Alain Perrin

He's Knill Knill's brother. Juan Knill is his Spanish cousin.

There were other reasons why Teves and Mascherano weren't on the pitch.

Mark le Swiss, Mark le Swiss, Mark le Mark le Swiss. He bought the club, he'll take the **** Mark le Mark le Swiss.

If I had the book in front of me I'd quote directly but: - A paragraph on what RL did at Southampton - I paraphrase.... 'I have great admiration for what Rupert achieved at Southampton (despite him not being popular with the fans)' - I got on well with RL and, you may be surprised, still do. Difficult position in hindsight over the sacking/garden leave. Business decision. To be balanced there are also other annecdotes. - the one you mention - a story about them watching a match abroad and him saying the player they were scouting was crap (he was apparently watching the no.8 on the wrong side!) - the argument when he was put on gardening leave. But on balance, that seems like strong praise to me. As a contribution to the historical record I think it is a useful tool - but it depends. Are you from the David Irving school of history?

In fairness, after we saw Saints play against Derby or Birmingham early in the season, many thought the same. In fact, my words if I recall were "**** me this might just work".

I can't remember if Stevo is on my **** list, but regardless, riding him over this is silly. It was ironic and, if you read the Times article Jones himself says: “You know, that is a phrase that I used to use a lot. ‘No smoke without a fire’. It just seems obvious that if there is a controversy surrounding someone, then something has to be wrong. But that is not a phrase you would hear me saying now. I have learnt the hard way that it is possible to be accused without there being a shred of truth." So I'd let it go - but hey I'm an exceptionally tolerant person.

Completely agree. The point is you can't through coaching make someone 11% better. It's not possible or, if it is, it is nature rather than nurture (a late blooming Kevin Phillips or Ian Wright for example). What you can control are the smaller percentage improvements. Eg. Lions tour in SA when some of the players were struck down by food poisoning from a dodgy meal somewhere. Solution = take your own chef. That player that isn't ill turns out to be your winning goal/try scorer the next day. That's a real improvement. The point is, unless you try these things you'll never know if they work or not. The problem was in our financial state we couldn't fund the lab.

I read your last point and wonder how many World Cups you've won and how qualified you are to judge someone's achievements as a "desert of mediocrity"? He played for England multiple times, was successful as a club manager / coach and before that as a successful sales manager. Hardly a desert. I agree with you it was an expensive experiment, ill afforded in the Championship. I do think that innovation is a key to success and just doing what everyone else does isn't going to give you an edge. Innovations need innovators to introduce them and, guess what, sometimes it doesn't work, but when it does you have a Dyson. Don't get me wrong, he's a salesman. I am certain there is some spin and myth in there with the achievement. That said, to dismiss what he achieved as a fluke, luck or not applicable to football is churlish. Legend? No. Useful? Yes. Appropriate for Saints at the time? No.

More to the point, does anyone have any naked pictures of him?

Whereas your attempt to orchestrate a takeover was a raging success..... oh.

I agree completely with this point. In fact I think the worse we do in pre-season, the better we do. I remember having a good pre-season under Sturrock.... and we know what happened then!

I'm not sure who they were but I think it is unlikely you can be in that situation and not **** some people off because you didn't select them. Part of the problem with Woodward was that he backed the players he knew in the Lions 2004 when others had arguably better form. That time however, it didn't work. Part of his mantra is he doesn't know how to coach, but he knows how to recruit the best coaches/cooks/eye trainers etc. To suggest he 'got lucky, just once' indicates you don't know what you are talking about. Equally to suggest that SCW was the sole reason they won the cup is also false - he did however play his part and professionalised English rugby so that they could compete with the Southern Hemisphere.

Easier, not better. His point being that improving any one player by 11% isn't possible. They're professional sportsman and most of that talent has developed by 18. If you look at the little 1%'s then they're easier and get a collective improvement (ie. stretchy tops in rugby), taking their own chef to avoid food poisoning etc. Absolutely **** all to do with how you kick a ball, and completely translatable between rugby and football. To suggest that we can't learn from other sports is blinkered in my opinion.

Just to perpetuate a cult of misinterpretation..... Of course he wouldn't sell any, he's not on the shortlist to work in the ticket office....

His (auto?)biography is certainly a good read. I particularly like the point about making players 1% better each is easier than making a single player 11% better. Some of the innovations he introduced into the England rugby team would have translated into Southampton/Football in general. Although I would have liked it to work and appreciated the experiment, I do agree with Um Pahars. Right man, right ideas, wrong time - it was the kind of experiment that could be afforded inside a stable Premiership team, certainly not in the Championship.

C'mon guys. Can't you just be positive that there is enthusiasm in the fan base again without having digs at people with views, just as passionate as your own, just different? I am sure there are genuine boycotters and people who used it as a convenient excuse. Who cares. There's a genuine chance we can be one Saints again (save disagreements as to whether Telfer is crap or not!)

Ridiculous - you're suggesting Jose Mourinho - I don't think that'll happen!

Incidentally, neither does it match with the statement they also issued - "we hope to make an appointment by end of next week, maybe sooner". Not that I object. I think we need a manager ASAP - but I don't think a week allows time for them to be overly systematic.

I don't know.... I think the jury's still out. I think this thread shows the fans are very divided in their opinions

I already knew my answer. I was asking what makes him a candidate because, apparently for no reason, press reports are /were linking him with Saints.

I think the fighting factions are softening though. In fact, it looks to me that Um Pahars and Nineteen Canteen will soon be getting jiggy in a hot tub.....

Um Pahars... Um No. I asked "What the **** do you know?" specifically about the statement you made : "Given the sums involved (and Malcolm was willing to take a substantial pay cut before Lowe booted him out) I would have thought it was totally feasible to accomodate both of them." You say you know how much he earned. You also agree you didn't know what the budget contraints were. ... So I think my original assertion holds. Anyway, who cares. Let's let it go and carry on arguing over Tony Adams

I agree with all of your responses to 1-4. Please understand I wasn't calling people ****s for not being able to think of positives, that is their right. I was asking what makes people (specifically the club) consider him. If he's such an unmitigated disaster what makes him make the shortlist (if indeed he has)? TBH - I struggle to think of much bar his reputation as a player.

Sorry I merely asked a question and wanted to keep the sarcy irrelevancies to other threads. But of course you're right I did stifle debate - it's not as if there isn't any threads against Tony Adams..... Thanks for posting a positive contribution though. I asked what makes Tony Adams a viable choice? What I didn't want was a stream - he's ****, he's a pompey **** - that kind of thing. A response with pro's AND con's is fine - just didn't want all the later (I should have been clearer about that - my bad). I don't want him as a manager. I think he'd be a bad choice.... but there must be reasons why he's well thought of. Just interested in what people thought, but hey ho. Personally I think he's not dissimilar to Shearer. Great player (more so Shearer), great captain (more so Adams), limited experience (both), reputation above his station (both). I'd be interested if any of the anti-Adams would welcome Shearer because, other than Saints/Pompey legacy, I can't see a lot of difference.

More ****s on this forum than I thought. 1) Good leader for Arsenal and England. 2) Lower League experience 3) English (important to some) 4) Young(ish)