Saint_clark

It was literally just before he was subbed, we were on the counter attack. The defenders were about 25 yards out with Ramirez 30 yards and between them, with the other two players running wide. Tried to pass to Puncheon, intercepted and came back to him, tried the same to Rodriguez, intercepted and cleared.

I agree, but I think it'll be down to us not wanting to pay agents fees rather than wages. However I'm quite happy with seeing how players like Clyne, Shaw, Rodrigeuz, Ramirez, Mayuka will develop with us.

Let's worry about establishing ourselves before we worry about outspending them.

What are you on about? If we continue our current trend of spending over the next three seasons, we will have spent £128million, much more than them.

If we spent that much over the next four seasons and finished outside the top 10, people on here would be livid.

As much as it is a sh*tty move putting him on gardening leave, we have no reason to suspect they're refusing to let him work elsewhere. The club just want compensation for him seeing as they have to pay him what he's owed either way. I agree the decent thing to do would be to just pay up now and let him go, the point I was making is that I can't see how we have broken any contractual agreements/employment laws.

Bit harsh, as bad as the team is doing right now I can't see them conceding 5 at Swansea. Oh, right, you're still pulling that act.

I know Ramirez scored V QPR, but those two passes he messed up in the second half one right after the other were shocking and I think Davis would have had the experience to know they should have been played over the top rather than along the ground. Had either of those gone through, Puncheon or Rodriguez respectively would have been 1 on 1 with the keeper to make it 2-1 to us.

From the info that's been released it seems the dispute isn't that we're refusing to pay him what he's due, but rather we've kept him as a member of staff on gardening leave and are paying him his monthly salary rather than just cancelling his contract and paying it all in one go. If this is the case I can't see why a tribunal would rule we HAVE to cancel his contract. The only reason I can see this has come about is because a club has approached Adkins about a job, but don't want to have to pay compensation to Saints. Although it could just be the LMA has advised him to do this (as they and the PFA seem to encourage their members to take legal action over anything and everything).

At the risk of getting lynched, perhaps Lambert, Hughton, Rodgers and Laudrup are better managers than Adkins? My point was referring more to how much it costs in total, rather than just the first season...i.e how much have they spent in the last two seasons. Chances are we'll spend a lot less this summer (if we stay up).

Weren't we lowest on agents fees when it was posted a while back? I'm sure we'd paid less than a million while Liverpool near the top had paid about £12million or something stupid. EDIT; here it is. http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/news/news/2012-13/dec/premier-league-release-agents-fees-nov-2012.html

If we're being honest, even with the £30million spend we're still millions worth of transfers behind most of the Prem.

In fairness, Paul Wotton spent 14 years at Plymouth, then four years at 3 different clubs before going back to Plymouth.

Whether it was spent well or not is irrelevant, it shows the backing is there.

Yes, with thousands staying away because of Lowe. And if people don't believe that just look at the huge upswing in attendances after we went into admin and he was gone.

Although there's a couple of pro head bangers in there. This needs to happen more often, ensure the next generation doesn't grow up liking Bieber and One Direction.

Fair enough, I guess he just missed the news that it wasn't called Southampton county anymore.

I thought yours would have been Lord of the Rings Bender.

Thanks for that.

And look at you, getting on your high horse about it.

Ignoring the fact he was born in St Albans and grew up in Bournemouth, how on earth is Ringwood consider an area of Southampton?

They can't move it twice, surely...

Yeah, look at the first post on that thread. Much more detail.