Alain Perrin

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)

... thread If Tony Adams is on the shortlist, there must be valid reasons for this. I know there is a lot of keyboard-warrior emotion over this, but I'd be interested in what people think these reasons are. What would make you select him for manager? SERIOUS BIT - READ THIS.... don't pollute this thread with anti-Adams sentiment, there are plenty of others for that. THIS THREAD IS FOR THE POSITIVES ONLY. It'll not add anything and just mark you out as a **** that can't read. So what would make him attractive to Saints?

No, I think it was properly directed as was.

The whole thread, Facebook group, marching band etc. is gesture politics. If the club do it for good reasons then great, but they should do it for valid reasons, not popularity.

I'm not shy in defending Lowe for things that I think he did right. But, the fact remains under his tenure we got relegated from the Premiership and that kickstarted the whole kaboodle. Sure we were a more marketable position now than if we were in League 1 and still at the Dell, but then we had more debt to pay off. Swings and roundabouts.

I agree you're not holding the whip hand on this bandwagon, but you were commenting on: "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." Hence my "potty mouth" objection. I don't think you know what the budget targets were, or what Woggy's salary was. Anyway it really is an irrelevant argument. Let's just let those that now run the club, run the club. We can only hope they make appointments based on what the club needs, rather than gesture politics.

I agree with that point. That said I also agree with the sentiment that Pearson is a martyr, not a messiah. His record (at Saints) wasn't anything special and anyone who suggests that it was is deluding themselves. His record at Leicester is fantastic however. Could he repeat it at Saints? Would he want to? I doubt it. WGS should be above Pearson on the basis of his achievements at Saints and beyond. That said he hasn't got lower league experience.... Difficult decision

It was more a comment on the desire for people to jump on bandwagons... I've no doubt Woggy is well thought of. Whether his impact would be as catalystic (great word!) as you suggest, who knows. I'm content to let those that run the club make those decisions (balancing finances and practicalities - preferably without fan emotions). I've not really got an opinion on whether he should come back or not.

To be honest Nick - what the **** do you know? To be honest Um Pahars - what the **** do you know? Lots of nice sweeping statements here; 'he is too old', 'he'd improve morale', 'he was sacked through spite', 'sacked 'cos he was associated with the previous regime' etc. etc. You don't know. So why bother commenting. In case you forget we went into administration because a £5000 cheque bounced. Wages like Woggy's contributed to that - and he was a hell of a lot cheaper to get rid of than Rasiak. As a number on a spreadsheet, eliminating his wage was beneficial to the club. Different world now for sure, but that doesn't mean Saints won't be run as a business - it's not a charity. If you think it will be, I suggest you re-read some of Liebherr's comments.