Professor

So far of course, but this is only 0.2 of a player off of 20% of the team..... One more on loan and we'll be up to 27% of the team, or in imperial, over a quarter!

The OS looks a bit desperate in trying to create a 'feel-good' factor by the PR spin on Jordan Turnbull's first game for Swindon. Good luck to the lad, and I'm sorry he got booked in his first game, but how Swindon do is irrelevant to Saints as are the fortunes of any other club that has a Saint's player on loan.

Just a few thoughts - At £6m he may not appear to be quite in the same class as Lovren at £20m, although Lovren's value only increased to that level after his time at Southampton; He was once suspended for 10 games for breaking a player's leg; He is described on Wikipedia as CB or DMF; Wonder if he is a CB who can also play DFM or a DFM who can also play CB? Although he chose to accept international selection for Romania, he is Hungarian in origin; Could he have opted for Hungary or was he not offered selection by them? Can he speak English? If not, will assimilation into the defence take longer? Despite the above looking on the negative side, Gardos is likely to be an improvement on Yoshida, who still seems to be a little way off adapting to Prem standard, but I had hoped we could do better considering some of the other names bandied about.

Reports in the press are frequently the result of deliberate comments supplied by one party or the other with the object of improving their own negotiating position. Unless it's an outright rejection, any comment that mentions money is likely to be in this category. As for the suggestion of £16m compared to what we got for Shaw, that would seem to be very good price for a player who appears to as close to a like-for like replacement as you could hope for, and with significant money left over.

As with Clyne, JRod has to decide between Jam today and Jam tomorrow. He will continue to be paid according to his existing contract until it expires, so he can see it out, gambling on the possibility that he may then get higher pay somewhere else, but not until then. Or he can agree a new contract with SFC now and immediately move to higher pay, which may or may not be as good as he would eventually get elsewhere. It's a risk if he refuses to sign as anything could happen, such as loss of form, or another injury.

I'd suggest that's a widely held view and his disappearance for a while could suggest that there may have been a lack of confidence in Kruguer even inside the club. If he is making an effort now because he needs to protect his own position and not just placate the dissatisfied faction amongst the fans, that could be helpful. Fans won't mind what the motivation is, as long as the outcome is an improved squad over what we have now, and ideally over what we had last season. Although 1st Sept is mentioned as the time to judge, quite a few posters have said the same, not having the best team available until September could mean losing some points before the new players are integrated and the manager has assessed his best XI. It's stating the obvious, but points lost early season can never be recovered.

Assuming Forster signs today that will a brick in the wall of rebuilding confidence in the Board. Strengthening one position is consistent with promises made at the start of the close season. If this is followed by further signings to complete the replacement of departed players it will be seen as an important step in regaining the support of sceptical fans. If the next signing is at CB, and in time to play alongside Fonte at Anfield, things may feel very different.

Changed your tune Jeffrey. Expecting the Board to apologise for selling our best players means you could be in for a long wait. Spending some of the money on a goalie is a good start and now we need to see action on central defence, which is a higher priority in many people eyes. Keep up the pressure as it's more likely to result in the signings we need, rather than happily applauding every decision

Wes is conducting a discussion that should rightly be on a different thread. This thread should be about what the Board can do to regain trust. It is not about whether a player on loan is as good as a player who has been purchased. The point I have been making is that loans do not have as much impact on confidence, and may even reduce confidence compared with spending the transfer fees generated on new players. If the club were to bring in some international superstar on loan, that might aid confidence, but that isn't what is on offer. Some of our loan players may get into the starting XI, some may settle into a less prominent role but the fact remains that fans were told that fees for the departed players would be spent on the team and for many people it doesn't yet feel as if that is happening. No doubt the sceptics will reassess how they feel if players are bought for positions such as GK, CB and Wing, whereas the loyalists probably trust the Board despite the events that have occurred and have no need to reassess. People are entitled to have blind faith if that's how they feel but it doesn't mean they are necessarily right and, of course that applies equally to the sceptics.

