CB Fry

Although I generally get what you're saying I think it worth mentioning that Jan's resignation was announced at 8:30ish on Friday night which is pretty close on the deadline for lots of Saturday papers which go to print earlier than the weekday editions. And it was FA Cup weekend so plenty of preview filler everywhere, and if they had space for late news, they had the Forest game to cover. It was, if you wanted to keep Saints out of the papers, an excellently timed release of information. A great way to "bury bad news". Almost like they planned it.... It would have got more coverage had it been announced 11am on Wednesday, say. But, in line with your general point, not much more.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=esyACShW2fI&feature=related

What? Pheonix is saying Crouch would not have sanctioned the appointment of another Dutch dunce and probably have appointed an English manager with more than absolutely zero experience of English professional league football. And he's right. Any other football chief exec would do the same in our predicament. What does the fact that Lowe appointed some English managers historically (well done him) have to do with anything?

He was for that game. The only problem with this story is it could be an agent planted story to get the wheels moving on the clubs that might bid for Kelvin. A lot of the utter rubbish in the papers is not stuff "made up by lazy journalists" its stuff fed to them by agents on behalf of players, or agents on behalf of clubs or agents on behalf of agents to drive prices up/down, stimulate interest, force the hands of buying/selling clubs etc. ....which is then parroted out by lazy journalists. For all we know this could be a story fed by an agent connected to SFC to force the price up of Kelvin to the clubs that are considering a bid - ie QPR or whoever. I'm worried whatever happens our standout player of the season by a mile is going to be sold. Skint clubs can't shift the players they want to shift, so they have to sell the ones the other clubs want. If Kelvin goes, there will be blood.....

Does he, though? The entire time he could have been a valuable and sellable asset for us, and the entire time he could have walked into any mid ranked Prem team (or, say, Celtic), he was seriously injured. I don't really see this idea of Svennson being super loyal. He didn't have much choice in the matter. If Peter Crouch had the same career ending injuries in, say, the last weeks of our relegation season that Killer had the chances are he might have been "super loyal" too. Anyway, this appointment is ridiculous and Killer is being used as a "human shield" for this retarded administration.

How long will it be before someone invokes the old Alex Ferguson chestnut and says we need to give Wotte three full seasons before anyone is allowed to make any judgement whatsoever:rolleyes: Wotte a load ********. Wotte out, today.

FC Utrecht are not a tiny club, it's CCC level certainly, does anyone know how he did there?

We haven't got a new manager, we've got the same old shi te.

Sorry, I don't think this is true. Dyer got his new four year deal well into the Dutch revolution and it's highly unlikely that we would have offered a new contract we couldn't afford to a player who we could have let go for nothing in the summer anyway. Our financial situation is poor but it has not got significantly worse that we can't afford to pay a contract signed only six months ago. We must have signed at least six players since then anyway, and a couple this window. Although finances are dictating the vast majority of the decisions, I think the fact that Dyer isn't at the club at present is not one of those decisions.

Jesus. So what? You pay a manager to make decisions, and the one we were paying at that point was the most successful manager for us in a generation. If you can name a manager with a completely unblemished ins/outs record then fire away, but I know Ferguson, Wenger and the rest have made plenty of howlers in their time too. When Brian Howard is playing for England you can start moaning about him being let go. Even Prutton turned out for the U21s.

But this is just laughable. People moan about Lowe's "strategy after the cup final" being to pack the squad full of average journeymen instead of superstars but at the same time people moan about the likes of Scott McDonald and (wait for it) Gary Monk being let go. Christ. And for all you know it was the very act of being released that have made these players into the world beaters you seem to think they are today. McDonald as any number of sources will say had an attitude problem at Saints and probably needed to be booted down a couple of levels to wake him up. If you seriously think Gary Monk, Scott McDonald and Brian Howard would have added significantly to our mid table team post cup final, and been the difference between going down and staying up the following season, then fine. Moan away. But the fact that none of those players ever have or ever will play in the top division tells me all I need to know. Not. ever. good. enough. Whether they'd be good enough now is utterly irrelevent. That's like telling the academy director or Jan now to not release any players of conference standard or better just in case we go down there in three years time.

I've seen some pathetic drama queen over-reactions on Saints forums over the years (some of them eminating from me) but this is utterly ludicrous. Newspaper columnist points out that club at the bottom of the second tier aren't packing em in like they did when they were top half of the Premier league. And the pope sh i ts in the woods. It's a cheap line, rattled off at a moments thought by a filler columnist. It has a grain of truth about the transient nature of football fandom and "loyalty". Mick Dennis will have forgotten he wrote it by now. 1965onwards, get over it, you dopey twonk.

Well maybe if you looked at the points per game ratio for his first full season and notice it is actually one of our best seasons in the Premier League you'll see why he is viewed pretty even handedly by our fans. Never going to be loved, but he delivered one cracking season, one great escape and signed and or developed many of the players that would play such an important role in our subsequent success. Hello Marian Pahars, Hello Wayne Bridge, Hello James Beattie, Hello Dean Richards, Hello Chris Marsden, Hello Paul Jones. To compare Jones to Branfoot is disgraceful. Your beloved Burley was closed to Branfoot than Jones ever was as Jones didn't get the bottom less pit of money that your drunk chum got to p i ss away for nothing. And who from Burley's signings has made a lasting contribution anything like the legacy that Jones left?

