Professor

Some people have complained that the club will sell any player they get an offer for, but lets just think that through and see if it is true. From official statements, the policy seems clear, to sell the players on high wages and if a sale is not possible, then a loan out is the second best option, but as far as possible, this policy should exclude the first choice first team players. The players on the transfer list are good players, or they would not be saleable, but they have been replaced in the first team squad by others who are as good if not better. The squad has not got worse by their replacement and the new squad members seem to be better at fitting into the new team tactics and playing style. So how does this stack up against the sale of Andrew Davies and the apparant agreement of a fee for Andrew Surman? This does not have to be seen as a change of policy, or proof that the club will sell anyone who can run. Because players who have not requested a transfer get a cut of the fee its hard for any club to hold onto players it would prefer to keep, once that player (and his agent) are aware of how much money they can pocket. There is likely to be some frantic activity in the transfer market in this last week of August and we can hope that it will see Skacel and Euell, move on but if offers come for anyone not on the transfer list, they may still have to be allowed to go if the player is unsettled by the offer. It will be a relief when this week is over, not only to have the stability of a settled squad, but also to see if any of the remaining journeymen do move on which could free up some funds in the budget to pay the wages of a loanee or two.

On this basis, you'd give everybody a go in the first team. Not really the approach to get the best out of the squad.

Not sure there are any 'Hot' issues, as constantly dragging up the past, which is what most of the anti-Lowe, anti-Wilde stuff is based on, can hardly be called hot! Maybe Alpine Saint should answer how he feels now that his predictions of incompetence by the dutch management team, and of three straight defeats in the first three games, has proved to be wrong.........

This is so true - re the 'selling club' situation, and not unique to Saints. Walcott and Bale were good examples, but throughout the game, if a player looks exceptional, one of the big spending clubs will be in for him. And its not a situation that the club can change, whoever is in control. Surman's possible move the Reading, even though at a different level, is an example. If the buying club offer enough money, and the player wants to move because he gets a cut of the fee and a pay rise, the selling club have little choice.

Without doubt there is 'disunity' amongst the fans on the issue of Rupert Lowe but currently there does not appear to be any disunity in the management of the club. What would create disunity would be if a hostile bid were launched by Fulthorpe or anyone else, trying to build a block of shares by buying out other shareholders. Currently, Lowe and Wilde control enough shares to have control of the club and it would take a lot of share movement to change that position. The EGM route would then be needed to oust the current board. But we have been here before. It must be hoped that if lessons have been learned from the last two years, that any 'investment' is in the form of money into the club, not just money paid to buy shares, and that it needs to be with the agreement of Lowe and Wilde.

Anyone who refuses to support their club because of who owns the shares or sits on the board, isn't a true fan. Shareholders, board members and chairmen come and go, but the club goes on. Currently the plan being followed is Lowe's plan, with a reformed Michael Wilde supporting him. Thats the best deal available to us at the moment so as fans we should be hoping it will succeed. Even in the two single goal defeats there were positives to be taken, and now we have an away win its not surprising that things are looking up. Enough people will come back when the team is winning, so a few stay aways, who would in any case be the first to start any negative chanting, are not only irrelevant, the club is probably better off without them.

Its surprising the things people will make critical comment about, especially as Jan's quote wasn't even a prediction. All he is reported to have said is "I hope we can get into the playoffs this season.." Would it be better to 'hope we avoid relegation', or 'hope we can hold a mid-table spot'. Surely all Saints fans hope we can make a play off spot. Some may doubt it, but even doubt doesn't preclude hope, and there is no evidence yet to say its beyond this squad so lets keep hoping and be pleased that Jan has set his sights high.

If by the last few years you mean the last three, that is true, but it was Wilde's mis-timed attempt to take over, when he did not have the means to run the club - and turned to the weird ex-Fulham bunch - that prevented proper strengthening of the team. It seems he realised the mistake and is trying to make up for it, after all, he could have just stayed away. Lowee as well, doesn't have to give up time to SFC, there must be other things he would be just as happy doing, but he is here trying to rescue the club and he does have a plan. No one is asking the fans to "Jump with Joy" at a plan before it is shown to be working, but the negatives don't even want to give it a chance. That is NOT realism, it is simply mind numbing rejection of everything the club tries to do.

More sarcasm of the kind now stock in trade for the dedicated moaning minnies. Never mind that the Saints set up attracted Scheiderlin against competition from others. The one thing you can be certain of, is that if Cork comes here on loan, people who make comments like this won't apologise and won't stop. Of course, they can prove me wrong - by giving all the negative stuff a rest and getting on with supporting our club.

