The Kraken

Which would be handy if we had someone who could fill in for him at right back. Apart from a left footed Dan Harding, we apparently don't.

I blame Alpine Saint. He's gone all too quiet. Which is strange, as we seem to be losing more than ever. Colour me confused.

Exactly right Jonesuu. Unfortunately I think some people still labour under the misapprehension that the world is full of benevolent Abramovich-type figures who are going to come in with "investment" and throw money at the problem without looking for a financial return. Not going to happen, I'm afraid. And as I stated earlier, given what we've previously been through I'd much rather exist within our own means that go for broke with another renegade bunch of chancers who are just as likely to push us back into financial meltdown than take us to the Premier League.

Nope, I just can't agree with any of that I'm afraid. If there's anything our previous financial mismanagement has taught us, it's that we mustn't get ahead of ourselves and live beyond our means. So as much as Cortese has made a few controversial decisions (and of course a few mistakes), the only proper way for us to progress is by spending money that we make from the fanbase, and not by some mysterious "investment". As a club we make more than enough money to justify all of the following: employing one of the best managers in the league; pay transfer fees for the best players in the league; and afford the wage demands of the best players in the league. Staying within our budget should, with adequte management, see us rise back to the npc. From there, who knows, but I'd much rather see us with a stable future living within our means than sell out to another Wilde-bunch collection of chancers who will hock us up in debt all over again just to win over a few fans and go sh1t or bust once more.

I don't think we'll ever find out why players weren't brought in; at least not in public, anyway. What we do know is: The previous manager identified the need for a new central midfielder, a right midfielder to replace Waigo/Antonio, and another striker to complement the existing 3. A trial was given to a CM (Carter) who has since signed for a club in the NPC. We heard a few more utterances from the manager as the pre-season progressed that hopes were still of new players coming in. A player was brought in on loan, not fulfilling the criteria of the 3 missing positions idenitified by the manager. With several misigivings surrounding who actually made the transfer, said player has since hardly featured for the club. The manager and his backup team were fired. However, the caretaker manager insisted that he hoped to still bring in new players. But as the end of the tansfer window approached and then past, no new signings were made. The caretaker manager then admitted " we tried to sign a few players but it just didn't happen". Whoever's fault it was (and as I said I believe that publically we'll never find out), that just adds up to a catalogue of transfer failure over the summer. The squad was cleared of the dead wood at the start of the summer in order to refill it with quality, and all that happened was that we solved our right back problem. I still maintain that this squad should have been perfectly capable of making a much better start than we have, but that doesn't detract from the fact that we are stillat least 3 players short of the squad we need for a whole season. And the longer we go without the more our general malaise will continue.

I agree with this. Up to mid June this year we were making all the right moves; we'd solved the right back problem, signed a very promising left back, the manager had stated that he was still looking to add to the squad in a number of key areas, and we'd cleared out a lot of the dead wood in the squad. Since then we've had 1 more player who filled none of the key areas positions previously identified, and seemingly have a squad of injured, unfit or demotivated players. Adkins has two major jobs to fulfill; first of all, get the current squad up to fitness and playing to some sort of form. And secondly, bring in the 3 players we need to actually provide the squad depth required for the course of the season. It's all the more friustrating as the full extent of our current malaise was so very avoidable.

I don't think the Antonio/Waigo factor was in any way influential to Holmes lack of chances. As opposed to Puncheon who is left footed but has typically played on the right as he cuts in, Holmes is a bit more of an old fashioned left winger. As a consequence it was a direct fight between Holmes and Lallana for the left sided spot; Lallana barely missed a game last season so it was only natural that Holmes was going to play second fiddle to him for so long.

There were occasions last season where we played a midweek cup game, then at the subsequent weekend league game would "only" get a draw. That led some to conclude that the cup runs had a detrimental effect on our league form (despite some of the league games being away games, where a draw perhaps wasn't a bad result). It also negates to take into account that the cup games allowed squad members to come into the team to keep sharp, when the likes of Fonte, Puncheon etc were cup tied. We certainly didn't downplay the cups, with Pardew always playing a strong side. However we had a good run last year with very few injuries, and I never bought into the suggestion that the cup run had a directly negative impact on our league form.

Indeed. In fact Portswood has now got quite a lot of options for decent food. As previously mentioned The Crown for good pub grub, Ceno has a restaurant menu and bar menu, both of which are very good. Ghandhi is a very nice curry restaurant, but you also have Kohinoor (part of Kuti's chain) which is immense and also Natraj which is very good. You then have Sara's Thai restaurant which, for my money, is much better than Thai cafe in Oxford St. Trago Lounge is also ok, more along the line of pub grub. Also, the Gordon Arms serves the best burgers in Southampton, hude homemade efforts the size of a cricket ball. You also have La Baronia (Mexican, pretty good) and Mango Thai, which is lovely.

