um pahars

I think you're spot on. The problem as I see it is that the powers that be have put Ollie and others under immense pressure by dumping so many youngsters in at the deep end all in one go. Rather than bring them in gradually and allow them to adapt, we have adopted a cruel policy of throwing them all in the deep end at the same time. I just hope it doesn't affect the development and confidence of some of these youngsters. He looks a good prospect and certainly has decent attributes, but I have no idea if he'll make the step up to be a decent player.

I said something similar a couple of weeks ago. You can't turn this into an entertainment business, owned by a PLC, call the supporters customers, treat them with contempt, serve up 5hyite and then expect supporters to remain in the past and just turn up as loyal cannon fodder. Football has changed and Southampton Leisure Holdings PLC has certainly changed this CLub. Ultimately you reap what you sow. You can't have it both ways.

Not sure I agree, primarily because I doubt they have that amoungt of dosh to do just that. Secondly, I don't think it is actually a fair ask.

I'm sure we may have saved some money on not appointing Pearson, but his wages were not excessive and if we had wanted to, then I'm sure we could have afforded him. The manager is (or at least should be) the most important person at a club. To me it would be a false economy not appointing someone just for the sake of a few grand. Finances didn't dictate that we had to release Pearson, it was more down to Lowe believing Poortvliet & co would be a better footballing option. It is impossible to judge whether that was right or wrong, as we would never know what Pearson would have achieved, but I'm sure that won't stop many from hypothesising though!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah, he left it so healthy that we lost £9,000,000 cash out he door, and that was even after receiving £7m from the parachute payments. He left a Club with a cash deficit of something like £16,000,000 per annum. A Club whose income had fallen so much, that after the last years parachute payment, income would go down from £45m-£50m to something like £14m!!!!!! He left a busted flush. I have no doubt that some of the financial decisions by the new regime were poor (particularly not attempting to cut back last summer), but the idea that he left a stable Club is pure fantasy.

But in pulling the plug on the two of them, isn't there a danger that we pull the plug on the Club???? And therein lies the dilemna. I either hope that it does all come off and we're left eating humble pie, or someone else steps up to the plate with some cash, or alternatively these two go and someone who can reunite the Club and get us all pulling in the same direction comes in and takes us forward. One thing is for sure, and that is in the absence of success on the pitch, these two have not got the ability to get us all pulling together.

Some have already said enough is enough, our attendances say more than I ever could on here!!!!! I can understand that sentiment, many felt the same way when Branfoot was here and felt the only way to bring about change was to boycott matches, but I'm not sure I agree with it in the current circumstances. Just as many disappeared during the Branfoot era because the football was terrible and it might be more a case of that happening this time around. Once again, I'm not convinced that a phoenix would definitely rise from the ashes, and my worry is that instead we would end up as dead as a Dodo!!!!!

The problem is that whilst many will still support the Club come what may (and many of them post on here), there are very many who will not turn up having witnessed another 4-1 drubbing on the box. Results, and dare I say peformances, aren't enticing people back and Lowe & Wilde don't engender that "We're all in this together" spirit, so I think our support will suffer. But that will not be a crumb of comfort to anyone, because that will mean the Club we love will really be in the mire. I don't think there will any time for crowing or shouting told you so, because we will be more concerned with our Club being thrown to the Wolves. I personally would rather be out doing a bucket collection to pay the bills, as opposed to getting off on saying how prophetic I was!!!!!!!!

And on the other side of the coin, the three wins we have managed have been against teams in the early season relegation battle!!! We also failed to beat another at home who currently reside in the relegation places and we've also played a further three games teams who are in our "comparative" position. The season is not all over by any means, btu 10 games starts to give you a feel and in that period you would normally have played a range of teams.

After yesterday I have now seen 5 matches, and in those games only one has rated above average which was the very good performance against Norwich. The other four have ranged from poor to dire. I'm not overly enamoured with a 20% strike rate, nor are the missing thousands of others!!!!!!!

I do agree that we need to try and be careful about these massive swings from salvation to oblivion after a win or a loss. Its obvious people will be more upset and vociferous after a loss, but we need to be even handed in our responses.

You can put Shearer in there if you want, as I thought he missed too many one on ones when he first broke on to the scene. But as long as posts on here don't manifest into booing and non support when he plays, then I think we're all being a little too sensitive. Being a supporter is all about having and espousing your own opinion. Some you will agree with, some you won't, some will be justified, some won't, but for time immemorable fans have always had differing opinions of players, and after a loss it's obvious it might be more negative than normal.

I sort of thought he looked a bit shell shocked and unsure of what he could do. But then again, just because you don't throw your arms around, swear, smash tea cups and pace the touchline doesn't make you a bad manager.

And with the same very big IF, if they had taken their gilt edged chances in the first half, then we would have been 5-0 down at the break. Using your IF card, we should have lost that game soemthing like 8-3.

