Professor

The price we pay for some interesting discussions on here are the players assessments that many of us will disagree with, Forster being a case in point. If Fraser had always been an incompetent keeper, he wouldn't have been part of the England squad for 3 years, or won 6 caps. If Joe Hart hadn't been the preferred England No.1 at the time, Fraser would have had more caps. Because he declined from his peak, earlier than expected doesn't mean he was never any good, which some people now claim. Likewise with James Ward-Prowse, a player who made the Saints' first team at the age of 16 and went on the be a regular in the England youth teams. Since then he's made 200 appearances Saints at the highest level and is still only 23. For someone to call him an average player says far more about the person making the remark than it does about JWP. It really would be nice to have less sniping and complaining about players who have achieved a lot for this club in recent years, who then had to suffer the Pellegrino period.

Hope that the Echo is right about the interest in Jannik Vestergaard, in fact The Sun mentioned it several days ago. For those who like a tall CB, this guy is 1.99m (6'5"). Looks to be just what we need. Currently, he's with Denmark in the World Cup so we'll have to be patient while Denmark are still in the competition. It would be nice to think that having another Dane, Pierrre-Emile Højbjerg in our squad could give us an advantage.

Weather forecast suggest there could be a lot of rain at both places, while the temperatures could be in the low 30s.

According to the OS, the squad flies out tonight, 30 June. A very positive statement from Mark Hughes. Some of what he says about the bonding from a two-week training camp would be true wherever they were based but with a country as huge as China, they've had a lot of choice about where to go but not sure they've picked a comfortable climate. Kunshun, where they are for the first week is near Shanghai and about 100m from the coast, which in China is almost on the beach but the weather forecast suggest there could be a lot of rain and temperatures in the low 30s. Xuzhou for the second week is further north and much more inland but a similar weather forecast and high humidity in both places. Although these training weeks away are always 'camps' its not as if they'll be under canvass. We can assume the facilities will be top quality with indoor training if necessary. In his statement, Hughes makes the point that by being appointed so early in the close season, and because he already had 8 weeks knowledge of the players, he sees things getting off to a very rapid start. All looking good, but with squad refreshment going on, I wonder if any new player or players will be flying out during these two weeks and whether any others will be coming home early. Haven't seen the list of who has travelled, so if anyone knows of any names left behind, other than who are or have been at the World Cup it would be interesting to know.

Another thread from a Moaner whose frustration is showing as the club go about an effective refreshment of the squad. When it was Les Reed who signed players, he was usually pictured at the signing but since the restructure, that’s no longer the case. Since Les Reed became Vice Chairman, Football, it has been easy to see that his role is now more strategic. Director of Recruitment is Ross Wilson so that picking players to bring in lies in his area of responsibility. Many people felt that last year’s squad contained plenty of talent, just not being used very well and while that may be true, it’s been well known that some players hadn’t performed to the standard expected. For whatever reason, and it may have been the enforced sale of VVD, the club has been able to bring players in without having to wait for income from sales. It’s looking to be an effective strategy, with the goalkeeping position secured and a boost in attacking midfield. We can see now their attention turning to other areas. It has all the makings of an exciting summer that should raise our optimism ahead of the new season. It would be nice to see less sniping at top management and more support for what the club is trying to do. The evidence shows that Ross Wilson and his department are getting on with the job on incomers but as that continues, it’s going to be interesting see who else follows Tadic through the exit door to create the needed space.

The changes are making the close season interesting. I don't mind Tadic going because I want to see Armstrong, and subject to the medical, Elyounoussi, in the starting line up. Hopefully, Boufal will go. He's not a team player, seems to have been more trouble than he's worth and hasn't been able to perform well enough to get the game time you'd expect from a player who cost his fee. Looks like there is more change to come but I agree with others who've said that we already have a quality squad. The problem last year was how they were coached and how they were used.

Not long ago, there was concern we could lose McCarthy following his excellent performances and talk of consideration for England. Great work by the club to fend off others with a 4-year contract. Maybe they had little choice but to put him on similar pay to Forster but it's still the right and proper thing to do. Whether Forster will regain the form that had him in goal for England, and displays like the one he gave against Arsenal, who know, but we do now have the keeper position covered with a good back up. Wages, Yes, but no transfer fee involved, can't be bad.

Few would disagree that the team doesn't score enough goals from midfield. Obviously, the most goals should come from the strikers, Gabbiadini and Austin, or Shane Long, but the three or four players immediately around or behind them ought to be contributing more. Obviously Tadic played his part last season with 7 goals, but other very capable players, the likes of Steven Davis, JWP, Nathan Redmond and so on, have struggled with that final strike needed to put the ball in net. I'm more than content to accept the club's assessment of Stuart Armstrong as a player who will do that with greater regularity. To anticipate the impact Armstrong will have, it seems more sensible to rely on the professionals the club employs in recruitment, rather than ad-hoc opinions from people whose only qualification in professional football is as a spectator.

