Wes Tender

What he meant, is they extended it over the teams that matter, you know, the glory plastic teams.

We were dominant the first half, when it seemed that QPR were happy to park the bus in an effort to gain the point, we had a few shots on their goal in return for Forster never having to break sweat. QPR had their share of time wasting and cynical falling down and lying prone to run the clock down or break up our momentum. We were well on top, but had nothing to show for it. Coming out for the second half, it did seem as if we tried to step up a gear and incredibly we scored from the other full back with apparently his first ever PL goal. This is becoming the norm, following Cork's first for us and goals this season from our defence and our midfield. It's long overdue that Davis finds the net and he had a couple of chances again today. Having conceded, QPR realised that they would have to actually try and attack us to get even the point and increasingly we allowed them more space to run at us, and Junior Hoilett in particular was becoming more and more of a menace. Typically though, it was inevitably Charlie Austin, who scored a skillful goal to bring them back level. But Koeman once more exercised some great tactical awareness in his substitutions, replacing Wanyama and Mane for Cork and Long. Both players replaced had perfprmed well in the first half, but Cork is a good player to bring in to bolster an attacking midfield and Long adds something different in attack, as well as dropping back in defence. Within a instant, Long had won the ball deep in QPR territory out on their right and put over a beautifully flighted ball that Pelle scissor-kicked into the net to give us back the lead. It was a spectacularly skillfull strike, almost a carbon copy of the one that the ertswhile Osvaldo had scored earlier in the week for Inter, pure class. Pelle had been superb throughout with a succession of delicate flicks and subtle close ball work, and good hold up play, a MOTM performance. Overall, we had chances to have been 4 or 5 ahead, particularly from Long and Tadic, but missed some sitters when clean through on goal or put wide from close range when a more clinical finish was required. It will come, as it is still early days for this team. Having gone back in front, QPR woke up again and to their credit, they did provide some nervous moments for us. It would have good to have kept the ball and passed it around to frustrate them like we did against Newcastle, but thankfully the defence stood firm. 2nd place still after 6 games and a further point ahead in goal difference. The best start to a season for 30 years or so apparently. Goals coming from all around the team, a solid defence and keeper, a solid and fluid midfield and an exciting striker, Rodriguez still to come back. Koeman's stock is rising rapidly. What a great season this is so far and how glorious it is to prove all the doubters wrong.

Well, excuse me for espressing an opinion based on me being half-Italian. How do you think it should be pronounced and why exactly? I have also checked it with an authority on Italian pronunciation which backs up what I say. Perhaps you're right and they're wrong, eh?

Red, my response was laden with heavy sarcasm in response to the idiot Samuel's assertion that we had relied a lot on luck to arrive at the situation whereby we replaced all those players arguably with better ones. Of course I agree with you that credit must go to Katharina and the board for their choice of Koeman as manager, and the way that things subsequently panned out owes far more to good judgement than luck. The use of withering sarcasm as a weapon of ridicule is very much an English thing, and is labelled the lowest form of wit by those who are the target of it. Coincidentally, Samuel is the lowest form of journalist.

Lallana said that? He really ought to either employ a PR guru to tell him what to say, or keep his big mouth shut. As a former Everton fan, I presume that he wouldn't get the same feeling about pulling on their shirt had he signed for them? Or would he have said that about pulling on the shirt of whichever club he signed for, proving what we all know, that he is a shallow, egotistical and greedy bastard? He ought to have a word with Ricky, who would be welcomed by virtually all Saints fans if they came across him in town visiting friends. Lallana in the same situation is going the right way to inciting only abuse and derision. I can't wait myself to give him the bird when Scousehampton play us here.

