aintforever

I can't believe there is any way Pearson would turn down £250,000pa to manage a Championship club, especially given that opportunities in high level football management are few and far between. Even if he was on a bit more money thereis no way that cost was the reason he was sacked, the managers salary is not that significant compared to the other costs, especially when the manager is THE most important person at the club.

I really don't know why this has turned into a Lowe slanging match, the fact that the club has tuned down an offer for lallana means naff all - it just means Fulham didn't offfer enough money. It's obviously a good thing that lallana is still here. It's obviously a good thing that we are not so skint that we have to sell. But it's not a good thing that Fulham are sniffing around one of our best players. Wether Lowe should be noshed off or slated over this totally depends on what was offered by Fulham. If Fulham offered 100K then I supose we could congratulate Lowe on not being clinically insane and accepting the offer - hardley cause for noshing him off though. If they offered a few million then we can actually say well done to Lowe. If they offered 10mill then we can slate Lowe for being a fool and depriving us of much needed funds. The facts are none of us know so what is the point in rowing over it?

I didn't say anyone was desperate to stay, or that nasty Rupert forced anyone out. All I said is that we don't know what went on behind the scenes so to say we know as a fact that Lowe won't actively try and sell Lallana in January is rubbish. Lowe wasn't even at the club when we sold Bale anyway so I don't know why you even mentioned him.

Bit of both I expect. I don't know the goings on behind those or any other transfers, and neither do you so stop talking out your ass.

You don't know that.

Are we allowed to debate how long to leave it before we start a debate on how long the manager has left - or would that cause uncertainty too?

I suppose in our case one advantage is that the person buying the players has got a financial brain and knows how to make money in player trading. I don't like it because it's not as simple as a player being good or bad, a good player in one managers mind is a bad one in another. If the DOF and managers way of thinking are not closely aligned then you could have problems. Also if it all goes pear shaped where does the blame lie? When you have amanager he takes the responsiblity.

Whatever the downpayment it is still a financial commitment of up to 1.2m on an untried player - something a club on the verge of admin wouldn't do.

I agree that money is ruining the game but it's a simple case of if you can't beat them join them. I would love to have a dodgy russian billionare plough his cash into the club.

Anything above the bottom 3 would be a very successful season imo. This season is all about balancing the books and building for the future, with all the player/manager/boardroom unrest just staying up would be a great achievement.

Lowe will give him a decent amount of time regardless of what the fans want. If things go really bad I can see him going around Xmas time though.

I think we all agree that we would prefer to watch homegrown kids instead of over paid foreign mercenaries, this year is better so far than last because whilst we are the same position we have an affinity with the players and are watching better football and more effort. BUT, to say you would rather fail with kids than succeed with older/foreign players is complete ******. When two over paid, under performing foreign mercenaries (Rasiak and Viafara) stuffed 3 goals past Derby in the play-off semi it was one of my most enjoyable football moments ever - I thought I was going to Wembley and we were going up. I didn't give a monkeys who the players were, where they were from, how much they cost or who's money bought them. They were just two players in Saints shirts. Same when Pahars nutmeged Stam and stuffed the ball in the net at Old Trafford - (foreign player, bought with Sky's dirty cash). Same when Egil banged in a hatrick against Man U at the Dell (foreign player, bought with Sky's dirty cash). Fans of very team in the land will say they like to watch homegrown talent, but at the expense of success - no bloody way. Ask Bournemouth fans, they were forced to play their kids last year exactly how we are this season.

Lets face facts, if we had a mega rich owner we wouldn't give a toss about where he got the money from. And whilst it's always nice to see home-grown players we would be too concerned with actually tryng to win something or qulify for Europe to really give a monkeys.

I agree in principle but facts are when we see young players fighting for our team the person who runs our club just see's assets increasing in value. Gillet, Surman, White, James, McGoldrick... would all leave if another club show them the money. Most of OUR young players have just been bought or poached from some other club and are just furthering their careers to earn more £££££'s.

Isn't McGoldrick from Nottingham?

I'm clinging to the hope that any potential buyers are waiting for Lowe and Wilde to finish the last throw of their dice before picking the club up for peanuts. I think it's inevitable that we will face a Coventry type situation, we will have to be staring down the barrel of admin before Lowe/Wilde/Crouch sling their hooks for good.

If you sell players people want to pay to watch, you will get less people paying to watch. I think that's his point.

The club can fill a team sheet at the moment, if were that close to admin the bank wouldn't allow us to spend 1.5mill euros on an untried French kid and bring in players like Pulis - if things were that bad we would use the kids already at the club.

It's no different to Man Utd or Liverpool spunking cash all over the place - like what they have been doing for years. Agree football is dead as a competition now, might as well make it a money counting contest - would be just as interesting.

I think the arse will fall out of the Premiership very soon, the competition is getting duller and more predictable each year and people have less and less money. Sky & Setanta increased revenue but by totally saturating coverage, there is a limit to how much football people will fork out for, especially when it's overpaid foreign tossers from rubbish little clubs like Wigan and portsmouth, playing meaningless games in front of half empty stadiums.

If we went into administration could the shareholders be forced to accept a realistic price as some sort of rescue package? Surely the only way the ownership of the club will change is if we either manage to get promoted on a shoestring (very unlikley) or go down and go into admin (way more likley).

The fact that we are signing players would indicate otherwise.

Who are these "expert predictors" ?

I thought our new system would suit Skacel, either on the left or in the hole. I can't believe he couldn't have made a difference Sat, even if it was just coming on as a sub. Or even at left beck, giving us the chance to put Surman in midfield.

I dunno how much they have spent but I know they have bought quite a few in, including Morrison and Eastwood. Plus they could afford a manager with a track record who is not being forced to field their youth team after having an entire first team flogged.