happens in the "Post Fall transfer window" I like that Saints are still second guessing these fools, as we did with Cortese, with the added bonus of also succeeding on and off the field, just where it counts, with those nice people Liebherr, Koeman and Co. I also trust that Spider doesn't have another one of his rushes of Gallic (and Teutonic?) blood and miss being integral to our forthcoming European tour. lowe esteem
  • Score: 2

3:13pm Tue 6 Jan 15

Alicesdad says...

shesaint wrote:
cotswoldsaint wrote:
Dan Kerins wrote:
cotswoldsaint wrote:
Really DE, "semi annual"? Is that some sort of Americanism? What's wrong with biannual or, even better and less confusing, " twice-yearly"? I know it's being pedantic but these things are important to some of us.
Semi-annual is a perfectly acceptable term in standard English, which I chose as biannual is often confused with biennial by readers. "Semi" makes it clear it's every half year.

In fact, semi-annual is used more commonly and for longer than biannual, according to Google's excellent language history tools.
Dan, you make my point for me as Google is American and its language history tool is not the definitive reference for modern English usage. As a journalist and editor for more than 30 years, I find the use of "semi annual" jarring and certainly not commonly used in this context. In fact, I suspect it is more likely to refer to a plant that lives half a year. I also think it is a tad arrogant to presume your readers won't know the difference between "biannual" and "biennial" though, as I said, I accept that the terms can be confusing, which is why I suggest you use "twice-yearly". Much clearer, which is what good journalism should be all about.
Still, enough pedantry for one evening. Let's get back to the footy.
I for one always get biannual and biennial mixed up, but fully comprehend semi annual. Google may be an American search engine, but that doesn't necassarily mean that the articles found will be. What I cant understand is why someone with more than 30 years journalistic and editorial experience would even comment on another persons work. I was always taught that it was rude to do so. Maybe you could reference some of yours for us to read. Or better still, why don't we just stick to talking about the transfer rumours instead of trying for one up man ship.
I used to like the old Beano and Dandy annuals. The Valiant annual was also superb. They were not the same as biannuals or biennials and were definiteley not semi annuals. My Dad loved the Valiant annual too.

The worst case of "mis annualism" (I just invented that in case you wondered) I ever saw was in Florida where Disneyworld called it's ten year celebration a "Tencennial" . FFS When will the colonials stop b*ggering up our amazing language.

I also dislike the constant mispronunciation of the words harrassment and harrass. It does not sound like Her - rassment.
They should rhyme with embarrassment and embarrass but the dreaded colonial accent has created a mispronounced monster that many here are immitating. Its like that film Invasion of the Body Snatchers .. they are here they must be stopped .. listen to me I tell you listen before it's too late!!!

OK time for my meds .. nurse!! I'm out of bed again.

But you all know I'm right.
[quote][p][bold]shesaint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cotswoldsaint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Kerins[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cotswoldsaint[/bold] wrote: Really DE, "semi annual"? Is that some sort of Americanism? What's wrong with biannual or, even better and less confusing, " twice-yearly"? I know it's being pedantic but these things are important to some of us.[/p][/quote]Semi-annual is a perfectly acceptable term in standard English, which I chose as biannual is often confused with biennial by readers. "Semi" makes it clear it's every half year. In fact, semi-annual is used more commonly and for longer than biannual, according to Google's excellent language history tools.[/p][/quote]Dan, you make my point for me as Google is American and its language history tool is not the definitive reference for modern English usage. As a journalist and editor for more than 30 years, I find the use of "semi annual" jarring and certainly not commonly used in this context. In fact, I suspect it is more likely to refer to a plant that lives half a year. I also think it is a tad arrogant to presume your readers won't know the difference between "biannual" and "biennial" though, as I said, I accept that the terms can be confusing, which is why I suggest you use "twice-yearly". Much clearer, which is what good journalism should be all about. Still, enough pedantry for one evening. Let's get back to the footy.[/p][/quote]I for one always get biannual and biennial mixed up, but fully comprehend semi annual. Google may be an American search engine, but that doesn't necassarily mean that the articles found will be. What I cant understand is why someone with more than 30 years journalistic and editorial experience would even comment on another persons work. I was always taught that it was rude to do so. Maybe you could reference some of yours for us to read. Or better still, why don't we just stick to talking about the transfer rumours instead of trying for one up man ship.[/p][/quote]I used to like the old Beano and Dandy annuals. The Valiant annual was also superb. They were not the same as biannuals or biennials and were definiteley not semi annuals. My Dad loved the Valiant annual too. The worst case of "mis annualism" (I just invented that in case you wondered) I ever saw was in Florida where Disneyworld called it's ten year celebration a "Tencennial" . FFS When will the colonials stop b*ggering up our amazing language. I also dislike the constant mispronunciation of the words harrassment and harrass. It does not sound like Her - rassment. They should rhyme with embarrassment and embarrass but the dreaded colonial accent has created a mispronounced monster that many here are immitating. Its like that film Invasion of the Body Snatchers .. they are here they must be stopped .. listen to me I tell you listen before it's too late!!! OK time for my meds .. nurse!! I'm out of bed again. But you all know I'm right. Alicesdad
  • Score: 1

3:19pm Tue 6 Jan 15

Alicesdad says...