Yet more talk off the pitch and not on it. Hammond was garbage today, and for him to prattle on about having a smile on his face really p1sses me off. I saw nothing at the ground today to put a smile on my face, in fact almost everything Dean Hammond did today made me feel disappointed to have a Saints captain so utterly inept and out of the game. Please, please Nigel Adkins, remove this ineffectual waste of space and bring in someone who can dominate a midfield. Hammond keeps shirking it and hiding from being the skipper we need.

I thought he was dreadful today. Really very poor. But then we have no-one better to come in and take his place. And Morgan was equally anonymous. In fact we were below par everywhere today, but epitomisied by the lack of drive and desire in central midfield to take charge and get the job done.

Being as the Echo fully promoted this whole get together, I can only assume (and hope) that they will continue their balanced reporting by including a full report of the entire meeting both in tomorrow's Sports Echo and also Monday's Echo. Fair and balanced reporting, and all that. Actually, if anyone was there for the apparent fiasco it would be nice if they could drop the Echo an email and report on what actually happened.

And by the way, apparently after the Liebherrs made their previous public statement it was accepted by SISA. As reported on the BBC online: Clive Foley from Southampton Independent Supporters Association welcomed the announcement. He said: "The club needs stability. There was tremendous feel-good factor last season. "This has obviously been a major shock. We need to get back to the hard work of being a football club."

No, I don't like what they said. Which is why I wrote a letter of my own and sent it to the Echo, outlining my problems with the statement. And I don't believe the Liebherrs owe us anything more than the statement they have already provided. They now own the club, so I don't see why any comment they make should come from anywhere but the club itself. Also, they are still grieving a lost loved one and I find it enormously distasteful that pressure is being put on them in this way.

Anyone speaking to the club, and offering an opinion (which is fine) needs to do so as an individual. You simply cannot speak for hundreds of people and capture everyone's opinion, its impossible. Take the SISA poll on here, if we had someone saying "well, obviously you can see SaintsWeb don't want SISA speaking for them", you're effectively not being truthful as there are some people who ARE happy for SISA to talk on their behalf. Opinion pieces are good from individuals. If Duncan wants to give one, great. He has a record as club historian and more than earned the right to an opinion about the club. However, it would be an opinion from Duncan Holley. Not from any organisation. My point is this; I don't believe anyone NEEDS to speak to the media on my behalf. The use of polls and such like mean that majority views can be gauged and heard, and I'd like to see more of this and much less of "titles" attempting to condense the various views of their members into a few sanitised words.

Just because you think they were right on an issue that happened 13 years ago, you think they should be given the benefit of the doubt for carrying on as an unelected, militant, incendiary "voice of the fans" despite only having the backing of 4% of fans to speak on their behalf? Ok then.

No, I completely disagree with that part and would suggest that it exactly what we DON'T want. We already have that. This site should be used as a resource to gauge opinions only, with fair and impartial reporting of the outcomes. Having one person speak on behalf of hundreds is a recipe for disaster. As a consensus it is quite possible to summarise a set of poll results in a balanced format, but having a designated spokesperson is a step too far, and far too much like the SISA / Saints Trust recipe we're trying to get away from.

Baj, no need to have a "voice of Saintsweb", in fact that's just what we're trying to get away from. The Echo printed my letter today which condemned SISA's public statement yesterday. In it I made mention to the poll run on here, and simply stated the percentage figure of those that had voted "no, SISA do no speak for me". So no need for SaintsWeb to appear as anything but an online resource used to conduct a poll about a certain topic.

The Liebherr family.

John, I'm perfectly aware what the quote is, being as I was the one who (a) raised the post on here and (b) sent a letter to the Echo condemning it. I don't agree at all with that statement. I don't agree the Liebherr's are duty bound to listen to supporters. I don't believe we need any more firm assurances as to their committment to the club, we've already had them. The only thing I do believe is that this is an incendiary public statement designed to undermine Nicola Cortese all in the name of "giving the fans a collective voice". You say they want to know what other supporters think, so answer me this. If they cared that much what other supporters think, why didn't they consult other supporters BEFORE issuing such a controversial public demand?

