Professor

Second time this week I've agreed with an Alpine comment. Just what AS does every time. As for Harte, I'd be happy to accept JP's verdict, as he will be watching the guy train, and the rest of us will not, although personally, I'll be surprised if he is still good enough. Re the money, if it is one out and one in, we can assume that will be covered in the budget.

My recollection is that the board came to the same conclusion as most other followers of the Saints, including the press, and that Branfoot was sacked, not because of gates at The Dell, but because of his failings as manager, the club was threatened with relegation.

I thought the defence was poor against Blackpool but this is straying a bit far for a thread on Wilde's interview and the reference to him not referring to Mark Woote.

Obviously Vectis was not making a geniuine enquiry as this was just another attempt to rubbish the coaches, presumably for no good reason other than who appointed them. However, for the benefit of those with more open minds, here is an observation from just behind the technical area at the SMS at the Blackpool game. Throughout the game Woote was close at hand to JP, several times you could see them consulting together, and consulting before the substitutions. Woote appeared to be acting like an assistant coach, which, when he was appointed as Academy Director, is what he said he would be doing.

Paul Jones was still a great keeper when Neimi came, and the fact that he so easliy displaced PJ was huge credit to just how good he was. It was a matter of pride to have such a player in your team.

Its great to agree with Alpine! Still remember what for me was the most nerve-wracking moment of Burley's career with Saints, hearing that the SFA wanted him and the dreadful suspense until the move was agreed. Contrast JP with Burley, comparing behaviour in the technical area. JP in a suit, might walk into the area occasionally and show some frustration at a bad play, or to applaud a good play, but gives the impression he is watching for the impact of his week's coaching work, not trying to compensate for it. Burley, in a track suit, leaping around the technical area, shouting and gesturing instructions as if the players were supposed to be watching him all through the game like an orchestra conductor - made you wonder if he only did his coaching during matches.

The reasons that both Wilde and Lowe, independantly, have not sold their shares could range from the megalomanic suggestions some people put on here, to the claims by the two people themselves that they care for the future of the club. People are free to believe motives based on Saints having two powermad evil dictators, worthy of a James Bond film if they like, but beliefs are more credible if based on evidence. I'm sure neither MW or RL take too much notice, if any, of message boards such as this but when that translates into booing them in the ground, or letters to the Echo, that might be a different matter. Lowe is on record of saying that there were times when he wondered why he carried on. Perhaps I am deluded to believe that the club takes its customers seriously, as MW's interview seems to show, or maybe that was just the easiest insult SaintR could come up with at the time....

Sorry Ottery, didn't realise that Devon was so far out of touch! Actually, I enjoyed your post, both witty and amusing! For those who really aren't sure, chairman of the football club board is Michael Wilde, Jersey-based businessman who bought a package of SLH shares after the club was relegated, saying his target was to help the club get back into the top flight. Rupert Lowe, well known by reputation, is chairman of the SLH board that owns the football club. The two have fairly equal shareholdings in SLH plc, so neither can 'run the show' without the support of the other. Poortvliet runs the team, and MW has stated that on player moves the two chairmen consult with him. In common with other team managers, the head coach may sometimes lose a player he would prefer to keep. This happens because there are financial issues to balance with the football ones, but MW has pointed out that two recent bids for Saints players have been rejected. Seems positive, except for the Jeremiahs. There is no suggestion that JP has any players foisted on him that he doesn't want, (as appears to have been done at Newcastle) and JP may well initiate some purchases, eg Antony Pulis, who a lot of us are not yet sure about, but hope to be convinced.

Even so, if you do want to read the thread, and post on it, I'm sure we would all be pleased to have your opinion.

For the Chairman to respond to fan's questions, instead of just issuing press statements etc., can only be a good thing. Wilde could have opted for an interview with a Journo and just covered subjects he decided. I don't suppose there will be question and answer sessions every few months as there would be no new questions for people to raise, but the more opportunities he and RL find to communicate the better, because people will make their own assumptions otherwise, and criticise the lack of communication. We do have the chairman's notes in home programmes, which traditionally has been the main medium between board and fans, but its always interesting to read more about the club in the press.