It was phrased as a question as to it's veracity. It may indeed be a fairy story, but there may also be an element of truth in there. One of my biggest worries is the involvement of Lowe in the playing side of things. He stuck his oar in when we had strong managers around, so it would not surprise me if he was doing it again (this time with someone who owes it all to him and someone who might be more amenable to it, having worked on the continent where involvement from above is more accepted). I personally doubt it, but ultimately this argument is redundant until two years down the line, because only history will be able to judge whether or not McGoldrick can make the jump from prolific youth team scorer to doing it in the first team. Which is another problem with the team, the manager, the selectiona nd tactics. Something I alluded to when I said McGoldrick is not the biggest problem, mainly because there are even bigger ones out there.

I have never rated McGoldrick and have been consistent with that from day one. For me he is in the Craig Maskell, Nicky Banger, David Puckett line of players, in that whilst they're definitely beter than me, they're not good enough to play at the top level (or even this level!!!). Is JP his own man, or has Lowe some influence on the team with this story of how McGoldrick is the first name on the team sheet story (which is something I have heard from a number of sources now)? But is McGoldrick's slf indulgence our biggest problem???? Personally, although he is a problem, I don't think he is our biggest problem. For me that is the full backs, the sytem they play in and our general defensive frailties.

I do hope opposition managers don't read this forum but the game plan to beat us is simple. 1. Get the ball out wide and attack their full backs. 2. Get crosses in and hit their far post. 3. Kick Lallana (lean on the other yongsters). 4. When we lose posession, let them fanny about with it in midfield and get back behind the ball and organise the defence.

To be fair to Jan he didn't actually say that, that was the journalists take on it. And having seen some of the other rubbish put up there by the OS "journalistic" team, then I wouldn't read too much into it!!!!!

I would say they were dealt a crap hand!!!!! A club losing £££££'s by the day and a major block of shareholders wanting a ridiculous price for such a loss aking entity. Sales of CCC club's have mainly been for nominal amounts in recent years, so trying to sell one with a £14m price tag is somewhat difficult.

Didn't think Coventry were that good, but what worries me was that they could have been 5 up at half time!!!!!!!!! The defending was very poor and the number times we are being killed by crosses into the box and at the far post is just murdering us. Up front McGoldrick for me is not hte answer. We did not deserve it, but we had a chance to et back in to the game but it was fluffed. We will stay up, mainly because there are three worse teams than us, but if we start selling the only talent we have come January, then we will struggle this season and for future ones.

Methinks you need to have a read of Chapel End Charlie's rather sensible post, because from where I stand you're the only sensationalising stuff and being a drama queen. For some laughable reason you're even dismissing a notion that doesn't exist (i.e. that fans should not be picking football teams). The simple fact is that when he first came here, there were a number of games where he was poor and cost the Club vital points (I can clearly see that QPR blunder in the Kingsland/Chapel corner as if it were yesterday and that was not the only **** up of the period). As a result many fans rightly criticised his poor performances. We all knew that somewhere inside there was a good keeper, (he wouldn't have commanded a £1m+ fee on two occasions otherwise), but the simple fact was that he did not live up to the price tag, nor was he deserving of praise for a number of his games. However, this season he has produced a number of fantastic saves and has delivered a number of very good performances, for which he has been duly praised and quite right too. As a professional player you have to accept the rough with the smooth, and if that is a problem for some players, then I would have to question their mental strength. Player plays well = he receives praise Player plays poorly = he receives criticism What's so wrong with that? And before you drone on about how it might affect his confidence etc etc etc, it's the managers job to motivate players and give them confidence, whereas for time immemorial supporters have walked away from games giving their opinons on how their team and individual players have played.

Would settle for another good performance and think a draw would be a good result. 1-1, coming back from one down.

Well you heard wrong then. Seymour Pierce were contracted in much the same way as Collins Stewart were contracted for the 10 odd years prior to that. They were incentivised to find a buyer for the Club, in much the same way as many clubs have incentivised them, probably because despite the accusations to the contrary, they are one of the best in their field.

He didn't He didn't. Crouch paid 65p a share and Wilde 50p a share, but as I pointed out, because Wilde bought quite a few more shares, his overall loss is higher than Crouch's. A while back I managed to speak to Crouch about this (when the rumours of a major investor was sniffing around) and he declared that he would give his shares away if it was for the good of the Club. Of course it could have just been a hollow promise or seeking brownie points, but I have to say I felt he was very sincere in making the offer.

Well I suggest you go and read my Norwich Match Reaction post then if you want praise where it's due. I also didn't think our performances at the back end of last season were that bad, and compared to the Barnsley game this season (where I was soooo bored) then they were much better. The Ipswich game was on a par with some of the dour stuff served up at the end of Burley's reign (so maybe my ages relates back to that point!).