up and away

Looking back at Markus and his attitude to Saints, I believe he was in it for the long haul. Everything being done to the infrastructure of the club looks more like a 10 year plan rather than a 5 year skip to the Premier. The steps Markus took prior to his death to safeguard the future of the cub and his dream are still going forward, something he must have communicated to the rest of his family. Where we are very lucky is the glue that holds all this together (Cortese), has committed to us to what looks like the long term as well. Obviously fearful of not fully understanding the family's long term plans, has considered the possibility of alternative investors. Cortese I feel is the key to this, as long as he remains the dream lives on. As with anything like this, we can only enjoy it in the moment and can do nothing about the what ifs, except to worry. What I would say to those who are not totally enamoured with Cortese, what do you think the family would do if he walked away? Virtually all clubs have good times they don't want to end, but inevitably that does end at some juncture. What I will never hold to is the great investment opportunity of Saints as a club. Even with the bonus of the Oxo fee, Liebherr will be looking at something like £20M+ costs, when you factor in what he has done in the past with capital. Then to make any profit or break even, you have to find some idiot prepared to buy the club. I guarantee you will get plenty of tyre kickers, but the likes of Liebherr? We have all seen the type of money required to get in players for a half chance at the Premier, along with wages and long term contracts. Lets say you get to the Premier the season after next, it would not surprise me if your actual investment is now up to £30M+, with something like another £30M+ required just to stay there. Start talking about Champions league and you only have to look back at Liverpool and Spurs outlay to just have a sniff. It just does not add up for a club like Saints and you just have to look at Wigan with Dave Whelan giving up on being able to financially support them after all he has thrown at the club. Cortese is well aware of all of this and the route we are now travelling is based upon the Academy and developing our own players to elevate us to a far higher position than our financial clout ever can. This is a very long term strategy especially when you see that amount of time it takes for a lot of youth players to fully develop, whilst being able to hang onto them. Some players like Oxo we won't be able to hang onto, others like Lalanna we will. The Oxo money will be ploughed back into the structure but the overall effect is to slow things down, not forgetting the Matt Mills who take a long time to mature into the positions.

The Echo still cut and paste off the OS, so I am having difficulty following this one. Although conceding that they still get things wrong when they are cutting and pasting a players age. The Echo will always lag the OS, just a day later? Ian Murray pished on his chips when he got sanctioned by Dataco, by allowing free, unrestricted access to unmarked match photos on their website. What I really don't understand is why Murray took such a stand over the Staplewood development, an absolute minnow of a story, when you consider the unfetterd access he was getting from the club at the time. Murray got all prissy with press freedom over a basic minnow of a story. Cortese got equally prissy and you end up with what you see today. But there is only one loser here, Murray. The club don't need the Echo as has been demonstrated and the initial reaction has just dried up because the club is not adding fuel to this fire.

Great return on investment? Greek Euro bonds look far more attractive than a football club. Football is not an investment, it's a place where if you want to end up with millions, you start with billions, it's a financial black hole. If you take all the money ploughed into Saints by the Liebherrs and look at the current value, you may be lucky to be about break even allowing for the exception sale of Oxo. Then compare that original outlay with the kind of return Liebherr had been getting in his other businesses and it does not make sense as a business proposition.

That is a very fair point and one I would agree with. What I do not know is whether the club knew beforehand and failed to advertise the fact, or something that came along with the ticket from Cardiff? The club has a policy of of charging for services to cover costs, with the free option if you care to collect. Now if you can't see past what is being put into the club to make supporting Saints such a pleasure at the moment, you really are missing the point. The fact we are spending several millions in excess of our income does not register, or that the £3 booking fee does not even make a dent in it? Anyone who cares to look into their everyday purchases with far greater detail will find far more adrift than what is happening at Saints. If anyone can be looked upon as getting ripped off here it has to be the Liebherrs, whereas "fans" expect it all for nothing.