Alicesdad wrote:
shesaint wrote:
cotswoldsaint wrote:
Dan Kerins wrote:
cotswoldsaint wrote:
Really DE, "semi annual"? Is that some sort of Americanism? What's wrong with biannual or, even better and less confusing, " twice-yearly"? I know it's being pedantic but these things are important to some of us.
Semi-annual is a perfectly acceptable term in standard English, which I chose as biannual is often confused with biennial by readers. "Semi" makes it clear it's every half year.

In fact, semi-annual is used more commonly and for longer than biannual, according to Google's excellent language history tools.
Dan, you make my point for me as Google is American and its language history tool is not the definitive reference for modern English usage. As a journalist and editor for more than 30 years, I find the use of "semi annual" jarring and certainly not commonly used in this context. In fact, I suspect it is more likely to refer to a plant that lives half a year. I also think it is a tad arrogant to presume your readers won't know the difference between "biannual" and "biennial" though, as I said, I accept that the terms can be confusing, which is why I suggest you use "twice-yearly". Much clearer, which is what good journalism should be all about.
Still, enough pedantry for one evening. Let's get back to the footy.
I for one always get biannual and biennial mixed up, but fully comprehend semi annual. Google may be an American search engine, but that doesn't necassarily mean that the articles found will be. What I cant understand is why someone with more than 30 years journalistic and editorial experience would even comment on another persons work. I was always taught that it was rude to do so. Maybe you could reference some of yours for us to read. Or better still, why don't we just stick to talking about the transfer rumours instead of trying for one up man ship.
I used to like the old Beano and Dandy annuals. The Valiant annual was also superb. They were not the same as biannuals or biennials and were definiteley not semi annuals. My Dad loved the Valiant annual too.

The worst case of "mis annualism" (I just invented that in case you wondered) I ever saw was in Florida where Disneyworld called it's ten year celebration a "Tencennial" . FFS When will the colonials stop b*ggering up our amazing language.

I also dislike the constant mispronunciation of the words harrassment and harrass. It does not sound like Her - rassment.
They should rhyme with embarrassment and embarrass but the dreaded colonial accent has created a mispronounced monster that many here are immitating. Its like that film Invasion of the Body Snatchers .. they are here they must be stopped .. listen to me I tell you listen before it's too late!!!

OK time for my meds .. nurse!! I'm out of bed again.

But you all know I'm right.
I know , I know...

It should have been
- Definitely
- Harass
- Embarrassment
- Harassment
- Embarrass

Worse thing about being a know all is when you correct yourself.
[quote][p][bold]Alicesdad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shesaint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cotswoldsaint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Kerins[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cotswoldsaint[/bold] wrote: Really DE, "semi annual"? Is that some sort of Americanism? What's wrong with biannual or, even better and less confusing, " twice-yearly"? I know it's being pedantic but these things are important to some of us.[/p][/quote]Semi-annual is a perfectly acceptable term in standard English, which I chose as biannual is often confused with biennial by readers. "Semi" makes it clear it's every half year. In fact, semi-annual is used more commonly and for longer than biannual, according to Google's excellent language history tools.[/p][/quote]Dan, you make my point for me as Google is American and its language history tool is not the definitive reference for modern English usage. As a journalist and editor for more than 30 years, I find the use of "semi annual" jarring and certainly not commonly used in this context. In fact, I suspect it is more likely to refer to a plant that lives half a year. I also think it is a tad arrogant to presume your readers won't know the difference between "biannual" and "biennial" though, as I said, I accept that the terms can be confusing, which is why I suggest you use "twice-yearly". Much clearer, which is what good journalism should be all about. Still, enough pedantry for one evening. Let's get back to the footy.[/p][/quote]I for one always get biannual and biennial mixed up, but fully comprehend semi annual. Google may be an American search engine, but that doesn't necassarily mean that the articles found will be. What I cant understand is why someone with more than 30 years journalistic and editorial experience would even comment on another persons work. I was always taught that it was rude to do so. Maybe you could reference some of yours for us to read. Or better still, why don't we just stick to talking about the transfer rumours instead of trying for one up man ship.[/p][/quote]I used to like the old Beano and Dandy annuals. The Valiant annual was also superb. They were not the same as biannuals or biennials and were definiteley not semi annuals. My Dad loved the Valiant annual too. The worst case of "mis annualism" (I just invented that in case you wondered) I ever saw was in Florida where Disneyworld called it's ten year celebration a "Tencennial" . FFS When will the colonials stop b*ggering up our amazing language. I also dislike the constant mispronunciation of the words harrassment and harrass. It does not sound like Her - rassment. They should rhyme with embarrassment and embarrass but the dreaded colonial accent has created a mispronounced monster that many here are immitating. Its like that film Invasion of the Body Snatchers .. they are here they must be stopped .. listen to me I tell you listen before it's too late!!! OK time for my meds .. nurse!! I'm out of bed again. But you all know I'm right.[/p][/quote]I know , I know... It should have been - Definitely - Harass - Embarrassment - Harassment - Embarrass Worse thing about being a know all is when you correct yourself. Alicesdad
  • Score: 2

3:22pm Tue 6 Jan 15

SaintJD says...

