Professor

It should be a positive for fans that nothing came out of the forum that was unexpected. That suggests that things are not being covered up and that issues such as who to sell and who to play are pretty much public knowledge. The only disappointing thing is to hear that there appear to be no plans to strengthen at FB. Although JP has said who his first choices are, the places are not well covered against injury or suspension and look like weak spots. Surman is a good player but even good players are not at their best played out of position. Just hope it is money that is holding up a signing and that if any of the sales go through, maybe we will see someone brought in.

I'm worried about Skacel. He has always had a good reputation, but teams he's played for, including us, seem very willing to do without him. Its almost like Pass-the-Parcel and as the music has stopped we seem to have got the prize, only sometimes its not something you want....

People who are sick and tired of the Anti-Lowe stuff are not Lowe Luvvies, they just recognise how damaging to our club it has been to conduct these campaigns. Its hard to understand people who pretend to support the club, yet behave in a way that gives us a bad reputation in football in general. This matters, because the anti-Lowe stuff costs the club money and may even make it harder to persuade players from playing for us. This thread is about football, yet again an obsessive anti-Lowe individual is more interested in the boardroom than in the football.

Are those the people who were in the side that got to the playoff against Derby? Or Maybe Wilde wasn't still on the board by then. But hey! Why let facts get in the way of another mindless rant against the club you claim to support. Wilde is currently filling a major role for our club; what are you doing apart from rubbishing someone we are relying on for success?

Wilde has done absolutely what a football chairman should do, which is issue a war cry at the start of the season. He has covered virtually every point that needs covering. It doesn't matter if individuals don't agree with everything he said, and who wants a chairman to say he hopes the team might manage a bottom half finish! But he clearly thinks we can do better and that top six is makeable. We just have to bear in mind that all the other teams have the same objective, so its not just how well saints play, its also how well others play..

After relegation, Redknapp lost interest. He could have done better and his going was a relief, but it was lack of effort, not lack of ability. Burley just did not seem to be up to the job, in virtually ant aspect you care to think about.

Can't see us losing on Saturday. Even with their strong home support, I'm expecting a one goal win at Cardiff with a clean sheet. So 0 - 1 to Saints, and a few people having to start eating their words, not just in Southampton, but in the press as well. What a reception they will get at the SMS if they do manage this!

By changing the team at half time it looks as if JP didn't feel the first team needed another game, but it seems to have been worthwhile to give the rest of the squad half a game.

And another against Stoke. Is that a class act? Beattie went half a season without scoring so even class strikers don't score every week but if DMG gets 10 goals in the CCC he'll be worth his place. If he gets 15+ that would be class for a rookie.

Poorvleit is looking more professional than Burley ever did. As for his English, that's better than Burley's as well!

With Saints having put out a second 11 for the 2nd half, the overall result doesn't mean anything. At least the first team drew the first half. If the 2nd 11 do as well in the 2nd half, fine, but it probably won't change JP's line-up for Saturday. And if they lose the 2nd half, it will just confirm that the first team were better! But what if we win the 2nd half? Selection problems then, maybe?

There may well be a whole tranch of smarter businessmen than Rupert Lowe, and maybe a good few with more knowledge of running a football club, but is there a single one of them who wants to take over at Southampton? So if RL were to get fed up with the antics of the anti-Lowe obsessives and he was to resign from the board, just who would be running the club? Michael Wilde - probably would resign as well. Maybe Mary Corbett? Or perhaps big Lawrie despite holding no shares and being just a little over the hill? Or maybe the administrators put in by the bank to sell off the assets. Before asking a question it would pay to engage the brain.

Disproves the theory that Rasiak and John can't be on the pitch together, but maybe this is about keeping people in the shop window. On the other hand, no Skacel and no Saga. What do we read into that? And has the money for Safri actually been paid?

Maybe the club need to be sure that the clear out is going OK before they commit more money to next year's wages budget. Expect the longer deals for any players on one-year contracts who hold their places in the first team after a few weeks but it is important that two or three out of Rudi / Safri / Rasiak / Stern / Saga / Euell, do find a home soon. I don't mean I wan't them all to go, but who goes also depends on who is wanted. Last season's outcome hasn't made any of them look like better players.

7 mins into the second half and still 1 - 1.