Mint humbugs more like

A good read and I look forward to your response to his analogy of how FFP affects us. But then again, it might be quite easy to pick gaping holes in his argument when he asserts that if not for FFP, we could assemble a team like Manchester United's class of '92 for instance. We aren't incapable of assembling an equivalent bunch of academy players, as we have proven recently and in the past. But the naivety that Samuel demonstrates is breathtaking when he fails to accept that they could keep hold of those players because they are Manchester United and that conversely we couldn't keep hold of our players because we are Southampton. This isn't so much to do with FFP, but more to do with the fact that now as then, there will always be an advantage that the glory clubs will have over we smaller clubs, a natural order of big beasts and their prey. Again, in his naivety he believes that a club like ours can somehow withstand the predatory offers from the top clubs for our best players when they offer them such huge salary inducements and such over-inflated prices to their clubs. It would have been interesting to have heard his views on how that could have been achieved, or what he would have done player for player if he was running the club. But then again, given his opinions, it is a real blessing that we don't have oafs like him anywhere near our club.

I'm content to hear the pundits admit it when they got it wrong, it shows humility. But if they were as knowledgeable as they ought to be, then a closer examination of the remaining players should have told them that there was still quite a bit of quality left in the team, especially when Schneiderlin stayed. Even now in retrospect, there are still pundits who claim that the spine had been ripped out of the team, when it wasn't. The spine is usually talked of as the keeper, the CBs, the central midfield and the Strikers, but apart from Lallana, who wasn't arguably part of the spine anyway, we kept the best central midfielders and our goalkeeper. Anyway, all are adequately replaced or improved upon, so if we continue in this sort of form, we await Savage's rehashed forecast of where we will end the season.

It was down to luck. We were lucky that Cortese saw something in us and pursuaded multi-billionaire Markus Liebherr to buy us. Then we were lucky to have commenced our journey back to the Premier League, achieving it at almost unprecedented speed, despite dismissing Pardew along the way and replacing him with Adkins, a virtual unknown outside of Scun thorpe and Bangor. Despite him getting us to 15th by halfway through our first season back in the PL, we were again lucky enough to appoint another manager relatively unknown to most of our fans, who was lucky enough to get us up a further place to 14th. In his second season, this new inexperienced manager made quite a name for himself and we were unlucky to lose him to Spurs. Also with additional incredibly bad luck, we lost our former Chairman and the cream of our best players whose reputations had been considerably enhanced during our climb back to the PL. Luckily though, we had appointed a new board who initially looked as if they did not know what they were doing in selling our best players, and our owner appeared to be disinterested in us and was rumoured to be selling off the club and its assets. By an incredible bit of good fortune, the board was able to pursuade Ronald Koeman to join this rudderless, floundering ship and luckily for us, he was able to bring in some players that he knew about who might, if the football Gods smiled on us, be able with luck to prove that they could adapt to playing in the Premier League, in the same way that Koeman would have to adapt to managing here too. Happily, and probably because with half the team having been replaced we were a totally unkown quantity, we were able to get one or two good results against some of the lesser teams of the division, being lucky to have had such a fortuitous early fixture list. Conversely, for some reason that can only be explained by good fortune, we seem to have melded this collection of relative strangers into a well-drilled team and have retained a very good team spirit. How can this have happened to us, when the elite teams like Liverpool and Manchester United have also had several changes to their teams and have failed so far to get them to play well together? But as Samuel rightly points out, our luck will run out sooner rather than later and when those elite teams get their acts together and the other teams in the division realise how to counteract Koeman's plans A/B/C and D, the normal hierarchy of the division will be restored.

It's got to say that he comes from Holland, references his food preference and that he f*cking hates Pompey, surely?

Perhaps he ought to be advising George Osborne. Or did you mean inflammatory?

Me too. Especially as we have had threads discussing the media feeding frenzy whipped up by the likes of Samuels and Ashton in the Mail. Samuel wishes to cry crocodile tears over accusations that he has an agenda against us. He is only trying to put our case on our behalf as an example of how smaller clubs are the victims of the FFP regulations he claims, and yet he knows damned well that the bulk of his rag's readership are the plastic fans of those very glory clubs who most benefit from them.

