Wes Tender

And conversely of course it seems to be the case that unless Pulis selects his son he would not have played for Stoke or any other team that Pulis has managed except through nepotism. I agree that an internet forum is not the place to use as a pointer as to a player's prowess, but if they looked at ours, they would notice the vast majority up in arms that we were selling Davies, but look at their forum and nobody has a good word to say about Pulis junior. But the manager used to say that there is no point in bringing in a player unless he is better than what we have. Used correctly, that policy would entail a gradual improvement in a squad. Applied to us now, as we are getting rid of any quality and replacing it with youth, so the judgement of whether any replacement is better than what we have is clouded. But on the face of it, it appears that we would be better off not having Pulis as part of the deal, unless of course JP had him in on trial and saw something in him that everybody else seems to have missed.

From what I've read about Pulis' kid, we must be total mugs if we are taking him as a makeweight in any deal, especially when he is not only not as good as what we already have, but considerably worse. Here is a player who if he came on, would actually weaken the team. Stoke must be laughing their heads off that they could offload this cruddy player onto some idiot Club so desperate for lolly that they might have to accept him in order to get the money for Davies. If we ever have to play him because we are so short of cover that there is no alternative, that will be the time that we have scraped the bottom of the barrel and might as well give up all hope.

A reign of terror is Pol Pot in Cambodia, Hussein in Iraq, Hitler. I don't recall anybody dying during Crouch's term in charge and if you were terrified by him, Scabby, then it is long overdue that you were locked away somewhere safe and given counselling.

Back from Match of the Day and I see that you are still not able to accept that what you said was misleading and now make it worse by claiming that most others would have known what you meant. So here is what he said: against probably the best team in the league after giving them a lesson in football in the first half, FFS FFS FFS last year we would of lost by 5 or 6. Anybody got any clearer idea what he meant? I took it that he was talking about Birmingham. So who do you think that he was talking about that we would have lost to last year? Any takers? Oh, and by the way, as I'm so pedantic. It isn't we would of lost. It is we would have lost. But I'm sure that everybody realised what you meant to say.

Originally Posted by saintkiptanui I think it is you who should go to bed. I'm off to watch Pompey getting thrashed by Chelski. It is you who are apparently not able to express yourself well, as I suspect that most would have concluded that you had meant that our team last season would have lost by 5 or 6 playing against this Birmingham team.

Football is a game of 90 minutes duration. We played brilliant football against Leeds for 45 minutes and were three goals up. We played brilliant football against Tranmere and were three goals up after 45 minutes there too. As I recall, on both occasions we lost 4-3.

No. That is what you are saying. I was replying to saintkiptanui's assertion that had we somehow played Birmingham last season, (although they were then a Premiership team), they would have put five or six past our team. I'm assuming that he was talking about a hypothetical situation whereby our last season's team played this current Brum team. Please keep up.

Well, if I give you examples of where your argument is shot full of holes and you won't acknowledge it, then I'll just have to leave it to others to make up their own minds that you're talking rubbish, that is if they agree with my assessment that not all of the matches we played last season were crap.

You're obviously suffering from selective memory loss subconsciously in an attempt by your brain to support your argument. Do you remember the match against Norwich, when we played similar football to yesterdays, all over them, scintillating stuff and they won 1-0. Nobody could believe we could play so well and get nothing. And both our matches against Bristol City and Sheffield Utd were very much at the tail end of the season. Presumably you didn't go to those two matches then.

Why don't we argue the toss with the bankers and tell them that we need to keep some quality in the squad and regrettably the quality players cost a bit more than the youngsters and are a necessity if we are to progress as a club by at least staving off relegation. If the bank manager doesn't accept the argument, then we could ask him how much dosh he's on and why the bank needs to be paying him quite so much money. He'll undoubtedly respond that he earns that much because he is good at his job, has experience, wisdom and seniority, thus shooting down in flames his reasons for asking us to use younger, less experienced and less capable players.