I've just seen a copy of the Echo, and to be fair to them, they've printed in full my letter to them yesterday regarding the SISA statement. Here it is, for anyone interested... SISA don't speak for most fans I would like to comment on your article in yesterday’s Echo titled “Fans want Liebherr family assurances”, whereby you report on Southampton Independent Supporters Association (SISA) calling for the Liebherr family to make a public statement regarding their ownership of the club. Firstly, I think your readership need to fully understand the significance of SISA. While they may be titled a "supporters’ group", their actual membership figures (while clouded in mystery) are believed by some to be in single figures, and certainly not enough to be considered a significant figure. Therefore they simply do not offer the cross section of opinion that a typical supporters’ association would. A subsequent poll was initiated yesterday on the Saints Web Forum (the most popular online Southampton supporters website), titled “Do SISA speak for you”. Currently over 95% of those polled have replied in the negative, that SISA do not speak for them. Given the amount of space your newspaper gives to SISA, I feel it is very important that this point is made clear to your readers. Secondly, in this particular instance, I must also register my dissatisfaction that you offered no balanced debate on the point of the article; the demands for a public statement from the Liebherr family. Speaking only for myself, I absolutely do not require a public statement from them, and I find it abhorrent that a supporters association seemingly with the best interests of the club at heart should seek to invade the privacy of a family who are clearly still grieving for their lost loved one. I find it particularly galling considering a public statement has already been offered on behalf of the family, stating that they are dedicated to continue with Markus’ wishes in supporting the club. I am therefore moved to question the motives of SISA’s request for a further statement, and suggest it is just an incendiary move designed to undermine the club’s management by Nicola Cortese. I hope your readers can understand that, just because SISA (and indeed the equally moribund Saints Trust) appear regularly in print in your paper, they in no way speak on behalf of the vast majority of Saints fan in the city and beyond. That we as individuals do not align ourselves with now-defunct supporters groups should not detract from that fact. Yours sincerely etc. EDIT: There was also a nice picture of Markus, with the strapline Markus Liebherr: No family statement needed.

CanadaSaint; just so there's no confusion and to ensure I'm not misquoting him, here are the actual comments from Dan Kerins on the matter. As for the "fans' chief" comment - they are in charge of organisations (relatively small ones, admittedly) of fans. A headline is often limited to about twenty characters, so to explain the nuances of their position in the big scheme of things is not appropriate - that is what is done in the article, by saying something like "Joe Bloggs, secretary of the Fan club". People often assume that the word "fans" means all fans. I've never understood why. and... As for correcting the reading that fans means all fans, that's what why we say exactly who they are. As for the earlier suggestion of just naming them rather than giving them a title, the title places them in context. For example, the inclusion of the word SISA has instantly made many on here know exactly who you are talking about (and also why I assume there has been no comment on the other fan's comment in the paper - he is not a person known in wider circles as I assume he has no affiliation to any groups. Had he been a member of the Trust, SISA, whatever, I imagine his comment would have garnered a lot more attention. In other words, it backs up the accusations that the titles are used, despite being defunct orgainisations, because the reader will recognise the title and therefore associate more gravitas towards the position. I do and will continue to believe that this is absolutely wrong. In terms of balance, perhaps the Echo should conduct a "Who are you" piece on SISA; they are in print all the time, so lets hear about you. How many members do you have? How often do you meet? How can I become a member? Can I be elected to the board? Etc. Etc.

Ringwood, I'll give you benefit of the doubt and assume that you haven't read my other posts on the matter (or indeed properly read my quote that you posted). In fact I'll quote it again for you. "I have nothing against SISA/Saints trust existing, that's entirely up to them. i personally think they serve absolutely no worthwhile purpose, but if their "members" want them to continue, that's up to them." What I do have a problem with, as I have previously stated and as you yourself hint at, is the Echo publishing quotes from SISA / Saints Trust under the description "Fans' chief"". That mistakenly gives the impression that a significant body of fans are voicing an opinion, when that simply isn't true. You ask why I don't join SISA or the Saints trust and change from within? It's a very simple answer, and one that I've previously given. I think they serve no worthwhile purpose any more. The information age was very different back when SISA were originally formed, and abck then I'm perfectly willing to admit that they filled a need for the fans to have a collective voice. But now we have various messsage boards, the Official Site, fans forums, the Daily Echo paper has a right to reply as does it's website. In short, there are so many ways that fans can now have a voice that the need for a supporters association to trumpet the views of the unheard is simply redundant. And that's my major point in all of this. SISA and the Saints Trust know that they don't speak for us all; they know they can't. Yet they continue to labour under their own self-impoortance just to appear in print. As Dan Kerins from the Echo said, more often than not it is SISA members contacting the Echo, and not the other way round. If the Echo simply accepted them for the defunct orgainsations they clearly are and deprived them of the oxygen of publicity they so crave it would solve the problem instantly.

The second paragraph gives it away....! "Those are the words of Southampton Independent Supporters Association chairman Mike O'Callaghan"

Don't get me wrong, I completely agree with you, and have contacted the echo previously myself with similar requests. However, as my discussions with Dan Kerins yesterday proved, they are unwilling to move away from the SISA/Saints Trust monikers as, they believe, it is perfectly valid for inclusion. I disagree.