Samuels is a bit of a dinosaur; the type with a lot of bulk and a small brain comparative to its size. To back up his arguments, he uses historic examples from an entirely different era. We should be like the Class of 92 at United if it were not for FFP he says, unable to see that there might just be the same reasons that United managed to keep those brilliant players together as exist today, because they are Manchester United. Even if we had this same crop of players as a club then, we would not have been able to keep them away from the top clubs, any more than we could keep Shearer or the Wallace brothers, or indeed Le Tiss, had he wanted to leave. He cites other examples from a byegone age in a vain attempt to bolster his arguments. Having had the situation at Leeds with Jonathon Woodgate challenged, he then digs up Damien Duff at Blackburn and Michael Carrick at West Ham. What exactly is the relevance to us and our situation? Are our circumstances even remotely similar to theirs at that time? What he fails to do, is to recognise the current situation in English football, that it is a rarity for a club to try and keep a player at a club if that player is determined to leave and he needs to acknowledge that if the player's wishes are usurped, then subsequently that player might be a liability in terms of their attitude. All very well citing Everton as the example of how we should go about our business, developing players internally to replace the one or two who depart, but that doesn't recognise that there were 5 or 6 players here at the same time who were coveted by several of the top clubs. That is a fairly unique position and yet he doesn't accept that it would have been impossible to have kept all of them and that in any event, there comes a point where the money offered is just too good to turn down. The higher the sum received, the more chance that there is of finding a suitable replacement, something that we have just proven. But ultimately, the thing that rankles is his assumption that the board might actually consider doing this exercise again and again, even though the situation was forced on them by circumstances beyond their control. As those circumstances were partly orchestrated by the likes of Samuels in the media, it is a bit rich to have the old charlatan sounding off about how the board ought to handle matters in the future. Not that they as astute businessmen are likely to pay too much attention to the ramblings of some washed-up Fleet Street hack, thank God. Having handled this exceptional set of circumstances with aplomb and come out the other side in a better situation than could have been anticipated, I have faith in their ability to do it again if the situation arises in the future.

I don't disagree with any of the names on that list, but with luck, there might be a few factors that mean that some might yet stay. Taking them in order, my thoughts are:- 1) Jay Rod hasn't signed a new contract, but that might be because there is no urgency to do so in light of his injury. Although I'm sure that he would like to progress to a glory team as would most players, he might feel a debt of honour to us for the immediate future, because we have stood by him during his injury and deserve to have him back playing for us for a while. Also, whereas he might have felt the urge to go to Spurs, that might have been tempered by Schneiderlin not going, Pochettino off to a shaky start and us off to a cracking start. 2) Morgan. Yes, he will go at some point, but again, maybe not to Spurs. Arsenal would be better for him, but credit to him for buckling down and putting in the shift that he has. He might yet be pursued by even bigger clubs than Arsenal at the season's end at this rate. 3) Wanyama. I think that Big Vic is relatively happy here for a while longer and that it might be his agent who is the agitator. Koeman seems to be improving him game by game and perhaps he will see that it is worth getting the most out of that before he goes for a big move. 4) Clyne. Quite how he's slipped under radar of the big clubs, I don't know. But I haven't heard any whingeing from him, so perhaps he likes it here for the time being. He will have seen that as tempting as a big money move might be, it hasn't worked out too well for his ex-team mates so far. 5) I think that Cork will get a new contract and will be happy to stay with us. 6)Tadic. He has to be the biggest concern. He's right up there in the Modric class for me and could command the highest fee of all of them. But then by the end of the season, Pelle and Mane might also be tempting some big clubs too, depending on how their season progresses. But the better we do, the lesser will be the clamour to depart for some of those players. And with luck there are further academy players on the way up and we have proven to have the ability to find very capable replacements for any who go. But if the likes of Schneiderlin, Tadic, Rodriguez (if he's back to his best) and Clyne were to have several top clubs vying for their services, the sums of money we received for the last lot will be surpassed by quite a bit if we are forced to sell them against our will. The bar would need to be set at £30+ million for Schneiderlin and possibly Tadic, surely?

