itchen

Taking care of business? What does that actually mean when he's talking about warming-down etc? But good interview overall.

Unlike you, I wasn't there. Although as you refer to a 'cathedral' are you sure you were? But I doubt anything happened in that service that had not been cleared by the Liebherr family. Why you should choose to be offended on their behalf escapes me. Well, actually it doesn't. We get it. You don't like Cortese (yes, it does have a capital 'C'). Whether he has crossed you in your professional or private life has not been shared with us. But we get it. You've made your point. Can you let it go now?

Mine are, thanks.

Do you know, I don't care. I was surprised when Pardew was sacked. I thought if it was going to happen it would have happened in the close season. But it's done. I have no idea why Cortese chose that moment to do it but, until one side or other chooses to publish the reasons, I am not going to believe any rumour posted on here. On the question of Les Reed and his involvement in the first team, why can't people just accept what the club has said? He has no involvement with the first team. That means the first team manager will pick the team, supervise the training and set the tactics. But the first team manager doesn't (and shouldn't) work in isolation. He needs a network of scouts to look at potential players and to look at upcoming opponents. He needs someone to run the academy and the youth team and who can identify which young players are ready to be considered for a step up. That doesn't mean that the academy director can insist somebody plays - he merely says A or B may be worth a try. And the manager shouldn't have the only say in transfers. Surely it's better that a number of people discuss what's required before the club spends a lot of money acquiring potentially the wrong player. The manager should have, perhaps, the largest input but not the only one. And the other reason for having a strong back room is that managers move on (at Southampton with alarming frequency) and we shouldn't have to restructure the whole club each time this happens. But I hope Adkins is here for the long haul. He will be fully aware of the structure he is coming into and, clearly, he finds that acceptable.

I'm not one who generally agrees with Alpine but what he said isn't quite that outrageous. While chairmen should not get involved directly in team selection I find it had to believe that any of them don't from time-to-time ask their managers why they made certain decisions about players. But we don't know if there was such a text or, if there was, how it was phrased and what its purpose was. I still don't know why Pardew was sacked. It doesn't seem to have made the team any better. Until the club or Pardew come out and tell us why then I still think it was probably the wrong thing to do. But that doesn't mean I'm going to believe every half-arsed rumour designed to show Cortese in a poor light.

I don't know if the sources are credible or not. I just find it hard to believe that Cortese could spare the time or, more tellingly, that he could be taken on a tour of a room containing 100+ tabloid journalists and the only place to find a report on this humiliation is this forum.

Really? If Adkins wants the job, and this figure is stopping him getting it, he'd probably have a good case to argue that his S****horpe contract is unreasonable and a restraint of trade.

I'm not a reader of the Sun so it's quite possible I missed it, but are you seriously saying that the Sun wins a victory over Cortese in that he travels to London, is paraded past 100+ journalists in the newsroom and nothing, not one word, about this meeting appears in the Sun or any other media outlet? I simply don't believe this would happen. If, and it's a big if, Cortese felt the need to get the Sun back onside there are a number of ways he could approach this. 1) He could go through intermerdiaries. 2) He could make a phone call. 3) He could meet the sports editor in a neutral, anonymous venue like a hotel. 4) He could go all the way to Wapping and have a private meeting. 5) Or he could go to Wapping and have a tour of the newsroom, in the full knowledge that his "grovelling" would become public, and then spend three hours there during a week when he's trying to appoint a new manager. In my opinion, the likelihood of each of those scenarios diminishes the further you go down the list.

There's a poll on the Grauniad website about whether thiswould be a good move for Adkins. It's slightly in favour of "yes" at the moment. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/football-league-blog/poll/2010/sep/09/southampton-nigel-adkins-poll

Yes, but can we continue to call him an arse anyway, just for fun?

I make it that he thinks the mods are free to lock the thread.

Isn't that what Les Reed is for?

Well this is the pattern we've typically come to expect from Cortese. I've lost track of how many times he's had to grovel to the newspapers. Just ask the editor of the Echo. He soon showed Cortese who was boss. It's typical of the man that he could only be bothered to spend three hours away from the club. Anyone would think he had something more important to do than crawl round Rupert's minions. And which of O'Neill's conditions would he not agree to? No brown M&Ms in the post-game refreshments? He truly is useless.

You're only saying that because you don't know who it is. All I'm saying is that he's based in Austria and has a knowledge of the game that is second to none.

What is the point of posts that say "I know but I'm not telling"? If you know and you've been asked to keep quiet why don't you just do that? It's very irritating. BTW, I know but I'm not telling.

I've been wrong more than once this year, I'm sure.

Based on what? We have no facts, just speculation.

I'm not a big fan of the decision - seems an unnecessary distraction - but can you explain how it is costing the club money? I don't mean may cost in future if we want a shirt sponsor. I mean how is it costing the club money today as has been asserted?

Didn't see the game but it seems from the radio and from those who were there that we played very badly. That hasn't been the case in our other games this season even though the results have not always reflected that. To blame Pardew for tonight is bizarre. His team won 4-0 away just three days ago, were not disgraced against Premier League opposition a few days before that, and just failed to make superiority count against Orient. That contrasts markedly with the accounts of tonight. I am simply baffled by Pardew's sacking and, even more so, by the timing of it. I am sure that there must have been some huge incident after the Bristol game that left Cortese with no choice but to sack Pardew and the other two immediately with no replacement lined up. Otherwise the actions of the chairman would be the actions of a fool. And that can't be the explanation, can it?

I think Man Utd beat Liverpool. Are you asking for a reason?

Bloody hell. I'd hate to hear her talk about someone she wasn't "good friends" with.

Because, as our most noted player of recent years, who has a huge association with, and affection for, the club he is often asked his opinion. And being, as far as I can tell, an honest and open sort of chap, he answers the questions put. Some people give their opinions without even being asked, of course.

Well, yes, you're right. But I think most people are basing their vote on the "facts" as they are known, for example, the team's results and performances. I voted "no" based on last season and because I had belief that Pardew would do even better this season. If it is subsequently revealed that Pardew was taking bungs or molesting the tea lady I would modify my judgement in the light of these new "facts". If the club (and Pardew) have chosen not to reveal a reason then what else are we to do?

I'd prefer Sue to Paul Hart.

God, just reading that list is depressing, Ince, Blackwell, Megson FFS. How long before Sven appears in the papers to say he always followed Southampton as a boy?