Alain Perrin

Stanley setting off fireworks and firing his AK47 in the air.

I don't get the desire/delight for administration. Worst possible scenario for Saints in my opinion. Very few clubs have done well following it, and it could mean years in the wilderness with the same folk in charge. A PLC is far more transparent and easy to influence than a private company/fiefdom.

Hit: Cork Perry (Unsung hero of the season) Saeijs Holmes (Was class at the start of the season before his injuries) Wotton (no nonsense player, good motivator, every team needs one to close out games) Miss: Molyneux (although perhaps too early to say) Gasmi (not seen much of him, but I suspect that tells it's own story) Pulis (never expected him to play. Sweetner in the Davis deal I suspect) Pekhart (I'd put him in the 'worth a risk' category based on his prior stats) Robertson (muscle upfront, worked a couple of times, but not consistently enough.) Maybe: Schneiderlin (Has been inconsistent, but looks quite promising. Personally I think he'll be very good - very calm on the ball.) Liptak (good heading from what I've seen) Smith (glimpses of promise) Forecast (Not totally pointless, Saints had 3 injured keepers at the same time a couple of seasons ago and good loans aren't always available. Planning for the future is also sensible as KD is one of our higher earners), Personally, what I'd expect. A mixture of good, bad and indifferent. If you don't try out loans like Pekhart, Robertson and Gasmi, you don't find Saeijs' and Cork's. I'd rather we tried and failed, than not tried at all. People talk ******** about Schneiderlin being a waste of a million quid, but the way deals are structured we'll have paid little upfront with potential resale value to offset/benefit from. You're not the French U19 captain for nothing, so I don't see this as wasted cash.

I have a lot of sympathy with the criticism of GS. I remember getting really frustrated that he'd never make substitutions until 65 minutes. But.... he got us to a final and for that is worth a lot in my eyes. Hoddle, on the otherhand, did know how to change a game. You knew, if you went in one down at half time, Hoddle's team would come out fighting and reorganised. GS was hit and miss on this.

For me, who is the chairman has **** all to do with my supporting of Saints. And, except in the most paranoid of minds, has very little to do with how the players play. If Saints go down, they'll go down with me knowing I have been supportive; constructive, positive and supporting to the best of my ability. Can everyone on this board say that?

Okay. I thought that applied to wages only, but it makes sense for transfers too.

Pure speculation, but anyone else think this might be a precursor to administration? Wouldn't you seek to hold back assets rather than settling liabilities if you know it will get written off / reduced in administration.

I think it is a pity (our gain) that MLT didn't leave Saints. He was a player with so much talent and but little motivation, probably because it came so easy to him. With the drive of someone (allegedly) like Frank Lampard, MLT could have been a world great, rather than a localised legend. He decided he wanted to stay in his comfort zone and I don't blame him for that, it was his choice. I do think those that hold up the reason he didn't leave as loyalty are deluding themselves though, I think it was far more about MLT than SFC. That said, no doubting he is a Saints fan.

Ted Bakes - he makes those milk and honey cakes....

There are plenty of things to bash RL with, but you do your argument no favours in trying to turn everything into a rant. Unless you expect every player to be grown in a test tube at Staplewood that is - but that would be crazy sports science and there's no place for that is there.... From Wikipedia: "He was snapped up by Southampton and joined their academy in the summer of 2004. He was a member of Southampton's youth team that reached the final of the FA Youth Cup in 2005, losing on aggregate to Ipswich Town."

He is probably the laziest, slowest, least motivated player I have seen in a Saints shirt for many a year. He doesn't read the game well, doesn't know how to make space for others or pull other players out of the game. He does occasionally spark into life, but flickers all too briefly.

I don't agree. There are two factors here, how we do, and how others do. If we were to draw Charlton and our relegation rivals get nothing, then that is a result. Last year we had wrist slitters on here when, if you looked at the opposition, they were playing each other a lot. Not so much of a factor this year mind. BUT all we've got to do is do better than (imho) Forest and Plymouth. Draws wins, I don't care, just better. Personally I think if we drew every game to the end of the season that might be enough. Winning would obviously be better though!

yes, a coincidence.

To be fair Alpine we could have Alex Ferguson at the helm, with internationals in every position and you'd still find something to be a miserable ****** about.

Why is the financial situation now irrelevant? We might be in a better situation than we were because some of the big earners have been loaned out, but my impression is we've still got significant constraints.

Whilst I don't disagree with the sentiment (i.e. you need grit and guile as well as 'schexy futball' to get out / survive in the CCC), you do have a tendency to be overly melodramatic. "Almost cost the very existence of the club", is over egging the impact of a strategy designed (I believe) to 'save' the club financially as quickly as possible. Too quickly I think, and yes there's a hefty dose of arrogance, want to do it my way, in the 'revolutionary coaching set up'. This club was on the way to 'ruin' the moment Van Nistlerooy scored against us, Wilde was carried in on a wave of sentiment, not substance and Idiakez skied his penalty in the playoff semifinal. Rupert Lowe has his share of responsibility in that, but a last day of the season survival last year suggests that the 'Dutch Experiment' isn't solely responsible for our situation.

Ouch, that's got to hurt... in the same post as well.....

No, that would be Crouch, Fuller, Bennett, Kelvin Davis etc. etc.

I am surprised. I'd have thought anyone who saw us play Birmingham off the park, and take (albeit a demoralised) Derby team apart in the first few games of the season would have thought... hang on, this might work. We were awesome in those fixtures, stroking the ball across the park and dominating. At that point I believed the hype. The only issue I would agree with is the lack of goals, the cutting edge wasn't there, even then. One player who really delivered in those games was Gillett, but then went off the boil. He seems to have got his mojo back recently and I'd credit him with some of our recent successes.

Somewhere to the right of the space bar there are two keys. Page Up / Page Down. If you don't want to read what someone's posted, use them. Happy to help.

Those gifted with 20:20 hindsight on this board 'always knew' that the revolutionary coaching set up / Dutch Experiment / JP would fail. I had scepticism (as I believe you should have with all new managers), but really began to believe after the Derby / Birmingham performances. I am interested if any of the people who were critical from the start had similar wobbles and thought, "**** me! This really could work!"?

The deals may have been notionally signed on different days, but I'd be amazed if they weren't negotiated in the same session. I also think the informal handshake was on a dual deal. Honest, I've no inside information to say that is the case , just that I think it is likely.

Yes. You can't let someone go on a free who you have under contract without paying up their contract. This situation benefits all three parties: - Pulis Jr moves closer to his home / opportunity at a new club. - Stoke get a surplus player off their books. - Saints get a subsidy towards a player in the form of an increased Davies transfer fee. I think it's likely.

I agree. He's a white Darren Moore...

Very important point - "let's see what you could have won..." Pulis was only ever a makeweight in the Andrew Davis deal. If Lowe is a penny pincher as described, and if he has full control over transfer policy as some suggest, then the only reason he would have taken Pulis on is if it made financial sense (i.e. we get £100K more for Davies and pay Pulis Jr £50K of it). Either way it is a winner. Personally I think he's the new Maradona....