FloridaMarlin

Interesting by-line. Alex Montgomery is Lawrie Mac's oldest journalist mate, from way back in the days when he used to work for The Sun and pay Lawrie for all his exclusives. If Alex Montgomery has done a story about Saints, it hints to me he's been fed it by Lawrie. In that case, it won't be Lowe's camp stirring things up (he works through Charlkie Sale, anyway) but Lawrie. Now why would he want to stir things up by planting stories like this around? Perhaps to chivvy up recalcitrant interested parties? Answers on a postcard, please.

The problem is that football contracts run up to June 30, so after the last day of the season, Rasiak and John come back on to the wage bill. John is out of contract this summer, but unless he foregoes wages, Saints are obliged to pay him up to June 30. Likewise Rasiak. Watford may want to buy him, but why should they pay his wages through the summer? If they've got sense, they'll stick in a bid on July 1. Getting those two back on the payroll on Monday May 4 adds an extra £24,000 per week to the wage bill for the thick end of two months.

I posted this on another thread last night. "The biggest concern should be the proposals Bolton chairman Phil Gartside is working on to create Premier League One and Two. If we're outside that, we're really in the mire. Basically, he's proposing that the current Prem, plus most of the Championship and Celtic and Rangers (not sure how they'll swing that through, but we all know that in football, might is right and the Premier League hold all the financial aces) hive off and form a two-tier Premier League. There will be two teams promoted and relegated between the two Premier League divisions each season, but only one relegation /promotion place between PL Div 2 and whatever's left. The rationale, of course, is to increase television revenue by widening the scope of "The World's Most Popular League" (not my words). The Premier League are mindful that there are some big clubs outside that in an ideal world they would like in. Leeds, Sheffield United and Wednesday, Birmingham. Even , dare I say it, Saints. What they wouldn't want - even if their league position warrants it - are the likes of Doncaster, Barnsley, etc. They look at the swathes of empty seats at Boro, Blackburn and commission the chairman of another of those clubs - Bolton - to look at a means of reviving a competition that is becoming boring because only one of four teams is capable of winning it. Gartside is working for all those clubs whose Premier League status is one of making up the numbers, but getting well paid for doing it. And at the back of their minds, of course, is the fear of what relegation from the current Premier League could mean (examples: Charlton, Saints, Leeds). So what's the simple solution to protect against relegation? Make sure you don't really get relegated by forming a second division. Once you've got that, you've basically got an NFL-style franchise system and clubs outside the expanded 40-member Premier League will be cast to the wind and tides. This might take a year or two to bring in, but Premier LEague clubs will go for it. It only requires 17 of the current Premier League to vote in favour of it, and there are enough whose aim at the start of every season is merely to reach 40 points, who will be comforted by the thought of a second tier safety net to lap it up. Let's not forget, here, that Saints were one of the original 22 clubs who unilaterally jumped ship in 1992 to form the Premier League in the first place. But you genuinely fear for Saints future if they are not in the next group of 22 or so to join them, and it doesn't look as though they will be."

The biggest concern should be the proposals Bolton chairman Phil Gartside is working on to create Premier League One and Two. If we're outside that, we're really in the mire. Basically, he's proposing that the current Prem, plus most of the Championship and Celtic and Rangers (not sure how they'll swing that through, but we all know that in football, might is right and the Premier League hold all the financial aces) hive off and form a two-tier Premier League. There will be two teams promoted and relegated between the two Premier League divisions each season, but only one relegation /promotion place between PL Div 2 and whatever's left. The rationale, of course, is to increase television revenue by widening the scope of "The World's Most Popular League" (not my words). The Premier League are mindful that there are some big clubs outside that in an ideal world they would like in. Leeds, Sheffield United and Wednesday, Birmingham. Even , dare I say it, Saints. What they wouldn't want - even if their league position warrants it - are the likes of Doncaster, Barnsley, etc. They look at the swathes of empty seats at Boro, Blackburn and commission the chairman of another of those clubs - Bolton - to look at a means of reviving a competition that is becoming boring because only one of four teams is capable of winning it. Gartside is working for all those clubs whose Premier League status is one of making up the numbers, but getting well paid for doing it. And at the back of their minds, of course, is the fear of what relegation from the current Premier League could mean (examples: Charlton, Saints, Leeds). So what's the simple solution to protect against relegation? Make sure you don't really get relegated by forming a second division. Once you've got that, you've basically got an NFL-style franchise system and clubs outside the expanded 40-member Premier League will be cast to the wind and tides. This might take a year or two to bring in, but Premier LEague clubs will go for it. It only requires 17 of the current Premier League to vote in favour of it, and there are enough whose aim at the start of every season is merely to reach 40 points, who will be comforted by the thought of a second tier safety net to lap it up. Let's not forget, here, that Saints were one of the original 22 clubs who unilaterally jumped ship in 1992 to form the Premier League in the first place. But you genuinely fear for Saints future if they are not in the next group of 22 or so to join them, and it doesn't look as though they will be.

