CanadaSaint

It's quite a shocking turnaround really, isn't it?

Butterfield needs to stay back or else he'll get caught, as he has been before.

err, yes.

Welcome to the game, Mr. Hammond. Time for some leadership.

Now Dave's doing his Brillo Pad impression. That's not a good sign.

True, but only 11 points separating top from bottom. All is far from lost.

This is just the sort of game we were losing last year - or drawing, at best. Let's see how much progress we've made.

Christ, I remember playing there on a wet and windy day. What a frigging nightmare.

Well done. I'm sure that's where the problem lies.

You're right. And me too! With a whack of tabs.

Here we go, it's up now.

Yeah, freaky, eh? I didn't even know I'd left the Saintsplayer tab open until the voice started up and scared the sh*t out of me this morning.

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.