Professor

Spot on. Re Pelle, Les Reed said as much when he spoke about a player over 30 with only a year left on his contract. Unless a one-year extension is agreed he'll probabnly be ripe for off-loading this summer. Mane is different because with two years left on his contract he probably needs the club's agreement to a move. Good player that Wanyama is, he can also be a liability and is replaceable. The only surprise would be Tadic because he has picked his game up in recent weeks. Don't think the club will want Tadic to go so doubt that any decision has been made unless he is in the last year of his contract.

Another United fan. Seems they can creep in anywhere. Fortunately there is the ignore facility. Feel free to use it, I just have.

Clearly you don't care, but that's your problem. Many other real Saints' fans do and want no favours from Van Gaal. Fortunately, Palace now have a great opportunity to win it. Smalling usually deserves a red card almost every time he steps onto a football pitch so its nice to see when he gets one.

Very Sad. Saints are good enough to get to the Group stage on merit and to have the smug Van Gaal to thank doesn't bear thinking about. Just imagine an interview where he says, "and with this great victory celebrated by Louis Van Gaal's Army, we have helped little Southampton to a better place in the Europa League".

Unless Palace win, Clattenburg has effectively ruined this cup final. Even if Man U get three goals in the second half the appalling decisions to stop play when Palace had scoring opportunities will already be affecting both teams. Clattenburg has demonstrated why those who said he should not have been allowed to referee this match are shown to be right. A look at his history on the web shows how the FA have had to protect him over his insulting attitude towards players and on their track record they will protect him from his incompetence today. This game has now been ruined for Man U as well because if they end up with the cup, it will be an embarrassment. Only a Palace win will now put the shocking refereeing decisions out of mind. Edit: Remember the straight red for Wanyama against West Ham when it was questionable whether there was any contact.

For me, I'm not so keen of being in Man U's debt for a place in the Group stage that I can want then to win today. Seeing the smirk wiped off Van Gaal's slightly odd face is worth playing a pair of qualifying games. I would prefer being in the Group Stage on our own merit and if we are hoping to do well in the Group, surely we are good enough to get past a qualifier. I'll be hoping to see Palace win today and would love to see Alan Pardew holding the cup.

Pleased to see that one of the memories Rickie has shared is playing with David Connolly. Together with Rickie, I thought DC played a major role in the two promotion seasons although it was often Rickies' goals that, quite rightly caught the headlines. His description of DC as an intelligent player chimes exactly with what many of we fans saw from the terraces and it was probably that which allowed him to play on after he had been virtually written-off due to his injuries. The Connolly goal that I remember vividly was against Brighton at the Withdean. It was the year both we and Brighton were promoted from League One and was played after Brighton were already sure of being champions but the win gave us automatic promotion. We Saints' fans were packed in a pen well behind the goal with the running track between us and the pitch. Brighton had been leading by a goal scored almost on the stroke of half-time and only about 10 mins was left when Connolly scored a sweet goal with a shot into the corner of the goal. I remember him leaping the advertising barriers behind the goal and running over to we fans to celebrate the equaliser. That broke Brighton's grip on the game and a few minutes later, Fonte scored so that we went away 2-1 winners and guaranteed of Championship football the following year. That was an era when we almost expected Rickie to score in every game but it is typical of the man that his memories don't focus just on his own performances but also on his team-mates and that he should pick out the experience of playing alongside David Connolly.

Undoubtedly a good player but suspensions have limited his contribution and the free kicks conceded have to be put in the balance against the good work he does for the team. According to the Southampton FC website Vic has made 30 Premier League appearances in 2015/16 although some of those would not have been for the full 90 minutes because of being subbed, sent-off, or coming on as a sub. If the website is up-to-date and these statistics are based on 38 games, his playing time would be a maximum of 78% and in practice, was less than that. I'm not sure if the coaches would want him to curb his aggression as that underpins much of his contribution to the team but playing time would seem to be a factor in assessing his overall value, both to the team and in the transfer market. Sadio Mane is logged on the website as having 37 league appearances, again not all for the full 90 minutes, but his playing time is significantly greater than Victor's over the season. Different player, different position and different contract period but Sadio would seem to be of greater value to Southampton and if it's not possible to hang on to both of these two, it might be best to focus on keeping Sadio, even if Townsend is available as a possible replacement.