Impressed if Armstrong joins for only £7m plus add-ons. The quality of the player matters more than the fee but it does look a good deal. If we have Sims and Armstrong competing for midfield slots, selling Boufal would be no loss given his limited contribution, and reluctantly, we may see less of Stephen Davis as age begins to catch up with him. If Stuart Armstrong turns out to have anything like the impact of Saint's legend, Dave Armstrong, who gave us six great years in the 1980's, he'll be a great acquisition.

Bad. Yet another boring, predictable, negative post by Heisenberg. Be nice if he’d find another club to be miserable about.

Even if we outbid Leicester and offerred higher wages, on current performance Leicester must be a better option for a player who wants to compete for trophies.

Answer: No one will "of" leaked the story because you can't "of" anything but it does seem that someone might HAVE leaked it. Very much hope it's a reliable source as this would be excellent news and even better if funded by Boufal's departure.

Not impressed by players that need to wear gloves on the football pitch if they aren’t a keeper. Boufal wanting to keep his hands warm doesn’t send a very positive message about enduring the hardships of football. As long as the fee is well spent, replacing him should improve the squad.

People who complain that Hughes won’t have Saints competing for a top four place should face up to the fact that no manager could do that on our club’s FFP enforced budget. It’s impossible to compete over 38 games against clubs that can spend £75m on one player and have squads where each player is unaffordable to Southampton or the majority of premier league sides. Hughes took Stoke to 9th place in 3 consecutive seasons. If he can do that for us we should be more than satisfied. Reaching the next level doesn’t depend on the manager but whether the board can increase our revenue to give us more financial clout within FFP rules.

That's Van Dyke but as far as I recall he is the only player who forced a sale with years left on his contract. Others were sold when contracts were running down and the player was refusing to sign an extension. Right to free angry over the way Van Dyke behaved but it showed that no club can make a player perform to his best if he doesn't want to. FIFA's best intentions over Financial Fair Play haven't achieved a level playing field because the small group of clubs with worldwide commercial revenues are permitted to spend much more on transfers and pay massively higher wages than those in the middle of the pyramid or lower down.

The absence on the OS of a comment by Kruger or Reed feels odd. The only attributed quote in the press report of Hughes' signing is from Mark Hughes himself. The club statement is unattributed. I'd expected a picture of Reed shaking hands with Hughes, as when players are signed, although I can't recall if that was done with Pellegrino. The Echo puts the delay in finalising the deal down to people away on end-of-season breaks. Maybe so, but I'd have thought getting the permanent manager in place should have had top priority and its not as if anyone wasn't aware that this needed to be done, one way or the other, after the last game. I remain very positive about the appointment, but as fans I think we are all keen to know if any other aspect of the way the team is run has changed, for example, Les Reed's role or the position of the other members of the coaching staff.

Herr Klopp is quoted as saying, “We are here because we are Liverpool”. Not quite right. In good Liverpudlian tradition he should have said, ‘we are here because we stole Southampton’s best players and were allowed to get away with it.’

Excellent news. A manager with almost unrivaled Premier League experience as a coach and a record as player at the highest level that deserves respect. The days of negotiation suggest that he didn't just roll over because his own future and reputation depend on having the tools to do a successful job. There's a widespread view that Southampton has plenty of quality players, which has under-performed due to poor coaching and poor management. There have been some doubtful player purchases, for example, Boufal and Corrillo are thought by many not to have a future here, but in my opinion, one or two additions will be enough for Hughes and his coaching team to turn us back into a top-ten side.

There is a need to understand why Katerina and the board chose a Chinese joint owner. If the club can build its reputation in China it is a country with a largely untapped market where revenue can be earned which will permit higher spending on the team under FIFA’s Financial Fair Play rules. Accusing the joint owner of a macho motive shows that this isn’t yet understood by some fans. Would just also say it’s a shame about the use of asterisks in that post. The English language is perfectly capable of emphasing a point without the pretence of what are presumably intended to be swear words. Our Chinese owner is entitled to some respect.

Financial Fair Play limits the spending on the team to be within income (over a rolling 3year period). Even Abramovich, if he overcomes his visa problem, can’t plough money into the team which is why at least one paper is saying Chelsea may have sell Hazard in order to buy players this summer.

If there is competition for the job that’s a better basis on both sides for making the appointment and, if Hughes is confirmed, it would give him greater authority than if he’s just handed the role.

