Lord Duckhunter

£7 mil is a hell of a lot of money to turn down for him, so I can see why NC may have been pushing him out the door.

Some of the newspaper reporting and sucking up to cortese has been sickening the past few days. A life long friend who works in the press is always telling me how difficult the club is to deal with and how unreasonable cortese can be. He said its well known within press circles, and yet the story of "meltdown" seems to have over ridden any attempt at serious reporting and analysis. Like Nigel Adkins departure only time will tell if this works out in our favour,so we need to suspend judgement. From a personal perspective, I've lost a bit of respect and admiration for MP, his apparent devotion to NC grates a bit. He is not doing us a favour by staying on and I hope any drop off in his performance or "going through the motions" will result in a boot out the door. He is not the only young manager about that plays good stuff and uses the kids. All of a sudden Nicola has become the greatest CEO to walk the earth and MP has morphed into arsene Wenger if you believe the media.

Makes me laugh . There were reports of £30mil bid last week before Nicola left, now its meltdown. WHU and Lambert was clearly an option with Nicola there, yet its now an exodus.

Why does there seem to be this belief that on Cortese can take us to the next level. Personally I'd prefer David Dein if new owners were wealthy. Cortese did a great job, but he's not the only one out there.

I don't think MP has helped the situation with his "he goes,I go" line last year. The papers jumped all over this as proof that the thing would start falling apart and then added their sensationalism to it. Brian Moore was one of the few I heard who appeared baffled by the whole thing,when nobody knew what her plans were, who the new CEO would be and who she would (if anyone) sell to. Obviously we'd preferred the status quo, but feel we'd be in a worse position if the money people had gone and Nicola stayed. The press and vast numbers of our support seem to forget this. The money people are still here, its only the person who spent the money that's gone (bit like most divorces really). If she wants the money back, it ain't going to be in one massive fire sale of the talent. It will be in a controlled business like manner. We may end up losing Rickie, but whose money got him here, cortese's? Why in the modern world do judgement have to be instant. Lets give her a chance before slitting our wrists.

Great balanced article from Frasier Nelson in this weeks Spectator. Don't know how to post a link, or even if I can cause I use the app , but people should have a look if they get half a chance. There's normally a decent podcast each week , so I expect the article to feature in that as well.

My oldest lad works at sunseeker and this rumour has been all over the ship yard for a couple of days. Although why the workers would have any insight into the owners investment portfolio is beyond me. One of the Braithwaite's mother in law lives a few doors up from my dear old mum, I'll get her to pop round and see if she's heard anything

Involved in what way? Telling a few stories and waving to the crowd or having responsibility for something?

Why on earth would a manager or player walk before they really know what the woman's plans are? MP will look a right chump if he follows his buddy out the door and a Chinese billionaire takes over next week.

People need to take the emotion out of this and calm down a touch. The press have blown this out of all proportion, it really is silly season. As well as Nicola has done, the past 40 years we've been a top flight outfit. We were a top flight outfit even in league 1 on -10. We have the infrastructure and fan base of a top flight club. We are a great asset for someone , whether KL or anybody else. If Delia did the same thing at Norwich, if she stood down would the fans be wetting the bed, would the press predict the end of Norwich's dream. If the players and manager only want to play for Nicola,then they can **** off as far as im concerned. Id rather watch fox and guly playing 100% for the club I love, than a bloke sulking cause the chairmans left. If wright or McGoaldrought or Leon best, or bairdy had said they were leaving because old Rupes had been shown the red card, they'd be vilified on here. Put it another way, swap the names Nicola and Mp, with Redknapp and Storrie-tellers. If MP walks next week over this , I'll always consider him a disloyal twt

Exactly, what sort of idiot would sell all the assets whilst trying to sell the club at the same time. What does she think, that new potential buyers wont notice? Worse case scenario IMO, is a return to the Rupert Lowe model of producing players to sell for a profit. Is that really the end of the world, are we really heading for a Skate type meltdown? We have a fantastic academy , why would she, or any new owner , not base any future business model on that?