I have crossed swords with miserableoldgit from time to time, but I must say that I agree with him on this situation to the letter. I also agree with the further comments of the following few posters, until the one by saintkiptanui. There comes a point with long suffering fans when they say enough is enough. I was really very angry that Andrew Davies was to be sold, as like others I had reasoned that it was possibly unavoidable that we had to sell some players earning over a certain amount and play the kids instead to keep going. But I had likewise thought that we were to keep at least one of the top strikers, the best goalkeeper and Andrew Davies at least. To have rumours surface the day after those about Andrew Davies, that we are to sell Andrew Surman too would be intolerable. I am beginning to feel more and more vindicated about not buying my ST now. I had intended to go to every home match, but I'm starting the think the unthinkable; that if after a few heroic defeats the kids go into freefall because of loss of confidence, it will no longer be something that I would enjoy watching and I may very well decide to spend my time on Saturdays in other ways. I'm hoping that this feeling is induced by the way that the club is being run (or misrun) by Lowe and Wilde and that it will pass when I calm down. The team might get lucky and not have the injuries to key players that will really tell now that we are almost threadbare and they might win as many as they lose and stay midtable. Or better than all of that, somebody else will take over running the club, the shysters will all go, the club will be reunited, the team strengthened and we go forward together to the sunny uplands that are the Premiership.

I met somebody today who I have known for a very long time. We got to discussing Saints and I told him of rumours of a takeover by a certain consortium and he told me that he knew that this was in the offing six months ago, he had been told about it then and sworn to secrecy. As it was something that I obviously knew about, it was plainly fairly common knowledge, so we could discuss it openly together. This friend is at a level of business that makes me believe that he certainly would move in circles of influence where he might catch wind of this sort of information and his word has my complete trust as a source. I really do hope that there is some genuine substance to these rumours and that the upshot is that we get shot of Lowe and his cohorts and the Quisling Wilde for good. If there was to be a conspiracy theory, my fertile imagination would have Lowe and Wilde selling all the family silver, i.e. any player of any quality, so that the task is made far more difficult for the prospective new management. If that resulted in further relegation and the new people couldn't make a go of it, then there would be Lowe and Wilde waiting to pick up the pieces.... Nightmare scenario!:mad:

The usual broad sweeping statement that can have holes picked in it left right and centre. Last season we were the usual Jekyll and Hyde team, beating the best teams and losing against the poor ones. For example, We beat West Brom 3-2, Cardiff 1-0, Hull 4-0, Bristol City 2-0 and Sheffield United 3-2. Of those teams, Hull and West Brom were promoted and Sheffield Utd and Bristol City were very close to the top at the death. The season before, we beat Birmingham 4-3, Wolves 6-0 and West Brom couldn't beat us over either leg. So there are absolutely no grounds whatsoever for predicting that we would have been hammered by Birmingham last season with the team we had then, even if Birmingham were in the Fizzy Pop league.

Isn't it interesting how some are already trying to rewrite history to prove their points. Broad sweeping statements like "we only played dross all last season" for example. Although there were very many games where that was true, there were other games when we played scintillating football, as good as that on show in our first two matches. Bristol City were top of the division when they came here and their fans chanting that they were going to win the league. Any impartial observer watching the game and not knowing which team was which, would have put their money on the promotion chasers being us. Of course, we also beat Sheffield United playing some really good entertaining football too. As both teams were in the frame for either automatic promotion or the play offs, then they can be considered to be the equal of Cardiff or Birmingham this season and last season's squad beat them. So I think that some are attempting to justify the sale of any quality we had on grounds that they were crap, whereas the real reason is that we just cannot afford them. On that basis, I'll be perfectly content that we might well play Scacel and Euell after the end of the month if they're still here, as they could have added some spine in the second half today.

You sound about as angry as I still am about it all. I'm just praying and hoping and wishing that if there is any consortium out there that they come in and take us over sooner rather than later. I haven't heard anybody disputing that we will sell any of our youngsters if they shine and we get offers for them. What's the point of it all if that is what we become, a feeder club to the better fizzy pop league clubs or the Premiership.

No we won't. We'll be in league one.

I'm seriously p*ssed off and had better wait until tomorrow morning before I say something out of anger rather than through clear thought.

Just back from the match and as usual, it is the Jekyll and Hyde team again. First half incredible entertaining football with passing and movement off the ball, good possession and a great spirit to chase everything, which resulted in us winning most of the 50/50 balls. But as usual, where was the end result? It took a CB to score, as the front men didn't look as if they could today. And then in the second half it was almost inevitable that a team with the quality that Birmingham have would suss out where our weaknesses were and exploit them, muscling us out of possession and beginning to look more and more dangerous as the half progressed. Sloppy defending gave them the first and heads up, the last thing we should have done if we had any sense at all is motivate Kevin Phillips by chanting insults about his wife. We had looked most dangerous when we had the two strikers up front and looked toothless when John came off. It might have been that he was tiring, but that is when we would have had options normally to bring on Rasiak or Saganowski. But when Brum knew that the striker threat was diminished, it gave them licence to push forward to get all three points Too early to make any reasoned judgement on the first two matches, but a pattern starts to emerge that no matter how attractive the football we play, if we don't put the ball away when we are playing such decent football, we will come away without any points. And each time this happens, the side loses confidence and the chances increase that more will cease to attend matches, decreasing vital revenue. Things might have been better had Andrew Davies played today. We are totally mad to be selling him.

Probably the ones with the more established teams used to playing together, with adequate cover for injuries, the teams with a the best blend of experienced older heads blended with youthful exuberance and those with managers who have seen what it is like to fight a rearguard action in this division.

Another one who cannot understand that there are players in this game who can generate more income for the club than they cost in wages, either through bums on seats or success on the pitch, which in turn also generates more bums on seats. Just to be sarcastic in the extreme, why don't we replace our youngsters with the crop below even them and save even more money? Let's close more of the stadium and make even more savings. And if we're so completely and utterly skint, how come we can afford to buy Schneiderlin? Personally, I would have said that we are better covered in midfield than in defence, so given a choice between Davies or Schneiderlin, I'd choose Davies myself. Because of these policies, we are going to go into administration anyway because we will probably be relegated.

It is a fine balancing act and there are several factors to consider. On the one hand, the more people in the stadium, the more income generated to go towards paying for some decent players. The more decent players, the better our chances of gaining promotion and the more people who will turn up to watch them play. There is an optimum price that balances up making it an attractive option to go to the matches and helps generate the most income. What we have done is to close sections of the stadium, thus losing a possible revenue source for the simple reason that savings would be made on the staffing needed to keep them open. What we do not appear to have done is to make any adjustments on the match prices to encourage people to come to the games. At the very least, there is an attendance level and a price level which would generate exactly the same amount as 17000/18000 bums on seats, but logically the extra income from ancilliary sales in the shop or concourse, plus the extra support generated mean that it would be worthwhile to do that. If Lowe is such a brilliant financial guru, why can't he see that? But the situation that we currently find ourselves in is exacerbated by many not liking Lowe and or Wilde and not feeling especially bothered to put themselves out on their behalf. Selling off some of the better quality players is not going to help get more bums on seats either. The youngsters might play exciting football, but they need to win more often than they lose, otherwise that itself will become depressing if we slide down the table having to pay a sum of money equivalent to what we paid for known name footballers when we are served up with youngsters in their place. I have a very strong feeling that if we were taken over by somebody who was able to invest just enough in us that we could pay the wages of the current squad, open the entire stadium, set prices at a more attractive level to encourage a greater turnout, they could issue a rallying cry to us to come out and support the club and team and they would get a positive response. Things are much more difficult when we have people running the club who most fans despise and then we have a constant drip, drip policy of selling any player who somebody else wants to buy at bargain basement prices. Although it is too early to make any reasonable judgment on where this will take us, since rumours started about us selling Davies, I am now more pessimistic about our prospects than at any time that I have supported the Saints. For me, this is pretty well the last straw.

Of that list, Perry, Svennson and Thomas are going to be prone to injuries because of their age, as is Wotton. Wotton playing at the back would also reduce options of playing him in midfield as would Scneiderlin who has proven to be influential there. Lancashire and Racine are the untried and inexperienced youngsters who might be overun in this division. Frankly, it isn't a list that fills me with confidence that it will be sufficient to last a season and keep the goals against column down to reasonable figures. I predict that by selling Davies to avoid administration, we are attempting to achieve that end merely by another route, via relegation.

It's therefore a shame that their egos don't allow them to either work together, or sell up and go.

Why blame Scacel? Would you have done any different if you were him? He is under contract at £10,000 a week or whatever and doesn't want a move where his pay would be halved. Can you really blame him for that? With a bit of luck one of the youngsters will prove to be not good enough or get injured so that we can play him and get a return on his pay. IMO he has more class about him than some of them and is an asset. With a bit of luck Andrew Davies will also turn down a move, but regrettably Stoke can afford his wages.

We have plenty of cover? Yes a mixture of untried youngsters, journeymen old pros and injury prone players. Unless we are extremely lucky with injuries or suspensions, we will leak like a bloody sieve this season at the back. And one of the few options that might have remedied that situation is up for sale for a paltry £1.5 million. If this comes about, then almost more than anything else in our recent history this will prove that "Never mind the quality, feel the width" Lowe knows everything about balancing the books, but very little about football.