The only thing that would be good about a march to St Marys by the Moaning Minnies would be if the whole bunch them carried straight on to the Itchen Bridge and jumped off! SFC needs supporters that love their club, not people who spend their whole time slagging it off. As for the people predicting doom and disaster you do have to wonder how many times they have to be shown up to be wrong before they realise just how stupid they make themselves appear. The reality is that the club is being run with the objective of having the best team available at the most economic cost. That is not the same as having the cheapest team possible. Evidence? Replacing failed journeymen on high wages with enthusiastic, and skilful players who are at least as good if not better, and paying them a fair wage, not an inflated one. Evidence? Scheiderlin, Wooton, Holmes. Working to a budget means you don’t spend until you have saved. It doesn't mean selling every player you can, but it does mean you can only buy after you have sold. Evidence? Rasiak goes on loan, the club begins negotiating to bring in Jack Cork and targets a replacement striker. Davies activates his release clause and JP announces he is looking for a striker and another defender. The fact is, it all makes sense, except to those who are so blind they will not see. Some people will complain whatever the club does, and will carry on complaining however well it does this season. Either they need to rethink the negative attitude or reassess why they claim to be Saints fans. As for the 'Lowe Out' mentality, you'd think that a lesson would have been learned over the past two years. The time for Lowe to leave is when there is someone better, willing and able to take over. Truth is there are no philanthropic millionaires itching to spend money on Southampton FC. Until there is, the fans need Lowe to stay, because without him and with no one to succeed him, if he walked away now, the club would risk meltdown. So to the Lowe Outers, I'd say be careful of what you wish for, in case you get it!

I haven't noticed anyone else commenting on the irony of this. If Alpine St talks about Saints to his son in the same way that he talks to us here on this board, I wonder what could possibly have influenced the boy to dislike the club?

Although The mail describes Cork as 'former England under 18 captain', he was captaining the England under 19s when they beat Greece 3-0 last month. Lets hope the Mail story is more accurate on the loan having been agreed.

The team has shown by two close results that it is not being outplayed and is capable of beating any other side in this league. If you look at the fixtures this year, they are all winnable, but in the well-worn phrase, some are more winnable than others. We will win games we are expected to lose and we will lose games we would expect to win, but so will all the other sides in the league. Cardiff and Derby away, and Birmingham at home would all be games in the 'less winnable' category. All that has happened is that these games have come together at the beginning of the season. That does not change the team's prospects for the season at all, and in the closeness of the results, there is a great deal of positive to be drawn. However, two defeats, even close ones against strong sides, have been leapt upon by the Lowe-hating obsessives who have been predicting total annihilation of the club ever since their nemesis came back in May. These people need the club to lose games to justify their abusive attitude towards the club management. As we play the more winnable games, or get a result against Derby, which is highly probable, most will fade back into the dark as they will be less able to continue their negative campaigning. Even mid-table will be enough to do that, but in this league the difference between mid table and a top-six spot is often just 2 or 3 wins, so for any club in mid-table the prospect of promotion cannot be discounted. It's one of the things that makes the CCC an exciting league to play in.

What a great idea! Play people who will perform less well than the players in the team, because you are paying them and you can make them earn their money. At the same time you can make it clear to the players you've groomed for the first team, that they are second choice to people you are trying to sell. Brilliant! That should keep everyone on their toes! Why on earth doesn't the club save even more by not employing qualified football coaches when there are some excellent amateurs on here with such simple ideas; with the emphasis on simple.

So no one has expressed an interest, despite them being made available Obviously in the fevered mind, that has to be a criticism of the manager, if not the chairman. If no one has expressed interest, how would anyone know if there was any interest??? Just over a week to go to teh window close, so it may yet happen, but much as some people want desparately to find fault with everything the club does, selling a player requires a willing buyer.

You've had the wheels coming off since May, at every opportunity, and like this one, usually about some imaginary issue that has to stoked up to make it look real, but without any facts. Why not wait until the club actually does something you don't like before you complain about it, or is the problem that even if Saints won promotion, if it was from second place, you'd be complaining that they failed to be top.

Contrary to what you might believe from some of the unsupportive comments on here, all the evidence has pointed towards more signings once the space was available in the budget. Failure to get fees for Saga and Rasiak, and still having Skacel and Euell on the books has not produced the capital needed but Davies choosing to go, has unexpectedly compensated to some extent, which is presumably why JP feels able to make his intentions public. That he wants a striker is good news, but why another CB? Obviously some people will say "to replace Davies", but we have 3 experienced CBs, one midfielder able to play CB and two young CBs. Most people can see we need a specialist LB, whether Surman goes or stays. Playing Surman out of position is not the answer, and neither would drafting Skacel back in, be any better. Maybe the striker need is the higher priority but surely a LB is more important than yet another CB?

Given that you don't know who John is, let alone what information would even enable him to express an opinion, your statements are complete rubbish. These are not his opinions, they are yours, except they are not opinions at all, simply the usual doom-laden statements made with the usual lack of evidence. No one knows whether the club will do as badly as it did last season, but at least the current management are making more of an effort. Ultimately we will all see whether it has worked, but to keep making such negative statements helps no one but our opponents who must find it very amusing to see saints fans slagging off the club they claim to support.

We actually had a top two finish before Lowe arrived, but we also got relegated. We also had easy draws on the way to the FA Cup final in 1976 as well, playing only a third division side in the semi and the win was against a side that had only gone up from Div 2 that season but it was still seen as a great achievement. Problem is Stanley, if you want to blame Lowe for a bad season, you have to credit him with a good one, when in truth, the chairman's impact on either is only one of many factors that affect the outcome of a season. I'm sorry if that's too complicated, when just blaming the chairman is so much easier.

