Joensuu

No reason not to trust it. However, it does help if you don't misread it

BTW, post of the day to John Smith... agree with you on every, well made, point.

Worked for the owners of Franchise FC. The fans don't have any real clout.

Exactly. Lets compare Pardews 54% with another manager in the same division with similar resources. The only example I can think of is Kevin Keegan in 98/99. His record of 38 wins in 61 games (62.3%) should provide a fair benchmark for Pardew's success.

TC, you don't seem to be reading the same statement as me. Sorry, but the statement, while strangely worded, can only be interepreted as meaning that the management needed to be changed to help meet the ambitious targets the owners have set for the club. I guess this isn't the same as underperformance, more, predicted future underperformance. Again, I must have missed the bit where Cortese's people briefed the Echo. Goodness, please don't start the win-ratio stuff again. I give up, you're right, Pardew was obviously the best manager we have ever, ever had. The win ratio proves it. All hail Alan.

(Hypo, I've given up with the quoting. Response to your response in blue). Valid? How can telling our owner and CEO to get lost, in a rather crude and unsavory manner be 'valid'? Because some people are extremely annoyed at how Cortese operates and though I believe f*ck off is too strong, I can understand why people wouldn't be too sad to see him go. Owners come and go and in the financial state we are now in, there is no reason why we cannot attract decent and professional owners who don't do the sort of things like Cortese which get mine and others backs up. Failing this, I am hopeful that Cortese will change. We shall see. And I say to these people that they haven't met Cortese, and are largely getting annoyed at a cartoon version of Cortese which has been created through rumour. I also argue that there are plenty of the 'old guard' who have reason to spead these rumours. Anyone slating him, is IMO, jumping to conclusions without seeing evidence. However, the people who have met Cortese, seem consistently to talk of his ambition, and honesty. We already have 'decent and professional owners', why would you want them to be changed? If this poster is genuinely annoyed with the current management of the business, why don't they air their concerns, and use evidence to substantiate their argument? Oh, yeah, that's right, what evidence? Do you mean to say that screaming irrationally, without evidence to support your view is now 'valid'? So I suppose you haven't seen the endless topics where the huge number of issues people have with Cortese have been aired and debated? Indeed I have. Thankfully they have largely stopped when a certain Romsey-based poster was banned. One or two people stirring up trouble without evidence, does not substantiate anything. So you 'feel in a similar way' to someone who is telling them to 'f**k off', but still trust the Liebherr family to make a sensible choice over who they are going to sell to. So you dislike them (without reason), but trust them to make sensible business decisions? In which case, why not let them run the club? I said a similar way but clearly not as strong. I apologise if I did not make myself clearer. I have no problem with the Liebherr family, I'm just not sure how prepared they will be to back us and I'm not sure how successful the club will be longer term now that Markus has died. Nobody is sure. But even in the worst case scenario (i.e. the don't put a single further penny into the club), we would still be in the best financial position in League One, and stronger than almost any team bar QPR in the Championship. Oh, and of course you could roll some dice again and bring in a new owner. However I think you'd need to roll 3 sixes to improve upon the Liebherr's: rich, private, respected, stabilising (what's not to like?). (Oh and to head off the lack of spending over the summer nonsense, we spent almost 3/4 of a million, did any other team in our division better that? Why Pardew blew his budget on fullbacks, only he can answer. And the offloaded players, is anyone seriously arguing that these weren't, to the man, deadwood?) As we already know, signings are decided by committee so not sure you can blame the full back scenario on Pardew alone. And no, Waigo and Antonio were anything but deadwood. We badly miss them both. Once again, I have no problem with the Liebherr family owning us. I will question their level of support, I imagine with the money we made last year that we could easily afford the money spent in the summer without running at a loss. Additionally, the presence of Liebherr means the continued presence of Cortese which IMO means that there is very possibly better alternatives out there which will run SFC on similar lines but with a more fan focused approach and less about exploitation and trying to screw as much money as possible out of us. That is my hope. Agree, I didn't mean to include loanees into my 'deadwood' statement. I was talking about the terminated contracts. I still argue that the committee should have purchased pace up front, the fact that they didn't certainly cant' be pinned on Cortese or Markus. I also agree that the money spent in the summer could easily have been from our own pockets. Which still means that Leibherr, having written off our debts, allowed us to spend more than anyone else in our league. I diagree with your logic though. Basically you are saying, that because the Leibherr's comes with Cortese attached. An because some people have been throwing mud at Cortese all summer to try and get some to stick. That therefore we might be better off without the financial stability offered by the current owners. Might I point out that this is the first time in our 125 years that we have had financial stability. Might I also point out that you could count on a single hand the number of other teams who have such financial stability (err, QPR, Chelsea, Man City and, err... virtually everyone else is in massive debt, or living hand to mouth). I conclude that your "very possibly better alernatives" are a long shot at best. Remove the Leibherr's, and must be a greater than 90% chance that our position will worsen. I agree, I find this opinion offensive. I consider it a direct attempt to undermine my club. Of course I find it offensive. What are you on about? How can airing a valid opinion (for the reasons I describe above) on a messageboard a direct attempt to undermine anything? What desire to I have to undermine the club? I would like nothing better than to see success under Cortese but I would also dearly love him to change some of his ideas and initiatives. I think as well as good, he has done a lot of bad to the image of SFC amongst many groups. I do like your optimism. It's like holding 4 Kings in poker, but trading them on the off chance you can get 4 Aces. Sure, it might happen, but don't you think it might be a little wreckless to try? As such, I strongly believe anyone attacking the Leibherrs, or Cortese, without evidence, is essentially attacking the future stability of the club. Sure, if the Leibherrs or Cortese have messed up, I'd understand it, but without evidence it seems unjustifiable to me. Sure you might be right, our sitution might improve if we undermine the Leibherrs or Cortese, but, IMO, if you think that, you might as well stake your house on the Grand National. An attack on the current owners, is IMO, and attack on the best future the club can hope for. I recognise that Cortese seems to have had a negative impact on the image of SFC. I would argue that much of this has been despite his actions, and much of it has been mud thats stuck. Even where it has been his mistake (cf Photographer ban), Cortese has shown himself to be willing to reverse his decision when it is wrong. Hardly the 'dictator' some on here have depicted. But, please note, despite the irrational and unevinced nature of the post we are both responding to, despite it being an attempt to set Southampton FC back years, you will see no abuse or idiot calling from me. An attempt to set SFC back years? I can't see it. It is entirely possible that we can attract buyers who are focused and interested in SFC (which if we are honest we cannot say for sure about the Liebherr family.) It isn't necessarily the doomsday scenario that many paint. Thanks for no abuse though. It is indeed 'entirely possible'. So is winning the lottery. It isn't 'necessarity' a doomsday scenario: it's just a massive gamble, with small odds of success, and a huge amount to lose.

