um pahars

Suggesting you need to be a politician may not be a good analogy, given their record on turthfulness. But quite simply, if you're going to accuse Euell of things, then you could at least try and get them right, particularly in this case where the original claim was so clear cut.

That's far too many words to say, "I was wrong". LOL.

Amazingly, there's still one or two on here (see Up & Away's contributions last night), who still believe we're in with the Youth for the long term and there has been no discernable change of style/tactic/strategy in recent weeks!!!! I can only pray that Lowe is not one of them and it is not his intention to give it another go come the summer when we're safe. That's what worries me, in that I fear Lowe will really be really smarting now and even more determined to be proved right, and judging by his past inability to learn from his mistakes he should be taken out of the decision making process as soon as this season comes to a close.

I presume no one has yet got round to mentioning this to Wotte then!!!!

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the concept of financial management doesn't stand, but you cannot ignore that Wotte has adopted a much different approach to what goes on on the pitch than what we experienced in those first 28 games. And as for Stern, then Poortvliet was not happy to use John and John was marginalised from day one. At one time the lad now at Bournemouth got picked ahead of him as Poortvliet felt John did not fit in with his style of play. He even said that when John left and said City's 4-4-2 style of play would suit him better. But by keeping one of the strikers we would not have been increasing our wage bill, instead we would not have been decreasing it as much (subtle but different). And to compensate for that we could have reduced our outgoings on signing players (i.e. the Schneiderlin fee), our outgoings on other wages (Pekhart, Gasmi, Robertson, Pulis, Smith, Forecast etc). And then of course that is even before we get on to the flase economy and the £££££'s in lost revenues due to falling attendances. Like many things in business (e.g. are Marketing spends effective), whilst it might be difficult to categorically prove 100%, there is no doubt that there is a link between quality, success and attendances. We cut and cut and cut and found ourselves in a cycle of decline. In so much as we are in an overdraft position with Barclay's then you can be sure that they funded him. And whilst his wages will not be half that of Saga (maybe even a quarter), his fee would easily have covered Saga's wages. IMHO it's all about priorities and acquiring a potential young starlet who might make us a few bucks in a couple of years was not a priority when the alternative was David McGoaldrought playing up front. Barclays would probably have much preferred a £30,000 a month cheque made payable to Saganowski, than a one off lump sum payable to Strasbourg. The overall context may have been dictated by Barclay's, but within those constraints we have power of control over which decisions we make (within reason of course). The Schneiderlin fee shows we had room for manouevure, as did the other loans and signings made (along with associated agents fees etc). You could take it even further and suggest trading in Lallana and/or Surman and reinvesting that money elsewhere. Not necessarily something I would have advocated, but we had a number of different strategies we could have adopted. Additionally, the single biggest influence on a team is the manager, and we had choices there. With Poortvliet, we simply chose the wrong man.

I don't know what website you've been reading, because on his Official one he is quite clear that he is aware that he is being frozen out due to our financial position: " frozen out of the team, then left out of the squad entirely for last Saturday’s game at Barnsley, in the hope that I will be sold off to ease Southampton’s financial problems." To say he was whingeing about having no idea why he was being forced out is patently untrue.

Although I can see where you're coming from, I do think that's a little unfair. At the start of almost every season fans up and down the country go into the new season with a degree of optimism, almost blind faith if you want, but that's what being an irrational fan is all about. I'm sure supporters had their concerns, but you want it to work and you hope that this is the one season where it all comes off.