There are only 10 outfield players allowed in association football and JP has decided on his first choice 11 who are now being played together with just a few changes around the fringe, such as Killer not being played too much while still in rehab. Injury and form will provide opportunities for others but it will be a good thing if we don't see the constant switching of the team as we did under Burley. The CCC is about winning games, not giving people a run out.

Of all the teams in England not yet in private hands, why should any passing billionaire pick Southampton?

1. Under the new arrangements where the younger players train with the first team players, do we actually have a first team squad any more? 2. Does the board have a view as to how large the playing force should be? 3. In relation to the club's Official Website, setting aside issues of presentation, there are questions about accuracy and out-of-date information. Do the board accept these criticisms, and if so are there any have plans to address them?

At least if the young team philosophy doesn't work it looks like we will still have an old team on the books to call on! How about Saints try a BOGOF offer?

Mismanagement is a totally unreasonable accusation, in fact Lowe managed the club very effectively for 10 years. The compaints about relegation in 2005 tend to be from people who look for one simple cause to blame, when in fact the world is far more complicated. The chairman played a role in the relegation season but the outcome of the season, relegation by ONE goal, was not caused by him alone. If Neimi had saved one more shot, or if Crouch or Phillips had scored one more goal, relegation would have been avoided but that would not have made Lowe a good chairman, any more than the failure to get that goal made him a bad one. The events after Lowe was removed in 2006, showed that we could also do a lot worse - and we did. Its true that people are entitled to their opinions, but if opinions are based on closed minded predudice, others are entitled to point out that out.

We could, of course, still have Crouch in the chair,and the other failed directors of the past 2 years - who allowed Burley to spend money the club didn't have and who nearly took Saints down to the 3rd Division for the first time in nearly 50 years. Lowe and Wilde have had nothing forcerd on them that they were not prepared to face. They did not have to return and as shareholders, they were well aware of the financial situation. They could have let Crouch get on with it, or let the club go into administration. Neither have so much invested in SFC that it would have damaged either of them in terms of wealth. Both deserve some credit for being prepared to try to rescue the club, despite the abuse that Lowe in particular must have known he would have to endure from some quarters.

Lets just be clear, that Sturrock was criticised for image before he had a chance to show ability, but he had a strong track record at Plymouth. Had he stayed, which he could have done, we have no way of knowing what the season would have been like. As for Wigley, contrary to Delmary's comment, he was well-respected by the players, and he suffered from player injuries during his 4 months in charge. But, given the results, a switch to a strong, experienced manager (Redknapp as it happened) and a squad rebuild in Jan 2005, was clearly the right decision. Under Redknapp, the team failed by ONE goal to stay up. Wigley has gone on to be a respected coach, which he still is. As for the HR argument, it simply does not apply in a world where potential candidates are tied into long-term contracts, which is why you didn't see the Chelsea job advertised in The Times.

Once again there is confusion here between people who "Luv" Lowe - of whom there are very few, and people who see the constant attacks on Lowe as divisive and damaging to the club. Some of the Lowe-haters have very weak grounds for their position and inevitably these get challenged. We've all seen comments that Lowe is doing OK so far, and better than expected but 70's Mike has made up the statement that people 'keep saying what a great job he is doing' just so that Mike can then complain about it. The fact is people do NOT keep saying that. Its this sort of dishonesty that undermines the anti-Lowe argument. As chairman in 2004/05 Lowe obviously played a part in the relegation, but many people dispute the line that it was 'all down to him'. That is a fair difference of opinion, but opinions should be based on fact. Simplifying it to '3 managers = relegation = chairman to blame' is just crassly stupid. Just as if "Colchester = 1 manager in 2 years = relegation = chairman to blame" is any more sensible. As for 1965onwards criticising Lowe for commenting on team selection when he was not on the board but then blaming Lowe for it, is bizzare. This sort of desparation to find something to blame on Lowe simply shows the desparation of the anti-Lowe position. None of this makes Lowe a 'great' chairman, but neither does it make him guilty of being a bad one.

Its not wage levels that determine how good a player is. DMG proved over the last two seasons that he knows where the goal is. You can see Prem and international strikers who miss sitters, so if the ball gets to him, DMG knows what to do with it, as well as any and better than a lot. Can't ask for more from a striker.

Agree that £5 is too little for the entertainment we get.