You only have to look at the gap between the OP and the resurrection to give some perspective on this. I believe Connolly has made a big difference to the team since his return and if I had to make a choice over that period of games, it would not be Ricky. Not being at the Forest game I could not judge how good Ricky's performance was, only that he was doing what he should be doing and taking the goals well. After watching the game I would agree with some of the comments on the match day thread, this is a different Ricky. Far more incisive and looking to be in the right place to score rather than provide. Hopefully this all becomes academic now and Ricky goes from strength to strength, but I have little doubt there were times when he deserved to be dropped. Ricky's enthusiasm for the team and everything Saints is the major factor in why I want him to do well and only too glad to praise him when it does come about, but that does not make you blind to previous performances. After what I saw against Forest, it's not impossible that Ricky could go on and emulate what Holt did for Norwich. All is possible with that type of performance and a whole heap of praise will have to go to Adkins for having that faith.

Nigel Adkins is without doubt one of the best things to happen to Saints. Tactically he has got some things wrong along the way, but he has recognised the problem and acted positively. What impresses me most is that he is wringing every last bit out of our current set up. Leicester showed the way to stop us, two banks of four close enough together that Saints had difficulty passing their way through, then attack down the flanks or the ball over the top to expose our defence. The trouble is, it's one thing saying, another doing and I don't believe 60% of teams in this league have the quality to make it work. Adkins is a work in progress and it would not surprise me for him to come up with a solution should this reach problem proportions.

When you play an attacking game as we do, the fullbacks are always going to be exposed in some area. Just imagine the uproar if the attacker had been shown the inside, rather than the outside? This is the way Adkins has decided to play so we just have to accept the problems with the wonderful football provided. Some players were not on the boil today but that does not mean they won't do a job for us in the future as we have seen many times before. Special praise has to go to Ricky, who was our centre forward on the day.

This is it in a nutshell. A lot of our sublime attacking play comes from Guly and Lallana being more attacking than defensive. I thought against Leeds we had the balance correct, maybe that was more to do with Leeds than ourselves though. I would prefer us to set up more defensively as I believe it is the far more practical method of achieving points. Always comparing our style to Brightons and have to admit they will bring home the points more often than not, we just expose ourselves to much. I tend to agree with Adkins that for the forwards we have, we are playing the correct system although we could be more careful of exposing the holes so often. I feel if we had a strong, pacey forward we could play an attacking game whilst being more solid defensively, but that is just conjecture. The football we are playing is superb, so I'll just wait and see where Adkins takes us.

Lowe and Cowens deserve a lot of praise for St Mary's. Anyone could have gone out and built that stadium, but it was the cost of doing so that made the build exceptional. The build was far from perfect, but it was one we could actually achieve and still compete in the Premier. If the finances were never right, it could never be built and St Mary' cost us fractions of similar designed stadiums. The unexpected level of profit from the Dell flats, even took the price millions cheaper at the end of the day.

Not all good players need pace I cite the likes of Sheringham and a certain M Le Tiss as good examples they depended on a unique combination of skill and intelligence to make things happen. Both qualities which Adam has in abundance. I believe he will go on to exploit these to the full. Players with electric pace tend to fade from their mid twenties onwards players with Skill and intelligence have at least 5 more years in them. Adam will be around for a long time if he can stay injury free (crossed fingers) and will continue to improve with experience and strength! When you look at the effort AL puts into tracking back at times, there is no way you would put him in the same mould as MLT for effort or pace. Skill wise he is not far off but goal wise there are very few fit to lace MLT's boots. I don't know how good AL will become, but I would let any other player go before him. You only have to look at our record with and without AL to see what a massive contribution he makes. Against Millwall he was flat for some periods and the whole team looked flat as a result. AL to me is the vital ingredient which makes this current team tick. I would have been more concerned if we kept Oxo and let AL go, superb player.

