RinNY

RinNY: You have an interesting style of argument: you make broad, sweeping claims. When specific examples are cited against those claims, they are each dismissed as exceptions that do not invalidate your claims. So the older experienced players in our squad do not count for one reason or another, the experienced managers who have proved failures here or at other clubs each do not count for one reason or another, the foreign managers with no experience of the English game who have been successful in it do not count for one reason or another. Your sweeping generalisations, however, do count and are valid, all facts to the contrary notwithstanding. As I said: an interesting style of argument, but not a convincing one. Wes Tender: I express my opinions. You have just expressed your opinion. That is what the forum is for, or didn't you realise? Unless you produce specific examples of what the hell you're talking about, then ironically you could also be accused of exactly the same thing that you accuse me of. RinNY: My point, clearly, is that I adduced examples of all of these in previous posts: experienced players in our squad (Davis, Wotton, Perry, Killer, Skacel, Euell, BWP, even Surman), experienced managers who succeed in one job but fail in another (Strachan, Hoddle, Redknapp, Burley), foreign managers with no experience in English management who nevertheless succeeded at English clubs (Wenger, Houllier, Benitez, Mourinho; one could add plenty of others: Jol, Gullit, Ranieri, Tigana). Each time you disallowed my examples as being somehow or other exceptions, and stuck to your generalisations. Since you bring up intelligence, you are clearly intelligent enough to see that such argumentation is flawed. I understand your dislike of Lowe, though I think you take it too far. I do not understand your evident dislike of Poortvliet, which seems to be based on nothing more than the fact that Lowe appointed him. I do not understand your admiration for Pearson, a good man no doubt but not a man with a stellar record as manager of football clubs, including his record with us other than his last match in charge. It seems to be based on nothing more than that Lowe did not retain him. Making Lowe the litmus test for everything strikes me as absurd, and seems to deform your ability to argue sensibly.

You have an interesting style of argument: you make broad, sweeping claims. When specific examples are cited against those claims, they are each dismissed as exceptions that do not invalidate your claims. So the older experienced players in our squad do not count for one reason or another, the experienced managers who have proved failures here or at other clubs each do not count for one reason or another, the foreign managers with no experience of the English game who have been successful in it do not count for one reason or another. Your sweeping generalisations, however, do count and are valid, all facts to the contrary notwithstanding. As I said: an interesting style of argument, but not a convincing one. Now I see you are touting Anthony Salz as the great white hope who could take over the club in Lowe's place. Another interesting argument that founders on some basic facts, which you will doubtless dismiss in similar fashion to all other inconvenient facts. The facts are these: Anthony Salz has been touted on fan boards as the potential saviour of SFC since at least Crouch's dismissal of Hone & Dulieu a year or so ago. Over and over rumour suggested, at times very confidently, that Salz would use his influence to bring in wealthy investors and/or would take a leading position at SFC to set the ship right. And what has actually come of all that? Nothing. After all the months of rumour and speculation, Salz produced nothing (if he was ever really trying to produce investment for SFC, which I doubt) and took no position with the club. So far as I can see, there is not the faintest reason to suppose that he has any interest in doing anything for SFC whatsoever, and the same goes by the way for the likes of Gavin Davies and David Frost. If any of these supposed rich fans had an interest in doing anything for SFC, they have had years in which to do it and have not. They have, as the saying goes, voted with their feet: in staying clear of SFC, they have shown their lack of interest. Proposing Anthony Salz or his ilk is at best a red herring, at worst a delusion. Second fact: it is not rumour and debate on fan message boards that determines who will run SFC, it is votes by shareholders. Wilde has some 16 to 18% of the shares, Lowe around 6.5% if memory serves, and exceptionally loyal Lowe allies (Askham, Cowan, and so on) have beween them another 15% or more I believe. That means the Lowe/Wilde axis controls in excess of 40% of the shares and votes. Since at any general meeting of shareholders, you can count on some 10 to 30% of the shares to go unvoted, that means that Lowe/Wilde and their allies can easily win any vote held at a general meeting: this is why Crouch stepped aside for them. Two other major players can potentially have a say on the running of the club: the mortage holder on the stadium, and Barclay's Bank which finances the club's day to day operations and holds the line of credit and (importantly) overdraft. If either of those institutions were to express strong lack of faith in the Lowe/Wilde regime, that could likely lead to a change: to the contrary, both have given every sign of being satisfied with how Lowe/Wilde are runing the club. What all of that means is this: as a plain matter of fact -- not rumour, not speculation, not opinion or belief -- there will be no regime change at Saints in the immediate future, so long as the Lowe/Wilde alliance holds. You can talk all you want about Salz or other supposed alternatives, but unless you have actual evidence of a desire to take control of Saints and the real means to do so -- in the form of voting shares and/or the money to buy shares -- it's all just empty words. If you want to support Saints at present and for the foreseeable future, you will be supporting a club led by Lowe & Wilde: them's the facts. You can criticise their style and decisions, but pretending that there is some genuine immediate alternative to them is laughable. Those of us who don't truly care who runs the club, so long as the club is solvent and seems to be headed in the right direction, have no problem with that. Those who care more about their dislike of Lowe than about the club, do. That is their right. But as for constantly expressing as facts biased opinions about the merits of Pearson, Poortvliet, foreign managers, experienced vs. inexperienced managers, or denying that our squad has experienced players when it clearly does have a nucleus of them: all of that is not rational argument but sheer prejudicial blather, I'm afraid. You don't like what you call "antagonistic language", but a spade is a spade even if one tones it down and calls it an excavational implement -- something I've never been prone to. Sorry you don't like Eddie Izzard: it comes as no surprise, however, to learn that humour holds little apeal for you.

And what you clearly said is clearly balderdash: many managers with no experience in this country nevertheless succeed at football in this country: the list starts with the likes of Wenger and Houllier and Mourinho and Benitez, and is exceedingly long. You do not know that Poortvliet is not his own man: that is merely prejudice talking. You do not know that Pearson would have been his own man: that is merely bias talking. You choose to believe what you wish to believe, as do most folk: fine. But you state your biased opinions as facts, and that will not wash! A great man once said that everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts. When you learn to state your biased opinions merely as your opinions, and not as facts, you will be worthy of respect. Until then, you are just another of the sad little band of haters on this board who cannot see past their personal spite. I too joined the anti-Lowe bandwagon after relegation, and I saw where it led. Nothing was better after Lowe was ousted; some things got worse. One thing I've always tried to do in my life is learn from experience: you should try it some time. But, in the words of Eddie Izzard: I know you won't.

You make a good point in that I carelessly stated that we lost far more than we won under Pearson, whereas I meant to say that we drew and lost far more than we won, the point being that the results were very similar to those under Poortvliert, rather than far better as would be expected if your point about experienced managers and players had any validity. Other than that: yes, quite likely Lowe will be gone in a few years. But a few years is a long time in football, and if we have to have 3 or 4 more years of constant harping on about Lowe ... well, I for one could do without it! Blaming Lowe for all that has gone wrong at Saints is short-sighted and one-sided, and exposes prejudice rather than any serious thought about Saints' situation. You can be flip about it being the fault of the system if you like, but when the system imposes a nearly 1 in 5 chance of being relegated from the Prem (given that the big 4 are safe each year, leaving 3 out of 16 to go down), the system clearly is genuinely more to blame for any given team's relegation than any other single factor! Looking at the message boards of other relegated clubs or clubs in the relegation zone currently is instructive: the chairman or board always come in for a lot of stick and blame. Obviously, every year at least 3 clubs have chairmen who are a waste of space and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a football club, by that criterion. As to your insistence on experienced managers and players: experienced managers regularly fail and get sacked -- we've seen a few examples this year, like Dowie -- and we have seen at Saints that experienced players are not alway good players. We should have a mix of youth and experience you say: indeed. But it might then occur to you that our squad contains such frequent first team players as Kelvin Davis, Chris Perry, Paul Wotton, Killer (when fit), Rudy Skacel, Jason Euell, BWP (who is certainly no longer a naive youngster, whatever other faults he may have), and even Andrew Surman (who is now in his 3rd year as a frequent or regular first teamer and so no naive beginner). But acknowledging that we actually have a mix of experience along with the youth doesn't suit the case you want to make -- "it's all Lowe's fault" -- so you ignore it. What experience tells us, is that appointing a manager is always a gamble: however experienced or inexperienced, managers fail as often as they succeed, for no obvious rhyme or reason. Strachan failed at Coventry & succeeded for us; Hoddle succeeded for us and failed at Spurs; Redknapp succeeded at Pompey & failed for us; Burley was successful with other clubs before he came to us and failed; all were experienced, there is no guarantee. Sometimes new & inexperienced managers succeeed, for whatever reasons. So to suggest that only an experienced manager and experienced players would be appropriate for us, is just nonsense as some here have pointed out. You are thinking from bias, not from the real facts. Sad but indubitably true.

Appointment of a manager who is out of his depth? Replacement of experienced players with naive youngsters? These are the roots of our current "problems"? you illustrate exactly why you rabid Lowe-blamers cannot be taken seriously. What utterly absurd statements! The roots of our problems are finances. The club's expenses continue to reflect a Premiership infrastructure, and some very unwise and unsuccessful spending on player purchases/contracts over the past couple of seasons. The club's revenue streams refllect a team struggling in the bottom half of the CCC. Ergo: severe cost-cutting measures needed to keep the club fiscally viable, with all the consequences that flow therefrom. As to the manager and players: they are doing no worse than our managers and team last year, when we had managers with plenty of experience of the British game and who presumably "knew what they were doing", in Burley and Pearson, and lots of highly experienced players. Do you forget that with those managers and players we barely avoided relegation, by the skin of our teeth, on the last day of the season? Do you forget that under Pearson we lost far more games than we won? Do you forget that those experienced players underperformed horrendously for us, both under Burley and under Pearson? Evidently you do. Poortvliet was appointed by Lowe: therefore, he must be no good. The academy was set up by Lowe, and the youth policy is his policy: therefore, the young players cannot be any good. That is clearly your "thinking" ... if one can dignify the process occurring in your brain with the term "thought". The plain truth is that the club is currently doing what had to be done, regardless of who is in charge; and the manager and team are doing as well as could be expected under the circumstances, perhaps even a little better than could be expected. You will neither see nor admit this of course: you'd have to be able to take off your anti-Lowe blinkers to be able to see that. All those of us who simply aren't fussed about Lowe one way or the other are clearly just "Lowe-luvvies" or "Lowe stooges" who refuse to admit the "truth". And you cannot see how laughable such a position is. Here's another piece of plain truth for you: every year three clubs get relegated from the Prem, and in each case the blame for relegation lies with various persons from the chairman down through the manager to the team (above all), and ultimately the system that dictates that each year three clubs must go down. Our relegation, therefore, was only in part Lowe's fault, and a relatively small part at that. Since relegation, there have been years for new persons to come in with new investment to "rescue" the club from Lowe. The rich Saints fans and billionaire outsiders have had every opportunity to buy Lowe out, if they wanted to. Lowe has actually been removed from power for several years, and replaced by "real fans" and "real football people". Results: no difference, except greater financial imprudence in running the club, and no new investment whatsoever. So get used to one thing: Lowe will be running the club for some time, like it or not. Because no-one else capable of doing a better job, and willing to do what it takes to buy Lowe out, is actually out there. No-one. So if you insist on spending your time hating Lowe, you have quite a bit of fun Lowe-hating to look forward to, unfortunately for those of us who come here to discuss football and support the team.

You start with a fallacy that negates your post and this thread: the bald assumption that we have to sell the youngsters and that they will be sold. That is not an established fact at all; no-one who actually knows the decision making process and is in on it has said that the youngsters will be sold. There is no definite info that any offers have even been made, or will be made. All there is, is rumour and speculation, much of it around here of the doom and gloom/Lowe-hating & Lowe-bashing variety to which you evidently belong. Now, maybe one or more of our better young players will be sold; maybe not. On that basis you could debate the needs & merits of selling/keeping any particular player(s), or our young players generally. The club has, after all, financial issues that need to be addressed, and presumably only the likes of Lowe, Wilde, Cowen, & Jones know exactly where we stand in that respect, what the bank is willing to go along with, and so on. There is one fact of life for clubs outside the big 4, however: if a really high and attractive offer comes in for one of our players from a big club, that player is gone. Makes no difference who is charge, what they prefer to do, whether they are fans or "just in it as a business" ... the player is gone. That is a fact of modern football, demonstrated over and over. Because if a big club comes in with a very good offer, the player will want to go and the money will be irresistible. You may not like it, but it makes no sense to blame the present or any other regime for a systemic issue.

Jim Steele & Michael Svensson ... that'd be a back line with height, strength, determination, commitment, ability to read the game, and (forgive the pun) some real steel!

And just whom do you see bidding? All those people who have been lining up to bid for the club the past 4 or 5 years I assume: who was that again? Let's see ... hmmm ... ummm ... Oh yeah: no-one! Well, that dodgy hedge fund SISU, but they own Coventry so we can't expect them to bid again. Who does that leave who has shown a willingness to put down some money and take control of this club? Eh? You know the answer: Wilde, Crouch, Lowe & co. ... the very people who have been in charge, turn & turn about, the past few years, the ones you can't stand. You're living in fantasy land. There is no white knight out there for Saints: how many years can you keep clinging to that belief? What would administration accomplish? Easy: SMS and the training facilities out at Staplewood would be sold off, and if the club are lucky it might be possible to arrange to lease them back. Any player who would fetch a transfer fee would be sold, and the money would go to the creditors. We'd be deducted 15 points, end up in League 1 with no ground or training facilities of our own, fewer and worse players than we now have, and one or more of the same old triumvirate in charge, because they're the only ones willing to do the job. And with the crap boards around the country get from the "fans" these days, I'm not surprised! I'm just amazed anyone at all is willing toi even think of running a football club outside the tope4 or 5. Talk about a thankless position ... Btw, it seems not many people around here have any real memory of what happened at Leeds, the sale of the club ground, the training ground, the fire-sale of their players, most of them going for absolute peanuts, the club forced to give them away effectively because they couldn't pay them & no-one was willing to offer real fees to a club that had no choice but to let the players go. It was not pretty, not at all. If you wish all that for Saints, well, it shows what you truly are and are not: are, a hater; not, a Saints fan.

To those who go on and on about Lowe/Wilde as the source of all that is wrong at SFC: you might want to check out some of the other clubs that have been relegated from the Prem over the years: Nottingham Forest, Sheffield Wednesday, Leeds United, Charlton Athletic to name a few. They all struggle with the same sorts of problems we struggle with: crippling financial burdens imposed by trying to operate on CCC (or even League 1) revenues when you have a Premiership infrastructure and costs. Even the likes of Norwich, Crystal Palace, Watford are paying dearly for their year or two in the Prem. Now I know you're going to say it was Lowe's fault we were relegated, but get real! Lowe made mistakes, but if the players on the pitch had known how to hold onto leads in at least 4 key matches (Boro, Everton, Arsenal away, Aston Villa) we'd have had 9 more points and remained comfortably in the Prem. We got relegated because of a variety of things going wrong, including mistakes by Lowe; but then every year 3 clubs get relegated and Saints have no divine dispensation to avoid that fate. Since then, having missed re-promotion by a hair, we have been struggling with financial problems that are typical for relegated clubs. With or without Lowe, we'd face the same difficulties, because the problem lis not in the people running any particular club, but in the current structure of football in England. I understand people not liking Lowe for his pompous persona, his perceived arrogance, or whatever. But that doesn't make him the devil incarnate, nor the source of all Saints' woes. We've seen what happened when Lowe was pushed out and replaced by fans (Wilde, Crouch) as chairmen and "real professionals" (Hone, Hoos) running things: no significant difference, except that Lowe would at least have kept our costs more in line with the income streams and limited the financial dangers to the club, as he is doing now. Get over your obsession with the man, do, and just support the club and team!

The usual level of reasoned argument and brilliantly witty repartee from the anti-Lowe type! If the club's position were not as precarious as it is, you'd be good for a few laughs.

Aren't you just the prophet! So you know for a fact that we will be relegated, we will go into administration, and Lowe will not pick up full control of SFC on the cheap. Any other future occurrences you know for a fact will take place? Could you help us out with the lottery numbers, for example? Or are you just another doom-and-gloom merchant blowing smoke? As if we don't all know ... Let's just be clear about a few things: we do not know which players, if any, will be sold in January, not even Lowe or Poortvliet do ... it'll depend on what clubs make what offers, for a start. We do not know what effect on the team and on results the loss of any players who do leave will have ... it'll depend on what players remain and how they perform. We do not know that administration is inevitable: though the club has substantial debts, the creditors at present seem to think they are better off keeping the club afloat, and that Lowe and co. are doing a creditable job of bringing expenses into line with income streams. We do not know that we will be relegated: though inconsistent in terms of results, the youngsters have put in some very promising performances, and the team are maintaining themselves above the relegation places as of the present. Now I realize that you and a dozen or so other whiners and Lowe haters on this board would rather see Saints relegated, into admionistration, destroyed completely if it comes to that, just so long as Lowe suffers and you get the pleasure of saying "I told you so"; and I realize that by not buying into that anti-Saints crap I will be excposed to being dismissed as a "Lowe luvvie", an agent or stooge of Lowe, and so on and so forth. But what you and your fellow haters need to try to understand, is that there is such a thing as loving SFC and wanting the best for the club, and not caring a toss who is running it. from that perspecve, though there is much to criticize in events of the past 5 or 6 years, there is also much sense in the way the club is currently being run, and some hope that things are getting better. What I will say is that IF administration and/or relegation do happen, there will be plenty of blame to go around: to Lowe and Wilde certainly, to Crouch and co. who ran a fiscally irresponsible operation last year, to Redknapp and Burley who did not deliver consistent and good results despite the players and backing they had ... but also to all of you Lowe haters and whiners who would rather see this club destroyed than see it succeed with Lowe in charge: shame on you!

Well, I have to laugh at this one: so if I had not called you a "tosser" for hoping Saints lose matches, you would have come through with detailed information backing up your claims of impending armageddon due to as yet unspecified back room skullduggery, I suppose? Like I said: I knew you wouldn't. Any excuse to avoid giving any actual information to back up your nonsense. What staggers me, is why on earth you would come and make this thread, when you have no real information to impart, and are merely winding people up with your dismay at the club's current financial troubles and league position (a dismay we all share) and your need to pin the blame and do something negative to make things worse. Why shouldn't you be called a tosser, I'd like to know, when you are here engaging in essentially masturbatory activities, self-plesasuring through doom-and-glooming?

Now what sort of sense does it make to cite as "irrefutable fact" something that is in actuality merely an unsupported opinion that will immediately be refuted? Doesn't reflect very well on your judgement, Wes. What disruption and disunity has the return of Lowe caused, pray? If you refer to the whining and bleating on this board by a handful of professional pessimists and misfits of the alpine/Windmill Arm/stanley ilk, you grossly exaggerate their effect. If you have some real evidence of disunity and disruption, I'd be interested to see it. As to bizarre experiment: to what do you refer? The decision to try to balance the club's books by getting rid of the high earners, perchance? What was bizarre about that? Not doing so would have been more than bizarre. The allied choice to play the youngsters? Again, nothing bizarre there, it was really the only choice available. The decision to bring in a coach with long and successful experience abroad of working with young teams and shoestring budgets? Again, what is bizarre in that? A very natural thing to do, and one that is showing signs of working in spite of the very (and understandably) inconsistent results to date. Perhaps you were expecting Saints to "walk this league" and are talking from disappointment at being only just above the drop zone. If so, your judgement is again at fault: we are just where we might have been expected to be, and if we can stay above the relegation zone til season's end, Poortvliet will have done his job well. Now, disagree with all that if you like; but don't be spouting bull****e about "irrefutable facts" unless you actually have an irrefutable fact with the evidence to establish it as such!

No football club needs "fans" of your ilk: good riddance to you, say I. Don't let the doors of the club hit you on your way out, you sad little man.

What an utter load of tripe!! You keep going on about "what is going on off the pitch", and about "disaster" just around the corner, but you say nothing specific, you offer not a single shred of evidence to show that something bad is happening. We all know the club is in financial difficulties, have known that for a couple of years now. That is in part Lowe's fault, but only in part. At present, those running the club, including Lowe, are doing their best, to all appearances, to keep the club afloat by stringent control of costs, and that means playing most young a rather inexperienced players. That was always going to be a recipe for inconsistent results: no surprises there, nor any particular reason to be forecasting disaster. If you really have something useful to say, some actual information to impart, go ahead and tell it, and stop being a drama queen! In the words of Eddie Izzard: I know you won't! You remind me of the old "end of the world skit" by Peter Cook: when nothing much duly happens, you'll just be saying "same time next week then" and keep on with your boring and pointless jeremiads about Lowe as if you really had a point to make. Trutyh is, you're clearly just a bit of a sad tosser. Hoping Saints lose matches: yeah, that'll right the ship all right, that's the desire of a life long fan ... not!

Point 1: when Redknapp was appointed manager here, it was NOT too late, or anything near it! In fact, if we had not abjectly surrendered last minute goals to teams like Boro, Everton & Arsenal, and given up a 2 goal lead at home against Villa, we'd have avoided relegation. So no, it was not too late, and it was down to Harry and the players that we went down. Point 2: saying it's time for Lowe & Wilde to go is pointless: they control the majority of shares in the club, and will stay in charge as long as that is so. There is no sign that someone is prepared to put up the cash to buy them & their allies out, so they WILL in fact be leading this club for the foreseeable future. Get used to it, & get over the fantastic notion that they will be ousted "now". Point 3: of course every Saints fan is bound to be disappointed with the results so far this season, but what were you expecting?? We are a club in transition, trying to stem the tide of red ink in the club's accounts so as to avoid administration, and trying to stay afloat in the CCC with a team of promising youngsters. Results are going to be inconsistent: as many of us noted at the beginning of the season, avoiding relegation this year is the goal, and anything better than avoiding relegation (e.g. finishing mid-table) will be an unexpected plus. If you're going to get frantic every time we lose a game or two, it's going to be a looooong, long season for you!

A central midfielder is constantly involved in the action; a left back not so much. The demands on a left back are therefore less than those on a CM: do you disagree? Full backs are rarely the most robust players a team has, though they can certainly be tough and quite nasty if they have that sort of temperament. Your notion of slowly blooding players, etc, seems to assume two things: an ideal situation, in which we can afford plenty of good mid-career players and therefore take our time with our younger players; and that young players cannot simply "make the step up" without first having a couple of seasons of sitting on the bench, making substitute appearances, and the occasional spot start. Neither contention is in accord with known and demonstrable facts. We can't afford to acquire and play a bunch of good mid-career players: that surely is now widely known, obvious to all, and you will not dispute it. Hence our need to rely on youngsters and a few old heads. Seems odd to complain about that policy as if we could be doing things differently. Secondly, young players can and do simply "step up" and make a first team spot their own. Over the past couple of seasons we have seen the likes of Walcott, Bale, and Surman do just that. I'd say that several of our youngsters are doing just that this season -- Schneiderlin (the youngest of them, lest we forget) and Holmes and McGoldrick -- while on others the jury is perhaps still out a bit. I would just note that, just as a couple of good wins over Brum & Derby don't mean we are suddenly the class of the CCC, so one bad game against Blackpool doesn't mean we are crap either. It's a long season, and on the whole there have been some positive indications of good play and growth. Let's just get behind the team, the players, and the system, and hope for the best, is my view, for what it's worth.

The only way Lloyd James will ever "make the step up" is if he is given the chance to play: that goes for every young player of course. James is not a teenager any more, and by all accounts has been giving a good account of himself as our right back. Why everyone continues to insist that he is a midfieder, when he has been playing full back all season and doing it well, is a mystery to me. Players do not come with some divine stamp set upon them: midfilder, full back, centreback, striker. As youngsters they tend to play in various positions until their best position emerges, and that best position can change even in the early twenties. The same argument goes for Surman, btw: he is our left back, and seems to be forging a decent partnership in that role with our left winger, Holmes. By all accounts, Surman is not really fast enough to be an out and out left winger, nor robust, creative, and consistent enough to play in central midfield: hence the decision to move him to LB where he seems to be doing well. Until further notice, from the professional coaching staff, he is a left back, end of! As to Ollie Lancashire, the point has been made frequently on the OS and elsewhere that he was on the verge of breaking into the 1st team squad last season before he was injured. Now that he is healthy again, why should he not be counted on as a player capable of filling a spot in the 1st team squad at least? We won't know if he is truly up to it until he gets a few games, so why just write him off as too young? He is not too young at all. And now, after some go on about playing too many kids, we are to hear that the older, more experienced players we have -- Perry, Wotton -- are too old and injury prone (neither has had any injury issue as yet this season) and we need younger players! What?? But you complain when too many younger players are played! You can't have it both ways! And btw, Wotton has extensive experience playing CB, you can look it up, so please don't give us that "converted midfielder" stuff: he is a more than capable back up CB. Probably better (more consistent at least) than Thomas,.

So far as I know, both of our regular first team full backs, Lloyd James and Andrew Surman, are fit to play: do you know something different? No, I don't think you do. Furthermore, to play center back, we have Perry, Cork, Lancashire, and Wotton to choose from. So let's see: in your world we have no full backs and no centerbacks; yet in the real world we have our regular starting full backs fit to go, and four centerbacks to choose from. What world do you live in alpine? It sounds a depressing place: you might want to try moving to the real world some time.

The January transfer window is a problem for all clubs low on money, that is, all clubs outside the Prem and a few that are in it. If you can't afford to buy, and can't afford to resist good offers for your best players, your squad can be damaged and your plans upset during January: that is a fact that 95% of football teams in England have to live with. Makes no sense to criticise anyone connected with Saints for that, at this point. However, it is also very clear that under the current regime, Saints will continue to maintain investment in the Academy unless it becomes totally impossible, i.e. unless we have to go into administration. Why? Because that is where our team is coming from, and where a major part of our revenue stream is projected to come from. Without the money from selling the likes of Walcott, Bale, and Baird we wouldn't be fiscally afloat right now. As to promotion, there are and can be no guarantees. When we still had part of our Premiership squad, we spent 7 million trying to create a promotion winning side, and we just missed out due to the absurdity of the "away goals count double" rule not applying for Championship playoffs, and the luck of the penalty shoot-out going against us. There it is. We are now trying the route of building a young and hungry side. There are risks. Big offers for our young players will harm us on the football side if they come, at the same time as they help us on the fiscal side. That's our reality. That doesn't mean you don't continue to aim for promotion, and hope that the squad you are building can build up enough momentum, stay together long enough, and be deep enough, to make it happen, even if you do have to sell a player or two along the way. I'm just saying that what Wilde said makes sense and reflects accurately our current state. Whether you like or dislike, trust or distrust Wilde and/or Lowe is in this case irrelevant to the points being made about the club's situation and policy.

Well now, that is clearly an either/or thing, as even a tiny amount of rational reflection will make clear. If we can win promotion, our young players good enough for and desiring Premiership football can be retained -- except of course for any budding superstars in the Walcott/Bale mould who will get snapped up by one of the big 4 (or is that 5 now?) regardless. If we fail to win promotion, our best young players, those regarded as desirable by Premiership teams, will inevitably be sold. The idea is that replacements for them will be available from the academy, or by signing players of the Holmes/Schneiderlin ilk, or a few older and free types a la Wotton/Perry. If you can't see how this works and is a perfectly rational and consistent policy, frankly the fault lies in you and not in Wilde. You may perhaps question Wilde's sincerity, but what he has said makes perfect sense.

The answer is simple: there were real people with real money interested in buying Man City. This as opposed to Saints, where we have had only false rumours (Paul Allen, Dubai investment consortium, the group involving Gregg), tire kickers with no real funds (Fulthorpe & co., Souness & co.), and one consortium turned down by the shareholders (Ranson & SISU). If/when any real purchasers with real money do decide they want to buy Saints, you won't find the evidence on here from ITKers or other internet rumour-mongering. The evidence will be plain and very simple: an announcement that SFC is being bought. Goodness knows it's easy enough to do: an attractive offer for their shares to Lowe & co., Wilde, Crouch, & Corbett, allied with a general offer to all shareholders on the same terms. It just takes the money and the will. Unfortunately, both of those two things have been and are, and seem likely to remain, lacking.

People seem to be putting a huge amount of faith in Davies, and predicting a remarkable amount of doom if he leaves. It all strikes me as over the top. I don't mean to detract from Davies' quality: he's an excellent player. But I don't see how he can be the making or breaking of this team. CB happens to be a position where we are particularly strong: with the return of Svensson, the signing of Wotton (who has played as much at CB as at CM, and may now be better suited to CB), Lancashire's return to fitness, and the emergence of Racine, to add to Perry and Thomas, we have better depth at CB than just about any other position, even without Davies. Lighten up folks: it's a metter of letting the team gel and mature, we're moving in the right direction. As to the basic question, can Lancashire replace Davies: as neither of them has played a game this season, it's not clear what there is to say about that.

What I like about Poortvliet is the honest and no-nonsense way he is handling the players. When he came, he said that all players would be evaluated the same way and given the same chance, regardless of age, and that no player was too young to play if he was good enough. We've heard that sort of thing before, but he really is playing younger players, and getting (so far) an exciting and promising form of football out of them. Players who did not have the right attitude (Dyer for a while, Viafara, Skacel) were kept away from the first team and told they could either change their attitude and work their way back into contention, or leave. Result: the players know where they stand, that there will be no nonsense tolerated, and that past reputation will not get you playing, but present performance only. What's not to like about all that? It won't matter in the end if we don't win games; but I think there are wins in this team the way Poortvliet has got them playing, so I'm upbeat about the new coaching system so far.

Do you know Surman? Has he told you personally what his favored position is, and that he is annoyed at playing LB? Are you more of an expert on the game than the coaching staffs of last year and this year who have both seemingly decided that LB may be Surman's best position? I suspect the answer to all three questions is no ...