Strange career for Andros Townsend who seems to be an accomplished player. Has been around a long time but still only 24. Several loans throughout his career so far haven't prevented him being picked for England at virtually all the youth levels and ultimately the full England squad. Little doubt that he's worth a place in the Saints' squad at £8m and maybe more, after which it would be up to him to compete for first team selection. Newcastle won't be keen to sell their first team players as they will expect to bounce back with promotion next season, but Andros is at an age when he needs Premier League football to stay in the eye of the England management.

It looks as if the qualifying rounds of the Europa Cup had an adverse effect on the start of the Premier League campaign. Players had to be recruited quite quickly last summer with little or no time to settle in. We didn't get our first win in the Premier League until the fourth match at the end of August, which was against the ultimately to be relegated, Norwich. This year, whilst there might be squad changes, overall we do seem better placed to handle the early season, and even if we drop to 6th place tonight, there will only be one pair of Europa League qualifying games to play instead of the two pairs of last year. There should be less disruption of pre-season this year. The importance of early season matches is very clear when you look for the 4 extra points that could have meant a Champions League spot.

My overwhelming interest is in the Saints' game and that is likely to be true of the supporters of many other teams. I haven't paid enough attention to know whether the match shown first has a longer slot than any of the others. The programme title 'Match of the Day' suggests that it should although the title is probably a hangover from when only one match was allowed to be shown. Limited, so called 'highlights' don't give a true flavour of any match so the build-up to the goals scored, if any, is probably enough for many people. From the BBC's point of view, we can't escape the fact that the wealthy and highly publicised clubs such as the Manchester, Liverpool and London teams do attract a wider following around the country of glory supporters so probably more viewers do want to watch those clubs than teams in the category of Stoke; Southampton; Bournemouth; Norwich; Swansea, etc. Leicester City being at the top of the viewing list does confirm that if an 'unfashionable' club does well it will get more attention so Saints could benefit in the same way if the team continue to perform well. It may be that Southampton's excellent performance over the second half of the season took the broadcasters by surprise and they have been slow in catching up with how well Saints have done.

Before you add abuse to a comment you should make sure you are correct because if you think Kane should have been penalised you would have to point out the "obvious action" Kane took to cause the defenders to delay. That they did delay was apparant, but if that was merely because of his presence and not because of an obvious action it is still not an offence. So unless you can point out the action it would seem you would be wrong in thinking Kane should have been penalised. But if you are wrong don't get too upset about it. It's only football.

Looking good this morning. If we win against Palace, we finish at least 7th because Liverpool could not catch us. To stop us moving up to 6th, West Ham have to win at Stoke because if they draw we will be ahead of them on goal difference. So beat Palace and 6th or 7th is assured.

Sorry to pick this up a bit late but discussed this on the Spurs Post-Match thread. Interfering with play isn't mentioned in FIFA's off-side interpretation, only 'interfering with an opponent' or 'gaining an advantage'. Kane wasn't penalised as he did neither of those things and it was Son who gained the advantage. It could be an unintended consequence of the interpretation but unless FIFA change it, that's how it is. Even neutrals might feel that the Spurs goal was unfair because Kane's presence in the area affected how the Saints defenders and GK behaved but as the rule stands no offence was committed.

Know just how you feel. Two clubs who I love to see lose but this time, not only is a win for MU just what we need but it also hurts the other money bags club, Man City.

Obviously, West Ham and Liverpool to lose would have Saints' fans almost as euphoric as winning at Tottenham. I did say, almost. Realistically though, a United win and a Liverpool draw does look a likely outcome.

