mattsbignose

Context is everything. Back to back games, 120 minutes against the best opposition in the world and the pressure of knowing success would mean your country going through. No wonder some buckled, I bet it was all he could do to even walk to the spot and Neuer did look huge!

I'm just wondering what he should say instead? That we don't want a high calibre of manager and one who doesn't fit into the structure and ethos of the club? That language is pretty normal for any executive recruitment scenario if you set aside the football connotations. I think it is pretty obvious what the plan for the club is: 1. To continue to gradually improve year on year and to become a fixture of the European competition scene 2. To develop our own talent and scout for replacement players in order to achieve point 1 above 3. To become financially self-sufficient through a combination of 1 and 2 above. That is going to mean that we need to be getting used to a shorter shelf life for both players and managers; yet for those used to MLT, Franny and Jason Dodd et al that is quite a departure. Last year when we failed to land Toby, I thought we had dropped a clanger but now do we hear much about that given the season VVD has had? I am now interested to see who we get in next given we scout managers and players by all accounts.

Will be fun to see more Man Utd biased papers releasing news about them being linked to Harry Kane in the next few weeks. Can't help but think that Morgan looks miles off the pace; but as had been said previously, this really isn't the game to judge anyone. Already getting bored of Alli as the new England messiah! I know he played down the road but Diarra still looks like he could do a job if anyone needs an experienced head. Ryan on for Kane, shame they haven't put him up front for a bit of a laugh.

Got to say I have just watched it again and no, thought he spoke a lot of sense and was praising us and said we were fully deserving of the result so not sure what part you are referring to if I'm honest.

I really don't see the point of having a rivalry if you never play them. Whilst it is nice being in the Premier League against the likes of Manchester United etc, I want to beat them and have the bragging rights. In an ideal world, Pompey, Bournemouth, Brighton and Reading would be in the top division; much better than the likes of Sunderland.

Good article in yesterday's Times from Matthew Parris of all people asking what exactly is Labour standing for these days? Obviously it had some Tory bias in it, but it is a valid point; one that I think Hockey was coming from. While Blair had unrivalled success with a Labour government, it was definitely centre left; perhaps a perception it was almost centre right. At least, that was how I interpreted his words. David Milliband would have continued with this theme, Corbyn probably won't but he isn't stupid, he will know that the Corbyn of the back benches cannot be the same person who is going to be the leader. Compromise within the party and his policy will be the name of the game, choosing policies that he can be more radical with, in the same way that Cameron has to keep the various factions onside within his party over Europe for example. Trident will be an interesting one, rail and energy are others. I am quite looking forward to it, of course, one the others could always win but it promises to be fun.

Better than Ed, yes, better than the smarmy Tory's, I hope so. Recent pictures of him, not staged I hasten to add, travelling by bus and tube certainly add to his appeal. I think Dave's act of being for the people will wear off and they will show their true colours; namely backing their mate's in the banking industry etc. For example, I think Corbyn could have articulated a pretty decent response to the selling of our stake in the Lloyd's group. At the time it makes a profit of £2.1bn in the six months leading up to June, for the sum of £3.2bn, Osborne sells off 6%. If I were him, I would want to question the logic of that; wouldn't you? Who buys that amount of shares? I doubt it is the likes of you or I, it is hedge funds and investment banks, exactly the same people who donate to the Conservatives.

Miliband was unelectable as a personality; let's be realistic, he was bereft of any charisma and how many votes are won and lost on the perception of the leader over policy. This time around, we will have had five years of unadulterated Tory rule, no deflection onto the Lib Dems so we can see them in their true colours. As for the boundary changes, you think they are designed to make it a fairer process or to enhance any other parties opportunity to win other than the Tory's?

Assuming he gets elected, then he will have five years worth of Tory rule to attack and let's be honest, there will be plenty of material for him. With Cameron, Osborne, Gove and Hunt in place, you're surely guaranteed a whole raft of easy pickings. He needs to campaign on the nationalisation of the railways, maintaining the NHS and ensuring corporations and the uber rich pay the correct levels of tax. This doesn't mean tax rises across the board but closing the loopholes and requiring companies other than sole traders to publish their tax contributions. He also needs to, like the SNP did successfully, tap into social media and mobilise the disenchanted and disengaged young voters. His main hurdles are: The media - very Tory biased Boundary changes - designed to enhance Tory marginal Scotland - to convince the Scots they are better served by Labour rather than the SNP; and Lack of lieutenants - has not got a great deal of quality on the opposition benches

We paid good money for him so my first thought is that we are going to want to see a substantial return on our investment and £15m is not it. Second thought is that he is one season into a four year deal so the club hold the aces on that score and while not having the reputation of Levy, Les is still pretty tough. No-one has really left on the cheap, even Clyne was ok given the contract tenure. The only weakness is the player himself; hence the media involvement. He can put pressure on Saints to move him on by being totally disruptive and let's be honest, Man Utd are the biggest club in the country so why wouldn't he want to go? Forget the stuff about loyalty, he signed the contract etc, this is a tough business. I would like us to say of course we are willing to sell, the price is £40m, paid upfront, and if you have the money Mr Woodward, you can get a flight from Manchester to Southampton on Flybe.