Dan Kerins wrote:
cotswoldsaint wrote:
Really DE, "semi annual"? Is that some sort of Americanism? What's wrong with biannual or, even better and less confusing, " twice-yearly"? I know it's being pedantic but these things are important to some of us.
Semi-annual is a perfectly acceptable term in standard English, which I chose as biannual is often confused with biennial by readers. "Semi" makes it clear it's every half year.

In fact, semi-annual is used more commonly and for longer than biannual, according to Google's excellent language history tools.
Yes, but if you only have sex twice a year does that make you bi-sexual? Or if you contemplate something twice a year does that mean you're bi-curious?
[quote][p][bold]Dan Kerins[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cotswoldsaint[/bold] wrote: Really DE, "semi annual"? Is that some sort of Americanism? What's wrong with biannual or, even better and less confusing, " twice-yearly"? I know it's being pedantic but these things are important to some of us.[/p][/quote]Semi-annual is a perfectly acceptable term in standard English, which I chose as biannual is often confused with biennial by readers. "Semi" makes it clear it's every half year. In fact, semi-annual is used more commonly and for longer than biannual, according to Google's excellent language history tools.[/p][/quote]Yes, but if you only have sex twice a year does that make you bi-sexual? Or if you contemplate something twice a year does that mean you're bi-curious? SaintJD
  • Score: 6

4:22pm Tue 6 Jan 15

cotswoldsaint says...

shesaint wrote:
cotswoldsaint wrote:
Dan Kerins wrote:
cotswoldsaint wrote:
Really DE, "semi annual"? Is that some sort of Americanism? What's wrong with biannual or, even better and less confusing, " twice-yearly"? I know it's being pedantic but these things are important to some of us.
Semi-annual is a perfectly acceptable term in standard English, which I chose as biannual is often confused with biennial by readers. "Semi" makes it clear it's every half year.

In fact, semi-annual is used more commonly and for longer than biannual, according to Google's excellent language history tools.
Dan, you make my point for me as Google is American and its language history tool is not the definitive reference for modern English usage. As a journalist and editor for more than 30 years, I find the use of "semi annual" jarring and certainly not commonly used in this context. In fact, I suspect it is more likely to refer to a plant that lives half a year. I also think it is a tad arrogant to presume your readers won't know the difference between "biannual" and "biennial" though, as I said, I accept that the terms can be confusing, which is why I suggest you use "twice-yearly". Much clearer, which is what good journalism should be all about.
Still, enough pedantry for one evening. Let's get back to the footy.
I for one always get biannual and biennial mixed up, but fully comprehend semi annual. Google may be an American search engine, but that doesn't necassarily mean that the articles found will be. What I cant understand is why someone with more than 30 years journalistic and editorial experience would even comment on another persons work. I was always taught that it was rude to do so. Maybe you could reference some of yours for us to read. Or better still, why don't we just stick to talking about the transfer rumours instead of trying for one up man ship.
Oh dear, shesaint, I didn't realise this would prompt such a heated debate. Sorry if my efforts at constructive criticism have upset you but I'm entitled to an opinion as much as the next person, and I still think "semi annual" in this context is an unnecessary Americanism when there are far clearer and less ambiguous English alternatives. I'd be surprised if the editor of the DE thinks it is acceptable for his staff to rely on Google as the arbiter of correct English usage. As for rudeness, I'll leave that to you. I do agree with you on one thing, however...please let's get back to football.
[quote][p][bold]shesaint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cotswoldsaint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Kerins[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cotswoldsaint[/bold] wrote: Really DE, "semi annual"? Is that some sort of Americanism? What's wrong with biannual or, even better and less confusing, " twice-yearly"? I know it's being pedantic but these things are important to some of us.[/p][/quote]Semi-annual is a perfectly acceptable term in standard English, which I chose as biannual is often confused with biennial by readers. "Semi" makes it clear it's every half year. In fact, semi-annual is used more commonly and for longer than biannual, according to Google's excellent language history tools.[/p][/quote]Dan, you make my point for me as Google is American and its language history tool is not the definitive reference for modern English usage. As a journalist and editor for more than 30 years, I find the use of "semi annual" jarring and certainly not commonly used in this context. In fact, I suspect it is more likely to refer to a plant that lives half a year. I also think it is a tad arrogant to presume your readers won't know the difference between "biannual" and "biennial" though, as I said, I accept that the terms can be confusing, which is why I suggest you use "twice-yearly". Much clearer, which is what good journalism should be all about. Still, enough pedantry for one evening. Let's get back to the footy.[/p][/quote]I for one always get biannual and biennial mixed up, but fully comprehend semi annual. Google may be an American search engine, but that doesn't necassarily mean that the articles found will be. What I cant understand is why someone with more than 30 years journalistic and editorial experience would even comment on another persons work. I was always taught that it was rude to do so. Maybe you could reference some of yours for us to read. Or better still, why don't we just stick to talking about the transfer rumours instead of trying for one up man ship.[/p][/quote]Oh dear, shesaint, I didn't realise this would prompt such a heated debate. Sorry if my efforts at constructive criticism have upset you but I'm entitled to an opinion as much as the next person, and I still think "semi annual" in this context is an unnecessary Americanism when there are far clearer and less ambiguous English alternatives. I'd be surprised if the editor of the DE thinks it is acceptable for his staff to rely on Google as the arbiter of correct English usage. As for rudeness, I'll leave that to you. I do agree with you on one thing, however...please let's get back to football. cotswoldsaint
  • Score: 0