This makes the point very well. The off-side interpretation now takes account of 'interfering with an opponent', but not 'interfering with play'. It seems to me that Kane was interfering with play but if he was, that is not an offence under the interpretation. Neither did Kane gain an advantage, because the advantage was obtained not by him but by a team-mate. If that had been the winning goal, I suspect there would have been more controversy over it but as the rule stands, the ref got it right. It would be nice to think that the rule will be looked at but instances like this one are probably quite rare.

Southampton have managed to creep into 6th place. Luckily for them, the two teams below them, West Ham and Liverpool have difficult fixtures against against Man U and Chelsea so its possible Southampton might hang on to that position until the final games next weekend through no effort of their own. But that's not the only luck Southampton have had to get into the top six. They have also met several of the big teams on days when those teams have just not been playing very well. The media have made it clear after every unexpected Southampton victory, that the outcome was not due to the winning team being a good side playing well, but was due to the losing sides, Chelsea, Arsenal, Man U, Liverpool, Man City and Tottenham, etc., having an off-day. Only yesterday for example, Tottenham were struggling at the end of a hard season and were wilting in the hot May weather. Southampton were fortunate not to be dealing with the same conditions. The media know what their viewers, readers and listeners want - they want the same 5 or 6 Big Clubs to compete for the top four each year and for little clubs to know their place. If that fails to happen, given all the hard-earned millions spent by the Big Club owners any divergence from the norm can only be down to luck.

Many pundits have expressed concern about the FIFA interpretation of offside and Tottenham's goal yesterday is a good example of how players can struggle with it. Eric Lamela played the ball into the area through a group of players to where Harry Kane was in an offside position. Knowing that if he touched the ball he would be penalised for offside, Kane did the correct thing and ignored the through ball. Seeing Kane walking away, Forster and the Saints' defenders allowed the ball to run on towards the goal line where it would go out for a goal kick. Tottenham player, Son Heung-min, ran at speed through the crowd of players, past Harry Kane, and reached the ball in time to take it from Forster and to put the ball in the net. Under the FIFA interpretation, Referee Jonathan Moss made the correct decision to award the goal. To be offside, a player must be in an offside position AND be in Active Play. Active Play is defined as (1) Interfering with play; (2) Interfering with an opponent; (3) Gaining an advantage. Kane was not offside as he wasn't in active play, although his presence in an offside position caused the goal to be scored. It's doubtful that this was the intention of the FIFA interpretation and is more likely to be an unintended consequence but it is an example of a very old lesson for players - Always Play to the Whistle! In the euphoria of a fantastic win, I wonder if Ronald might still find a moment to remind his defenders because that was dreadful goal to concede.

For me, today's result was probably the one I have enjoyed the most this season. As most of us on here will know, winning today means that if we get anything from the final home game against Palace, the club will have bettered last season's highest Prem points total of 60, reaching either 61 or 63. Whether that leaves us 6th, 7th or 8th depends on the results of other teams. But this does mean that since the Leibherr purchase in July 2009, the club has improved its end result every season by moving up the leagues or achieving more points. Sooner or later, when the pundits and journalists report on Saints' results, such as today, they may notice that the original project to grow this club over a set period of time, is continuing. It is beginning to appear that Southampton is not a little club having an occasional moment in the sun but that it may actually be on the way to even bigger things. Although we have lost players in the close seasons, often reluctantly, one remarkable thing about today's result is that only three players who were with the club 3 years ago (Fonte, Davis and Ward-Prowse) played any part today. Inevitably, as fans we tend to focus on the players and the manager but that statistic suggests that much of the credit must go to the Board who have presided over the project of continuous improvement. At next week's game, Katherina, Ralph and Les all deserve to be shown the fans' appreciation, as well as Ronald, the coaches and the players.

