Professor

Agree about the paperwork reference from Les Reed's interview. My interpretation also that the decision is made. How long until we hear depends upon tying up the loose ends, some of which are outside the club's control in terms of how quickly they are sorted. In the meantime, all fans passing through airports, working in hotels or travelling with taxi drivers should be under an absolute obligation to let us know as soon as they hear a clue.....

I'm not sure this is correct. The report on Sky Sports that I saw says the agreement is that Tuchel will no longer be paid by the club and that he intends to take a year out, but he is not free to take another job in that time without Mainz's permission and any club that did take him would have to pay a fee to Mainz.

Mine was an A N Other vote as I'd like to think that Tuchel was on their 4-man short list. Not only do I liked what I've read about him, and the opinions on here that he'd be a good fit, I would like to see us stick with the 'young manager' approach. Of the other three in the Poll, only Yakin fits with that and even Koeman is the wrong side of 50. Although Koeman remains the favourite for most fans, I'd worry about his track record of not staying anywhere for long because given our record on managers, even in the Leibherr era, we are still looking for some stability.

The interview made me feel more positive about the way the club is being run and more optimistic that they intend the squad to be stronger next year. The omission was an explanation of why Rickie Lambert was sold before the new manager was in place, contrary to the stated policy. Leaving it out was probably better than saying they did it for the player's sake, which would have been contradictory to the assurance that decisions are always in the best interests of the club. I was left wanting to trust LR but that one decision on Lambert just left an element of doubt. Ultimately it will be actions that will be used to judge them, but in the meantime the club can only use words and I thought it was a very good decision to communicate with the fans in the way they did.

It seems Ranieri wouldn't need a translator which is a shame as it would be good to see the Fake Interpreter from the Nelson Mandela Commemoration back in action again, if only for the deaf. Much as I like the idea of Koeman, we should be open to the possibility that the selection panel produce a stronger candidate. if the rumour is correct that SFC are losing interest, there should be a good reason for that and not cost or lack of commitment to squad retention/team building. If someone else has emerged as a quality candidate and the best person possible, that would be fine with me.

One good outcome may be if players learn that if they don't want to be committed to a club for several years, because they want to keep their options open:- DON'T SIGN a long contract! Of course, if you don't sign a long contract you might not get such high pay but I'm sure there's some old saying about having cake and eating it....... SFC have the power to stand firm and we all wait to see what decision they come to, although if it is to let them go and we then get letters of regret and farewell along the lines of the one done for Rickie, it'll be sick bags all round. Good as both Shaw and Lallana are, quite a few fans might feel they are replaceable and would be quite glad to see the back of them, which would be a sad way to end years of association with the club, but sadder for the players than for the fans, because the Saints go marching on regardless of the personnel.

Very good article and nice to see that Southampton is now judged by the editor of as national Sunday paper to be worthy of a two-page spread. Wouldn't have happened a while ago. As for those who complained about the sentiments, they miss the point that this is one fan's view that you can relate to or not. It struck a chord for me.

Interesting if true:- http://www.givemesport.com/472222-javier-hernandez-wanted-by-southampton-as-part-of-luke-shaw-deal Luke Shaw is replaceable at LB, quite possibly by Matt Target, but if the deal included a replacement striker of Hernandez quality, Saints could end up better off.

In a recruitment process where several candidates are being interviewed it's unwise to read anything into the sequence in which the candidates are seen. Having decided who to interview, the panel will usually take account of other commitments and availability as to when particular individuals can be seen. Some people think there is an advantage in being seen last as that candidate's performance at interview may be freshest in the minds of the panel but this is unlikely in a professionally managed process. High profile job selections should end with a technical analysis of each candidate for the panel to consider with strengths and weaknesses compared. Despite all the speculation, the decision will only be made when it is made and with each candidate have been considered. From the outside, Koeman may appear the strongest of the names that have been bandied about but only those who have been taking part in the selection process can actually make that judgement and that doesn't include the Bookmakers or the Punters who drive the bookies' odds.

So according to the press, Liverpool want Lallana for £20m, which is less than they would have to pay for their alternative target. Net of the Bournemouth AFC slice, SFC would get £15m to spend on a replacement. But by foregoing that £15m the club can hold on to a player worth (on Liverpool's valuation) £20m. Is there a logic there which says SFC's best deal is to hold the player to his contract, which is reported to run for another 4 years?

Source?

Rule out the speculation and what does seem fact is that a proper recruitment exercise is going on. Candidates are being invited to interview but no appointment is being made until the selection process is complete and the time scale suggests that the decision won't be until next week, even the end of the week. Koeman is the only candidate that the press seem to have definitely seen coming for his interview but others may have been unnoticed, or others may be coming. Be very interested if we hear that Rangnick is spotted passing through one of the airports as he would appear to be a strong runner against Koeman. But who knows? No one expected Pochettino and then it was a case of...who?

Koeman maybe, but hopefully he'll leave Pelle in the Netherland. One Osvaldo has been one too many, not sure we need another: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2566316/Feyenoord-striker-Graziano-Pelle-kicks-sight-late-Twente-equaliser.html

Very unfair SOG. No fan wants to see the club in freefall. We are reaching the stage where many people will be happy to see Lallana go, and maybe are resigned to Shaw leaving but that's not to say it need have come this. The silent period from the Board after Les Reed's "no one is going" statement could have been more damaging than is realised if it unsettled those players and encouraged the bidding clubs. The club does now have to go on from where it is, and there are some positive noises, but that doesn't mean we should have got into this position and we still need to see the noises become action once the new manger is in place. There is a need to understand the difference between negativity, of which there is very little, and constructive criticism.

