Mystic Force

I think the recruitment team ended up buying in to their own hype and overlooked those players of the same time that were misses you pointed out above. I suspect that those earlier waves were down to an individual of above average ability at spotting and acquiring talent and those troubled patches times when they thought they had "a system". Back on topic, with no likely prospects coming through the youth ranks we will be signing a new LB and hope that it sticks

For a period of time we had an information advantage over our rivals and were able to capitalize. Wenger used this same fact when he had a successful Arsenal team, he brought in great players from an overlooked French League using his knowledge of it to get an advantage. That information we achieved either through the first to having a "black box" or because of Paul Mitchel individual talent is no longer our exclusive edge. Any of those types of players are now on everyone's radar and the price goes beyond our means, leaving us taking chances on less certain prospects. We have seen the consequence of that fact all too readily in our loans out. Due to the upset in football financing there will be some distortions in the market, as players leaving clubs might not be offered the pay day they might have otherwise expected. I have been wary of the vaunted black box after reading an interview talking about the acquisition of Shane Long as an example of how they used it. To think that singing a mediocre striker from a succession of relegation threatened clubs was a good deal. It did not look like wizardry to me, but rather they had called up an "expert" who scouted him on FM and said his running around stat was amazing!

VAR seemed to level the playing field for a while but it looks like it has slid back to favouring the big sides again. Some of the off side stuff with fingers or attackers but missing whole legs of defenders have made it a laughing stock. I think the idea of VAR is good the execution has been bad, hopefully they will change things, as poor execution can be fixed.

I think he has already started the inevitable decline in quality when players get to a certain age, and we have already seen the best of Bertrand. The problem is any recruit we get is likely to be not as good as a slowly waning Bertrand. A proven younger replacement is probably out of our ability to pay, so we will be on the hit and hope part of the spectrum.

Well I like the idea of being ethical, however along with most people I am too lazy to look too hard. Working in the industry I do, I know what most people say they care does not really matter. Take for example non GMO food, so Europe banned GMO in food and I worked for a company that made a product that could be used in food derived from corn, for EU food product we used either potato or non GMO corn, however the same product is used in pharmaceuticals in the EU from GMO just fine (it helps with the properties of drug active ingredients) and the chemical is made using an enzyme produced by a genetically modified bacteria. If you have ever breathed in some febreeze will you are consuming a product made from GMO Iowa corn. So if you look at that little bit of the supply chain I outlined and for the sake of argument believe there was something unethical about GMO (I am not arguing one way or other, just using as a case study) how can you ever really make an informed choice? My view is that I want the minimum ethical bit imposed by regulation because it is virtually impossible to do it as individuals, and create a level playing field. Although my pie in the sky idea is impractical for the 1000 reasons I know you all have and I probably already know 857 of them. I want a better and improving world not a perfect one.

The fact that we have injuries and a thin squad cannot be held up at the end of the season to add a few points to the table. We still have to play our games regardless, what an effective leader would do it squeeze a little more out of our existing team. I am sure that at some point all of you has worked under a bad leader and how that effected things and you have probably seen the benefit of a good leader in action. I don't think JWP is a bad leader just bland and uninspiring. What we need is someone who will help pick things up and arrest our slide. Having a poor 2nd half of the season might not get us relegated but it will not give us confidence going into the next season, making it harder. Now I suspect that we don't really have anyone at the club able to step into that role. Its hard being thrust into that role its effectively a functional supervisor (You have the responsibility but not the authority) so the only way you can succeed is by making people want to follow you.

The point of a leader is to make everyone else better. This does not need to be shouting at people and waving arms around. It is finding the key that unlocks each box. If we have got to a point where people who are good at kicking a ball get can no longer work together because they are too well paid, then I think in the selection process look a little harder at are you willing to be part of a team or not in the much vaunted black box. When you have been on the end of a tonking you want a leader who will pick you up and help you put it behind you. If you having home problems you want one who can help you focus on the task, if you are winning you want one who can keep people grounded so they do not become complacent. I wonder what kind of leadership training they give to people to help support this? People who can point out problems are a dime a dozen, people with suggestions quite common, people who know of what they speak, rare, and people who can solve it unique.

