up and away

As are the people who won't even entertain for a moment that there could be just an ounce of truth to this. Of course there is truth in this, but the relevance of that is what you need to consider. The biggest gripe between clubs and agents is that agents expect the club to pay their fees for any deals. Now if we approach another club and agree a price for a player, it would not surprise me that Cortese may insist any agent fees are a matter for the player and his agent. The only reason an agent will not deal with you will be solely based around money, not that you are rude, brusque or don't give a fook how the family are getting on. The other small fact that agents are not allowed any where near Staplewood the Academy players any more may well have upset some, but TFFT. There are certain things we know about Cortese in the transfer market. Generally he sets a value on what he is prepared to pay and lays that upon the table. He has also demonstrated with the signing of key players that he can get the job done for someone the club really want, so there must be some flexibility in there. As he has delivered every season he has been here, we will have to wait and see for any changes. But as yet there is no reason to take the opinion that what this agent has to say is in anyway significant. It's akin to taking advice from paedophiles on shool dress code.

We just don't know with Saints. Pretty sure they have agreed the fee with Chelsea and have put terms to the player and left that on the table. But as we saw last time Cork was here, he went for the higher bonus on offer else where, so I doubt he's coming now. I don't believe he is that great a loss, but he is the type of player we need.

Why? As much as we need this type of player, there is nothing in his performances to indicate we should bust the bank for. A good player but he would not be on offer at this fee with greater potential.

There was no official bid from Arsenal previously, but they still talked to Cortese about the transfer. Cortese has dug his heels in and demanded the maximum he can from the conditions of the contract. The price could be any where from £5M+ to what Cortese can impose by utilising any term in the contract. All we know is that Cortese wants a good whack and Arsenal want to pay less. The move just will not happen in this window unless pressure is brought to bear by another party. For Arsenal it just makes sense to get a look at how he performs in the Championship and then make their decision in the January window if you are not getting a bargain. Unless he shows the potential I just cannot see it happening until then or we have to modify our stance because of the contract run down. We won't get any where near the figures being talked about at a tribunal, millions yes.

I believe things were /are far more optimistic than your vision. Cortese wants to grow the club by using Liebherrs funds wisely, until we get to the stage where we can support ourselves at a much greater level and nigh on compete against the big boys on a level footing. Just look at everything that has been planned, acted upon and discussed. The end goal is to produce exceptional talent from the Academy and abroad, eventually increasing the fan base and stadium to accomodate crowds of 40k+. If you look at what Arsenal have achieved over the last 10 years with Wenger, that will be our goal. Just look at what Arsenal have achieved over the last 10+ years, moving to a 60k state of the art stadium, even superior training facilities and all done within a budget Liebherr would not of shirked at. Finding an exceptional talent like Wenger will be very difficult, but it's relatively easy to copy the set up and business plan to have the possibility of making this leap. Maybe the likes of Arsenal and ManU will be out of our reach, but the likes of Liverpool could well come into our sights. If the club starts to snowball with the catchment area we have, big things could happen although being a way off at present. The plan has always been to use Liebherrs money wisely to elevate this club as high up the ladder as possible, then having the infrastructure to self support itself at that newly created level. This is no secret and always been the plan, just look at all Cortese's comments and actions and you will find he has been unwavering to this end.

Publicly his dad has been pushing for a move, but more of a way to get things going rather than a reaction to what is happening. At an early stage his contract conditions were made public for all to know, instigating the bun fight we now see. When it was reported that Oxo had agreed personal terms with Arsenal, Mark went very quiet, not a dicky bird. Wenger could not agree a price with Cortese, so I really see little change from the position we were in last January when he ended up staying. The lad has had no chance to get any club prepared to go above their previous valuation and that would only happen once he puts himself in the shop window of the Championship. Oxo may well have agreed personal terms again with Arsenal, but it means little if Wenger is not prepared to pay the going value from what Cortese can enforce. Personally I look at Arsenals needs and the talent they already have and I cannot understand Wenger paying top whack for Oxo, not yet anyway. It would not surprise me if a similar situation exists with ManU. So unless a team can come up with the money and Oxo wants to join them, I believe he will just stay with us, keep his head down and be an asset to us on the pitch. We will have to deal when we get down to his last contract year, but the lad will be doing his development no harm in the Championship. If Oxo lives up to his hype, he will be gone in the next January window if teams upgrade their valuation of the player.