5:11pm Tue 6 Jan 15

SaintJD says...

cotswoldsaint wrote:
shesaint wrote:
cotswoldsaint wrote:
Dan Kerins wrote:
cotswoldsaint wrote:
Really DE, "semi annual"? Is that some sort of Americanism? What's wrong with biannual or, even better and less confusing, " twice-yearly"? I know it's being pedantic but these things are important to some of us.
Semi-annual is a perfectly acceptable term in standard English, which I chose as biannual is often confused with biennial by readers. "Semi" makes it clear it's every half year.

In fact, semi-annual is used more commonly and for longer than biannual, according to Google's excellent language history tools.
Dan, you make my point for me as Google is American and its language history tool is not the definitive reference for modern English usage. As a journalist and editor for more than 30 years, I find the use of "semi annual" jarring and certainly not commonly used in this context. In fact, I suspect it is more likely to refer to a plant that lives half a year. I also think it is a tad arrogant to presume your readers won't know the difference between "biannual" and "biennial" though, as I said, I accept that the terms can be confusing, which is why I suggest you use "twice-yearly". Much clearer, which is what good journalism should be all about.
Still, enough pedantry for one evening. Let's get back to the footy.
I for one always get biannual and biennial mixed up, but fully comprehend semi annual. Google may be an American search engine, but that doesn't necassarily mean that the articles found will be. What I cant understand is why someone with more than 30 years journalistic and editorial experience would even comment on another persons work. I was always taught that it was rude to do so. Maybe you could reference some of yours for us to read. Or better still, why don't we just stick to talking about the transfer rumours instead of trying for one up man ship.
Oh dear, shesaint, I didn't realise this would prompt such a heated debate. Sorry if my efforts at constructive criticism have upset you but I'm entitled to an opinion as much as the next person, and I still think "semi annual" in this context is an unnecessary Americanism when there are far clearer and less ambiguous English alternatives. I'd be surprised if the editor of the DE thinks it is acceptable for his staff to rely on Google as the arbiter of correct English usage. As for rudeness, I'll leave that to you. I do agree with you on one thing, however...please let's get back to football.
I'd be highly surprised if the Echo pays too much attention to grammar - times have changed in 30 years and, rightly or wrongly, it's about getting your story out fast, probably having found it on Twitter in the first place in extremely bad English.

Anyway, people tend to scan online content so the vast majority won't really care one way or the other.

