Professor

Since The Metro article only mentions 'one more season' that is not saying that Poch has signed his new contract. Shame that Poch wasn't available for the usual photo-shoot when Omar Rowe signed his contract extension.

If you think clubs won't bid for players who aren't for sale, it's hard to explain why there are bids for Southampton players who it was said weeks ago, were not for sale. Like it or not, Martinez has fired a shot across the bows of the predators, which for whatever reason, we have not.

And who replaces Ramirez?

Interesting what people will say to try to bolster a failed argument, without any thought to evidence or facts. The statement by Roberto Martinez did not say that he was speaking just as a manager, instead he said that "The Club" would not consider any offer, even if it were of Gareth Bale proportions. So the claims by Fowllyd are imaginary and unfounded. As for the Rooney transfer in 2004, he was 18 at the time and on a short-term contract that left him open to bids which resulted in clubs other than Man U effectively conducting an auction for him. Had Everton not agreed to sell they could have lost him for no fee at all when his contract ended, whereas Berkley, like Lallana and Shaw, is protected by a long-term contract making it simple for the club to refuse any bid (if they want to). The Martinez statement will mean that if any club makes a bid it will be harder for the bidding club to claim that a refusal is just a negotiating position since Everton's position has already been stated in public. As for a manager looking foolish, if a club's chairman does that he would risk losing his manager as well as his player. Everton seem to have a good track record as they resisted the Man U attempt to buy Baines last year but allowed the ineffective Fellaini to leave.

It was reported recently that Roberto Martinez has let it be known that the Everton's young star, Ross Berkley, is not for sale at any price. He couldn't have made such a statement without knowing that the club's board were behind him. It sounds as if Everton have the quality of their team on the pitch as a higher priority over cashing in on their young talent.

Assume this is said with tongue firmly in cheek as we don't yet know if policy has changed. It would seem odd for the owner and the recently assembled board to throw away all that has been achieved over the past 4 years and they may have no intention of doing that, but they could also do it unintentionally. The sale of Academy products was understandable when the club's finances were so precarious, and in the case of Oxlade-Chamberlain when then club had no firm hold over him, but fans can only judge by events over the next few weeks to see if it looks like the ambition of competing for the top four or five places is still being realistically pursued or not. IMHO it needs the club to retain both Shaw and Lallana if the ambition is still there. Selling one or other and buying cheaper players would feel like acceptance of second rate status and that has not been the intention so far.

Best explanation yet in the Echo, that the club don't want to put Pochettino off signing the new contract by selling players under his nose. Begs the obvious question. Poch has done a great job getting the team to play attractive football but managers are replaceable, so if he goes, we get another manager, of whom there are plenty to choose from. But players are a different matter, when it comes to quality internationals. It is the players that the club should be putting its foot down over, and if so, why not say so? Unless the intention is to sell, depending on what Poch decides, but the prevarication suggests that his time here is past its Best Before date.

Its not hysterical to point out the possibilities. If there is nothing that should concern the fans, given that lots of worrying reports are in the press, it would be so easy for the club to say so. Not saying so, is bound to give the impression that there are things that would concern the fans if they know about them. Allowing the media reports to go unchallenged has fuelled the fire. Maybe the club are resisting the bids but if so, why not say so? To the Heads in the Sand Crew - that's not asking for a running commentary. It's merely pointing out what the media is saying is indicated by the lack of any statement whatsoever in the 9 days since the bids were reported, during which time there has been at least one Board meeting. But, Hey! Maybe they were just planning the holiday rota....

Dear ecuk, all I've suggested is that one statement would counter the speculation and that its absence tends to do the opposite. If you want to ask for a running commentary, feel free, but that's not been my line. I will admit that I thought something had changed, that this club no longer needed to sell its star players or rollover when a Big Club came calling. If the club don't want to repeat what they said before bids were made, it shouldn't be surprised if the media think that rumours of player sales are true. A statement will come at some point but the longer it takes the more likely it is that it won't be news the fans want to hear. Anyone who doesn't care about that should......well, words like head, stick and sand come to mind. But ultimately supporters have no say in this, either way.

Amazing how our recollection of history can be inaccurate, even when it's recent history. The facts appear to be that Saints were relegated from The Prem to the Champ in May 2005, which was before Sir Clive took up a role with Southampton. Sir Clive was a friend of Rupert Lowe and the possibility of his involvement with the club had been discussed in 2004 before Redknapp was appointed manager in Dec 2004. Eventually Sir Clive was appointed as Performance Director in July 2005 but his role was opposed by Redknapp who walked ouyt of the club in Dec 2005 to move back to Portsmouth in December 2005 with George Burley becoming Head Coach and Sir Clive promoted to Director of Football. There had been a threat of a second successive relegation in 2005/06 but after Redknapp left results improved and we finished a creditable 12th. However, that was followed by Michael Wilde ousting Lowe in June 2006 and in August that year, Sir Clive left the club. The following year, 2006/07 we were close to being promoted back to the Prem but as Lowe had predicted the club couldn't support the cost of the St Mary's Stadium in the lower division and the financial situation went from bad to worse. We stayed in the Championship for 2007/08 and 2008/09 but it was a struggle as players were sold and loaned out until relegation to L1 for the 2009/10 season and the 10 point deduction for going into administration. Whether keeping Lowe and Sir Clive would have made any difference to the narrow miss of promotion in 2006/07 no one can ever know, but even if we had, life in the Prem would probably have been a struggle. As it was, we could have folded altogether or sunk with SISU like Coventry but Marcus and Cortese rode to our rescue like the US Cavalry and Sir Clive went back to Rugby.

The OS has probably had more hits over the last few days than usual as fans look for news about the manager and whether the club is resisting the loss of star players. How many more times do we need to say Goodbye to Guly? No offence, but it was old news before it happened and was then the headline for about 48 hours. Great for 17-yr old Josh Sims to be involved with the England u-17 squad but to say that Sims has reached the Euro u-17 final when he was an unused sub at the semi, is stretching the story just a little. All media outlets are familiar with the 'silly season' when the politicians are away in July and August but it seems to have arrived a bit early for the OS.

Of course they will, and the Board should know that as well as you and I. False stories could be countered by telling the truth, but if the truth would be unpalatable to the fans, that becomes more difficult. Inevitably then, silence will create even more speculation.

The Week of Silence does suggest that communication isn't taking place in the club any more than it is to the outside world. If the players had been given any update its reasonable to assume there would have been a leak, (which may be why nothing is being communicated). But any updates would mean that previously stated positions had changed. If nothing has changed, the club could have said so. It is the silence that is fuelling the speculation and surely it would be for the Chairman to deal with that, not the owner or other board members. So far RK hasn't done anything to enhance his reputation or even to show he is necessary.

Managers are far easier to replace than players. Keeping Poch could make our wanted players feel happier about staying, but the club can keep the players whether Poch stays or goes. Just wish they'd make it clear that all of this week's speculation has not changed anything as far as refusing bids for our star players is concerned because if we are unsettled by it as fans, its easy to imagine how unsettling it must be for the players, and not just the ones named but the whole squad. Players can be held to their contracts and it would help for the football world to be told again that Southampton intend to do that despite the stories to the contrary. As for the manager, I hope they let Poch go because I think he's lost a lot of credibility this week and hopefully the Board are in the process of recruiting a top quality replacement who will be given a healthy transfer budget.

Here's a way to look strong: Announce that Pochettino has been dismissed for lack of loyalty to the club and that an offer has been made to David Moyes to rebuild his career and reputation, linked with a statement that the new manager has been given substantial transfer funds and that no player will be allowed to leave who the new manager wishes to retain. OH! Who nudged me? I've just woken up from a wonderful dream.....

As so often happens with the media, each outlet regurgitates the stories from its competitors, but to try to outdo them there is a tendency to enhance stories with speculation and even fabrication. The press stories are the current way of tapping up and inevitably will unsettle the manager and players who read about how wanted the press say they are. Pochettino could have put a stop to this by publicly stating his on-going commitment to Southampton. Equally, the Board should have seen that the speculation would grow and unless they were content to lose the manager they should have issued a simple statement reminding football that the manager and players are under contracts that the club will not agree to being broken. The week's silence since the Man U game has allowed the speculation to grow and looks increasingly like a shot in the foot that now needs stronger action to get things back on track. That action could be a statement that the manager has been offered a contract extension (which is common knowledge) and that bids for first team players will be refused, but also that if the manager decides not to extend his contract at this stage, the club will not release him early. Of course, if the board is prepared to let Pochettino leave, such a statement can't be made, but increasingly it looks as if the exit of the manager would leave a wide open door for players to follow. The new management structure is looking very weak as no one seems to know whom is actually running things, KL from a distance or RK with limited powers. Maybe RK should adopt a simple approach to running SFC by asking himself, "what would NC have done?"

Dear Igsy, You must have been out of the loop for a few days, but while you've been away there has been an approach from Tottenham to take our manager, a bid of £27m for Luke Shaw and a bid of £20m for Adam Lallana. There's also a rumour that Liverpool would like Lovren. You are, of course, quite right that none of this has so far turned into any done deals but the deafening silence from the club could mean that the approaches have not all been turned down. That leaves fans with three possibilities to contemplate. (1) That none of the above named will leave; (2) That all of them will leave; (3) One or more will leave and one or more will remain. If the outcome is (1) it is status quo and nothing to be concerned about. If (2) or (3) come about the squad will be weaker unless new players are brought in. Even if we have development squad players who could step up, they won't be of the international standard that we stand to lose and as shown by the Osvaldo recruitment, new players involve risk. Can't see why anyone should object to a discussion of the possibilities, but anyone not wanting to participate isn't obliged to post a comment.

Although we were 8th, it was by a big margin, 8 points below the 7th club. We were 30 points below the champions but only 26 points above the bottom club, 23 points below the champions' league places and 23 points above the relegation zone. That looks like classic mid-table performance which the 8th place tends to mask. Even with three players selected for England we were still closer in points to Stoke and Crystal Palace than we were to Tottenham and Everton, which makes comparison with Man City, Chelsea, Liverpool and Arsenal something of a fantasy. You could say that the big club mentality is shown by Man United who although finishing above us sacked their manager for poor performance, whilst ours is wanted by a 'big club'. That looks like Man U being a big club that has under-performed and Southampton as a little club that has over-performed and is regarded as ripe for picking. Whether our Board is trying to adopt a bigger club mentality or not, will be clearer when we know the outcome of the bids for our manager and players.

I think you are correct but it may not be practical to refuse to allow him to speak to them. The most effective block may be Cortese's clause in MP's contract requiring him to pay the compensation personally if he goes. You didn't have to like Cortese to respect him as a chairman and its too soon yet to make a judgement on what little we know of Kruger but this episode could be his opportunity to make an impact with the fans. Lets hope he does.

You may have missed the activity on the OS. Perhaps the reports on 17-yr old Josh Sims part in the England u-17 squad might help you, although even those are more than 3 hours old. Seems that the OS is a bit limited today. Hope you enjoyed the bike ride.

Valid comment, Saint Jude. Pochettino could be holding out to see if he gets an offer from Tottenham, which the Board might feel they can't block, and they could need a couple of days to tell the players that the approaches are being refused. All possible, but it is now close of business on Friday and still silent. Whilst its hard to keep a manager who wants to go, especially if he's only got a year left on his contract, it is possible to hold players who are on 4-year contracts. For a player to go on strike is very unlikely, and to play poorly would affect his own future career so is also unlikely. A club statement repeating that bids have been rejected and that players will not leave unless the manager agrees to a departure covers your point about a higher bid coming along. You are right that there will be a point where the money can add more to the team than the retention of the player, which would be consistent with what we thought the policy was, although I'm not sure that worked for Tottenham over Bale.

This is the reaction I would have expected from more fans. It is disappointing that quite a few seem content if our new board rolls over to have its tummy tickled by the 'Big' clubs. I hope that's not what is happening but the silence suggests otherwise. If a decision was taken at a Board meeting on Wednesday to allow people to leave, it is understandable that no statements would be made whilst the negotiations were under way. On the other hand, if a decision was made to stick with previous policy, as helpfully outlined by NickG at post 26, a statement to that effect would be required, not only to tell the three interested clubs, but the rest of football, that Southampton are not in the market to sell. The more time that has passed with the silence continuing, the more probable it becomes that when an announcement is made, it will be that one or more people are leaving. You could say that its not so much the silence that has concerned me, as what that silence appears to indicate. If I am wrong, I will be very pleased, as I imagine most Saints' fans would be. If we are losing these three, its hard to see how that would make the team stronger next season or make our Premier League status more secure. It would also attract the vultures to other pickings in our squad.

I see you now agree that the absence of a statement means that something is going on. Makes your impolite responses look as ill-judged as they are ill-mannered. I've put you on my ignore list and suggest you do the same for me as you don't want to raise your blood pressure.

Sorry croydonsaint, but I'm not frustrated. I simply feel that if the fans give the impression that losing our best assets doesn't matter, the Board and KL will have one less reason to resist. Telling the world that we will not agree to clubs taking our manager and our players would be a 'statement' of intent. Not doing that would tell its own story, so if in fact, the Board do not want to lose these people, they should say so. If they don't mind them going and only want as much money as possible, they will have to stay silent until the deals are done. As the weekend passes, if nothing is heard, people will draw their own conclusions, including people who will be writing in the Sunday papers. It's not frustration, but the wrong outcome could lose us some fans and some status, which would be sad. Even sadder would be getting caught up amongst the teams trying to avoid relegation next season.

Sorry Mr Hypo but what you've written here is absolute rubbish and contradictory. I've said in Janet and John language that I'm not expecting weekly updates or a running commentary. If you, and the club, don't want to be influenced by press speculation the best way to counter it is to tell them if they are wrong, as long as they are wrong. Of course, if they are right, they can't be told that! If a decision has been made to reject the approaches, that would be a conclusion to be reported. If no such decision has been made, expect to hear nothing until negotiations are completed. Those who are content not to hear that the offers have been turned down, presumably don't mind them being accepted.