Sorry, you've lost me here, why was it not possible for the Saints to win 70% of last seasons games? Didn't Mourinho acheive it with Chelsea? Isn't Capello currently achieving it with England? Why is it not possible? Also, are you seriously arguing that the win-ratio should not be contextulised? You certainly seem to be. Pardew's win ratio looks good on paper, but needs to be put into the context of being in League one with massive resources to hand. If you look purely at win ratios you get some rather strange results, for example, do you realise that Steve McClaren has a better win ratio with England than Sir Bobby achieved? Does that make McClaren the better manager? Are you seriously arguing that Pardew is a better manager than Ted, Lawrie, or Gordon, simply because his win ratio is better? I have just re-read it. This doesn't back up your claim that "the Club stated that he was dismissed to improve co-operation with Les Reed's department". There is no suggestion in the press statement that Pardew's departure had anything to do with either co-operation or Reed. In fact the only suggestion which might be drawn from the press statement is that Pardew was relieved of his duties for underperformance of the club as a whole. So much for your statement that "Those are facts stated on the record."

Of course there were no protests. Almost everyone on here was in agreement at the end of last season, that Pardew was doing okay (not bad, not good). IMO he was a respectable 5/10. Not bad enough to protest against, still good enough for the support of the majority. Yes that's all true, but I think it equally true to add that despite all this, more was expected of Pardew. His win ratio needs to be assessed in the context of the division and the money we lavished on the team. On paper it looks mighty impressive, in reality it was only really 'acceptable'. Do you agree that despite having a worse win ratio, that the FA cup run season under Strachan was a significantly better than last season? If you agree, you must have realised the weakness of win ratios. Quite simply 50-60% wins is good in a normal context; with the expectations and money thrown at Pardew last season 70%+ was the aim. Eh? I must have missed that. I was fairly sure no reason has been given. Hense why we are still actively debating the reason for the departure... Anyhow, if you are right, then why the silence from AP? He would have nothing to hide.