I don't argue that modern grounds have far less character, but there is a good reason for that. Design a stadium that is safe to conform to the latest guidelines in, throw in unimpared vision from all angles and you gravitate to the format we see for most grounds. Then go back and relive some of the experiences at the Dell and there is just no contest. Your view is not restricted by pillars, other fans or a roof if lucky. Stairs and aisles that funnel you into a compression point that those under 9 stone can travel effectively with both feet off the ground. Trying to get access for food was never an option for all fans and using the toilets was an exercise in patience that most would decline on health grounds. As romantic as it may be to some, give me St Mary's any day.

The response says quite clearly that the hold back itself was not regarded as the safest option, you're not in any position to be questioning that. I'm not sure what the definition of being between a rock and a hard place is if not given the choice between keeping Millwall fans from causing problems when released along with the home fans, or trying to placate defeated Millwall fans being held behind against their collective will. Do you seriously believe that sheite you have posted? Hold back is a well accepted technique for dealing with large crowds. It has been used successfully previously at St Mary's and it will be used successfully again at St Mary's. The use of hold back is not in question in dealing with crowds, the main point here is why it was not used on this occasion. When using hold back you are placing police into a danger area rather than the combination of police and general public. The police are trained and physically able to perform this role, the general public are not. Human rights just does not come into the equation when the Millwall fans reacted to the Saints goal and it will come as no surprise to any of the Millwall fans if hold back were employed. Safety is paramount in this decision. I doubt any of the Saints fans held back at Fratton were happy, but I can recall very few who did not think it was not the best way in dealing with the situation. As others have commented that access to Britannia Road was not closed, so it's fair to say that the police response was minimal to the threat Millwall posed. Anyone with basic intelligence and history of Millwall will have noted that the potential for trouble was high. Factor in the attempts and actions towards the Saints fans inside the ground and it looked nailed on to even the casual observer. What I can readily accept from the police statement was that hold back was not regarded as the safest option. But the only reason for that would be because the option was never considered as a viable option, they never had the correct personnel in place or they were under staffed. This all goes against the Officer responding to the email and using past injuries to officers as totally lame, would he preferred those injuries were transferred to the general public and the escalated damage they would bring?

This just does not hold up. The over riding factor in any situation such as this is safety, Millwall and Saints fans. Hold back minimises this risk and human rights automatically defer to safety. It's not as if this will come as a surprise to Millwall fans or any other club visiting Millwall. It's made to appear like the Police are between a rock and a hard place, but that is not the case, safety is paramount. What is more likely is that they were not prepared for the use of hold back at a late stage and the best option remaining open was to use the Northam car park. This is poor decision making by the Officer in charge and trying to imply that hold back represents far greater safety issues to his officers shows a distinct lack of planning or resources to do the job properly.

This is a totally flawed response which does not put the emphasis on what requires to be done, rather than civil liberties getting restricted. The explanation as to why hold back was not deployed is totally naive and flawed. Prior to the game there was no wind up between rival supporters, during the game there was plenty. We even had the Millwall fans react to the goal in no uncertain terms. When you let two sets of fans out after all that posturing and bravado is just asking for trouble. The Police have a duty to ensure public safety, not concern themselves with infringing human rights for 1/2 an hour by asking them to remain seated for their and our safety. The lame response that two Police officers fell down the stairs during the last hold back only highlights what precautions and actions are required to police such a technique successfully, not an excuse for not deploying such a tactic. We all know and have suffered hold back, but it is the most successful method of dealing with such a situation. To take a chance on Millwall over all fans safety is really a very poor decision.

Massive rofl at these comments though; I have a lot of sympathy with Nick for his position with Cortese, but this is just plain bollax. I have not heard of fans frightened to ask questions or any consequences. You only have to look at the questions already asked and the replies to see this has no legs. The main reason there are so few replies is the time given to attend is very little. Us "uber" supporters on the internet know exactly what is going on. Most would not have a clue and easily confuse it with one of Osmans pyramid do's previously at the club. If this is divide and conquer, there is no way he should be inviting any old farts. As by the time these do's have got up to 5%, they will have forgotten or gone to pastures new.