The use of the Senior players is a massive change. And isn't there a contradiction here in that Poortvliet didn't play them because of playing bonuses, yet Wotte is now free to play them (and pay their appearance bonuses)??? And from what we have seen on the pitch and from what we have heard from his own mouth, the managers style is a big change from what we have seen before (and a good job too). The bank will not have any say with regards day to day issues. Of course they will have to be consulted if we want to sign someone and extend the overdraft, but the agreement between the Club and the bank will be with regards the cashflow and in particular the troughs in funding throughout the year. There will be a number of milestones to achieve and restrictions on how much we can borrow, but we could easily have not spent the money on Shcneiderlin and instead utilised it to fund Saga's wages. Of course we must work within the financial constraints we are faced with, but that does not mean every decision we have made has been the only way we could have done things. (and as someone else has pointed out, a big factor in your cash flow projections are "revenues" and the route we went down was a serious false economy with regards the top line)

In which case you must be a masochist!!!! One win at home and some truly terrible performances, including losing regularly to our relegation rivals was not enjoyable to me. Of the 14 or so home games, I reckon I walked out happy three times.

Still went up under Crouch;) (and that's even if I let you knock the Sheff Utd game off!!!! but then you could ask to knock the opening game off from the other side as that was a big gate). It's an average and that's what averages are all about, and Sundance's/Canteen's claim that attendances went down under Crouch does not stand up to scrutiny (much like most of the other stuff he comes out with as well;)).

Average attendance for the 11 games prior to Crouch's reappointment in Dec 2007 20,585 Average attendance for the 12 games under Crouch from Dec 2007 to May 2008 21867 If you're going to make such claims, then at least check they stand up to scrutiny.

I don't think anyone is!! If anything, people have been supportive of those youngsters who have been put in a position that they are not yet ready for. Over and above expressing normal opinions about any player who pulls on a Saints shirt, I don't think any animosity has been directed at the younger players who are the innocent party in this naive experiment.

50/50 for me. A little bit more positive as would be expected after the last two results, but I think this will go right down to the last game.

I think the rewriting of history is by those who are now trying to claim the Poortvliet experience wasn't that bad and was showing signs of improvement!!!! As for your last part, I don't think anyone is claiming all you need is experienced pros, as most know it is more to it than that, not least having a manager more suited to Saints than Salisbury!!!!

Schneiderlin's fees, agents fees, wages & add ons for the various players who have never featured, same again for the loanees, various other decisions to spend money (i.e. not letting Webster go, paying off Poortvliet???). Then of course we have the thousands lost in revenues as attendances fall away as we fail to win, dur to us failing to score giving rise to a false economy!!!!!! Financial constraints certainly dictated things, but IMHO not to the extent that they dictated we had to go down the exact path we did. We had choices, and we simply made the wrong decisions.

Would like to haver another look at that one as my view was partially blocked, but you're right in that it also looked a good shout.

Options, alternatives, trade offs and false economies.

I winced again after watching that link (thanks for the link). Can see why it wasn't given (arguably ball to hand), but also wouldn't have been too upset if it had.

You got a YouTube link?????

Some very, very salient points there.

Yeah, there was a melee in the penalty area and the ball looped up and then it just dropped on Perry's already outstretched arm. Everyone around us were certainly wincing.

As for being a Drama Queen, then maybe you should have considered what the little winky icon was for. This failed experiment was sending us down, and it's legacy still might conspire to do just that. It doesn't surprise me how you try and gloss over it's effect that it had on the Club. This is a football club and the single biggest decision is the appointment of a manager and the system within which he works.

That's not what you were saying when you slipped back in to your old Sundance mode yesterday;). You need to decide whether you're going to come in here and be Sundance and get all uppity, aggressive and idiotic, or whether you're going to try and enter into a worthy debate. It's pretty difficult trying to understand just exactly where you're coming from with all these mood swings of yours.

It certainly looked like a very good shout, the only saving grace could be said that it was ball to hand as it sort of just dropped on his arm (or at least it looked like that from my view). But then again, as others have mentioned on the post match thread it looked as though we had a very good shout when someone got up ended on the edge of the box in the second half.

I'm sure he was aware that the club's finances dictated that he (and others) would probably need to go, but it was more the manner in which he and others were handled was what I was alluding to. In particular the way that his salary details were emblazoned over the local rag certainly didn't please him!!!!