CanadaSaint

So, Turkish, do you retain that confidence with a Keegan functioning within the clear structure defined by Cortese and Reed?

Not sure whether the "like it or lump it" was aimed at me, Lard, but I'll have more respect for an opinion (whether I agree with it or not) if there's at least some kind of rationale to support it. "Appalling appointment if true,Shortsighted on the behalf of Cortese/Reed. He won't be here long." came up a bit short.

Do you have a rationale to go along with those views - other than the fact that he's not a "big name"?

The most important perspective, by far, is that our new manager sincerely embraces Cortese's philosophy - whether or not we personally agree with it. I'd suggest that the key components of that philosophy are A) a reporting structure which holds the player development/academy side in balance with - not subordinate to - first team affairs, B) a committee approach to first team squad development, C) financial sustainability based on the funding made available by Cortese and the Liebherrs, D) clear progress towards a return to the Premier League within five years, and E) attractive football - the "Southampton style". The sooner we all accept that these are the rules while Cortese is around, the better. Too many posters are screaming for someone who can't even tick the first box, and too many posters are dissing people who have a good chance of ticking all the boxes.

But I thought Holloway was very clear at the start of the season that he would toe the chairman's line at Blackpool - even if it presented him with serious challenges. I like the guy, and I think he'd do a hell of a lot better job at supporter and media relations than Cortese, not that this would be difficult! Whether he's the right guy for us is another question, but I wouldn't be ticked off it it turned out to be him.

Not wishing to stir up a hornets' nest but I think it might have been - but back in May or June. Cortese's plan might have been to fire Pardew and hire Coppell. The flaw in that theory is that Coppell would not have been willing to "tug the forelock to Les Reed", as you so aptly put it. But Cortese seemed to have a very high regard for Coppell that (I think) pre-dated Reed, and perhaps Reed was to be sacrificed as well. Just a thought.

What about him?

Yeah, I'd take him in a heartbeat and he's said he'd love to manage in England, but I don't think he'd even think about a third tier entry point when he could easily get big Prem bucks.

But he can't do that, though, can he Hypo? Because too many people "hate" too many candidates. And none of us knows who is the right guy until he gets here and starts doing (or not doing) the business. I would bet a grand right now on it being Brown, and regardless of what I think of him I'm going to be 100% behind him.

I wish people would stop citing "the ability to manage with very limited resources" as a valuable attribute. The whole point of the Liebherr/Cortese era and the Five-Year Plan was to leave those days behind. There are numerous important qualities but that's not one of them IMO. In fact, it could well be a liability rather than an attribute.

I was really impressed when he gestured to Fonte to pick up O'Grady as he cut in from wide, which Fonte ended up failing to do with the result that we went 1-0 down (assist to Kelvin, who should never have been beaten on his near post). That was no flash in the pan - it showed excellent reading and a high level of maturity which bodes really well for the future. The only time he looked uncomfortable was when Fonte was sucked out wide to cover for Butterfield failing to get back in time; both goals and the near-OG came from that kind of situation. I think he'll be the bedrock of our defence for years to come as long as we can hold onto him. His form should help us to see the best of Fonte and should push the aging Jaidi into the background. Really important to me, though, is what Happy Harry thinks of him. Get typing, Harry!

Premature exhilaration. To the original topic, I thought the goal was to get Cortese to listen to supporters more - not give him an excuse to tune them out completely.

As has been the case on many occasions in the past, I think we actually see things in similar ways - and we were debating when we were really not in disagreement. Perhaps living over here has given me a different perspective on buying success, because most of the major North American sports have taken very significant measures to impose sustainability and to balance the playing field between "the haves and have nots". Perhaps that everyday backdrop over here has made me too enthusiastic in embracing Cortese's ideas when they may be too revolutionary for the British game at the moment - too far ahead of their time. And I agree that it's ironic that AP may have been nuked for lacking commitment to the academy (I even accused him of that!) when he wasn't slow to introduce youngsters. I just want a bright new day to start - even if there's still a prospect of rain in the forecast!

Good post.