Unfortunately, these days players have little fear. They have agents. If they're not happy at a club, they simply pick up the phone and ask him to manufacture a move. In the past, managers could rule by fear, helpd by the fact that pre-Bosman, players were tied to a club until that club wanted to get rid of him. Now, if a player is hauled over coals or given a billocking by the manager, his first thoughts are not likely to be reflections on whether it was justified. Players aren't big on looking at themselves and their performances these days. They have too many sycophants hanging on their coattails, constantly bigging them up. They get this from an early stage in their football development and the result is that at the first set back or adversity, they don't know how to handle it. They can't take criticism, so they run to their agents and ask for a move. "What about Fergie?" I hear you say. "He rules by fear." Yes he does. The fear of being bombed out by the biggest club in the world, that's the thing Man Utd players fear. Otherwise, getting the best out of players these days is all about playing on and exploiting their professional and personal pride. It doesn't appear as though Saints players have any, and perhaps that's not surprising. Could you motivate yourself to work your socks off for an organisation that even if if exists in three months time, will probably be ushering you out the door as a means of raising money? Any argument fans might produce that they pay their wages is water off a duck's back to them. So what? In three months, a year, whatever, they'll be off where another set of mugs will pay their wages. Gutless? Maybe. Uncaring? Probably. You're looking at a group of unmotivated players with weak mentalities, coached by somebody incapable of getting into their minds and finding a means of motivating them.

The last one is the one to worry us all. If Man Utd think they can get more money elsewhere, what's to stop them getting together with the other three of the Big Four, and suggesting they negotiate their own TV rights deals? Could be the thin end of the wedge towards another breakaway, along with other top sides in Europe, plus south America, to form a TV-funded World League. It would effectively mean the end of the Premier League. Think it's pie-in-the-sky? The fear of this happening has been circling the corridors of the BBC and other media organisations for the past two or three years.

You're right, he could have gone to any game in the country. But he's got a place in Bournemouth (pay attention now, Watson) so he's on the doorstep and yes, he probably did go to see who was in the directors' box. Why wouldn't he? If he can sense there is a story brewing somewhere and somehow at SFC, he wouldn't be justifying your licence fee by not doing his research and background, so that when the story does break he is ready to do a piece. BBC Sport is not a homogenous organism. All the various elements under its huge umbrella have a certain amount of autonomy when it comes to journalism. It creates a bit of healthy competition within the organisation to break stories, although the website eventually pulls them all together. So the editor of Football Focus would say: "There's a good story brewing at Southampton FC, we'll monitor it so that we're ready to do a piece about it." What better way to do that, than send somebody along who is still considered (despite his failing eyesight and addled brain) to be the figurehead of that part of the BBC. Why did he sit next to Mark Fry? To probably try and pick his brains. It's what journalists do. Sneer if you like, but that's what Motty still is.

