CanadaSaint

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.

Included on the list of people who didn't "seem to quite grasp it" was Fernandes himself, along with a number of the players around him at that time. When he cut inside, which was common, the exercise for teammates became one of getting out of his way - in the mistaken assumption that he knew where he was going. Yes, he had some good games but all too often he destroyed our width and the supply line to Beattie. I think Anders was doing much the same thing on the other side at that time. Fernandes didn't become know as "crop circle" for nothing. The fact that he disappeared from view soon after leaving us can probably be attributed to him suffering the fate that many predicted for someone who does ever-decreasing circles. Put me down as someone else who thinks that you can only make lefty-on-right and righty-on-left work if you have very, very talented players - including overlappers.

Well, one of last year's 'problems' has been addressed. We're certainly not prioritizing the cups. Was that performance the players' collective statement on the Pardew dismissal? Cortese's next move had better be a good one.

I had hoped that we would kick some a** to show that the players are on board with the management change. What we seem to have is the complete opposite.

And it's not like there's heavy traffic tonight.

This is like watching paint tie.

I don't think he'd do that, knowing how Cortese is with any form of dissent, unless he's A) reasonably sure it's true, and B) concerned about how things stand.

They're not mutually exclusive. We can develop the academy to deliver a stream of quality youngsters who can knock on the door of the first team in years to come, AND we can continue to strengthen the current first team so that we get promoted this year - and ideally next year as well. Sustainable success, in Cortese's eyes (and probably Lowe's, come to that), will involve a mixture of buy/loan and develop from within, and I think he's dead right. The absolute key is this: Harry killed Rupert's plan because he didn't have much regard for the "kids", and Pardew may have threatened Cortese's plan because he didn't embrace the concept wholeheartedly, either (hence the supposed problems at Stapelwood). And that's over and above the results problems. IMO the next coach/manager will be either a "new breed" Brit who fully embraces the academy concept, or a European accustomed to working in that kind of structure. I think - and hope - that, in six months' time, we'll look back on this as a very good day. I hope that AP ends up feeling the same way because I suspect he hasn't enjoyed the last six months.

I hear you, Hypo, but it's not going to happen, is it? Sometimes a dignified silence is the best bet.

Duncan, please rise above it. There's nothing to be gained here.

Ron, normally you hire your own reports, which suggests that the new manager would report to Reed. I'd be surprised if that's how Cortese sees this, but what do you think?

I suspect that you and Dave are correct on several counts. The alleged problems with the Stapelwood staff are such a big deal because it's easier - and far cheaper - to teach a "Southampton style" as part of a longer term project (a la Arsenal) than it would be to buy it. And Cortese seems very committed to developing a Southampton style but in a cost-effective and sustainable way. However, that needs commitment throughout the organization, and I think AP was more an "old style" manager - as most experienced British managers are. So, I'd be surprised if if our next manager is British - unless it's one of the "new breed". I'd also be surprised if Coppell isn't in this picture somewhere because Cortese obviously has a high regard for him. Whether that translates into a formal role such as DoF remains to be seen. I think we're about to find out just how shrewd Cortese is. (Or isn't! )

In fairness, it wasn't my suggestion - it's somewhere back in these 16 pages. However, it's not implausible - especially if S-Clarke is right about the similarities with Papa Waigo. And I'm with you on the rest of your comments.

I'm not sure it's the staff so much as the principle. It's almost like we might have been in a less extreme version of the Harry/Rupert days, with Cortese wanting to see us committed to the development system, and AP preferring to splash the cash for seasoned players. If so, it's another old style versus new style issue, which probably increases the likelihood of a foreign manager/coach.