If he wants to leave because of a change of boss, he can **** off now as far as I concerned. I want people managing the club that want to manage Southampton Football Club, not manage for Nicola Cortese. Same with the players. Anyone who goes now before knowing what's going on, what direction the club is going and who will be owning it/managing it, is using it as an excuse to get out IMO.

My oldest lad works there and its all over the shipyard he works in that they're interested. He's just come home and told me. Proberly Just somebody putting two and two together and getting five, and then spreads. Within 2 hours it becomes a "fact".

Or Cortese could invent a fake sheik who doesn't exist.

I can't name one, because there is no need for any nursery to pay the living wage. People will work there for a minimum wage because of the taxpayers top up. Do you think that the money nurseries cost is in anyway linked to the child care portion of the wftc. If the government is going to help with peoples child care costs, where is the market pressure to reduce costs going to come from If the government decided to help people pay for their food, it wouldn't be too long before the supermarkets started increasing their prices. Same principle applys to rents, paying housing benefit drives the cost of rent up, because the market is not allowed to punish people for overcharging, via a loss of customers. Im not saying that we should cut all state aid in one swift kick in the balls. But we need to move towards a goal of welfare only for the few needy people temporary down on their luck and with no work. In work benefits can not be right. It is not sustainable to just chuck money at a problem, its a never ending cycle of debt. How does paying someone in work' s rent, keep rent prices down. How does susbsidising child care , keep prices down. What keeps prices down is people voting with their feet." Im not paying that " and "Im not working for that".

If a business can only make money by relying on government money to top up staff wages, then I suggest that they need to look again at their business model. If I had a cleaning company and paid people the minimum wage, which was not topped up by the government, I would have trouble finding staff to fulfill my contracts. I would have 2 options, pay my staff more to attract people or go to the wall. How i find the money to pay for the extra staff costs will depend on my ability as a business man. I could pass the costs onto my customers, risking them going elsewhere (but remember they'll have the same issues i have, with no top up from taxpayer) . I could take reduced profits or i could become the "John Lewis" of cleaning companies, paying my staff well, and attaracting the best cleaners around. People would pay a premium to have my well paid staff clean for them, and they have the satisfaction of not receiving hand outs from the state. At the moment there's no incentive at all to pay more than the bare minimum. The other thing these government wage subsidies do, is keep people at the bottom. I have experiance of this at work. Trying to promote people to supervisor level, but the loss of top up benefits means, they dont take any extra money home. Now, some people are happy with the chance, but most say why bother with the extra hassle and hours for the same money? Surely the best way to cut the benefit bill is to slowly move towards no more in work benefit, and I include child benefit in that. The first step in this long journey should be to raise the minimum wage to a living wage. Your point about tax thresholds is very leftie . It is our money, by reducing tax and thresholds the governemnt is not giving us money, it is taking less of our money, a completely different thing.

The significant fall has been achieved by the welfare part, nothing to do with the "minimum wage". Meanwhile companies get a government subsidy to ensure that they keep their payroll down.

That's exactly what I said. I made no comment as to whether the minimum wage was right or wrong, only that IF you're going to have a minimum wage, it should not be so low that taxpayers have to top it up. My first post described it as a con, I reach that conclusion because it allows Labour to bang on about how wonderful it is, when its so low as to be meaningless. Its not a minimum wage, its a welfare to work scheme that benefits company shareholders and big business. My belief is it either needs to be set at a living wage, or abolished. At the moment we have to worst of all worlds , we dont force companies to pay a decent wage, but we ensure that they can always fill jobs by topping up peoples pay. What is asda's incentive to pay people £9 an hour when they can pay them £7, and the taxman give them the other £2? If i set up a business and budgetted to pay my staff £7 an hour and nobody would work for me at that rate, i either need to increase my wages or my business model is unsustainable. At present government subsidies mean I will fill those jobs and its happy days. Who pays for my happy days, blokes who are in genuine need of welfare, who end up having their benefits cut because the bill is too high and politically its an easier thing to do than insist that people are paid a living wage.