Some incredably niaive ideas on here. John saying administration is the answer, without thinking as to who would buy the assets, and whether the administrator would sell to someone who wanted to preserve the history of the club, or where the money would come from. Actually, he said it was inevitable, but then John must know something that the club's bankers, who are supporting the recovery plan, do not know. Then there is View From The Top, whose business is up 15% this year, so obviously there is no recession affecting banking or the stock market. Although the rest of the banking and finance sector is affected by recession, WH Ireland should be imune because VFTT's business is. And lastly there is SP Saint who wants to know what has held up 'investment' in SFC (or SLH) since 1996. Does SP Saint understand that 'investment' in a football club is not done in order to make money, because the returns are often zero! Anyone wanting to 'invest' will do so in commerce or property. What he means is why has Lowe not pursuaded anyone to make gifts of money to the club to spend on players. And just how does anyone do that? How many people has SP Saint pursuaded to donate money to the club? Even people who we are told want to support the club, such as Fulthorpe and Gavin Davies, etc., have never shown any intention of 'investing' in the team, only perhaps in buying shares, which does not give the club any money at all. The problem is with people who think there are easy, simple answers, but actually the world, including the football world, is more complicated than that.

A shame some people, Weston, Alpine, Offix, etc., find it too difficult to conduct a debate but at least its brightened up by such fantastic wit. Imagine suggesting Lowe should be offloaded instead of Skacel, Euell, along with anyone who disagrees with their defeatist propaganda on the forum. Such a clever post, laugh, I nearly shat my pants. One day, someone other than Lowe will take over the running of the club, but we need that to happen when it is someone who can run the club for the better. Wilde, and then Crouch, showed that they couldn't, and it was nearly a disaster. Should the great wish of the anti-Lowe obsessives come to pass while there is no one capable of replacing Lowe waiting to take over, that is what could see the club in freefall, just as it was last season. Ironic indeed, that if Lowe walked away because he got sick and tired of being the object of so much abuse, the people who would suffer most would be the fans, including the very ones who wanted him to go. On the other hand, if he stays in charge until someone better is willing to take on the role, that would be a different matter, but presently, the anti-Lowers are simply Turkeys voting for Christmas. Or, as they spread so much anti-saints stuff, are they skates in disguise?

Been reading too many posts by the anti-Lowe obsessive's maybe? By Bagpuss, I take it you mean Redknapp? True HR lost interest in Saints, but surely no intelligent football fan can claim that he is not a respected Premiership manager, so how on earth could his appointment be a 'Lowe error'? As Lowe was then ousted by the Wilde coup, just over a year later, the spending of the club's money, that has brought it down to the brink of bankruptcy, took place while Lowe was not on the board. The lowest point reached was the near miss with relegation last year, also while Lowe was not on the board. Others have already pointed out that a top 10 Premiership finish and a cup final, as well as the SMS is not a club in 'freefall' so the whole premise of this thread is just another pointless anti-Lowe gripe, devoid of truth or facts.

Problem is that some people assume that every rumour that is to the club's discredit is true, and claim that everything to its credit is 'spin'. I have no idea whether the story is true or not, and apart from the people involved, no one else does either but some people immediately overreact as if they want it to be true, so that they can have something else to complain about. I really don't understand why people spend hours on a football club forum just to slag off the club concerned. As for the football story, I would be more sorry to see Surman go if he was still first choice at LMF, but as a left back, I think we could do better. I accept that leaves open the question of how he would be replaced. I would like to see a specialist LB brought in and if that did not happen, I would be disappointed. The club is not just in selling mode, as the signings of Forecast, Perry, Schneiderlin and Wooton have confirmed, so the answer to the question is, no this story is not in line with a trend at the club and a signing cannot be ruled out.

If you feel like this about our club, why are you posting on our website?

I'm not going to keep responding to the ridiculously negative posts you keep writing, as they are entirely pointless. You might recall that we did lose - at home - to Burnley last year under Nigel Pearson, and it resulted in relegation only being avoided by the results of other teams. But it didn't stop some fans complaining when Pearson was not given a new contract. If we lose too many games we will be relegated, but it hasn't happened yet, so why make such a song and dance about it, and why compare Barnsley to Birmingham? If we lose to weak teams it will be because our side is not good enough. That is a reason, not an excuse. Relegated clubs don't need excuses, but they do need to consider the reasons, but so far there is no evidence that the Saints are not good enough to do OK in this league, and OK would certainly be better than last year. I'm afraid your other theme, that the club will go into administration this year, is also something that you will be disapointed about. There is no way that Lowe, given his position in the City, will allow that to happen, but the frequency with which you keep talking about it suggests that you would like to see the end of SFC. Most clubs that have gone into administration have slipped even further down the leagues, so don't think it just clears the debts and off you go, it does nothing of the kind.