Your last line is of course, correct in the context of what the Board could do to regain trust but whether such signings are likely is another matter. I also think you misread my post, because I referred to the fact that we have only BOUGHT 2 players to replace 5 sales, whereas you refer to BRINGING players in. Loan players may contribute to the team but are less likely to increase confidence amongst the fan base as they represent less of a commitment by the club. Options to buy at the end of the season instead of buying now could be seen as an indication of less confidence in those players and at least one (Bertrand) cannot play in at least two of Saints' fixtures. It seems reasonable to conclude that more trust could be created by purchasing players, as the club has done in the past, and recruiting some who Les Reed said were on the club's list but who don't seem to have materialised at all. Two other things. The comments in the media I refer to are those written by acknowledged Saints' fans who are journalists, not the sensation stuff in the red tops, which I never read anyway. Re Taider, he will be competing for a place in an area where the squad is full of good players. Users of this site know very well who they all are so listing names for your benefit seems rather pointless.

The statement includes the sentence:- "Hans joined the board of the football club’s holding company during a transitional period in January 2014 to help stabilise the club and lend his experience in corporate governance." There was no suggestion when he was employed, that he was just temping in he job but maybe it suits to imply that now rather than have people ask whether it was a parting on performance grounds. If so, it hasn't worked as people are referring back to the public utterance that generated adverse publicity at the time and which may have had some impact on clubs thinking Southampton would readily part with players. As if.

Sorry to tell you I am not of an 'ilk', just an observer but if you are not aware that clubs do reject transfer requests perhaps you don't follow football as closely as you might think. Transfers are frequently rejected even when requested by the player. The Bosman ruling made this more difficult if the contract period remaining was short as the player could eventually leave for free but this has been countered by clubs putting players on longer contracts so that the period a player might have to wait to leave would be long enough to damage his career if he did not play to his best ability. Leighton Baines was last year's high profile example and I'm afraid you can't reject his case just because it doesn't suit your argument. Freedom of movement only applies at the end of a contract and prior to that it is entirely up to the club whether it wishes to maximise transfer income by selling while an offer is on the table. The key issues are how long is left on the contract and the club's reasons for preferring to have the money rather than the player. I have no interest in seeking to change your opinion but if you do your own research you will find other high profile examples of transfer requests rejected and others of less high profile by clubs such as WBA and Leicester. Have fun looking.

Just trying to help with your uncertainty, SOG, with an observation of what the Board COULD have done:- They could have sat down with each player and his agent for an hour and explained that as the player was contracted to Southampton for a lengthy period, and because this club has its own ambitions, a sale would not be contemplated. Impossible? It is what was done with Schneiderlin so it could have been done with any of the others As for getting "Well over top dollar" - in running a football team the only point of that is if the money can be used to make the team even stronger by more than compensating for the player who is sold. But by only buying 2 to replace 5, the Board have not used the profit on the sales to strengthen the team. Instead we have players on loan, including one in a position where the existing players are arguably better than the one loaned in. As a result we have gaps left by international players who have gone, gaps that have not been filled or not adequately filled. Anyone who doubts that the Board have suffered a loss of confidence only needs to read some of the articles appearing in the printed and electronic media. Regaining confidence is much harder than losing it but spending the money received on players with a high reputation would help.

Jeff you really are unbelievable!! You said "There are some very good reasons why I trust the board and will continue to do so..." and now you claim this doesn't amount to support for the Board!! As for Morgan and JRod, of course they can't now be sold this window because Kruguer blocked the sale in response to the adverse response from fans and supporters in the media and were he to go back on that he would be under serious pressure to resign. But just like your post above, it was a qualified promise that leave it open for either or both players to be sold in January. It is still the fact that we have only bought two new players and at hugely less cost than 5 sold. Loans are hardly going to convince anyone other than the Board's strongest supporters that promises about using the income to fill the gaps and to improve the team will be kept. People will need to see the money spent if they are to believe the spin, and not just some of it, but all of it.

The problem with saying any board would have struggled to keep the star players is that ours doesn't appear to have struggled at all. They sent Rickie on his way with all best wishes, despite having no manager to consult and therefore contrary to the stated transfer policy. The struggle to keep Morgan took, it appears, one hour, despite his wish to go, but with the other leavers there doesn't seem to have been even an hour's struggle because the requests were granted.

Jeff, I'm afraid that even if the Board do renege on promises, which several people would say they have already done, I suspect you'd still find excuses for them. As fans, isn't it the club we should support which is not the same thing as the people temporarily sitting in the director's chairs?