Yes, I accept that, "a big name for the sake of a big name" is not neccessarily the best for the club, as the experience with Burley, the biggest available name at the time, has shown. But the suggestion of Tisdale seemed to come from the angle that "we couldn't possibly afford anyone else" which is nonsense. We can afford any manager you care to name. Boothroyd, Cotterill, anyone. We could have afforded Billy Davies, we could have afforded any of them. We've pi s sed enough money up the wall on the fourteen new signings, plus three new coaches this season to prove that we have money to spend. So yep, Tisdale is worth consideration as "the best candidate" if that is what people think, but I am sick of this misconception that we are so awfully poor we can't afford to pay such managerial giants as Adrian Boothroyd and Steve Cotterill. Of course we bloody can.

Errr - TDD has been vehemently anti-Sturrock from day one. It's one of the few things I disagree with him about. I liked Luggy a lot, and have followed his (pretty successful) career since he left us. Not sure where you're going with this TDD baiting, Stanley. TDD doesn't change horses like you do on a daily basis - you'll praise the Echo to the skies if it prints something you like and then call it Rupert's propaganda machine the very next day if it prints something you don't. You change your opinions like you change your pants. And they both stink.

Like who? We could afford Boothroyd, Dowie, Cotterill and pretty much anyone else on this list. Please, stop swallowing this lie that all we could afford was some second rate no mark from the Dutch leagues. It's simply not true and the fact that we've signed about twelve to fourteen players this season proves it. We can afford a bigger name than Tisdale, although it is right we keep an eye on his progress. And those suggesting Chris Marsden - that is just retarded. How about Chris Marsden goes out and makes some attempt to carve out a managerial or coaching career for himself before he gets parachuted in to the Saints managers job? Why not get some qualifications and some experience before he starts leeching off Saints and the fact he was a good player for a couple of seasons.

We can afford every single manager mentioned here. All of them would work under Lowe - Dowie would, Boothroyd would, Holloway would, Cotteril would, they all would. The exceptions are Keane and Shearer because I doubt either want to be managers that badly to risk losing face with us. All the rest would rip your arm off if offered the Saints job. There's plenty of other tw a t chairmen around, and beggar managers who want to manage a proper club with great facilities and real kudos (which is what we are) can't be choosers. Or do you really think Steve Cotterill, Ian Holloway, Alan Pardew and Adrian Boothroyd are waiting for "something better" to come along...like what exactly? Chelsea? Stop doing our club down please.

Nonsense. We could afford Adrian Boothroyd and he'd take the job in the blink of an eye no problem. We'd be the biggest club he's ever managed for a start. For one, he's chums with Woodward who Lowe I have no doubt would get Sir Clove on the blower to Aidy to big up the club. The "unrealistic" thing is people that seem to think we're some washed up nowhere club that no-one wants to manage. It's rubbish. We've got the stadium, the heritage and the "premier league set up". For a manager like Boothroyd we represent a genuine chance of managing in the Premier League. Who do you think Adrian Boothroyd is going to get offers from? And who is he going to turn down over us? Blackpool?

I have absolutely no doubt that Boothroyd and Dowie (and for that matter Steve Cotterill and Ian Holloway) would, if it were offered tomorrow morning, accept the Saints job without question. None of you please give me any old fanny about "they wouldn't work with Lowe" (they would, they a want a job in football) and "we can't afford them" (of course we can bloody afford them we signed a £1m player this season). None of them I would describe as my dream appointment but all of them would give us a glimmer of a slim chance of staying up. This wally gives us guaranteed, guaranteed relegation. We've got ten days before our next game - Portalowe out now and a new man in with as much time as possible to get this team organised. Of course, it won't happen.....

I think this is the problem. No-one cares about a bloody B team of the greatest players of all time. Asking people to decide who they think is not quite the greatest player of all time is ridiculous. An A-Team vote-off featuring Moran and Pahars but not Keegan and/or Davies will look very silly indeed. Coming soon on Channel 4 - Join Jimmy Carr for the run down of The Nation's Top 100 Second-Favourite Films. Can't quite see it myself....

This is all a bit odd. Why on earth are you running a vote for the B team first, including all the best players we've had who, should they win, then have the indignity of being lumped in the B team? Either do A team first, and sort out the best players, or as someone else suggested, do one poll, with the winner into the A team and the loser into the B team? St Landrew can protest as much as he likes about how simple it is to understand, but this is just bonkers. Running a poll on "who in your opinion is the second best right sided striker" is bizarre and it's no surprise you've confused everyone. Whoever wins/loses is going to cause debate because when you run the A team poll you'll be deluged with requests saying "why on earth can't I vote for Keegan/Davies" The excluded Keegan/Davies would deserve to be on the A list more than, say, Marian Pahars who then qualifies for the A vote by coming last in the B vote. Brilliant. Vote for your number one, and then give the number two the B slot or re run the poll on a "best of the rest" basis. I know it's only a bit of fun but it's gone a bit weird for me.