We had a President inspire a riot and was not held accountable. This guy has broken the conventions and the system is unable to deal with it, it was assumed that no one could behave like this because of the "checks and balances" well that turned out to be BS. The emoluments clause turned out to be unenforceable, a minority of the country can dictate events due to structural issues in apportionment and courts will not hold you accountable if you put all your mates on it. The system was not designed for people who did not care about the traditions. Maybe it will be what Kurt Godel came up with, enacted in the future by someone with more imagination than Trump.

I really rate JWP as a footballer, but whenever I hear him him speak he does not inspire me. He sounds more like the corporate spokesman rolled out to make a statement with no content or meaning. What you want from a leader is inspiration, something that gives everyone that little extra spark. You can have different leadership styles that can be successful. I think of the captain being the on pitch as the supervisor of the workforce, helping everyone achieve the bosses goals. That person has to lead by example, coordinate activity, be able to get people to do their job, project positivity and communicate the bigger picture. Would you see anyone following JWP to hell to rescue a team mate? No, maybe an attempt to acquire hell and reorganize the structure and eventually reassign said team mate in corporate restructuring to successive positions via HR to the above ground division. When really what he should have done was aim a well placed deadball at the devils head. If you have 11 people who cannot work together or follow the leader what you have is a group of talented twats who will never win anything. I am pretty sure those operating at the highest level might have cracked that special skill labeled "greater than the sum of parts"

I previously said I supported his position to leave. I still hold that position, but now for different reasons.

I had 2 friends at school who share the names of PL referees, one of those is now a councilor in the city that shall not be named, I do not believe them to be the same person, but maybe by some sort of name osmosis the pompey stench is rubbing off on him.....

I remember a struggling team flirting with the bottom of the table even had a game that season called el Sackico, that season we brought in a new young left back, and our performances actually got better, he started off playing limited football within himself and over time was allowed to roam more freely. The problem is not a struggling team it is that what he have available is not as good as it was a few years ago. If we thought we had a reliable pipeline. I doubt many of those brought in and failed to find a way in to the squad, would probably not have been signed. It is hard to bring in good second choices at any position, that is why you have youngsters waiting to get a chance (and then seizing it), but for many positions if they are not showing it by a fairly young age, they are not going to be succeeding. There are some late bloomers but as a percentage wise it is smaller than those who come on at the "normal" age. I think we have held on to long, to too many hoping they will come good, possibly stymying the development of those who came afterwards. The simple fact is that we are not producing the players we once did and told the world we were going to continue to do. Coming up with ad-hoc reasons for each case is to ignore the systematic problem that is plain. As for Target, he had a chance, you can only keep someone playing second fiddle so long, and if they do not prove themselves better than the incumbent, they will choose to move on, after a few years of this you would hope that the next academy product will be along to fill that spot. The problem is that each succeeding generation of back ups has become weaker. To the point that when we see the academy players on the bench we are filled with dread rather than excitement. When football finances look to be taking a hit, a club which can produce its own talent should be in an enviable position, however we seem to have shot ourselves in the foot and instead we will be hobbling around rather than making hay while the sun shines.

I am half expecting the second half to come on and see that Man U have added a couple extra during the break.

Not again! Take Ings off so he can rest up for the next one, he is not going to be needed tonight.

I think we fooled ourselves in to thinking we had a great system of producing talent when instead is was down to the ability of a few individuals. Once those moved on they were able to live on their reputation not realizing the party was already over. And while we waited for the next big thing no one went to fix the actual problem, because they had convinced themselves they knew what they were doing was right. Well now its clear that they were not the geniuses they believed and when the problems gets fixed it will be a really long time before any new prospects come through. And if they make the wrong changes it will take a really long time to see that they still have problems.

Not having the manager being tempted to bring Long on would be strengthening the squad.

Wow even the trolling has got boring in here, I will be back when someone has managed to come up with a cogent argument again.

They get a buying in bulk discount and have to use them up before it expires!