What a load of bollax that article is. Goal exclusive, Oxo did not leave because Rudolph the red nosed manc advised him to stay another 6 months? Who did he advise, Cortese? Because the lad would have been off if Cortese had agreed a deal with Wenger! What a load of bollax!

Like we never produced good youth players before he came along with this concept! When Lowe came in the youth set up was in the worst condition it had been in recent times, I cannot remember it being that bad from that time we were in the 1st division. Lowe started from virtually ground zero for what was needed. Lawrie and Souness had no interest in developing the youth side. I don't know whether it was luck or how he managed to do it, but it was a remarkable achievement for a club such as Saints. All he did was to put the parts together, just it was all the right parts.

Short term and long term, this is great news. The sole purpose of the Academy is to produce quality players. The better the quality we get in through the door, the better the quality we will be able to produce. By seeing that category prospective talent will know there is nothing better out there, they will not be receiving a second rate chance by coming to a Championship club. They will see the likes of Walcott and Bale and realise their chances were done no harm by being at Saints and the most important part of the learning process, to be able to go into the first team and compete for a place. I would not underestimate this achievement and part of the master plan. When you look at everything logically, there will be kids and parents who will make Saints their #1 choice of Academy, because of it's excellent record and first class standing. For some players it takes a lot longer to break through, defenders for example like Matt Mills. The higher up you are, the less chance of being brought into the first team. I understand the financial implications of keeping it all up in the air, but it can be run at a break even in the Championship. Crewe showed for many years that the right set up would produce the goods and in some aspects their lowly position actually aided the system they had.

fair point, but Chamberlain IS a better player IMO at 17 than Walcott was. It matters little. All that matters right now is whether he will be a Saints when he gets his first England U21 cap. He will tear the NPC up make no mistake. IMO Walcott was far superior to Oxo at the same age, took your breath away at times. But I can easily see Oxo becoming the far better player, because Walcott after all this time and coaching is just not sure what he is meant to be doing on a football pitch. He goes through the motions and set routines adequately, but other than that he has not got a clue. Give the lad a selfish, attitude just focused on scoring and the whole world could be raving about the player. As it is he just seems shackled by uncertainty and this team attitude indoctrinated into him by Arsenal and what he had to do at an early age to play alongside Henry. Football wise I believe it was the worst thing he could of done for his own progression by going to Arsenal and getting treated as a eunuch.

There is quite a hefty hike in these new prices, mainly brought about by how low they were set previously. That said, there is value to be found which means moving to the Chapel, not that bad an idea. I have no problem with the best seats carrying a hefty premium, always thought it should be that way. Not a valid comment to make on the over 60's, just surprised it was not set at 65 in the first place?

If you look back at the FA cup game against ManU, that was his preferred position (sort of) and he did not look that out of place, especially considering the opposition. His dad seems to see him best playing behind a front two and the bursts he put in against ManU from the middle, were very effective. I was surprised at one stage how effective and would have thought the wings would have been more productive. He does not have Theo pace so that makes sense considering the flying machines top teams have at full back and there are not a whole heap that can cut through the middle like that. What was interesting being that the club went out of their way to accomodate Oxo in a more central role, very good management from Saints for that game. I get the feeling that there seems to be a very slight difference of opinion coming from the lad and his mother. I have heard people talk to the lad a couple of times and they generally believe he would be happy to stay? If you split any signing on / management fee between family members you can eek out a few £100k's without it affecting the lads pocket. A big incentive for some?

From listening to Cortese, youth players have to have a set amount of school hours, relaxation and sleep. By removing the travelling and other duties kids may be asked to perform, you maximise the possible coaching time. The younger the player it becomes inevitable they will be living at home where travelling can rule out Saints as an option. Attending the Academy in blocks with the ability to keep up with your education would be a big plus for the younger players.