But you have no facts on which to base your opinion either. A dissatisfied group certainly exists as indicated by comments in the press and elsewhere but the unknown is how representative that group is. Some evidence may be found when it is seen what impact there is on gates at St Mary's, although some fans will attend games despite a lack of faith in the Board because it is the club that they support not the Board, and they have already bought their STs. If the Board do want to address a loss of confidence in them, the key would probably be honesty. When statements are made as to future intention, events will almost always show over time, whether those statements are carried through. For example, saying they will spend all the income from transfers on strengthening the team is something that fans will be able to judge based on which players are recruited and the fees involved. That may look somewhat simplistic as other factors such as wages and the FFP rules may be involved, but such issues can be taken into account when making public statements so that fans do not feel they are being lied to. Honesty would also need an admission of fault when mistakes become apparent, as a failure to admit error is a sure way to destroy confidence in decision makers. Unfortunately, that is tough if you never make a mistake and have no errors to admit.

A theory that fits with some of the evidence but to work it requires the participants to behave in a particular way, that could not have ben guaranteed. For example, the delay in the Lallana/Shaw transfers was caused by Hodgson's requirement that no transfers be completed while players were away with the England WC squad. Had the players not been in the England squad the timing would have been different and may not have fitted the theory. Secondly, Lovren sought to force his move apparently against the club's wishes. The new manager wanted him to stay if he could be persuaded and if he had, £20m would have been lost to the theory calculations. Thirdly, why resist the Schneiderlin move which would have freed up more salary whilst agreeing to break Chambers' contract which was much lower. On this theory, surely it would have been Schneiderlin who would have gone and Chambers would have stayed, especially as Chambers value would have been likely to increase over time. The theory is good but somewhat contrived to fit the events. Certainly FFP is an issue but I'm not sure our Board is so clever as to have put all this together, got the players to behave as required, and issued public statements knowing that events would leave them open to charges of lying. Good work but suspect conclusions.

Although new players may come in, at the moment you can only base an assessment of the team's prospects on the facts as they currently are. As the facts change, which they may do, then assessments can be revised accordingly. Most would probably agree that the starting 11 is currently weaker than last season, even if Lambert and Lallana have been suitably replaced. The back four looks weaker with Yoshida and Bertrand in place of Lovren and Shaw. Chambers' absence, while not affecting the first choice starting XI, has an impact as soon as cover is called on. Squad players will be needed as soon as the season is under way and that is where the team looks vulnerable with lack of depth. A strengthened starting XI would, of course, benefit the squad situation. Conclusion must be that the spend matters to prevent a relegation struggle. Teams that begin badly have a more difficult task, so it is no surprise that many fans feel impatient. The club's Chairman, has indicated that the club will spend every penny that has come in, so if what he has said is taken at face value this should begin soon, but won't loan deals restrict the club's ability to spend? Surely if part of the wages budget is spent on loan players, there won't be enough to pay the wages of the 4 or 5 signings that have been talked about? The club has still only bought two players, and none of Les Reed's original target list, so continuing scepticism is no surprise until the promises are fulfilled. Panic deals in the last few days of the transfer window is unlikely to be the most effective way of strengthening, not least because 9 points will already have been competed for by then. Time to Extractum digitum.

Koeman has indicated he wants to play 4-3-3 but with all the links to midfield players he could be playing 3-6-1. Surely the priority is CB, and having lost a player valued at £20m, logically, a similar spend would be needed for a like-for-like replacement. Koeman indicated that he tried to persuade Lovren to stay, so there should be no reason why the unwanted fee is not fully invested in the replacement. Can I see the club breaking its transfer record on a CB? Unlikely I'd say. Two for the price of one could be a possibiity in which case neither would be as good as what we have lost. If there is a CB available who is as good as Lovren but for less money, surely Liverpool would have gone for him instead. In the meantime, I can't see why most of the rumours seem to be focused on midfield.

I went to the Semi-final in 76 against Palace at Stamford Bridge but couldn't get a Final ticket so watched on TV from the comfort of an armchair pulled up in front of the telly at home. When Stokes scored, the next thing I remember was that I was dancing round the room, with the armchair held above my head! I was pleased we came 8th last year, but not that pleased...... and the points total was a bit disappointing after the good start to the season.

Are you trying to say this is a spoof......shock, shock!

This is crediting the Board with having a little Integrity but surely, the last of it was sold off weeks ago.

The Celtic plan relies also on approval by the FA and the Premier League to the ultimate transfer of home games to Glasgow. The key to this is the infiltration of Scots into positions of influence in both organisations, a process that has been quietly going on for some time.

If the wages here were so out of control - and you don't know that - how is it that inadequate pay has been cited as the reason for players wanting to leave....... Southampton had more income from prize and TV money than about half the other Prem clubs.