Couple of things here. The story in the Echo is the result of journalism of the worst kind and an example of the media feeding itself. The story says that Saints fans are calling for the city to sell off some of its art works. Where was this call first made? Why, on the Echo's message board. So the Echo gets its stories from its own message boards. What insightful journalism. Secondly, most of the city's art collection is either on loan (permanently or temporarily), or donated as a behest, with all sorts of covenants on it, preventing its subsequent onsale. The council couldn't sell its art collection, even if it wanted to. I'm pretty sure the council wouldn't have such large holes in its budget if every time there was a shortfall, they simply took a Lowry, Monet or Millais down and bunged it up to Christie's. But I actually agree with Alps on this. The art collection is for the enjoyment of all the people in Southampton. I don't think anyone is under any illusions about the benefits a high-riding sports club brings to any city, but sports fans wear blinkers. They only care about their pastime. As much as I love Saints, I don't think it is right or fair to ask all the population of the city to bail the club out totally. How would Saints fans feel if years ago, the city council came cap-in-hand to Saints and asked them to sell off Matty to help rescue them financially. I'm putting my tin hat on here, expecting some stick but as a rich man (who was asked to get involved with a football club on the south Coast) once said to me: "Fans are always critical of owners for not putting enough of their money in. But why should I put millions of pounds in to subsidise peoples' hobby, where all they do is come along every other week and spend some money." A tad harsh, perhaps, but he still has his millions, and it's certainly a bit of food for thought.

Motty has a place in Bournemouth. Saints were at home. He does have soft spot for the club but his journalistic instincts would tell him to go where there is a potential story. He would have been there just picking up the vibe, listening up the gossip and when something does happen (either way), he's ready to do a piece for the Beeb. Although it doesn't appear to be the case at the moment, Saints' fate will still be a story of more than local interest. If we go under (god forbid) we'll be the biggest club to have done so, or certainly at least the first former Premier League club. If somebody like Souness or Gavin Davies takes us over, then that's a story as well. Motty would also have been pointed in the direction by one of the very senior Match of the Day figures who lives in Locks Heath (I won't name him on here, but some people might know him).

I don't think you'll be accused of stereotyping. Yours is as valid a theory as any to a question which lots of people have pondered long and hard. There are lots of clubs in other parts of the country in equally parlous states, but if you compare the number of clubs in the south, with Lancashire and the north west, there are proportionately more in trouble. From Brighton westwards, there are five Football League teams: Brighton, p***ey, Saints, Bournemouth and Plymouth. For good measure, add in Lewes, Bognor, Eastleigh, Basingstoke, Weymouth, Exeter and Torquay. Go inland as far as Reading if you want. Compare that to the number of clubs in Lancashire/Greater Manchester alone: Man Utd, Man City, Bolton, Blackburn, Burnley, Blackpool, Oldham, Stockport, Bury, Rochdale, Morecambe. Accrington. And that's not including Merseyside or Cheshire, which would take in the likes of Wigan, Crewe, Macclesfield, etc. The old industrial connurbations have always been the traditional powerhouses of football, and certainly the birthplace of professional football from the days when mill workers were paid to play. It's a tricky one, because anyone who witnessed the support Saints and p***ey get cannot justifiably argue that supporters lack passion in the south. And yet in some strange way, perhaps football doesn't mean so much to as many people in the south as it does oop north. It may be something to do with the demographics of the north. Industrial workers were tied to their towns, but as a result were more closely identified with it. Perhaps people are more close-knit in the north, and the town's football club was the focal point. Maybe people in the soft south do have it easier, have more disposable income, therefor a wider spread of interests. I wouldn't dare tell people (and nor would I like to be told) on this board that their football club does not mean as much to them as a Manc or any Lancastrian. But I think it's a question of proportion and priorities. Not as many people in the south care for the teams in thier city/town as people in the north do. Who knows. Any sociologists or demographic experts out there?

[quote=Latheal;239111 I really do fear for football unless something is seriously done. I'm proud of the structure this country has (4 professional divisions is unheard of anywhere else in the world) but we've got to protect it somehow. Some might argue that is the problem, that it is unrealistic to try and sustain four professional leagues in the UK. Unfortunately, football in the UK is deep-rooted in tradition, of every town of any size having its own full-time, professional club. That was fine when there was no other entertainment, and clubs financed themselves solely on the money they took through the gate, and trimmed their costs accordingly. But even then, football history is littered with clubs who couldn't manage that and went to the wall: Accrington Stanley (OK, now reborn) and Bradford Park Avenue. Back then, it was accepted as a sort of football Darwinism, but every club and its chairman is inevitably driven by pride. They like the kudos of being thought of as a full-time, professional club. If Eastleigh get into the Conference top flight, they will want to go full-time. OK, there is some pressure to do that, to attract the sort of players who will keep you in the league, but it's as much a question of going full-time because everyone else in the division is. I'm not sure we are able, or even should be able, to sustain effectively a FIVE division, full-time set up, if you consider from the Prem down to Conference. Football needs to stop living in the past, and beyond its means, and assuming that the rest of the world owes it a living. It doesn't. In the same way the migrating gnus get thinned by the crocs as they cross that river, so football will succumb to some natural wastage. It has to. All you can do is hope it's not your club that's among the weak and sick to get culled.