The only reason we managed to keep Surman as long as we did was because we off loaded Davies. Davies was crocked when he left and I don't know if he is back to full fitness now, but he was of just as great value to Stoke as Forecast has been to us. Pulis is equally useless but I would say the best bit of business we did all of that season, enabling us to get £1.25M for Davies. The Davies deal was one of the best pieces of transfer dealing Saints have done considering all the implications and that includes having to take Pulis.

It's always much better if the previous fans are spitting feathers over the player leaving, but I don't see him being that far off, otherwise he would never have been brought in. Being Dutch, I fully expect he will be able to pass the ball out from the back with ease. I remember when Jan-Paul Saeijs came to Saints, very unimpressive history and turned down by league 1 clubs, but that was a pleasant surprise. If the medical staff were unsure when Fontaine could fully contribute, this makes sense. One interesting point (maybe not) is all the CB's seriously considered were left footed.

The club could be saddled with that debt, but the wealth of the new owner could equally accommodate that. Alternatively the club could be sold with no outstanding debt, yet the buyer has to borrow to make the purchase? Maybe better to ask if we can find another Markus should they decide to sell.

Perhaps the moral of this, and other, 'ITK exclusives', is that people who receive and post these "done deal" messages on here should caveat those posts with "subject to player agreeing personal terms". Then you would need to add into that subject to medical, better offer coming in before signing. Alternatively you just wait until things are put out by the club, can't go wrong then.

I did not find Gorkss's comments alarming, but they definitely seemed to ring true. But throughout all of that process, I never felt it was us in for Gorkss, rather something that would allow the Puncheon deal to go through. The first I heard of Gorkss was when it was mentioned from QPR's end that the Puncheon deal could still be done by bringing Gorkss into the equation, so I really doubt we had been in for Gorks prior to them discussing Puncheon. Warnock explained to Gorkss that he was not in his plans for the Premier, thanked him for what he had done and would be looking to release him to another club. Reading came in and then bought his after we had talked to the player. I believe we have the money available for a quality CB above the likes of Gorkss or Fontaine, but can't find the right player. It also looks certain we are prepared to accept less to address the immediate problem of the Championship. So I can see the point about dithering, but the dithering only exists because of the uncertainty that the player will be a marked improvement.

Sven changed from his normal diamond formation to two banks of 4, which had the desired effect of stopping us passing through them. We just never got to grips with it in the first half for what ever reason. But as Sven said, he had already changed things over before the end of the first half and things were still working fine for them then. I would guess we then made the change which made the difference, mainly the weakness their forwards exposed in Richardson. Before getting on the back of Richardson, it's worth remembering that he won't have such a torrid time against most of this division. I like the way Brighton play, making sure they are sound defensively in the midfield before they start committing forward. I feel we just exposed ourselves to early against Leicester when it was not necessary to do so. Cork is normally MOM when played in the middle so it is a difficult choice to move him to right back. But if that improves the team, surely there can be no argument as when Adkins did this on Saturday? If I were to go for another RB, McNaughton of Cardiff looks quality. There are more than one way to solve this problem, a pacey lone striker behind a sound defensive shield could work better, even with the existing defence.

