shurlock

I didn't see that Not even a word on his boy Yoshida or Cedric, our very own Portugese Explorer who's positionally all at sea?

Very middle class of them - perhaps they were reading Classic Cars or Q magazine off the shelves.

You must be one of the ones who didn't see him making it past L1 or lower championship, then #onthemoney

#NoDogsOrEnglish

Don't be sick.

Agree with some of that, though maintain Koeman had a stronger squad than MP who was forced to play the likes of Hooiveld, Fox and Gallagher on various occasions.

WBA away?

Was Cody Cropper there?

And so have many of the big guns. "Would our team be stronger if we had not only reinvested the money from losing key players but supplemented it with an additional transfer budget?" As I say, that is ultimately what matters... Still not answering.

Be careful not to confuse salary figures for the club employees as a whole (right down to the tea lady) "Total Group Wages" with figures for just the players. Reported figures typically include everything (though obviously player wages constitute the largest share) while FFP applies only to the latter. Our yankee chum got tripped up by this a few years ago. http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/news/article/20151009-southampton-financial-results-2014-15-2735534.aspx

Still not answering. To repeat, limited conclusions can be drawn from one summer window – precisely what you’ve done with your dopey little Sunderland example. That’s called a small sample size. More accurately, a sample size of one. Just think if you woke up tmrw, were walking down the street and, heaven forbid, were attacked by a Christian fundamentalist. Would you be straight on here, apologising to SOG , admitting the error of your ways, acknowledging that in fact there was no difference between Islam and Christianity in their propensity to violence? Course you wouldn’t, pal. Sample size. All of which is to say that over the long-term and a larger sample size, teams that strengthen in addition to replacing players they’ve lost, will do better. Net spend is a basic, if imperfect formulation or metric of this intuition. And yet the question is also much simpler (NB you can skip the stuff on sample size if its making your head hurt): Would our team be stronger if we had not only reinvested the money from losing key players but supplemented it with an additional transfer budget? Would it? In making this specific claim, I’m not suggesting we’re unique. Quite the opposite, pal. If anything, you’re the one who inhabits a baroque alternative reality in which the normal rules don’t apply. There seems no reason why instead of making a profit, as Koeman pointed out, we couldn’t have brought our additional transfer spend in line with peers. And before you wheel out another hoary, patently dips**t Fryism that those other clubs are behaving like lottery winners on crack to justify our seeming exceptionalism, the answer, lest you’re still struggling, is yes. We would be stronger relative to where we are. That’s all that matters. Not Sunderland, Newcastle or whoever else is on your little radar. Hopefully, things will change. It might be the case that we’ve been using the past couple of seasons to build up a rainy day fund, so I reserve judgment for now (this summer will be interesting) and no I’m not going to write a letter or go on a march (nice edit x). I’ll continue to attend home and away games, supporting the team while you’re here, getting all flustered over Mark Lawrenson or something. Many thanks for asking, though. A demain.

Eh. I didn't say it was entertaining. It was a drab end of season affair with zero pace and a depleted attack. Just pointing out, as a minor observation, that even in that borefest, we created better chances than we did yesterday or even against Wham. Of course, its just as easy to find drab games of football under RK (WBA away must have a jinx), so ultimately proves little. As I say, in those two seasons, we drew blanks significantly more often under RK than MP. And was someone only judged on half a season of football? Will the real RK please stand up. #cherrypickingatitsfinest

Yes I remember that game well. End of season affair with a depleted attack and zero pace (no Jrod), though it didn't stop Davis and Lallana missing absolute sitters (better chances than anything we created yesterday or against Wham). FWIW, in those two seasons we failed to score under Koeman in nearly twice as many games as under MP. That's fact, not propaganda.

No just remarking on Koeman's observations. Its obviously relevant to him. Still peddling the sunderland and newcastle examples which were differentiated in the simplest of terms (and ultimately irrelevant) - to which you never responded and still refuse to respond. Until you do, the jury's out whether you're a complete dipstick or completely disingenuous. I'm hedging my bets. waaa waaa waah or whatever your current cri de guerre is

Disagree. I think if you look closely enough many of our weaknesses up top have been long in the making -and Koeman has always been pragmatic rather than offensive-minded, something that has made it easier for the side to "go into a shell" now results have dipped. Note that both MP and Koeman's sides in 2013/14 and 2014/15 respectively scored the same number of goals, though MP's season wasnt inflated by two freak results and his side was forced to rely on Sam Gallagher for a significant period. I know which team I preferred watching with its fluidity and control, though it doesn't take away from Koeman's stellar achievements in light of the context in which he joined the club.

mine would be Tony Pulis circa 2011. #whycantwebelikestoke #why?

And its for that very reason the dullards saying we should simply accept bouncing around the midtable, with the occasional good season a la Stoke, Watford, Palace or Bolton, WBA or Fulham before are speaking complete b*****ks. We've enjoyed a massive windfall that none of these clubs have to reinvest in a quality squad. But to the extent that a large portion has been spent on replacing quality players we've lost, though some of our sales have certainly commanded a premium, the club has shown minimal interest beyond this in strengthening. Koeman's comments about us being the only club to turn a transfer profit are not the ravings of a man who wants to spend, spend, spend his way of trouble, as is dimly and disingenously asserted on here, but are a fact and it is a fact that we lag even the most conservatively run clubs in the division on these measures.

Koeman wants to strengthen the side - not just spend to compensate (in vain) for what he's lost. Equally simple, incontestable stuff, trevor.

Or he sees those additions as only making good the key players he's lost over the past two seasons which, in his view, is not the same as strengthening or building on the side - hence his various references to us being only club to make a profit in the transfer window.

Wouldn't be surprised if giving RK greater say in transfers was a condition to him taking a job. It's not ideal but it's understandable enough. It's a bit rich to repeatedly sell your best players without granting some powers and guarantees, in return, to the manager. Otherwise, the club should hire a yes man as no manager worth his salt would want to work in those circumstances.

He got into some decent positions but repeatedly and wastefully hit the first man. His corners were more of a threat.

Maybe your norwich-supporting Mrs can stick one of her extra fingers up your bum for 'calling' it. Happy days in the dalek household.

Easy to referee a largely dull, incident-free game. Neither team was really under the cosh or sustained pressure.

Because however poor he's been, he brings some steel to midfield. Just look how easily Norwich cut through Clasie and JWP for their goal. And yes he has been left out - he missed the first Norwich after his antics in Denmark, despite being 'fit' to play. One silver lining from the sending off is that we get to see how a Romeu-Clasie partnership fares against what should be a relatively strong palace side.