He had a very positive image when he was here and is reputed to have done well. It can be argued that he inherited some good players and was fortunate in that the Academy was producing some exceptional talent but he had to be confident enough to give those young players their chances and add his own tactical style, such as the high press to the way the team played. Perhaps the fact that he refused to speak English to the media added to an air of mystery about him. His manner of leaving was disappointing but few would argue against the view that his period here was a continuation of the club's development. At Tottenham, he continues to struggle with the language despite having lived in England now for what, 3 years? His image is not as clean cut as it was and it's almost as if the north London yobbo style, if it really exists, has affected him somehow. But he has continued what he did at Southampton, improving the performances of his team, bringing through young players and unless you count Alderweireld as a defection, he hasn't raided his previous club at a time when players were defecting to Liverpool, Man U and Arsenal. But respect for him must now be tempered by the behaviour of his players in the Chelsea game and his own behaviour in that match. To see a manager on the pitch joining in a scuffle is highly distasteful. He may claim that he was trying to separate players but, if so, he chose to do that by confronting a Chelsea player, not by calming his own players down. In any case, the manager should not be on the pitch; discipline is a matter for the officials. And to do that in a match where he subsequently praised his players despite 9 yellow cards being shown to them indicated that he is not interested in encouraging proper behaviour. And lets remember this is after Tottenham player Delle Alli was banned for three matches for violent behaviour in the Europa match with Fiorentina. In my opinion, I'm very glad Pochettino is not manager of Southampton, and not just because we have an excellent manager in Ronald, but because the Argentine is no longer fit for the Southampton Way.

Absolutely right. Some honesty by managers would be a breath of fresh air in the game, and fortunately, we have one in RK who is setting a good example. The common excuse as used by Pochettino, that "I didn't see the incident" used when it's one of the manager's players, doesn't stack up as they seem to see very clearly, incidents far away from them that would favour their team. When managers don't tell the truth, its not surprising that players cheat.

If it's any help, I believe he was a Southampton manager at some time and was even regarded as quite successful, although his manner of leaving left some with a bad taste in their mouths. He has also managed a club that recruited one of our highly rated players and has improved its performances enough to help keep us out of the top 6. Wouldn't hurt Southampton to see this manager out of the Premier League. One other comment about Pochettino concerns a quote attributed to him over the charging of his player, Dele Alli, with violent conduct in the match with WBA. Pochettino is quoted as saying "Sometimes the opponents find him and try to provoke. They know he has a strong character and may react." An example of one thing that is wrong with football when managers try to defend the indefensible. Alli has yet to be found guilty, but that comment is actually saying that the victim of a physical punch asked for it. That is unacceptable anywhere and is certainly not something that should be used by a manager to excuse a sly assault by one of his players.

A few people have made somewhat pessimistic suggestions that because we have lost at Goodison in the past, we will struggle to win or draw this week-end. Part of being a Saints’ fan can be to look on the black side but being logical about this, past results have no bearing on this match. We are 7 places above Everton in the table and we are better than them on current from so this is an eminently winnable game. Going back to the use of past results as a guide, back in the 1990s, my son who was 16 at the time, travelled up from here to Liverpool with a group of Everton Fans. He said that they were all kind to him as a Saints’ supporter because they expected to thrash us. The previous year, 1996, they had won their home match against Southampton by 7-1. Although we had managed a draw when they came to The Dell he said that on the way up they were extremely confident of giving us another thrashing. He enjoyed the train ride home, after we won up there by 2-0, the goals scored by Matt Le Tissier and Kevin Davies. All goes to show that previous season’s results just don’t come into it.

Reading between the lines, I think this means that Managers and Coaches don't know what they are doing, don't need to be qualified and any experience they have of the game isn't relevant. Watching players in training or in training matches is no help towards picking the best team, so no need to bother. The manager might as well pick a team by drawing names out of a hat. Perhaps he does. I just don't understand why former professional players work to obtain useless training badges and why clubs pay coaches substantial salaries when fans out of the stadium could do the job at a fraction of the cost. Maybe the in the future, clubs should call a selection committee of volunteer fans together before each game?