No mention of Paul Mitchell in there at all, like he perhaps does not want to highlight his contribution, and once the system he built waned the whole thing stopped functioning as well, and we can see what happened.

How is, I would like to go somewhere else to ply my trade because I think I will be better off in the long run, "Throwing toys out the pram" He followed the procedure in place to request the chance to go somewhere else. When you are not getting a chance here. I say fair play, The fact is that for the last few years players a little older than him waited for there chance, never got it and had to settle for clubs lower down the order, this guy has decided he does not want to do that. Its probably vital for development to be able to maximize your practicing of your art in the prime learning years if you are going to achieve the best result for yourself. It is not like he has downed tools are being greedy he just wants a chance to make a good career for himself and looking around can see what might happen if he just waits. If he is good enough it will not matter that he left and will demonstrate it, if he does not make the grade, at least he will find out sooner and can turn to something else.

At this age it is vital for him personally to be able to demonstrate his ability, if he cannot then he will not have a future and the valuable window of development will be lost. If any of you thought your career was being blocked by the company brining in other people you would sensibly look elsewhere. Maybe he has seen the many hopefuls get to a certain point and their professional careers wilt away and he has decide to take a different approach. Maybe its a chance, maybe he is better off staying, but I cant fault the guy for wanting to try.

The comparison is not between could not and would not but rather should not. There was a referendum in 1975 about the subject, which is probably within the lifetime of some of the people on here, so we should not have overturned that one when people changed their mind? I understand and acknowledge peoples decision, I think they made a bad decision and I would encourage people to subsequently change their stance. It is not like UKIP went away after each election it failed to become the government. Bad legal decisions get overturned, bad policies are reversed and bad government gets voted out I do not see that this is any different. You can accept something without liking it and work on doing something about it. In a democracy that would be trying to persuade a majority of people to side with you when voting, rather than taking over a legislative building, while carry flags bearing the name of your cult leader and looking to hang people insufficiently rabid for the cause as an example. And yes I think people should work on persuading others that this should be reversed, not by some technical spanner jamming in the works, but building a consensus around an issue, but that obviously takes work, time and probably more than 160 characters in a tweet. Once you have a sure position of majority then work on reversing this, a ham fisted failure is worse than taking your time to do it properly. But as I currently live in the US the only real consequence will be when I visit Europe for work I will have to line up with the Americans rather than zip through the shorter EU line.

A party that has an advantage in the structural make up of the electoral system is hardly likely to help change it. If you look at maps what you really have is democratic cities and republican rural areas. It is not that a state is red or blue it is more does a state have large cities if yes overall blue, if not then its overall red. and if that does neatly line up for a state now it will probably sort the rest of them out with a bit more time.

I am always irritated by the snap shot in time "democracy" as if people cannot change their mind, 4 years ago people wanted Donald Trump, 4 years later they have changed their mind. Its entirely possible that at some point people will have changed opinion on the EU decision. After all there was a decision of entering before and that got reversed.

So when i added the clarification including Bayesian probability, which I left out originally as not the sort of thing that the average football fan is likely to care about you did not see how in the calculation the only probability to worry about is the reference class as the individual player has done nothing at this point to change the posterior probability, and if you were going to assign a probability, the fact that he has not played for an extended time would ascribe a negative effect, I do not see how not currently being available is a positive asset. If Southampton track record over the last few seasons for signing these types of players was better the probability would be higher. I am not saying that he will not dazzle at some point in the future, but chances are not looking great. In relation to the reference class, should the bounds have been lower ie cheaper? not sure that would help the probability, we are not including youths brought in from other clubs who might or might not be able to develop. And on balance you would expect the ability of players at the top of the range (20 million) to be significantly better than at the bottom (10 million) thereby helping to lift the prior probability of the reference class. Was there a time boundary issue, the change of personnel seems a significant change suitable for defining when the period under investigation would start. Or do we need to work on the definition of successful? I think selling for more than we payed, would be good, going out on loan to a club in a lower division or country with a lower reputation squad is bad. Remaining at the club but never playing would be bad. Being a regular starter is good. So please explain why this probability model is not generally applicable?