Cortese has had this in mind for a while. I remember him outlining the provision for schooling and accommodation at Staplewood to give the youth players far more effective time for various aspects of football. It also allows youth players who travel a distance to stay for extended periods and keep up with their education over the web. A lot of parents are going to be persuaded by the educational aspects more than the football side, combine the two and you really have given yourself the best chance of scooping the best talent.

I liked Pearson and would have been happy to have kept him then or if he came in to replace Pardew. But going back to his record with us it was not that impressive. The key game was the penultimate home game against Burnley. We had plenty of time to prepare for what looked the most vital and winable game and we just never turned up. There was no fire, no endeavour and the players just did not seem up for it. Bearing in mind Burnley were on the worst run of away form and our one remaining home game was against SheffUtd who were then the form team of that league. Then Beattie (leagues top scorer at the time) gets injured and they lose all their centre backs, now that was a major stroke of luck, one we took advantage of. But any logic would suggest we wasted our best chance of staying up when we failed to turn up at home to Burnley, then got very lucky with SheffUtd.

They told everyone that he was GONE in the January Transfer Window. Perhaps somebody could ask the Echo why we should believe today's back page over 24th of Januarys back page ?? Which one is correct ? The article went on to say thing like and and I don't see any irregularities here. Back in the window it looked as if he had agreed personal terms with Arsenal and it was just a case of Arsenal meeting the conditions in his contract and he would be off. The latest Echo is nothing new to the Sky interview Mark gave after the end of this season. It looks like Oxo's contract contains the same conditions that was agreed with Arsenal when Theo moved. The reason Oxo never left for Arsenal previously was either because Wenger would not agree to the full amount or that Cortese would not budge an inch over what he had to within the contract. If there was any condition left ajar, I would bet there would have been no allowances, with the maximum and quickest payment required. I don't think he will go to Arsenal until the January window at least. For what ever reason Wenger backed off of the deal and I don't expect Cortese to change his mind just yet. Clubs will want to see how he performs in the Championship before committing. Then look at all the talent Arsenal have in this position and it comes no where near a necessity. Maybe different if ManU came in prepared to pay the max, but will have to wait and see. Whatever happens it looks like Oxo will put in a shift for us if he is still here. I don't think the lad would be too upset if he stayed from some of the comments he has made. His dad is definitely seeing £ signs, but the mum looks to have another view which could only have come from the lad himself. You never know we could end up keeping him, but that does look remote.

Crouch took us to the financial cliff edge and just left us teetering, administration then looked inevitable. I liked Pearson and subsequently he has done very well, but hardly any indication with us. We really blew our chance when a team failed to turn up at home against Burnley, totally inept performance for such a vital game. We managed to stay up by beating SheffU on the last day, who had just lost the leagues top goal scorer and had no centre halves left to field. Lucky, but we took full advantage on one great day that masked what was to come. In hindsight I would have said Pearson would have been the better choice, but the priority was to try and avoid administration. We had to find money from some where and the only real source was from those youth players. As amply demonstrated, we could not give most of the others away because clubs were not even prepared to pay half their salaries. From all that pain and suffering we now find ourselves in the best position for a long time, even though out of the Premier. We now have a future and the last time I had that feeling was under Strachan.

He gives up an enormous amount of his time to raise money for himself. The 125 years celebration of Saints at the Mayflower, just how much of that went to charity? The saints charities assumed on here to be supported soon made it clear it was nothing to do with them, so what was that all in aid of?

Oxo will not be signing a new contract with us (well not one that commits long time). So we get to keep him for another season, but he will be off unless the top teams suddenly have no interest in him. Secondly if he does show his worth next season, clubs will be prepared to match his contract conditions and there is no way anyone can stop the lad leaving. It is obvious that the club and the fans do not want to sell him, but we can only hold out for so long before it becomes a case of doing more harm than good. We can delay him from leaving but are powerless to stop the eventual happening.

Throughout that interview he does not tie any of his problems in with that pre-season, but old injuries that took a long time to clear up. He does specifically mention "Hopefully this will be a successful pre-season for the team because last year the pre-season workload actually caused a lot of injuries here." After the first two home games last season I knew something was very wrong and said so at the time. Looking back we seemed to go after things in the first half then run out of ideas in the second. We did look jaded but I had the over whelming impression that players just did not seem to care and a lot of players form was totally absent. Because this was the first proper pre-season we have had in ages, it took while to figure out that the players were unfit.