Desparately hoping that Michael Svensson's performance against Blackpool was a 'blip'. On that day he was second in arial challenges, slow to get to 50-50 balls and unable to stay with attackers at speed. He was still good with unchallenged arial balls and with his passing play, but as the weak spot in defence, he put pressure on the other defenders. That was the first time I'd seen him play this season as he wasn't in the cup side against Brum, when the defence played well. What is the opinion of people who saw him in the league match against Brum, or at Cardiff or Derby? Was the Blackpool game an exception, or not? Is he likely to be rested against QPR or is a 2-week break enough for him to come back stronger?

Quite frankly it is ridiculous for anyone to claim that all Lowe and Wilde are interested in is protecting their 'shareholding'. No one 'invests' in football club shares to make money and either L or W could have sold up at anytime in the last couple of years and walked away. Given the abuse that is heaped on them by some people it may be surprising that one or both have not done so. Perhaps that is the objective of the absusers who use descriptions such as 'quisling' to describe a man who came in after the relegation and has spent a lot of time and effort to try to help turn the club around. Wilde has certainly done a lot more than the Jeremiahs who put maximum effort into this message board to rubbish everything the club has tried to do in the last few months. People are entitled to wish for different club management but it should be possible to do that without resorting to abuse, which inevitably then attracts responses, sometimes in a like ilk. It should also be possible to wish for different management but still have ones eyes open enough to see and acknowledge the things that are done with the best interests of the club in mind. Pleasingly, some people are doing that, lets hope that more will follow suit.

Not what he said. The quote is:- "...we are making every effort to ensure that this does not become necessary by making all appropriate cost savings we can. However, because it is always a possibility, it is important that we continue to identify and develop young talent at this club so that the impact of such an eventuality on the quality of the squad can be minimised. Unfortunately, owing to the financial imbalances that exist within the football industry, this is likely to remain the situation until such time that promotion back to the Premiership can be secured." This says that sales will only be made if the balance of income v expenditure makes it necessary and that expenditure has been cut which reduces the need to sell (hence the Surman / Lallana examples he gave). The future cannot be predicted because it depends upon a number of variables, including attendances and league position, that cannot be known now.

Not what he said. The quote is:- "...we are making every effort to ensure that this does not become necessary by making all appropriate cost savings we can. However, because it is always a possibility, it is important that we continue to identify and develop young talent at this club so that the impact of such an eventuality on the quality of the squad can be minimised. Unfortunately, owing to the financial imbalances that exist within the football industry, this is likely to remain the situation until such time that promotion back to the Premiership can be secured." This says that sales will only be made if the balance of income v expenditure makes it necessary and that expenditure has been cut which reduces the need to sell (hence the Surman / Lallana examples he gave). The future cannot be predicted because it depends upon a number of variables, including attendances and league position, that cannot be known now.

Interesting that if Saints do badly, the fault lies with the Chairman who appointed the manager, but if Leicester do well, the credit goes to the manager that Saints let go, and not to the Leicester Chairman who has pumped large sums of money into the club.

Some people who have put so much effort into debasing Rupert Lowe for a long time now, they can't change their tune without losing their own self-respect, so they have to keep justifying their position to themselves by criticising everything he does, or doesn't do. Nickh is right, in the eyes of the extreme anti-Lower, Lowe can never win and can never redeem himself. Personally, I don't care who runs the club as long as it is someone with the relevant experience and with good business skills. Others could do it as well as Lowe, or better, but there are plenty who could do it worse, and some of those have already tried and there aren't people better than Lowe lining up to take over! What I object to is the constant carping at the people who are running it. Since Lowe came back, its hard to find anything that can honestly be complained about, so the antis are complaining about what might happen or are picking on ever smaller issues! It would be laughable, if it wasn't sad. Following your football team should be FUN. There are people on here I wouldn't share a beer with to talk Saints because its depressing enough when you see some of the names and know in advance that it will be another negative (sorry, 'realistic') rant. Shame we can't have a thread on 'I absolutely and totally hate Rupert Lowe' that some people could vent their spleen in, and the rest of us could ignore! PS. Good for Saints in rejecting the bid for Lallana. It tells us that the budget approach to financial management is working.