+ Please. that's a dreadfully naive view but you show your own colours by being unpleasantly offensive to people who don't share your simplistic opinion. Football is a business and the people who manage the clubs should act in the best interests of the club. That means doing the best to achieve the best results. This isn't village football.

If Koeman was here yesterday and went home, its not really evidence of anything except the probability that he was interviewed. Doesn't exclude one or more other candidates and doesn't mean that a decision has been taken. Whoever gets the job will be in Southampton when the announcement is made for the photoshoot and press conference or press release. If it is to be Koeman, and I think many fans would be extremely pleased if it is, he'll have to get back here quite soon.

My view as well, although I have to say that I do begrudge Rickie his move to Liverpool. The SFC management priority should be to act in the best interests of the club, which may sometimes conflict with the personal ambitions of individual club employees. When that happens the club MUST come ahead of the employee. No doubt Lambert is replaceable, but not for the money and worse is the timing that may well have encouraged other players who would like to break their contracts as he has been allowed to.

Accurate assessment. The impression is that, with a few exceptions, those with the power to eradicate the bad practice have their own snouts in the trough. Even MIchel Platini, who appeared to want a fairer game is reported as being linked to dubious contacts during the Qatar episode, which if true, would show even football's white knight in a poor light.

As SaintRobbie has said, the club has the option of taking a stand. Lallana is under contract for 4 years. He can hardly go on strike for a period like that, in fact even a short period of not playing to his ability would lose him his England place. If the club are really committed to competing with the top four that won't be done by selling the best players as soon as they become noticed. The new manager can sit Adam down and explain in the nicest possible way why his transfer will not be agreed and that on the contrary the intention is to bring more quality players in. As long as the club management have genuinely set an upward target and it's not just PR waffle. The sale of Lambert has sent the wrong message and must be a factor in Lallana's attitude now, which our Board were too blind to see would happen. It's important they don't make the same mistake again.

To say they let Lambert go because he wanted to, is weak management. It undermined the Chairman's standing because it conflicted with what he had said in public and it encouraged bids for other players. The Board's purpose is to pursue the interests of the club and when that conflicts with the wishes of an individual employee, to deal with it, not to cave in. There are perfectly good reasons why the Lambert bid could have been refused and a perfectly good explanation that could have been given to the player. If Lambert had subsequently done a 'Kenwyn Jones' and refused to play to his ability, he would have been the bigger loser by ending his career in such a way. The probability of Rickie behaving in that way was very low but even if he had, it could have been dealt with and given the paltry transfer fee, even the financial risk was low. Otherwise, the statement is a positive step, even though it had to be worded so as to allow freedom of action. Actions that will now confirm or rebut the negative impressions that have been given but one action is whether we will keep the key players that Kruguer referred to.

Why is this bad news? We'd have virtually a whole Saint's team in the Champions League and fans could switch their allegiance to Liverpool. Maybe Liverpool would add some stripes to their shirt out of courtesy....

I would have expected them to do what Kruguer said they would do: 1. To retain all the key players. 2. Consult the new manager on any ins or outs; 3. This required them not to sell Lambert and to be able to explain to him why the move would not be in his, or Southampton's best interests; 4. Having broken their word on Lambert, I would have expected a further reminder to the press that this was treated as a special case, it would be the only exception, and no other key players would be sold without the agreement of the new manager. The Heads in the Sanders are doing nothing to try to influence the Board not to break up the team, on the contrary too many of them happily clap everything the Board does, or fails to do. I appreciate your IMHO, which mine is as well. The difference is that Lighthouse's post would encourage further sales.

I wonder if anyone has suggested to Rickie that this move could be the end of his England career. He was selected by Hodgson because he was a regular scorer for Saints and was adept at assists to other goal-scorers. At Liverpool he will be over-shadowed and not a regular starter in the first team. The typical Big Fish drawing deserved attention, but moving to a Bigger Pool and then getting lost. It seems it was beyond the wit of our club management to explain this to Rickie and to tell him that keeping him at Southampton would be in his own interests as well as Southampton's. If that had disappointed him for a while, the club should have lived with that because the appointment of the new manager is capable of changing the whole situation. All too late now.

But the club now claim that if they had told Lambert that a decision to let him leave could not be made prior to the World Cup, the relationship between player and club would have broken down irretrievably. Lambert could have been told that he was too important to Saints to make a rushed decision, that the new manager's view was needed and that he wasn't as important to Liverpool as he was to us because if he didn't sign now, they'd sign someone else. If Reed and Kruguer had wanted to keep Rickie they could have done but the logical conclusion is that they wanted the money more, even the paltry sum they got for him.

The Les Reed statement about no players being sold began to look doubtful after 12 May when bids started being made public and there was no reassertion of the policy, only silence for about 2 weeks. Then came last week's interview by Kruguer which effectively repeated what Reed had said earlier - key players would not be sold - almost immediately followed by the agreement to sell Lambert. Not surprisingly, that decision re-energised the predator clubs to up the pressure to buy Lallana and Shaw. What this has shown is that you can disregard what Reed and Kruguer say because their actions will not be limited by promises they have made. If fans think that, the players must feel the same - they can have no confidence in their employers at all, or in the future direction of this club.