I believe it is his knees, very similar to what we saw with Fuller, where it took a long time after he left us to get back to full fitness. Why, because they both showed the same inability to jump for the ball, although that has gradually been getting better and better from Ricky. The other reason is Ricky's free kicks, nailed on last season and noted by there absence this season. No longer getting through the ball and getting the ball to get down quickly, more hit with the side of the foot. Something has to have changed dramatically from being unstoppable to just one over the season.

Money being the main separator between Lowe and Cortese. Cortese has the power and acts, whereas Lowe had a very fine balance of shareholders and directors where everything had to be explained and agreed. A very difficult balancing act and one I don't believe Cortese would have excelled in. You have to remember that Lowe got a lot of people to invest in Saints and that had to be kept afloat to go forward. As for a monogrammed tracksuit, Rofey had monogrammed shorts and he was in the team photo, really irrelevant. As for giving the manager a list of players he can and cannot use was pretty straightforward. Just a question of whether you believed administration was around the corner and that we had to force players off the wage bill or stop them playing if they insisted upon bonuses. As we have seen at Pompey, the idea is not completely novel, it's whether you believe the financial position dictated. Where Lowe really screwed up was in keeping SWC on when there was the chance he would have backed off and used his salary + the investment into Staplewood, on the team. It would have had little difference with satchel face, as he was angling for an out what ever, with SCW just being a very easy excuse. I am unsure about Clifford, because without doubt the small football as used by all the under 14's in Brazil and the Dutch clubs for training is a proven method for introducing skills to young players. It's natural otherwise it only allows the bigger lads the full possibility of honing their skills. The problem was Clifford, a two edged sword. All the enthusiasm and experience for getting it to work, but such a thwat to go with it. Cortese does not have to go into print to keep his financiers on song and he has the common sense to keep his mouth shut. But the direction and goals of the two within financial constraints are almost identical that I cannot imagine that they have not talked to each other at some point. The player transfer group set up under Cortese is almost identical to that set up by Lowe, bearing in mind I doubt there was anyone left involved from the Lowe regime, coincidental? Nothing has changed with Cortese, just success has got more people on-board. He is a very focused and works extremely hard and he expects similar from his staff. Now for many of us seeing a new boss such as Cortese come in with this attitude is going to ruffle feathers. There will be staff which have a problem with bosses such as Cortese, but as repeated to an ex-employee, "so basically he is a hard worker, not interested in gossip and expects the same from the rest of his staff?"

Sky money has changed football in the Premier to a massive extent. The price of a ticket has escalated exponentially, but the quality of the product has equally changed. The money that brought in the likes of Henry, Cantona etc and kept them here, raised the bar to unexpected heights. Stadiums nowadays are luxury compared to the Dell, where a trip to either the bogs or the hamburger stall would be banned in today's health and safety bubble. Would there still be a market should the recession bite far deeper? I think there would. Maybe some areas would suffer, so you may get some redistribution from poor to richer areas, but I still see sky boxes in homes where benefit is the main source of income. People may well be broke and struggling, but it is surprising the allowance they will go for one luxury, whether that be smoking, drinking or sky. Things were not that great prior to sky, where all but the top 2/3 teams were actively trying to sell their best players. Those great home grown talents that any club produced were plying their trade abroad at their peak. I can understand those that give the Bundesliga as an example, but it's not the same standard, that is the price you have to pay and as demonstrated, many are prepared to do so or it would not exist.

The appointment itself may not rock too many boats for the average fan, but the implications of such a step cannot be underestimated. How many Championship clubs (those not fresh out of the Premier) do you know with a European scouting set up. These guys do not come cheap when you account for the travelling expenses, salaries and add ons. It only makes sense when you are looking at spending serious wonga in this area, combined with a very strong national set up. The implications are far more reaching than just some scout being appointed!

Surely, that is entirely wrong. It's a by product of being factored too many times in the formative years. But 49!/43!/6! will give you the lottery odds.