Valid? How can telling our owner and CEO to get lost, in a rather crude and unsavory manner be 'valid'? If this poster is genuinely annoyed with the current management of the business, why don't they air their concerns, and use evidence to substantiate their argument? Oh, yeah, that's right, what evidence? Do you mean to say that screaming irrationally, without evidence to support your view is now 'valid'? So you 'feel in a similar way' to someone who is telling them to 'f**k off', but still trust the Liebherr family to make a sensible choice over who they are going to sell to. So you dislike them (without reason), but trust them to make sensible business decisions? In which case, why not let them run the club? Oh, and of course you could roll some dice again and bring in a new owner. However I think you'd need to roll 3 sixes to improve upon the Liebherr's: rich, private, respected, stabilising (what's not to like?). (Oh and to head off the lack of spending over the summer nonsense, we spent almost 3/4 of a million, did any other team in our division better that? Why Pardew blew his budget on fullbacks, only he can answer. And the offloaded players, is anyone seriously arguing that these weren't, to the man, deadwood?) I agree, I find this opinion offensive. I consider it a direct attempt to undermine my club. Of course I find it offensive. But, please note, despite the irrational and unevinced nature of the post we are both responding to, despite it being an attempt to set Southampton FC back years, you will see no abuse or idiot calling from me.

How about Burkes' Man City track record? Or Hunter's Norwich City/Bradford/Watford credentials. All three of them seem well qualified to me. They seem well respected in the game. What evidence do you base your (really rather libelous) accusations on?

How did the fox, in the building site opposite my office, get stuck on the 4th floor? And how did he managed to survive the fall from that height? And how come the RSPCA weren't interested in the slightest?

Never been to Stockholm, but they say it's one of the best cities in the world to live in. Helsinki didn't impress me much, not a lot to do, there's a Swedish fort on an island, a couple of churches (one in a cave), and an interesting art deco station, but to be honest, not a lot else going on. There are ferries/helicopters connecting Helsinki to Talinn. I've heard, that Tampere is a more interesting town in Finlanda. Talinn, is much prettier than Helsinki, but once you've done some medieval walls and church tower climbs (St Olaf is pretty tall...) and of course sink a few beers in the expensive town centre, you quickly run out of things to keep you entertained. The same could be said about Riga. Between the two cities I popped in on both Kurasaare (sp), and Turku. The former is tiny, with a reasonable castle, and took hours to get to. The latter is not as interesting at the guide books made out. While Talinn is the prettiest of the whole lot, I think Vilnius in Lithuania is the best town out of the lot to visit. The old town centre was much bigger than Talinn (if not as filled with Disneyish towers). Vilniuss felt vibrant and still in use, rather than touristified and sanitised. Edit: Oh, and the Finnish town of 'Joensuu' isn't worth visiting at all. It's like Basingstoke without transport links on a lake in the middle of nowhere.

The centre of Riga is pretty, but quite small. The centre is nowhere near as large and impressive as either Talin or Vilnius. All three have plenty of nightlife. Best I've been on was either Seville or Vienna, both lovely places, but I enjoyed them for the company I had.

Vince makes a lot of sense. The extremes of both left and right never produce sound policy. However, his party will have to work a lot harder to win this liberal, ex-Lib Dem voter back. The concessions gained from the Tories have so far been insubstantial and temporary; they certainly don't jusify selling your party's soul.

We don't know for sure, but as loans tend to be inexpensive to organise, I can't see why not. I assume Adkins is busy looking for loans who will best fill the gaps he sees in the quad. Again, we don't know for sure, however, the information we have been given would suggest we definately won't be forced to sell anyone. Without external investment we should have a large Janurary budget upwards of £0.5m (this would be 'self financing'); however with investment the sky's the limit on the potential budget. Either way, 1/2 a million is more than anyone else in this league could hope for. There are still 4 years left of the 5 year plan. It's not over yet. Anyhow, '5 year plan' is just a expression, do you think if we miss out at the end of 5 years that Cortese and the Leibherr's will just up and walk out? No, if we have failed, they will keep trying in the 6th and 7th years...

How many other clubs in our league are debt free? How many others average around 20k fans? If you think about it, our level of 'self-finance' is significantly above anyone else in the divison. ... based on the money we generate ourselves compared to others in the league, I disagree. Possibly. That's certainly their intention in the long run. But I wouldn't rule out futher investment to help get us there. So they took over a sinking ship, plugged the holes, brought onboard the best crew they could find, have plans to provide a new galley with state of the art facilities, have mentioned that they want to invest in other significant upgrades to the size of the ship, and have ambitions to make the ship one of the finest in the country, and you ask me why 'we are so pleased'? Whether through direct investment or not, the Leibherr's are allowing us to outspend everyone else in the division. They want to challenge to the very top. Why the long face?