Was there a very long silence when those players were sold? I seem to recall assurances that the monies received would be reinvested in their replacements, but what else could have been said? How exactly do you prevent a player from leaving against their will? You either extort a vastly over-inflated fee for them, which is what we did, or you dig your heels in and attempt to get them to honour their contract, risking having them sulk and affect team morale. If this is what the board decided as a strategy, why should they tell us the fans and alert the buying clubs and the players as to how they would proceed? So the club should have responded to the meltdown stories in the media? The board had responded that the club was not for sale and that the money received from the sales would be reinvested. But naturally it suited the media better to whip up hysteria into a feeding frenzy, didn't it? As it has turned out, it is preferable from our point of view that it happened like this, because the journos have egg all over their faces and our progress is seen as all the more remarkable as a result of the dire forecasts that were made. We have proved that we are nobodys' fools, that we are well run, well managed and have a very good team. Messages have been sent out to the players that none of them are bigger than the club and that we can replace them relatively easily and do very nicely without them, thank you very much. The message to those clubs that you say will come calling every transfer window is also clear. If you covet our players and we wish to keep them, you will only be able to buy them if you are able to pay an extortionate fee for them. Those clubs might also have noted that it is perfectly possible to buy players of equal or better calibre if they could only be bothered to get off their backsides and do a bit of scouting abroad. If they expect us to do the legwork for them, then it will cost them a hefty premium, and even then players who shone under our style of play, are not guaranteed to excel under theirs. For ourselves, we have achieved success beyond our expectations, having not only replaced the manager and players with others as good if not better, but we also banked a considerable profit on the exercise. Although the circumstances were exceptional, if the scenario is to be re-enacted at a future date, there is no particular reason that with the same board, manager and scouting network, we could not reproduce a similar result.

What? no mention of our goallie?

The question was "would you buy back the five players who left for the fees that were paid for them?" Not for the fees that were paid for them I wouldn't. After all, those were vastly inflated prices and apart from Chambers perhaps, none of the others are worth that. Indeed, I'm more than happy with their replacements and Lallana and Lovren in particular demonstrated a naked greed and a dispicable ability to employ underhand tactics to ensure their departures. I wouldn't want players with that sort of attitude here anyway, so I wish them both bad luck in their future careers. It increasingly looks as if we are better without them. I might take back Pochettino though; if he would be prepared to manage the academy kids.

All very well making comparisons between the two of them, whilst ignoring the fact that Tadic cost us less than half of what Lallana cost Scousehampton, so we have Tadic and money in the bank to put towards other reinforcements. If one asked would you rather have Lallana or Tadic, that is one thing. But ask whether you would rather have Lallana or Tadic and Mane for example and that is quite another matter, although that is the reality of what selling him gave us. For all that Lallana was a very good player, I don't miss him one bit now we have Tadic.

Only the third time we have beaten Arsenal at their home ever in all competitions? That alone makes this an historic occasion that will be talked about and remembered for years to come. After only 5 league matches and two cup matches, it is still comparatively early days to reach any firm conclusions about the team and the manager, but those early indications are suggestive that we have an exceptional manager and some really good players. Also, surprisingly considering the number of key players who left in the Summer, the team spirit amongst those who remained allied to those replacements who came in seems fantastic. It really is a seamless transition and a continuation of a very similar style of play and the positive mental attitude that doesn't accept defeat even when they go behind in a match. Psychologically, we now have an advantage to take to Arsenal when we play them there in the league and even if they have two or three players back as first choice, so do we, with the potential improvement from Mane and the possibility of having Rodriguez back. We are still learning to bed in the new players, who can only get better. Without doubt, our second place in the division and now knocking Arsenal out of the cup is starting to cause some waves and to get people to sit up and take notice of us. Koeman's approach though is spot on. Take every game one at time, don't take anything for granted and respect your oposition, whatever their position in the table.