This is clearly the situation - we want to shift off the high earners and keep the kids. That is the core of the plan. Of course it won't stop people whining on that selling Lallana at the first opportunity is what Lowe "really wants to do" because he's evil and everything and "obsessed about money" even though selling Lallana won't actually make Lowe any money whatsoever. All in all, though, this is a bit of a silly thread to start on the 14th January. There's no point being smug that the kids are still here with two weeks of the window to go. Surman and Lallana could both be sold tomorrow. I think it's touch and go, and the longer noone comes in to take Skacel and Euell off our hands the dicier its going to be. We clearly need to sell someone and if Surman is our only sellable asset he's going to have to go. It's the old "Michael Duberry rule". When Leeds were skint and had to sell some players everyone thought they would just sell Duberry and Seth Johnson to balance the books. Easy. But no-one wanted to buy them, especially on the silly money they were on. Which is why Ferdinand and Woodgate were sold. My advise for the "I told you so's" on both sides - keep your powder dry until Feb 2nd. There's a long way to go.....

Nice attempt at taking the moral high ground, but it doesn't wash. Two days ago you started a pointless thread (that was rightly ripped to shreds) bleating about how we have never again matched the highs of beating Man Utd 6-3. An assertion that was not only total rubbish (we've had plenty of highs since then) but was started by you purely to wind people up - I think you just "wanted an argument" myself. And then you followed it on with this lot of nonsense dredging up Stoneham a project missed by absolutely no-one except for a few desperados who just seem addicted to having a go at Lowe for absolutely anything even if it involves them lamenting the fact we didn't get a 25,000 stadium in the middle of nowhere surrounded by branches of Subway and Frankie and Benny's. And linked it to a posting on 606 which any fule kno is full of utter rubbish, all the time. So two threads in two days serving no purpose except to wind people up and start arguments. Every Saints fan breathing air (except about two wind up merchants on here) wants Lowe gone, and Lowe gone tomorrow. There are plenty of sticks to beat him with - if you want I'll give you twenty of the top of my head to you get started. Just let me know and i'll reel them off. But whinging about an isolated result in a **** poor season in 1997 and grizzling about not getting a stadium noone really wanted anyway, again more than ten years ago really is pointless. You know you started both threads as a wind up, not least because you said the other day that Lowe support in the fanbase was 50:50 so you think you need to convince people Lowe needs to go by going on about stuff that happen a decade ago. 50:50! Good luck finding that 50% pro Lowe fanbase.:smt044 We're united. We want Lowe out. Stop flogging dead horses.

Absolutely no doubt you're right about that. I just had a quick look on the web to see the kind of potential earnings a cinema would make. Even if the rent worked out as double Saints wouldn't ever have bought all the land and then rented it back to retail outlets anyway. We would have been saddled with even more debt. The point is I can't see a business model where the playing side of the club could be financed by adjacent businesses. Last time I looked, Lowe was getting slated for trying to fund the club off the back of other interests (finance, catering, radio) and now he gets slated (not by you) for not doing more additional business activity. My problem with threads like this is the mindset is "whatever Lowe is for I'm against, whatever he's against I'm for" with utterly no thought beyond that. I doubt very much if we had a stadium in the middle of nowhere surrounded by souless Toys R Us and Odeons the likes of Channon's Sideburns would be thanking Lowe. They'd be slating him for concentrating too much on evil business.

Actually, I think it is pretty unthinkable. How much profit does one cinema make? If its half a million quid I'd be surprised. And that would be the profit your Odeon PLC would make, not our cut. I can't imagine any retail development that would be able to bankroll the wage bill of a football club. Actually, I've just had a quick look. Cineworld group made a profit of £52m in 2007. Fag packet maths across an estate of 75 cinemas gives you £700,000 profit per cinema. So Saints cut of that would be what - 5%? So it might get Woggy Taylor back on that. Funny how the stuff that was good post 97 is brushed aside as "all history" (you remind me we lost your despised 2003 FA cup final) , but stuff that was good pre 97 is sacrosanct (your fantastic ZDS cup final...which we, errr...lost.). I notice it was you getting all upset with lines like "when did we ever beat big clubs after Lowe turned up?". When sensible people like Steve Grant answers with facts that amount to "actually, loads of times" but you're complaining about the thought police. It's pant wettingly hilarious, it really is. Why on earth do you care about Stoneham? It's over. We have a brilliant stadium in the heart of the city and a stones throw away from where the bloody club was formed in the first place. Bleating on and on about how fantastic it would have been to have an out of town stadium surrounded by branches of Pets at Home, Homebase, Pizza Huts and Halfords really is utterly ridiculous, and about as far from the true meaning of football as you can possibly get. Here's your factual answer - Stoneham was sh ite, and we're well out of it.