I am really disappointed that the thwat wants to keep bringing this up after the numerous posts on the same subject. That sensible question disappears into the ether when you apply just the smallest amount of information available. We know that Cortese is not impossible to deal with because of the many transfers already conducted, or did Adkins handle all of these directly? We also know that we ask for top dollar for players we don’t want to sell and in the case of Puncheon are equally prepared to let him rot in the reserves. But as seen with many of our buys, we are prepared to pay over the odds for players we want and clubs don’t want to let go. Where things have not worked out as smoothly is in the search for a centre back. Starting with Jemal, I am not sure exactly what happened there, but Jemal states the issue was to do with his original club not getting the sell on fee in his contract. Saints have absolutely no power to stop any sell on fee under contract and neither does the club selling him to Saints. That will be handled by UEFA or FIFA and is unstoppable. Warnock wanted to buy Puncheon but could not / did not want to pay the amount Saints were asking. It was QPR that put Gorkss into the mix, not a target we had gone after independently. So we messed Warnock about because he wanted to horse trade, rather that a straight forward purchase. Gorkss never appeared as a Saints choice but it would not surprise me if he were then considered. But I doubt strongly as a first choice because we were still looking elsewhere. Pity Reading did not start winning because the OP could load up with the difference Gorkss was making. The Fontaine issue contains some conflicting points, Saints saying they were not happy with the medical and his agent saying there is nothing wrong with him. If he is ok to play, why have Bristol City decided not to use him yet? To me Fontaine is not our first choice of CB, but a stopgap that would be acceptable. If we found that although his injury is not serious but would keep him out of the first team for a short while, the perspective may well change. Why then not wait until the loans become available and go down that route? Throughout all of this Cortese has shown he is prepared to pay good fees for both a CB and a striker, less for second choices and far more particular. The one thing Cortese is not prepared to do is pay agents fees when he buys players from another club and this is where all this sheite emanates from. As a businessman I expect he has major issues with delving into this enterprise zone for the satchel faces of the footballing world, but for that I would praise him rather than denigrate him.

guly scored last week and has a hand In probably most goals we have scored this season at some point,admittedly he didn't have his best game but then neither did the full back today as they dominated the left side first half.but I think it's a bit harsh to say he should be put on the bench.de ridder done well when he came on but remember we were on top by far when he came on so it made it easier for him to influence the game, that's why you can't really compare the 2 of them on today's showing.how would de rider of looked if he had played that first half?? We have seen Adkins go at De Ridder for not giving cover, so it's clutching at straws to believe he would have been the answer in that first half. I am a big fan of Guly, but readily accept that playing on the wing is not his best position and can cause the team problems as it appears he did today. Previously he has been an asset even though I would accept he is out of position. His best position is in the hole behind the striker, but 2 into 1 does not go when Ricky likes to spend time there. The question I would ask is would it be better to drop Guly, or drop Ricky and play Guly in his better position, leaving Connolly as the lone striker. Playing a 451 with Guly in the hole would have a far greater chance of solidifying the midfield, which was what was needed in that first half? Get ourselves a big, pacey striker and I can see the sense in dropping Guly in favour of Connolly.

We were getting no control from the midfield for long periods of the first half, something that had been a mainstay of our play in the first 4 games. In the second half we changed things around and did get control over the midfield. That would indicate that stamina was not an issue, leaving tactics as the main issue. I would have expected some instructions off the bench to reduce their control in the first half, but that never came until he could get them in at half time. I am not talking about individual errors or plays that led to goals, but the fact their midfield were dominating, giving them opportunities that the law of averages find difficult to nullify. You can blame a lot on Seaborne, but without that pressure from their midfield, most of that would not have materialised.

That sounded like a great game and we still stay in the automatic places, great start to the season.Tactically we seemed to have got caught out in the first half with Leicester fronting up with two banks of four, but I doubt there are many teams with the quality of Leicester to take advantage. For me things have not changed since the start of the season, we still need that CB and a main striker with pace. Very impressed with the way we pressed Leicester in the second half, showing we have the fitness to keep kicking on. Very important to give players a rest in the week, otherwise we will suffer. As disappointed as I was with the first half, equally pleased with the second half. If we can't get the quality of players in that we want, I would prefer to go for loans or even wait for the next window. As much as the right players are needed, a lot of the options would not be that great an improvement and make the squad look mediocre. The start reflects poorly on Adkins, but he certainly knew what to do in the second half and I expect him to come out with more in the locker after this.