A good summary of the differences between the two situations. I would add another factor that differentiates them. Sovereignty. The Scots have actually increased their own powers of self-determination with the setting up of their own devolved Parliament, whereas British sovereignty has been seriously eroded by various treaties since the original Treaty of Rome formed the Common Market which we joined. The British Electorate has never had the opportunity to vote on those changes. Whereas some member states did actually have the common decency to allow their electorate to vote on those treaties, we were denied a say. I don't believe that the British electorate are fooled by the scare stories put about by the pro-EU lobby that somehow the remaining EU members would stop wanting to sell us their Volkwagens, Citroens, Zanussi fridges and washing machines, etc, once we left. And naturally we would expect reciprocal agreements for them to take a proportionate sum of our exported products in return. Scotland had reason to stay in the Union as a nett beneficiary of state aid, whereas we British are nett contributors to the EU budget, an incentive to leave. As you say, the way that the question is couched is paramount. I would be happy that we remained in Europe, but only as part of a trading partnership such as that we originally joined, but I can't see that as being an option. I suspect that whereas on balance currently a majority would vote to leave, I would imagine that a majority think as I do, that they would be happy to stay in Europe only as part of a trading partnership, nothing more. But the only way to get Europe to consider a two tier Europe would be to have several influential countries like ours reject the Federal Europe model. Regarding the enfranchising of the electorate, had Scotland voted to leave the Union, we could surely have held our referendum solely as England, without the more leftie pro-EU lot in Scotland and Wales. Because we joined as the United Kingdom, I presume that it could not be an option for England to hold a referendum by itself, even if we had a devolved English Parliament by the time the referendum was held?

*shudder*

Well, I didn't predict anything, did I? I merely made a comparison against the first 5 matches from last season and concluded that we had gained more points under Koeman than Pochettino achieved after his first five matches. But as I pointed out, there were those who had predicted a relegation battle ahead for us, before the season had even started, including much of the media and various pundits. But as a bit of fun, I had predicted earlier that I saw no reason why we shouldn't achieve the same 8th place we had last, but now I'll stick my neck out and say 6th. We dropped a couple of places last season because of injuries to Boruc and Wanyama early in the season and to Rodriguez later in the season and lost momentum as a result. I believe that this season we have better cover and more depth than last. The teams that we might rise above? Everton and Spurs look to be possibiliities, but Liverpool and Man Utd might go either way.

It is. Why, some even predicted us to be fighting against relegation before the whistle had even sounded to start the first game of our season.

But if Spurs sack Pochettino before he's had a full season to show his worth, which with historical precedent they might well do if he hasn't got them into a CL contender position, then what message does that send out to future potential managerial candidates? Koeman is likely to be a lot more circumspect than Pochettino was and realise what everybody here does, that Spurs are a poisoned chalice. Do well here and he is lauded by the fans and the likes of Samuels, albeit grudgingly. But the expectations at Spurs are top 4 as a minimum, with the likes of Man City, Chelski, Arsenal, Liverpool, United, Everton to displace along the way to achieving it. Yes, Spurs are a bigger club than us, but if Pochettino gets sacked before the end of the season, his CV will have taken a massive knock compared to if he had stayed here and got us even just one place higher in the table.

Samuels had indulged himself with most other journos in the feeding frenzy stoked by the departure of many of our best players to three of the traditional glory clubs and now that events have proven that the dire forecasts of doom and gloom have not materialised, he is acting like a spoilt child. He grudgingly admits that he was wrong and credits the beneficial changes to our circumstances as being the result of good luck, which if we attempt the same routine as a policy, will eventually run out. Well, it might, but it might not. Although the circumstances this Summer were exceptional, the liklihood is that there will not be a repeat set of circumstances which is comparable in the extent of the sales, combined with the loss of chairman, manager and players. But having replaced the chairman, manager and those players, we find ourselves with arguably better replacements and a surplus of £30 million or so, which could be used to either further strengthen the team, or the infrastructure of the club. We made our own luck by clever dealings in the transfer market and through having an exceptional academy producing top quality youngsters who were coveted by the top teams and a scouting network able to identify quality players at reasonable prices. What will change to alter that? How many years back does Samuels have to go to produce two examples of teams like Leeds and Wimbledon, whose circumstances at that time are quite different to ours now?