Proves the great unspoken truth about Redknapp - that he is not a very good coach. He is only good if he has unlimited use of the club credit card, and can ship loads of players in, probably on the basis that if he has enough, he is bound to get lucky and pick 11 that are any good. However, give him a squad of players and ask him to largely work with them and he's about as much use as Anne Frank's drum kit. And don't bring up the old chestnut about what a great wheeler-dealer he is in the market. I think we saw he's not with the likes of Davenport, Bernard etc. And let's not forget Florian Raducioiu, Paul Futre, Marco Boogers and Richard Hall!

Stuart Dunn is not the MD of Newsquest. He wishes he was! He's not even the regional managing director. Newsquest is a fairly big player in the UK regional news, of which the Echo is but a small part. There are some fairly big newspapers in Newsquest's portfolio, including the Glasgow Herald, Bradford Telegraph and Argus, the Brighton Argus and the Northern Echo. http://www.newsquest.co.uk/index.php Newsquest, in turn is owned by Gannett http://www.gannett.com/ Gannett are a huge, American media conglomerate that operates some VERY heavyweight US papers (including Thus, any profits Newsquest makes, is shipped across the Pond to Ole Virginny where Gannett are based. Stuart might pull a bit of weight in Hampshire as a General Manager, but in the Newsquest pecking order, he is a very small bird.

Hmmm, I'm thinking not too many shirts from the 2004/05 season will be blood or sweat soaked. I bet Jamie Redknapp's still smells of his after shave (probably something classy, like Joop!)

I can categorically state there has NEVER been an occasion when a reporter was removed from covering Saints if they wrote something the club didn't like. You have no appreciation or conception of how the media operates. All sorts of accusations could be levelled at the Echo for its coverage down the years, but no editor would (and no Echo editor has) succumb to pressure as to the reporter they choose to cover the club. The Echo's sister paper in Bournemouth came under this type of pressure years ago when AFCB said they would not co-operate with the paper's nominated Bournemouth beat reporter as they felt his coverage was too negative (ie, he was digging up too many skeletons by doing his job properly), and demanded he be replaced. The editor told them to get knotted, adding that as long as he did not tell the club who he thought should be manager, they had no right to tell him who he should appoint to cover the club. Relationships between the Echo and Saints have been up and down over the years, but the club has NEVER demanded the replacement of a reporter, probably in the knowledge that such a demand would be guaranteed to get the paper's back up, and that it was one that would never be met. Lowe - like all those who control football clubs - believes he holds all the aces when it comes to the media by threatening to withdraw media access. Up to a point, that works, as papers have to balance the merits of running stories which carry a risk of them being banned. I think it's come (or is coming) to the point where the Echo are no longer worried by that threat. If Lowe bans them, they'll relish the opportunity to tell their readers why, and in the current climate, that is a moral battle Lowe will never win. If he can't see that, then he is not very bright. As for the Echo's corporate hospitality box, it's very rare - if ever - that editorial staff have access to it on matchdays. The people populating it tend to be from advertising, circulation, newspaper sales, and suits from the upper floor.

There used to be FOUR Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Is one currently hospitalised after being beaten up by the aforementioned chavs?

Do what? You've obviously never seen Laurence Herdman kick a football. Prior to joining Radio Silent (where he won a competition open to members of the public to be a football commentator) he was in the Royal Navy. Former Skate player.......get outta town. You're getting him mixed up with Paul Hardyman, who used to be a Radio Silent pundit. They are two different people. One is Laurence Herdman, the other is Paul Hardyman.