But why should the taxpayer increase those profits by keeping their staff costs down? Surely a man's labour should be subject to market forces. Pay too little and you'll not get any staff. At present if you pay too little the mug taxpayer will ensure you've got plenty of staff, without eating in to your profits.

The minimum wage is one big con trick, perpetrated by the Labour party, but everybody turns a blind eye and pretends it's so great social development in this country. How on earth can you set a minimum wage, that people cant live on? What basically happens is companies pay disgracefully low wages that we then top up, saving the said companies millions. If we didn't top those wages up, people wouldn't work for the companies, they'd be better off on the dole. The upshot of this would be that Companies would have to increase their wages to actually get people to work for them. Tesco, B&Q, ASDA, to name 3 make millions of pounds in profit, how much of our money is used to top up their workers pay which they should be paying? Long term the minimum wage keeps workers pay down, and company profits up.

Wasn't cork replaced by the guy that made the goal? And made it with a pass cork wouldn't have picked in a month of Sundays. Sub makes goal, team keep clean sheet, supporters moan about managers change -bizarre. Cork is average and was average yesterday. Victor is a better player, and the defence play better with him in front of them.

She's so much better now, still has a brown inhaler for bed and a blue for everyday use, but doesn't need the courses of steroids she used to. Sad.thing was she was an amazing swimmer, at 2 she could swim around without arm bands, dive in, anything, just no fear at all. But her wet hair and the cold seemed to go stright to her chest and she'd be coughing all night, then up docs again. To be fair, I moan and complain about the dog, but he's great really. He is a great pub dog, highly intelligent, people take the **** out of poodles , but he's no trouble at all. I guess its not really taking one for the team, but I do feel a twt if I see a mate when im walking him.

My daughter used to get really bad asthma, and the steroids made her put on a bit of chunk. She has 3 brothers all skinny as rakes , a mum with a decent figure and a dad whose slightly portly shape is down to lifestyle choices. So basically, she was the odd one out and with the others being very sporty it was starting to upset her. About 3 years ago, the dog nonsense started " can I have a dog" , no. " can I have a dog" no, repeat daily, over and over. I explained she couldn't have a dog, cause 1 she's asthmatic and 2 they're a pain in the rear. She then changed her approach . Evidently, they're are things called hypoallergenic dogs, that dont shed fur, "can I have one of those". No. My mum and dad used to get me to walk their dogs, pain in the butt, no way. She then broke my heart as she said very quietly " If I had a dog daddy, id have to walk it every day and it will help me lose some weight" . How can I turn down a 10 year old daughter ,holding that over me? So fast forward 3 years and you'll see how I took one for the team. As the doctor informed us it could, the asthma is so much better, she doesn't need steroids, she now a slim , beautiful 13 year old (going on 17). Of course you can count on the fingers of one hand the number of walks she's given the dog. So my hit for the team is walking a ****ing chocolate brown poodle every day.

I've always looked at my mortgage as rent, rather than a debt. We pay the building society rent for 25 years and at the end, they give us the house. I suppose its a very simplistic approach but its worked for me and stops me worrying about debt or negative equity. Obviously, the only downside is the maintaince costs, but with next door renting their place for £1100 our mortgage payments of £480 will leave enough money go cover any issues there. Personally, its the stability of ownership that I like, and the flexibility to do what the hell we like with the house. Have 4 kids ranging from 13 to 25, one is an owner, 2 at school and one has rented, been back home, rented again and been back home about 3 times. I would also encourage them to try and buy, but its not easy. Wish I could help them out, but barring a lottery win, they'll be on their own. Mrs Duck is pressing me to use some of the equity in our place (about 200k) to remortgage and buy a smaller place to rent out. Her idea is when the kids have gone, we move into it and then rent the 4 bed family house we're in at present out, providing a retirment income as the mortgage will be paid off before that. Me, im not so sure as it goes against my mortgage is rent philosophy.

How many games did avram grant win at Chelsea?