Usual nonsense from Lawro. Keep it tight for the first half an hour, those fantastic Geordie supporters will soon turn on their team and hit them on the break. 0-2. We have had two semi competitive games winning 5-0 over two legs in EL qualifying and they tuned up by losing to York City. The EL may take it's toll later in the season but for now, I would say we are more match sharp then they are.

I will at least try to put forward another side to the debate; as it is, in my opinion, about growing organically. No matter what we think, financially we cannot compete with the top clubs on the wage front and it is the wages that load the middle of the P&L with effectively what become fixed costs; hence why we are trying to grow our commercial income. Our model has to be to continue to try and find value in the market place through smart buying overseas and our academy development. This model does mean however that we will continue to have our top talent picked off. I believe the club did what it could do to entice the likes of Clyne and Toby to stay but the contractual situations meant that was always a tough ask. With Clyne, I think the club had to balance one more season with him and leaving on a free or take the money and negotiate as much as we could. Athletico and Toby was a different situation and one that has been covered to death on here so won't bore everyone with that again. When you look at Morgan, he was always going to leave, I was surprised it was to Man Utd but there you go. In addition to the c£25m transfer fee, he must be on a minimum £90k a week in wages. Even if we were to match the wages, I would say that that is pretty much unsustainable if we were to attempt to pay the transfer, those sort of wages for two or three players as you suggest; as that would be the best part of £45m for a four year contract each! There is also the question as to whether or not we could sign that type of player at all. I remember us signing Kevin Keegan so it has been done before but not sure even Koeman could raid Barcelona for Messi! I know someone accused me of a Dell-type mentality previously, but I think it is more a pragmatic approach based on some basic business acumen. Personally I am enjoying the last few years as not all of my 40 years as a Saints fan has been quite so positive.

I agree with one or two lines but my interpretation is very different. Yes we have a burgeoning worldwide reputation for identifying and developing talent and selling it on. That is a positive, not a negative. The better we become, the more attractive we are to the elite of European young talent. No matter what you would like to believe, that is where we are, always have been, always will be but if we are to attempt to challenge consistently, this way allows us to grow at a slower, more controlled rate with no boom and bust. In all our years as a club, we have only won the FA Cup once. Challenging for La Decima we are not. Look at our business this summer so far. Clyne out, Cedric in plus enough money to pay his wages for the duration of the contract. Morgan to Man Utd, Jordy Clasie in, with enough to cover his wages and Juanmi's for their entire contracts. The risk is that the players we have signed are swiftly and effectively integrated and as successful as those they have replaced but all are current internationals, of the right age. I'm not quite sure what you, and others are expecting to be honest? The players that have left have gone to more prestigious clubs, with bigger stadiums and has resulted in bigger bank accounts if nothing else. We are selling our players, for top money in most cases, to the traditional powerhouses of the English game over the last 40 plus years; not to our rivals from a resource perspective. From memory, management theory of Porter's Five Forces discusses the barriers to entry of the market place. In English football, it is the ability to consistently fund the buying and more importantly, the wages for the top players in the league. Unless we take on an entirely high risk approach of matching the wages on offer of the six clubs who finished above us last season, then we are always going to be losing our players to them, as much as that may frustrate and annoy us! European football, top half of the table finish and a good cup run and I would suggest that that is a pretty decent season.

All strikers go through barren times, the difference is the very best ones have them less often. They also have a high chance/conversion ratio but those that belong in this category don't cost £9m ish. Given this was his first season with us, in a new league and he had to play most games due to lack of competition, he did bloody well! He also offers the physicality, link up and holding play that hopefully means that the likes of Mane can exploit the space that he creates by attracting the attention of the opposition's centre backs. Perhaps Gallagher can take some of the workload off of him but otherwise, I can only see us either playing a fast front three to counter attack or we flog him into the ground.

Despite the bickering, some interesting points. Saints are having to have medium to long term goals to regularly challenge for the top four/six places because of the financial position of relative clubs. Unfortunately, that time frame means our first choice players are at risk to being transfer targets for those clubs with bigger spending power than us; particularly when it comes to wages. While those clubs do lose players to their rivals, it is rarely regular first team players; unless the contract situation determines a sale or a ridiculous bid comes in. Mata, remember, cost something like £38m for Man Utd to buy him from Chelsea and he wasn't Jose's preferred option, despite being their player of the year. Secondly, the money that comes from the television deals mean that we are in a situation where we can scout Europe and other smaller clubs in the pyramid and sign players from them instead, taking their first team choices. What we don't have however, is the ability to say no and keep our players if the big clubs want them. If £25m was offered for Morgan last year, rather than the rumoured £10m from Spurs, would he too of gone? Of course, now that we are in a stable financial position, we won't be selling without negotiating a lot harder than when we were selling the likes of Bale, Walcott and Oxlade-Chamberlain. In summary, I think it is always going to be difficult to consistently threaten the Champions League places and we will start to be challenged by WHU when they have their new ground; Everton, who can't possibly be as bad again and Swansea who rival us as the best run club in the country IMO. All in all though, it's not a bad position to be in and I doubt anyone could have predicted where we find ourselves now compared to the turmoil of our days in administration! If anyone would have said back then that we would be debating over how to consistently challenge the best teams in the land the men in white suits would have come to take you away!