A ritual for the all-conquering Liverpool team of the 70s and 80s was to order fish and chips for the journey home. They would always find out where the nearest chippy was to the ground, the staff would order them up for after the game and the bus would stop en route and pick them up. If it was thought good enough for the European Champions, other clubs followed suit. During Lawrie's reign and that of several other managers (back in the day when Saints weren't a bad side) you would see the team bus in the distance, the brake lights go on and somebody nip into the chippy. I'm no dietician, but the general perception is that there is a need to refuel with carbs pretty quickly after a game. The fat content of a food is not considered that disastrous as that can always be worked off by athletes in training, but foods like fish and chips and pizza do have the high carb content that is needed. I also seem to recall Man Utd keeping Mars bars in the dugout as Rio Ferdinand and others would eat them DURING THE GAME! I must admit, the first time I heard of that, I wondered whether he might be on the cusp of being diabetic, but it's just another means of keeping energy levels up.

If Lowe senses that everyone has given up, that will be one area, I'm afraid, where you will be able to hold fans liable for the results. Hearing (or reading on this forum) that supporters have given up any hope of staying in the Championship will be music to his ears. It gives him carte blanche to do whatever he likes for at least the rest of this season. Why should he bother to change his modus operandi if fans have no expectations anyway? The expectations I had at the start of the season were relegation, so at least he hasn't disappointed me. If that makes me part of the disease, then I'll put my hand up. This club holds nothing for me anymore. What's worrying is that I can't even get angry or annoyed about it any more. I just have ambivalent feelings of acceptance that this club is doomed. I know people will claim that nobody has a devine right to play in the top flight for ever and point to the likes of Man City, Stoke,vAston Villa and other clubs who have dipped into the third tier and returned. The gaps between the Prem and the Championship, and the Championship and League One are no so big, it's almost impossible to rescale the heights. Yes, somebody will quote Hull City at me, and good for them. But they are run by a progressive, forward-thinking set of people. I have had to accept that I will never see this club play in the top flight again in my lifetime. Oh, and another thing. Does anybody think that the only reason we haven't gone into administration yet is because there is a big game of chicken going on and our last desperate hope is that others of the 15 or so clubs thought to be in danger, might go first and cop the points deduction to make us safe? Never mind, baseball season is just around the corner.

I don’t think anyone really knows him, possibly not even his wife. He is capable of putting up strange and impenetrable barriers. I used to have to deal with him, and tried to establish and build a working relationship. I had no feelings about him either way – for or against – and tried to be ambivalent about him as a person. From day one he never, ever gave any hint of treating me as an ‘equal’ in the working relationship, and his view was always that it should always flow in one direction – his. I was even prepared to accept that to an extent. To be a good businessman you have to be prepared to tread over people and be a bit selfish and ruthless. Like Duncan, I was phoned and called an “arsehole” and a lot worse beside (including one blistering tirade where he used a word beginning with ‘C’ which I didn’t think public schoolboys knew) but you accept that sort of thing as an occupational hazard. I could even see his viewpoint and why he took certain courses of action on occasions. It didn’t make me popular with friends and fellow fans when I tried to explain it, but I felt it was only fair that people consider the options facing him. To this day I think he was hamstring and placed in an invidious decision over the Dave Jones affair, knowing what he thought was going to happen, having been briefed by the Merseyside bizzies. People who work with him and for him say he will unerringly reciprocate to those who show loyalty to him. If you are loyal to him, he will stand shoulder to shoulder to you through thick and thin to the bitter end. I know people who say he is a very caring and considerate employer who shows a genuine interest in the welfare and wellbeing of those who work for him. There would always be fruit or flowers for those in hospital, and messages of condolence and floral tributes for any who had suffered a bereavement. So, we’re not talking about an inherently evil person here. He is not the Spawn of Satan or The Lord of the Flies incarnate. Do I like him? Nope. Not for the way he treated me personally. I’m thick-skinned and when you work in the media you have to accept your share of brickbats. After all, you dish enough of them out. I don’t like him because I learned the hard way I couldn’t trust him. He shafted me royally on one occasion, and when I tried to explain the consequences of his actions he laughed in my face. Since then, I cannot trust any decision he makes for the club. As I say, I don’t think anyone really knows him, perhaps apart from his father (there might be a Vito-Michael Corleone thing going on there!). But I think he is a man quite capable of holding two completely divergent standpoints to serve his own purposes. I think he is now adopting a similar bunker mentality to Hitler (no, I'm saying he is an evil Nazi dictator). He feels the very people he tried to lead have let him down, and are now not worthy of his leadership. And like Hitler, I would not be surprised if he is prepared to pull the whole edifice down with him if he goes. Gotterdammerung approaches!!

