The Kraken

As much as Lawro is a complete bell-sniff, he does actually talk sense sometimes. If you can tell me what is incorrect about what he said here I'd be interested: "For Adkins to go at this stage of the season, and with his side on a good run of five league games unbeaten and out of the relegation zone, is very strange indeed. In fact it is a decision that beggars belief. Pochettino arrives at St Mary's not knowing anything about his players, or with any Premier League experience. He is going to get a crash course, and with a little bit of luck he might even know a few of their names by the time this game kicks off." Seems entirely reasonable to me.

Typical BBC anti-Saints bias.

Exactly. Lets go along with the positive stuff, but be cautious with the stuff that is less happy clappy. Congratulations, you qualify for the wine soaked Frank's Cousin's acceptabilty of SFC stories club.

I have no idea what point you're making now, Charles.

"We need to bring in one, maybe two keepers". I feel like I've heard that somewhere.

Christ. That was deep. Not really, Colin. News is news. If you have to adapt the truth to make it more palatable then you probably shouldn't listen in the first place. "Negative thoughts are like a disease"? Good lord. That's just a bit sad if you're saying that some people are far too delicate to handle some uncomfortable truths.

Why not just take any rumour/story/leak on its individual merits?

Are you being intentionally a bit thick? He said he wanted two keepers. And we have a transfer committee. He also said he wanted two central defenders in the summer; remind me if we got those. You seem to be spoiling for an inane argument somewhere, but just seem a bit confused which line to take.

So basically; positive bullsh*t is fine, negative bullsh*t is unacceptable?

More sense, Sir Smirk. A transfer committee is an entirely sensible creation; so long as it thorougly involves the manager. A committee without managerial input is just as unstable as a policy involving the manager alone IMO.

How about repeating stuff that Nigel Adkins said. Is that any closer? Weird.

Gotcha. NA meant we needed to sign reserves. Understood.

What about the part where Nigel Adkins said "we need to bring in one, maybe two keepers"?

Having just brought in a new defender without the consent (you'd assume) of the manager, I'd say things will only get worse in that regard. "The committee" for our latest recruit either involved someone who wasn't involved with the club at the time, or was just made up of the regular merry feckless band of three.

Semantics, but I think we're close enough to agreement!

I think it was progressing as intended. That it wasn't functioning properly, well I'd say that the managerial input was minimial, but that's just me.

So Nigel is to blame for signings when we need him to be. Ok then. Its either a committee or it isn't.

Spot on.

Adkins saying in the press "we need one, maybe two keepers" doesn't suggest to me that we needed backup.

Assumption by who? We do things by committee, don't we?

I just wonder why Cortese is said to have disagreed with Adkins refusal to sign a top keeper yet sanctioned a million pound plus agreement for a keeper. Especially so when £12M Ramirez and this latest Norwegian clearly had minimal imput from the manager.

Indeed he did. So the committee must take the blame for that.