This is true in business, but in football there are only 11 places in the team and a generally accepted view that chopping and changing the first 11 does not produce the best results. With a squad of 30, I don't think Weston would recommend them all having a turn on a rota basis. If the manager decides that Rudi is first choice, or there are injuries, etc., I'm sure he'll be picked, but until then, the Rudi fans will have to be patient. If he does get in the side, it will then be up to him to hold the shirt, which is usually the way it works in football. Of course, the manager may be getting the best out of Rudi by not playing him, so that when he does get a game he will know its on merit, not reputation.

Wouldn't be surprised to see the option of the Prem taken away for clubs such as Saints anyway. How long before they start proposing the end of relegation and promotion to and from the CCC? I can see the Prem arguing that too many clubs that go up stay up for such a short time, that the CCC standard is not good enough and the Prem clubs supporting it because they have spent so much money to get there that they don't want to risk it all being wasted when they go down. Fact is, however much they all spend, 3 of them finish as the bottom 3.

Just to try to clarify - Season or half season loans can only be agreed in the Transfer window, so if you want to sign a player who has a short-term injury, either you take him or lose him. After the window has closed the loans Ottery may be thinking of are limited to emergency loans and limited to shorter periods. This wouldn't work as a way of waiting on the recovery of a player you want for the whole - or half - season and the club may not be able to show that the situation was an emergency. I really don't think this is a case of the club not knowing what they are doing, they are clearly aware of all the rules. Its true we do now have 2 new players who are not available for a few weeks due to injury, but isn't that par for the course in this game.

If you and Chocco Box are right its strange then that Real Madrid were trying to sign Ronaldo while he was in the US with a cast on his leg. Maybe its just Saints and Real Madrid then.

Its only fans on here who say the club 'has no money'. What we are told by the club - is that past excessive expenditure has been curbed, new budgets have been agreed and that the finances are now on a sound basis, which they would not have been if the previous board's plans had not been changed. Maybe the plans would have changed anyway if Leon Crouch had remained in the chair, but either way, working within a budget so that you match expenditure to income is not the same as being skint. Lots of families do it all the time.

So if Robinho had an injury that would take 2 weeks to clear up and the Window was closing, would Man C not have signed him? If Christiano Ronaldo was available for transfer would no one buy him because he's out until Oct. What is the point of making comments that are simply untrue? Being critical for the sake of it, undermines any genuine criticism.

Unless Radio Solent was right about an appearance fee, maybe we will see Skacel back in the squad, but its an open question whether he's better than what we already have. We need to hope that the board had factored in the possibility of the transfers out not happening when they agreed the 3 loans. Sad for Skacel though, as his career has definitely stalled, after looking so promising not so long ago. Maybe he has an incentive now to extractum digitatum.

When premiership football in this country consists of a few teams wearing the colours of what used to be English football clubs, but each one owned by foreign "businessmen" and staffed by foreign players and foreign managers, will there come a point at which English fans will turn their backs on it? Already the premiership is planning for matches to be played outside of the UK, one game to start with, and then how many? All that will be needed to finish the transformation will be to end promotion and relegation to and from the premiership as the international league pulls up the ladder. In the short term, we just want our own team to have load-sa-money so if that means Al Fayad, or a Russian oligarch, or an Arab Crown Prince, who cares? Like most people I'd welcome genuine investment, but not at any price.

The full quote has been repeated a couple of times, so just highlights for me. Like Gordon, I'm a qualified football fan, and we all tend to know more about how to run a football team than the people who occupy the official positions. However, I would just say that I thought this particular assessment contained a few contradictions. I would just mention on the children issue, that footballers in their early 20's might be a little offended by that description and I thought we had two over 30-year olds in the defence. I have also called for specialist FBs but for some reason Poortvleit has ignored my advice. However, I have to admit that despite Surman only having played at FB for about 6-months, he did manage to keep Blackpool out on that side - and that the penalty from which they scored was given away on the right side of the defence, where there was, Yes, a child - but JP did bring then on older heads. Let's hope he can continue to learn.