In terms of clarity in online journalism, it's probably more important to keep it short (clearly I have a slight issue with this :)) and split up text with regular paragraph breaks than to have a great grasp of grammar.
[quote][p][bold]cotswoldsaint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]shesaint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cotswoldsaint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Kerins[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cotswoldsaint[/bold] wrote: Really DE, "semi annual"? Is that some sort of Americanism? What's wrong with biannual or, even better and less confusing, " twice-yearly"? I know it's being pedantic but these things are important to some of us.[/p][/quote]Semi-annual is a perfectly acceptable term in standard English, which I chose as biannual is often confused with biennial by readers. "Semi" makes it clear it's every half year. In fact, semi-annual is used more commonly and for longer than biannual, according to Google's excellent language history tools.[/p][/quote]Dan, you make my point for me as Google is American and its language history tool is not the definitive reference for modern English usage. As a journalist and editor for more than 30 years, I find the use of "semi annual" jarring and certainly not commonly used in this context. In fact, I suspect it is more likely to refer to a plant that lives half a year. I also think it is a tad arrogant to presume your readers won't know the difference between "biannual" and "biennial" though, as I said, I accept that the terms can be confusing, which is why I suggest you use "twice-yearly". Much clearer, which is what good journalism should be all about. Still, enough pedantry for one evening. Let's get back to the footy.[/p][/quote]I for one always get biannual and biennial mixed up, but fully comprehend semi annual. Google may be an American search engine, but that doesn't necassarily mean that the articles found will be. What I cant understand is why someone with more than 30 years journalistic and editorial experience would even comment on another persons work. I was always taught that it was rude to do so. Maybe you could reference some of yours for us to read. Or better still, why don't we just stick to talking about the transfer rumours instead of trying for one up man ship.[/p][/quote]Oh dear, shesaint, I didn't realise this would prompt such a heated debate. Sorry if my efforts at constructive criticism have upset you but I'm entitled to an opinion as much as the next person, and I still think "semi annual" in this context is an unnecessary Americanism when there are far clearer and less ambiguous English alternatives. I'd be surprised if the editor of the DE thinks it is acceptable for his staff to rely on Google as the arbiter of correct English usage. As for rudeness, I'll leave that to you. I do agree with you on one thing, however...please let's get back to football.[/p][/quote]I'd be highly surprised if the Echo pays too much attention to grammar - times have changed in 30 years and, rightly or wrongly, it's about getting your story out fast, probably having found it on Twitter in the first place in extremely bad English. Anyway, people tend to scan online content so the vast majority won't really care one way or the other. In terms of clarity in online journalism, it's probably more important to keep it short (clearly I have a slight issue with this :)) and split up text with regular paragraph breaks than to have a great grasp of grammar. SaintJD
  • Score: 0

6:51pm Tue 6 Jan 15

EastSussexSaint says...

J7junctionseven wrote:
J7junctionseven wrote:
Baddesley Bill wrote:
Dan Kerins wrote:
cotswoldsaint wrote:
Really DE, "semi annual"? Is that some sort of Americanism? What's wrong with biannual or, even better and less confusing, " twice-yearly"? I know it's being pedantic but these things are important to some of us.
Semi-annual is a perfectly acceptable term in standard English, which I chose as biannual is often confused with biennial by readers. "Semi" makes it clear it's every half year.

In fact, semi-annual is used more commonly and for longer than biannual, according to Google's excellent language history tools.
Hi Dan, there's a rumour that the wum "boat builder" may be transferred off these threads during the window. Any truth to this?
Beat me to it ......no answer from Dan yet though????
Maybe you should ask it again but use some American terminology....that might get a response..:o)
COYR
Howdy Danno
You ain't dog gone an answered this guy Bills question yet buddy.
Shoot....we's all waiting for yo to give an affirmative answer to the guy coz the guy he's talking about is lower than a rattle snakes belly and the rest of the posse are staring to get twitchy trigger fingers.
Come on Marshall do your job and clean up this town!!
Hi Ho Silver ......Away!!
Best post of the day.....Quality :--)
[quote][p][bold]J7junctionseven[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]J7junctionseven[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Baddesley Bill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Kerins[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cotswoldsaint[/bold] wrote: Really DE, "semi annual"? Is that some sort of Americanism? What's wrong with biannual or, even better and less confusing, " twice-yearly"? I know it's being pedantic but these things are important to some of us.[/p][/quote]Semi-annual is a perfectly acceptable term in standard English, which I chose as biannual is often confused with biennial by readers. "Semi" makes it clear it's every half year. In fact, semi-annual is used more commonly and for longer than biannual, according to Google's excellent language history tools.[/p][/quote]Hi Dan, there's a rumour that the wum "boat builder" may be transferred off these threads during the window. Any truth to this?[/p][/quote]Beat me to it ......no answer from Dan yet though???? Maybe you should ask it again but use some American terminology....that might get a response..:o) COYR[/p][/quote]Howdy Danno You ain't dog gone an answered this guy Bills question yet buddy. Shoot....we's all waiting for yo to give an affirmative answer to the guy coz the guy he's talking about is lower than a rattle snakes belly and the rest of the posse are staring to get twitchy trigger fingers. Come on Marshall do your job and clean up this town!! Hi Ho Silver ......Away!![/p][/quote]Best post of the day.....Quality :--) EastSussexSaint
  • Score: -1

11:11am Sat 10 Jan 15

Chapperall says...

InsideOutCat wrote:
Dan Kerins wrote:
cotswoldsaint wrote:
Really DE, "semi annual"? Is that some sort of Americanism? What's wrong with biannual or, even better and less confusing, " twice-yearly"? I know it's being pedantic but these things are important to some of us.
Semi-annual is a perfectly acceptable term in standard English, which I chose as biannual is often confused with biennial by readers. "Semi" makes it clear it's every half year.