He also inherited a squad having a major collective sulk at the loss of their mentor and guru. Motivating players is an interesting subject. you would think that a good manager, worth his salt would be able to motivate his players, but you only have to look at Scolari to realise that if primadonna players are not getting their way, they group together like a load of spoiled showgirls and complain to the chairman. Can you imagine any of Brian Clough's, Bob Paisley's or even Sir Alex Ferguson's players bleating to the chairman? More to the point, what sort of chairman listens to players and acts on their complaints? Players have all the power these days. If they don't get their own way, they threaten to go on strike until they get a move, or find some other way to hold their employers to ransom. A good, strong chairman would tell whingeing players to get lost. Perhaps it's something about Russian owners.

Having dealt with both of them in the past, I can say they share common traits. But there are also some interesting differences between them. Both have large egos and would see themselves as being good businessmen, able to transfer their business acumen to football. It would appear at the moment that one is slightly more successful than the other. Make no mistake, Mandaric is a businessman first and foremost, but he makes sure he gets his pound of flesh in terms of fun and enjoyment on the way. At the heart of it, he is a football fan with a large bank account to indulge himself in his hobby. His ego also needs to be fed and he is never happier than when fans are calling his name. One reason why his relationship with Redknapp broke down was because he couldn't take the p****y fans chanting Redcrapp's his name from the CJD stand instead of his. He picked p****y up cheaply, and made a tidy profit on it, having had a real fun time getting them into the Prem. He'll do the same with Leicester. He picked them up relatively cheaply and he'll sell them for a tidy profit. The common denominator there is that both were private companies he was able to buy, without the hoop-la of gathering enough shares on the stock exchange to buy a plc. But he knows that in order to sell Leicester for a profit, he has to get them to where the money is, and that is the Premiership. He will, therefore, invest enough of his own money to do that. So the similarities are that both Lowe and Mandaric ultimately see football as a means of making money. One is prepared to invest a considerable amount of his own personal fortune to achieve his ends, the other is either unwilling or unable (I'm not getting involved in that argument) to do the same. Both have demonstrated hair trigger reactions when it comes to firing managers, but I would suggest that of the two, Mandaric has learned more from his mistakes. If he considers one of his managerial appointments a mistake, he'll correct it quickly by firing him. No messing, no 'mutual agreements' or 'gardening leave.' Draw a red line uner it and start again, even if a quickfire sacking means he has to swallow it as an admission he got it wrong. Both men also have a record of clearly being difficult to get on with, which has cost them successful managers. Strachan went because of..who knows? Redknapp left P****y first time because Mandaric appointed a director of football over him. Mandaric has learned from that and is now wise in the ways of English football. He hasn't been tempted to appoint a DoF since then, and certainly won't dare do it over Pearson's head. Having learned from the past, I think Mandaric is also more inclined now, to leave his managers to manage. His past mistakes have taught him to keep his hands off and let the manager get on with it, providing he is doing a good job. Lowe has never (at least publicly) seen himself as the owner of a football club, merely the steward of a plc. No such nonsense from Mandaric. He makes no bones about it that it is his club, his plaything to do what he likes with. Mandaric is also more media-savvy. He doesn't treat the media with that strange, bi-polar mixture of disdain, or as a pliant tool that can be used. He does use the media, but he is a more media-friendly person. Phone him, and he actually welcomes your call and interest or at least appears to). With Lowe, both parties are immediately on defense. I'm not that keen on either of them, to be honest, but you have to accept that modern football does attract and harbour this type of person. The bottom line is that you have to accept whichever one is best for your club, and the acid-test for that is what happens on the field.

Buoyed by the success of his revolutionary continental coaching system, Rupert was sure Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber would love the candidates he had unearthed to contest the Eurovision Song Contest.

Interesting.

I know for a fact he loved being compared to a mako shark!