Didn't Markus say he intended for the club to be self-financing? If so, why does "no sign whatsoever of investment" surprise? Anyhow, did anyone in league one outspend up this summer? (Genuine question) I bet if not top spenders, we were in the top 2 or 3...

May I respond Laconically?

Agree with much of what you say. Generally a good post. Just a couple of points: Who has said this? Are you suggesting that Pardew was 'Premiership' standard? Sure he might have been up to the grade until Gerrard beat his team in Cardiff pretty much single-handedly, but he certainly wasn't up to it after then. IMO his 'honest' media style, and eye for a good player (which might just have been 'buy the best player from each other team in the league' rather than talent), was outweighed by his one dimensional long-ball tactics, and lack of a plan B. Premier League, you're having a...

Or perhaps Pardew decided not to spend the cash Cortese wanted him to. Point is, we don't know the answer, so shouldn't use a lack of evidence to have a go at Cortese.

Fair enough. Still seems rather strange. I mean, the crowds in Birmingham who gathered to greet the Pope were estimated at having between 70-100K people. Using the larger figure (to be conservative), every person in that crowd, man, woman and child, must have spent an average of £120 per head on things they would not otherwise have purchased. If it had been an average of £12 extra per head I'd have understood, but £120 each? What were these people spending that money on? Gold-plated plastic Vatican flags? I find the £12.5 million figure very hard to believe. I wonder if the Guardian put the decimal point in the wrong place, £1.25 million would be a lot more believable. Obviously, I could be wrong on this, but I haven't seen the £12.5 million figure mentioned anywhere else. Of course, almost everyone has an amount of disposable cash. If the Pope has caused some of them to splash out, then all that means is they will spend less than they otherwise would have over the next few weeks. Over the course of a month or two, the total high street spending would have been broadly around the same amount with or without the Vatican visitor. Financially, the public purse takes the hit, the shopkeepers break even, and the Pope gets free media attention. The £80k figure for the city council sounds about right, but lets face it, they don't have much to pay for, most of the money comes straight from central government (police etc). Once all the costs have been factored in the total cost of the Papal visit to Birmingham will be a lot higher. My, simple, estimate is that it has to be around £3 million (I reached this figure by simply taking 1/4 of the total estimated cost of hosting the trip).

Is this online? I can't find the article you are referring to. The figures you quote do sound rather strange though.

Sergei, I haven't had time to respond to this thread since last night either. I'm sure that some bile has indeed been thrown at Catholics in this thread. I do hope you aren't associating my comments with this bile though, as I have tried to be careful not a slander the religion in the way the Pope slandered my beliefs. I would also like to point out that I am engaging in this thread simply because I to want to root out intolerance. I believe strongly that the Pope is intolerant of my views, intolerant of the law of the land, responsible for worsening the spread of AIDS, discrinating on grounds of sexuality, and frankly responsible for far more intolerance than his directed back at him. I hope that one day our religious leaders decide to become part of the solution. Please don't mistake this accurate criticism for intolerance. No other 'spiritual leader' has ever had a state visit funded by the taxpayer. Why should the Pope? Are these billion people all UK taxpayers? Or does the Pope only represent 10% of the UK population? Why is the 'billion' followers even slightly relevent? Why compare this visit to the Notting Hill Carnival? I don't see a connection. Does the Notting Hill carnival offend more people than enjoy it? The crowds are irrelevent. 10% of the UK population is a lot of people lining streets. 15% of the population is even more people angered and offended at home. There was a demonstration against the visit? Damn, wish I'd heard about it. Perhaps the British Humanist Society should spend more on advertising. BTW, your argument seems to be making less and less sense, I'm having to join a lot of dots to string it together. It seems like you have given up on providing reasons and evidence, and have instead resorted to making unevinced statements, scattered with irrelevant comparisions.

Ha, quite right Bexy... cheers for the correction

Come on Special K, you know that's a cheap shot. You are incorrectly associating atheism with totalitatianism, which are two things as related as chalk and cheese. The Pope's slander of atheism (by suggesting it was responsible for 'nazi tyranny') was equally incorrect. I think Dawkin's response sums up my reaction. I suggest you read it to help avoid incorrectly associating the two unrelated concepts in the future: