CanadaSaint

Come on Solent, you prannies. Turn the goddam commentary on.

You could be right but I had left the browser tab open from Saturday's game, and they tested the connection several times an hour or more ago. It was the same voice/accent but he said "Testing, testing", so I think the "switch turner" is at Solent.

Why is it that supporters of other teams listen to the build up on their player while we only get tuned in at kick off? It p*sses me off royally because it wouldn't cost them anything to start the feed earlier. And it's always the same voice connecting us, and it sounds like a Southampton voice so the issue is probably at Solent, isn't it? Rant far from over.

Good point. I'll bet that Cortese had to "sell" us to Adkins as much as Adkins had to "sell" himself to Cortese, and I don't think Cortese would have bullsh*tted him about our finances.

FFS, what exactly did he say that was "nudge, wink"? Exactly. And they're both smart enough to understand that equation and not have a problem with it. Also, Adkins seems like the "participative" kind who would value Reed's input on this stuff rather than resent it.

But players are in the personnel "grey zone", Duncan - and they're the biggest ticket items in the set up, so it makes sense for the chairman to be involved. As Toadhall said, who in their right mind would unleash Harry in this area without any oversight? I still take your point though, and agree with it. Cortese's role should be to maintain financial balance - not interfere in the playing side of things. I think - and hope - he's smart enough not to get too involved there, and I think he might have internalized quite a few lessons in the past six weeks.

I'd thought that, Toadhall, but one of the mooted reasons for the firing (or at least the disharmony that lead up to it) was a supposedly crap relationship between Pardew and Reed. Under Cortese's idea of structure, that was a battle Pardew couldn't win. There was allegedly - that word again - a transfer committee composed of Cortese, Reed and the first team manager, as well as some of the scouts. But the managerial search process might have tempered Cortese's thoughts on structure because Reed does seem to have slipped/been pushed back into the shadows somewhat. Who knows?

I think Cortese was there because the committee approach to transfers and loans is probably still in place, although Reed's profile seems to have diminished somewhat since Adkins was hired.

This issue has been raised in numerous threads, including the "False dawn" topic, and there is absolutely nothing out there indicating that we're "skint" - apart from uninformed scaremongering on here. A five year plan has multiple steps and stages. The money to boost player personnel when we move into the Championship was, I'm sure, budgeted as part of the plan. Same again should we reach the Premier League. All of this is over and above the money aimed at upgrading the academy, which is a key component of the plan because it will help to make us more self sufficient. Since Markus died the amount available for investment in Saints has almost certainly become a fixed sum (his formal "provision" for the future of the Club) when it probably wasn't before (because he could spend what he wanted). As Ron said, under Swiss law the estate passes to the heirs at the moment of death, so Markus's "provision" (which we were told was made before his death) is probably sitting in a dedicated account somewhere. This means that, IF we've reached our budget limit for getting out of this division, we can only spend more by taking away from future provisions. We already have (probably) the most expensive squad in the division and it should be good enough for promotion, so why spend more? Other than because we've had a tough run with injuries, we probably don't need to spend more - just get these guys playing as they can, which is what Adkins is in the process of doing. But perhaps we haven't reached our budget limit for getting out of this division. Perhaps there's more money there, but Cortese wasn't willing to give it to Pardew to spend. We're not skint. The money is there.

It makes you wonder about Frazer Richardson's injury.

Exactly right. That's precisely why Cortese planned - and, as far as we know, still plans - to spend a lot of money upgrading the academy. Furthermore, a five year plan has multiple steps and stages. The money to boost player personnel when we move into the Championship was, I'm sure, budgeted as part of the plan. Same again should we reach the Premier League. Since Markus died the amount available for investment in Saints has almost certainly become a fixed sum (his "provision") when it probably wasn't before. This means that, IF we've reached our budget limit for getting out of this division, we can only spend more by taking away from future provisions. We already have (probably) the most expensive squad in the division and it should be good enough for promotion, so why spend more? Other than because we've had a tough run with injuries, we probably don't need to spend more - just get these guys playing as they can. But perhaps we haven't reached our budget limit. Perhaps there's more money there, but Cortese wasn't willing to give it to Pardew to spend.

I gave my answer to your question a few posts up, so now I have a couple of questions for you: Given the amount of complaining about his tactics and substitutions, given the poor pre-season preparation, given the poor early season results, and given the fact that there may have been some circumstances that warranted decisive action: How do you know that a "vast majority were happy with AP"? How do you know that only a "small minority" though it was a good idea to sack him? Do you have some objective data to back up those statements or are they really just your opinions?

Yeah, it was probably a minority but - after all the complaining about his tactics and substitutions, as well as the poor early season results - how do you know it was a small minority? To answer your question, I would expect him to deliver at least a playoff place and some attractive football in the process. I was far from convinced that AP would deliver either of those, especially the second. We're not even out of September and we see this kind of hysterical overstatement. I don't know why you even bother.

Exactly. I very much suspect that he's not desperate for signings because he knows that we have a cracking squad (for this division) and he fancies his chances of getting more out of it. I loved the fact that he changed our left side on Saturday not because we had bad players there but because they weren't playing how he wants and expects them to play. That one, simple message (I'll pull you off PDQ if you don't stay with the plan) will go through a squad like a dose of salts. There's nothing wrong here that won't be fixed by a few wins, crowds back above 20,000, and - especially for Cortese - a chorus of "There's only one Nigel Adkins" from the Northam! And then we're back on a five year plan that made sense fourteen months ago and still makes sense now.

This doesn't make sense to me. If this was in his mind, why fire Pardew rather than leave him in place as a "big name" manager? Who in the family would agree to cast Markus's wishes aside? Why would Cortese bother with the meeting with invited season ticket holders? And more.

I don't think it's a false dawn at all - just that the sun is taking longer to appear than we expected. My fear since last Spring was that Cortese would keep Pardew grudgingly and that we'd enter a "hollow twilight" - the funds were available but Cortese didn't have enough faith in the manager to spend them. That, I very much supect, is what happened - especially as Pardew was permitted to spend quite heavily in January (when we were on the cusp of the playoffs) and yet we still missed out. From what I understand, under Swiss inheritance rules the entire estate passes to the family at the point of death, so there's no time-consuming probate period. This would mean that "the money" Markus supposedly set aside to give life to his wishes is there now. "The money", I suspect, is a finite sum set aside to bring Markus's dreams of reaching the Premier League to reality. Before he passed away it wasn't necessarily a finite sum but it probably is now. If we spend some now, then that much less is available for strengthening the squad in preparation for the Championship and (eventually, hopefully) the Premiership. Spending it wisely is a joint commitment of both Nicola and the Liebherr family. We will not blow a big chunk of the money just trying to get out of this division. We already have a very expensive squad for our division, so don't expect any big transfers in. Some decent loans are the most likely route. As long as we are promoted this year, I'd be very surprised if we don't hold onto our best talent. If we miss out on promotion, those bets are off. I think Cortese is more than ready to give Adkins time because he really does believe that managerial stability is key in any business. He's also "learned some lessons" from the Pardew period and I don't think he'll make some of those mistakes again. As things progress over the next few years, we should expect to see more decisions - some of them highly controversial - aimed at making the Club self sufficient. That will be an ever present backdrop because that's how Cortese thinks and how he was trained to think. Least controversial is the build-up of the academy - that's a "no-brainer" at every club, especially those of our size. Cortese's structure underlines the importance of this in his eyes. At the other end of the scale, under Cortese's vision of a self-sustaining club it is going to become significantly more expensive to support Saints, and some current supporters will not be able to afford to go. He'll never admit that but I strongly suspect it's a reality. In some ways it's already started - and we're only in the third tier of English football.

This division is going to be as tight as hell all season long. We just need to get our sh*t together and we'll be right up there.

This post, from Dalek of all people, has made my day, and it's only 7:55 am!

Excellent. Just excellent.

It seems to me that you have made a strong case for the monikers to be dropped, and thank you for doing that. What I find very troubling is that the Echo is continuing to resist the very point being made - that the use of the monikers is misleading with regard to the "weight of opinion" standing behind the people it quotes. So, if the Echo is still resisting that point when the poll demonstrates its validity, the only conclusion I can draw is that the Echo is deliberately misleading its readers. What other alternative is there? That's not only disappointing to me (because I've defended the Echo in the past). It's bloody infuriating. It's also extremely dangerous when there's a somewhat impulsive guy like Cortese in the picture, when the links to our owners are somewhat tenuous, and when those owners are unlikely to appreciate nastiness and negativity aimed in their direction.

Mike, I probably don't need to reply to your response to my suggestion that we run a poll because others have done so, and because the results of the poll speak far more clearly than I ever could. However, I should point out that it's far more than "a couple of hundred Saints fans" (it's heading for 500) and that any suggestion that they are "fairly like-minded" is somewhat laughable if you've read this forum for any length of time; just using this forum doesn't make them like-minded regarding Club affairs. (Ironically the poll results show that the only way in which they are like-minded is in asserting that they are not like-minded. ) The frustration is that, by quoting them and attaching the name of an organization, the Echo is - inadvertently or deliberately - projecting the views of certain organizations as though they are representative. That can mislead outsiders, decision-makers and even the Club's owners in an embarrassing and possibly even dangerous way. The point behind the poll was to make it crystal clear to the Echo that these views are NOT necessarily representative and should not be held out to be so - even inadvertently. In my view it has done that, and the ball is now in the Echo's court.

I have defended the Echo in the past because I've felt they were only doing their job and because I feel that the argument that "they only do it (deliberately print inaccuracies) to sell more papers" is weak. However, that viewpoint will change completely if they are now saying that they will continue to include the SISA/Saints Trust monikers even though they now know them to be completely misleading. Here’s the nub of it: So, despite my past support for them, my question to the Echo would be this: Why are you willfully misleading readers with regard to the views of everyday fans?

No. It would be much better if the Mods made this a proper poll. Guys?

Very trying.

I'm sure he strongly supports the idea of a poll to establish whether he is or isn't normal. Don't you saint_mears?