In fact, semi-annual is used more commonly and for longer than biannual, according to Google's excellent language history tools.
"Google" and "excellent language"? Isn't that an oxymoron to rival "Police Intelligence" and "Microsoft Works"? I know language evolves but we don't all have to start speaking like twenty-something Californian internet nerds.
Sorry but do we really care!
[quote][p][bold]InsideOutCat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dan Kerins[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cotswoldsaint[/bold] wrote: Really DE, "semi annual"? Is that some sort of Americanism? What's wrong with biannual or, even better and less confusing, " twice-yearly"? I know it's being pedantic but these things are important to some of us.[/p][/quote]Semi-annual is a perfectly acceptable term in standard English, which I chose as biannual is often confused with biennial by readers. "Semi" makes it clear it's every half year. In fact, semi-annual is used more commonly and for longer than biannual, according to Google's excellent language history tools.[/p][/quote]"Google" and "excellent language"? Isn't that an oxymoron to rival "Police Intelligence" and "Microsoft Works"? I know language evolves but we don't all have to start speaking like twenty-something Californian internet nerds.[/p][/quote]Sorry but do we really care! Chapperall
  • Score: 1

4:33pm Sat 10 Jan 15

hates the skates says...

Harry kane? Really? As much as I would love him I doubt spuds would sale us the player who's goals would propel us into the champions league and them not!!!! We do need a striker though. Danny ings would be great but he isn't willing to leave Burnley until the end of the season but I have thought a lot this season he would thrive at saints. And would be the difference between a good chance to a great chance of finishing in the top 4.
Harry kane? Really? As much as I would love him I doubt spuds would sale us the player who's goals would propel us into the champions league and them not!!!! We do need a striker though. Danny ings would be great but he isn't willing to leave Burnley until the end of the season but I have thought a lot this season he would thrive at saints. And would be the difference between a good chance to a great chance of finishing in the top 4. hates the skates
  • Score: 0

5:58pm Mon 12 Jan 15

allsaintsnocurves says...

Saints won't be letting anyone go in January as we now know that a top 6 place is very realistic so the money has to be made available to strengthen were we need it to give us the best chance of making it.

We don't want to be slipping down the league thinking what could have been because of injuries / suspensions to key players.

We need another defender urgently now that Toby is out for a bit and to cover Yoshida. We also need a forward to protect Pele and help contribute with goals. I can't see many more than that coming in unless they are loans. Midfield is looking strong now and we have McCarthy coming through with Reed and Isgrove to freshen things up there. Targett is good cover at left back but we need another right back and centre half or one who can play both. Defense and Attack we don't have the Academy players quite ready.
Saints won't be letting anyone go in January as we now know that a top 6 place is very realistic so the money has to be made available to strengthen were we need it to give us the best chance of making it. We don't want to be slipping down the league thinking what could have been because of injuries / suspensions to key players. We need another defender urgently now that Toby is out for a bit and to cover Yoshida. We also need a forward to protect Pele and help contribute with goals. I can't see many more than that coming in unless they are loans. Midfield is looking strong now and we have McCarthy coming through with Reed and Isgrove to freshen things up there. Targett is good cover at left back but we need another right back and centre half or one who can play both. Defense and Attack we don't have the Academy players quite ready. allsaintsnocurves
  • Score: 0

6:40pm Mon 12 Jan 15

Chapperall says...

SaintJD wrote:
Chapperall wrote:
Ashley Young you must be having a laugh!
If it means having to save money do we can buy Anderweld and Bertram I can understand that and so will the supporters. However it's a difficult call as will they both sign up for a team that has a limited squad and therefore struggles during injuries and suspensions.
'And so will the supporters'. Are you trying to tell us something Chapperall?

Slightly surprised you are still carrying on with this thinly veiled negativity about our squad and continuing to suggest the board might have an agenda to save money or take money out of the club, because the evidence isn't there to back these assumptions.

Yes, our 'limited squad' lost a couple of games to some of the best teams in the league (narrowly and unluckily bar Manchester City), but the same limited squad then beat Everton and Arsenal and drew with the best team in the league (steamrollering Palace away somewhere in between).

What in your opinion defines a 'limited squad' anyway and who are you comparing us to to make that statement?

Find me a squad that would cope any better with our volume of injuries and you'll be left with maybe Chelsea and Man City, two of the richest, highest bankrolled clubs in the world.

So if you aren't happy with us sitting in fourth position and still find any reason to feel we are a poor relation you need to consider who you are supporting, because as a Saints fan our 'limited squad' is on the brink of making history.

Yes, aim high, want to compete, be ambitious, but give the board, management and players a bit more respect and credit for the amazing job they are doing.

After last summer I for one will understand and back any decisions made this January - it would be disrespectful and I'd have a very short memory not to trust their judgement 100%.

Same applies to Toby, Morgan and Ryan. I trust we'll do everything in our power to keep them all at the club and show them how much we want them, but I also trust the board won't do anything to keep them that will either disrupt the wage structure, team spirit, financial stability or what they are trying to build here.

I'd be interested on your take on the current situation at St Mary's and what you'd like the club to improve on/what you find frustrating about our current situation, because I can't see any reason not to give the club a 10 out of 10 rating for the season so far (based on our historical performance, not any ambitions of winning the league).
Oh how good it must be to be so righteous. However if you had read my comments properly. What I was trying to say was that if they had limited funds I would rather them use them on Anderweld and Bertram. I'm sorry but I can't see anything negative in these comments.
However I don't want to get into the usual slanging match, but just wanted to say that I am a lifetime Saints supporter and find your comments insulting.
[quote][p][bold]SaintJD[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Chapperall[/bold] wrote: Ashley Young you must be having a laugh! If it means having to save money do we can buy Anderweld and Bertram I can understand that and so will the supporters. However it's a difficult call as will they both sign up for a team that has a limited squad and therefore struggles during injuries and suspensions.[/p][/quote]'And so will the supporters'. Are you trying to tell us something Chapperall? Slightly surprised you are still carrying on with this thinly veiled negativity about our squad and continuing to suggest the board might have an agenda to save money or take money out of the club, because the evidence isn't there to back these assumptions. Yes, our 'limited squad' lost a couple of games to some of the best teams in the league (narrowly and unluckily bar Manchester City), but the same limited squad then beat Everton and Arsenal and drew with the best team in the league (steamrollering Palace away somewhere in between). What in your opinion defines a 'limited squad' anyway and who are you comparing us to to make that statement? Find me a squad that would cope any better with our volume of injuries and you'll be left with maybe Chelsea and Man City, two of the richest, highest bankrolled clubs in the world. So if you aren't happy with us sitting in fourth position and still find any reason to feel we are a poor relation you need to consider who you are supporting, because as a Saints fan our 'limited squad' is on the brink of making history. Yes, aim high, want to compete, be ambitious, but give the board, management and players a bit more respect and credit for the amazing job they are doing. After last summer I for one will understand and back any decisions made this January - it would be disrespectful and I'd have a very short memory not to trust their judgement 100%. Same applies to Toby, Morgan and Ryan. I trust we'll do everything in our power to keep them all at the club and show them how much we want them, but I also trust the board won't do anything to keep them that will either disrupt the wage structure, team spirit, financial stability or what they are trying to build here. I'd be interested on your take on the current situation at St Mary's and what you'd like the club to improve on/what you find frustrating about our current situation, because I can't see any reason not to give the club a 10 out of 10 rating for the season so far (based on our historical performance, not any ambitions of winning the league).[/p][/quote]Oh how good it must be to be so righteous. However if you had read my comments properly. What I was trying to say was that if they had limited funds I would rather them use them on Anderweld and Bertram. I'm sorry but I can't see anything negative in these comments. However I don't want to get into the usual slanging match, but just wanted to say that I am a lifetime Saints supporter and find your comments insulting. Chapperall
  • Score: 2

12:09am Tue 13 Jan 15

firedowser says...

SaintRachel wrote:
Surely Harry Kane would be more than 10m, especially if anyone would even consider paying 12m for Jordan Rhodes? Actually, I don't believe Poch would let him go right now anyway - he clearly rates him highly and he's scoring goals
Kane is the only asset that the exceptionally inept spurs have stopping them dropping out of the PL. Way to go Poch 😅
[quote][p][bold]SaintRachel[/bold] wrote: Surely Harry Kane would be more than 10m, especially if anyone would even consider paying 12m for Jordan Rhodes? Actually, I don't believe Poch would let him go right now anyway - he clearly rates him highly and he's scoring goals[/p][/quote]Kane is the only asset that the exceptionally inept spurs have stopping them dropping out of the PL. Way to go Poch 😅 firedowser
  • Score: 1

12:10am Tue 13 Jan 15

firedowser says...

SaintRachel wrote:
Surely Harry Kane would be more than 10m, especially if anyone would even consider paying 12m for Jordan Rhodes? Actually, I don't believe Poch would let him go right now anyway - he clearly rates him highly and he's scoring goals
Kane is the only asset that the exceptionally inept spurs have stopping them dropping out of the PL. Way to go Poch 😅
[quote][p][bold]SaintRachel[/bold] wrote: Surely Harry Kane would be more than 10m, especially if anyone would even consider paying 12m for Jordan Rhodes? Actually, I don't believe Poch would let him go right now anyway - he clearly rates him highly and he's scoring goals[/p][/quote]Kane is the only asset that the exceptionally inept spurs have stopping them dropping out of the PL. Way to go Poch 😅 firedowser
  • Score: 1

10:14am Tue 13 Jan 15

warrens 76 says...