If the plan is to increase the club's revenue so that under the FIFA fair play rules it can spend more on the team, of course other teams not in the top six will have the same objective. Finding a way to do it is what matters and Southampton are looking to increase revenue from an untapped market, which is China. If you think back a few years when Kruger came, it may be they thought they could do it in the US but perhaps found too many other clubs already working over there. To give an idea of what we are up against, Southampton FC showed a turnover of £182.3m for the year to June 2017. That was a record for the club so the board must be doing something right. In comparison, Manchester United have just announced a revenue target for this year of £585m. If we want to compete for a place in the top six so that we can afford the transfer fees of world class players but more importantly, be able to pay the level of wages that will keep top class players at this club, we have to close that revenue gap. If you look elsewhere, take Everton as an example. Have just sacked Sam Allardyce for finishing 8th in the league, after taking them up from 13th in the six months he was in charge. As Saints' fans we well remember the attitude of Everton supporters when Koeman was enticed to leave Southampton. Billionaire Farhad Moshiri had taken control with Everton fans thinking Koeman would bring all the best players from Southampton that he wanted because a wealthy owner meant they could. But Everton have found like other teams that a wealthy owner can't pump money into the team because of Financial Fair Play (FFP). A change of manager won't get Everton into the top six. According to information on the web, Everton's owners have a combined net worth of £1.2bn, a little less than Liverpool's owner, John Henry of Fenway Sports Group (£1.8bn). Southampton's owners are worth almost as much as the Liverpool and Everton owners put together, Goa and Leibherr are said to have a combined net worth of £2.8bn. But because FFP doesn't allow owners to spend their own money on the team the wealth of these owners no longer has the effect that it did when Abramovich bought Chelsea or when Mansour went into Manchester City. It is because expenditure on the team is limited by a club's revenue, that ways have to be found to increase income and primarily that will be by commercial activities. If we can get the Chinese to buy Southampton shirts and whatever else, because the club becomes so well known in China, in that way we can pay higher wages to retain our best players. There are 1.3bn people in China, roughly twice the population of Europe, so it seems reasonable to assume that the club have thought this out.

That's almost right but not quite. Anyone who hasn't understood what Kruger is saying should check up on FIFA's Financial Fair Play rules, which are not that complicated. Clubs can't run at a loss and owners can't inject their own money into buying players and paying their wages. Over a rolling 3-year period, and subject to allowing a tiny loss, expenditure on the team has to be met out of revenue. That isn't just player sales but all revenue, which obviously includes gate money, TV rights, advertising, etc., but and most importantly, commercial income. If income and expenditure doesn't balance, FIFA has sanctions it can use. Money spent on stadiums, training facilities, youth development or community projects is exempt, so owners can develop the club in that way. Saints' fans know better than most that spending beyond the club's means leads to bankruptcy. We've been there, so have Portsmouth and a good few others. Because Financial Fair play doesn't allow an owner to bail a club out anymore, the only way now to increase what can be spent on the team is to increase the income. It's no accident that the top six clubs are the ones who's shirts, scarves, books etc., are widely on sale because those clubs have national and even international, followers. What Kruger was saying indicates that Katherina and the board identified China as a huge, largely untapped, market, where commercial income could be earned to grow the club. As fans, its a project that we should get behind, instead of criticising, because it's in our interests if we want to see our club able to compete at the highest level. Until we have the income that allows us to spend more on the team, when we do find a player who is of the highest quality, he'll be lured away by one of the wealthy clubs that has the revenue to double his wages. That's where the club is now, trying to get the best players it can afford but as fans we know that the best of the best won't stay long. The investment project through the Goa family gives the club a chance of breaking that pattern.

Out: Boufal - Failed transfer in. Questionable commitment Carrillo – Another failed transfer in - recover as much of the fee as is possible Clasie – excess to requirements and may prefer to stay with Brugge Gardos – not adequate standard Taylor – excess to requirements Wood – not adequate standard Keep: McCarthy, Forster, Cedric, Pied, Valery, Flannigan Yoshida, Stephens, Hoedt, Bednarek, Jones Bertrand, McQueen, Targett Hojbjerg, Lemina, Romeu Tadic, Sims, Hesketh, Ward-Prowse, Redmond Davis Long, Austin, Gabbiadini, Galllagher Expecting 2 or 3 new signings. and promotions from the Academy.

The thread title is a little misleading because no one is trying to 'sell' a decision on the managerial appointment but retaining the incumbent is obviously a strong consideration. It's a matter of judging the benefit in recruiting another manager but also the disadvantages for the squad who have now worked for 8 weeks under Mark Hughes and his team. Appointing someone new always carries a risk and the last two decisions to appoint candidates without Premier League experience didn't end well, whereas Hughes has delivered what was aksed of him. It's also important to decide what the club's objectives are because the experience of the last 4 years suggests a need for a fundamental reappraisal. If breaking into the top four is the objective, then you might want one of the top managers in football but the club must also have the resources to attract top quality players and be able to hold onto them when the wealthy clubs come to lure them away. The Financial Fair Play rules prevent clubs such as ours from competing in the spending market because we don’t have the commercial income of those other clubs. Owners cannot plough money into their teams because after Chelsea and Man City, the drawbridge was pulled up. We are not the only club to have our best players stolen away as shown by a quick glance at the squad lists of the top six clubs. This suggests we must reluctantly settle for top half/mid-table security by using the best players we can get and accept that the best of those will move on after we've had 2 or 3 years out of them. So, coming back to the Mark Hughes debate, he fills the requirements of being a competent and experienced Premier League and international manager. Given the club's recruitment abilities and the Academy, he can be given the tools to develop the squad and refresh it as players move on. Of course, he isn’t the only option, but there is plenty of evidence to suggest that keeping him and his coaching staff would give the team the best start for the new season and potentially, for the next few years.