LTC, I still think we’re both right and obviously you do, too, because you’ve wasted some of your cleverly constructed “straw man” arguments on me. It’s neat how you do that in your debates - you know, injecting “an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.” I’m flattered, my electronic friend. I never suggested that we should try to be successful "purely from breeding (our) own playing staff". I never suggested that “building a sustainable future for this league” (i.e. third tier) is the goal here. And I never suggested ”that a DoF brings stability”. What I did suggest was that, in a club of our size, high-level commitment to an Academy is crucial for sustainable success - so crucial that I’m willing to try Cortese’s structure with a greater balance between the academy side and first team affairs. In a club like ours, there’s very good reason to go that way. You can cite Man United as an example until we both go blue in the face – or Chelsea or Man City or Inter Milan or Liverpool, and so on. But I would argue that their success is not sustainable without an everlasting sugar daddy, and this is already evident or will be shown to be so in time. Man U, for example, had a hot patch for player development (as you demonstrated) but I don't think they’re running at that level now, and they have a sh*tload of debt financing holding them up – as do most of the others in some shape or form. Arsenal are probably leading the Big Four in player development right now, and they are financially stronger, so I think they could soon move to the top of the pile and be in a position to stay there for a while. They’re not just developing good players but players who are already coached in the Arsenal groove. But the key point in my argument is that we are not those clubs – or anything like them when it comes to revenue generation. While they could succeed in the future with, say, 20% home-grown players and 80% acquired players, the reality for us is that we’ll need to hit more like 50%/50%. Of course we’ll still have to buy – and buy well, and I’m sure Cortese’s willing to do that, but it will have to reflect our financial reality if sustainability is one of the goals. You say “Good managers are the secret of football success surely??” as though I was disputing that point, which of course I never did. What I was saying was that the manager we hire needs to be not only good but willing to accept the 50%/50% reality, and willing to work within a structure that reflects that. LTC, I just saw another of your posts. I'm not saying that Reed is right for the job (I don't know enough to speak one way or the other) but I am certainly arguing that the structure may be just what we need, and that the new guys needs to fit well within it.

I think the issue at stake is not so much success as sustainable success, so the debate going on here is really one of proven bases for success versus sustainable bases for success. IMO both sides of this debate are right in many ways, so the argument is rather futile. The way of the big boys is certainly successful but it's not sustainably successful - you have to check not just the points totals and the trophy cabinet but the resultant finances as well. It's certainly not beyond the realms of possibility that there will be some massive crashes in British football the way things are going. For a club such as ours, we cannot compete with the funding that drives that kind of success level - or even (probably) the far more modest success of "Premiership survival". So we have to find another way. That IMO is what this debate should be about. In Cortese's view (and also in Rupert's view), that other way involves a much more central and well-financed role for the Academy so that we can "build" more of the Walcotts and Bales. But this time (where Cortese differs from Lowe - I hope) we will keep them rather than sell them. That requires us to be two things - A) stronger financially - to afford the wages, and B) more competitive on the pitch - because quality players want to win things. But there's no point spending all that time and money on the academy, and making it the central element of the longer term strategy, if the first team management and coaching staff are not supportive - never mind downright hostile. So we have to find a first team manager who is not just prepared to work within such a system because it's a requirement (Brown) but who sincerely subscribes to the same ideals. That commits us to a structure in which the first team manager is NOT "top dog" on the playing side, which narrows the field down dramatically. It pushes us in the direction of the "new breed" British managers or the continentals. I'm more than willing to support the Cortese strategy (which involves Reed-type people in a Reed-type role) because I want us to be sustainably successful in the longer term.

Yeah, he hasn't looked good but he was sucked out of the central role to cover mistakes made by others - Butterfield and, to a lesser extent, Chamberlain.

That's both goals coming down our right side with Fonte sucked out of the middle and not looking at all convincing. Butterfield (and Chamberlain) play crap supporting roles. Even more worrying to me, though, is that this is a team without a heart.

Iy wasn't just Guly offside but Rickie as well - all because Puncheon delayed the pass too long.

For their goal, for the near-own goal, and on numerous other occasions, Fonte is being sucked out wide by the need to cover for Butterfield's absence. He pushes up and can't get back, and it's killing us.

I think Martin told Fonte to stay the wide man but he didn't, and that was the guy who scored.

Watching this, I think we can safely rule out Dean Wilkins as a candidate.

Dismissal contracts with gagging provisions are actually quite "off the peg" in nature, and most lawyers (ALL who deal in employment law) have them on file and just print them off and send them to the client. They are conspicuously lacking in detail (even in relation to the specific cause for the dismissal) because the more the detail the harder any subsequent court defence would be. This approach may also be supplemented by a contractual provision, as suggested by Big Bad Bob. Any action by the employee that contravened such a term could seriously impair his settlement. But, as derry said earlier, I don't think they have actually been dismissed yet - just relieved of their duties. That's all the more reason for them to stay silent (in their own interests).

I damn well hope he is, Badger, because fitting in with a wide variety of people (ranging from Cortese himself to the players and on into the Staplewood staff) is absolutely critical to success. It was (allegedly) Pardew's inability to maintain those relationships that supposedly sat at the heart of the rationale for his dismissal. The Academy is a vital component of Cortese's "five year plan", and the first team manager will need to fully respect that. And "respect" means not only understanding and supporting what they're doing, but also embracing the best youngsters into the first team squad when the time is right. Not necessarily playing them ( until they're ready ) but helping them to be ready for their next step. This wasn't Harry's bag at all, and I'm not sure it was Pardew's. However, it will need to be part of the game plan from Day One for the new guy if he's to succeed here. That will rule out a number of potential candidates (more the "old guard") and tip the scales in favour of the "new breed" and the Europeans. I sure as hell hope that they're defining a profile or else we'll be back in the same situation again soon.

I'm not reading much into significant moves in the odds because nobody's got a clue right now, very few people are laying money down, and even a relatively small bet can dramatically change the odds on offer. And these candidates who have done well on a small budget are - given where we hope to be going - unlikely to be hired for that very reason.