firedowser wrote:
SaintRachel wrote:
Surely Harry Kane would be more than 10m, especially if anyone would even consider paying 12m for Jordan Rhodes? Actually, I don't believe Poch would let him go right now anyway - he clearly rates him highly and he's scoring goals
Kane is the only asset that the exceptionally inept spurs have stopping them dropping out of the PL. Way to go Poch 😅
I think Kane is in a purple patch, reminds me of Beattie sure he is scoring at present but form is temporary class permanant and i do not think he is world class.
[quote][p][bold]firedowser[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SaintRachel[/bold] wrote: Surely Harry Kane would be more than 10m, especially if anyone would even consider paying 12m for Jordan Rhodes? Actually, I don't believe Poch would let him go right now anyway - he clearly rates him highly and he's scoring goals[/p][/quote]Kane is the only asset that the exceptionally inept spurs have stopping them dropping out of the PL. Way to go Poch 😅[/p][/quote]I think Kane is in a purple patch, reminds me of Beattie sure he is scoring at present but form is temporary class permanant and i do not think he is world class. warrens 76
  • Score: 0

11:34am Thu 15 Jan 15

DellBoy2 says...

allsaintsnocurves wrote:
Saints won't be letting anyone go in January as we now know that a top 6 place is very realistic so the money has to be made available to strengthen were we need it to give us the best chance of making it.

We don't want to be slipping down the league thinking what could have been because of injuries / suspensions to key players.

We need another defender urgently now that Toby is out for a bit and to cover Yoshida. We also need a forward to protect Pele and help contribute with goals. I can't see many more than that coming in unless they are loans. Midfield is looking strong now and we have McCarthy coming through with Reed and Isgrove to freshen things up there. Targett is good cover at left back but we need another right back and centre half or one who can play both. Defense and Attack we don't have the Academy players quite ready.
Remember we still have a surplus from the cash received in the summer as against what we spent on purchases. AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, we haven't touched the TV INCOME money.
[quote][p][bold]allsaintsnocurves[/bold] wrote: Saints won't be letting anyone go in January as we now know that a top 6 place is very realistic so the money has to be made available to strengthen were we need it to give us the best chance of making it. We don't want to be slipping down the league thinking what could have been because of injuries / suspensions to key players. We need another defender urgently now that Toby is out for a bit and to cover Yoshida. We also need a forward to protect Pele and help contribute with goals. I can't see many more than that coming in unless they are loans. Midfield is looking strong now and we have McCarthy coming through with Reed and Isgrove to freshen things up there. Targett is good cover at left back but we need another right back and centre half or one who can play both. Defense and Attack we don't have the Academy players quite ready.[/p][/quote]Remember we still have a surplus from the cash received in the summer as against what we spent on purchases. AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, we haven't touched the TV INCOME money. DellBoy2
  • Score: 1

5:47pm Tue 20 Jan 15

billycake says...

John Gillham wrote:
Jordan Rhodes 12m? That's 10m too much. He's Championship and no more. Our young ones are better than that.
What!
[quote][p][bold]John Gillham[/bold] wrote: Jordan Rhodes 12m? That's 10m too much. He's Championship and no more. Our young ones are better than that.[/p][/quote]What! billycake
  • Score: 0

8:42pm Tue 20 Jan 15

StElsass says...

DellBoy2 wrote:
allsaintsnocurves wrote:
Saints won't be letting anyone go in January as we now know that a top 6 place is very realistic so the money has to be made available to strengthen were we need it to give us the best chance of making it.

We don't want to be slipping down the league thinking what could have been because of injuries / suspensions to key players.

We need another defender urgently now that Toby is out for a bit and to cover Yoshida. We also need a forward to protect Pele and help contribute with goals. I can't see many more than that coming in unless they are loans. Midfield is looking strong now and we have McCarthy coming through with Reed and Isgrove to freshen things up there. Targett is good cover at left back but we need another right back and centre half or one who can play both. Defense and Attack we don't have the Academy players quite ready.
Remember we still have a surplus from the cash received in the summer as against what we spent on purchases. AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, we haven't touched the TV INCOME money.
How do you know we haven't touched the TV income money?
[quote][p][bold]DellBoy2[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]allsaintsnocurves[/bold] wrote: Saints won't be letting anyone go in January as we now know that a top 6 place is very realistic so the money has to be made available to strengthen were we need it to give us the best chance of making it. We don't want to be slipping down the league thinking what could have been because of injuries / suspensions to key players. We need another defender urgently now that Toby is out for a bit and to cover Yoshida. We also need a forward to protect Pele and help contribute with goals. I can't see many more than that coming in unless they are loans. Midfield is looking strong now and we have McCarthy coming through with Reed and Isgrove to freshen things up there. Targett is good cover at left back but we need another right back and centre half or one who can play both. Defense and Attack we don't have the Academy players quite ready.[/p][/quote]Remember we still have a surplus from the cash received in the summer as against what we spent on purchases. AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, we haven't touched the TV INCOME money.[/p][/quote]How do you know we haven't touched the TV income money? StElsass
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree