RobM

Why bother. Lots of words, yet totally content free.

One good game doesn't turn a player we all judged fairly and accurately, into a world-beater. If he stakes his claim as No.1 at Spurs and plays like this regularly, we can then get upset about letting him go. He had the odd really good game for us too, remember.

My first thought was this. I quite like all this marketing / PR / media nonsense, it's all harmless fun and worth a few minutes to watch. But surely we could have picked a better topic than celebrating the success of an academy that has zero players in regular first team action?

When was the last time Redmond and Tadic both had exceptional games, or halves, at the same time? Maybe I'm inventing a story that doesn't exist, but it seems that one plays well when the other doesn't. They each had a good half against Utd.

He is one of our few players who is willing to get the ball and run with it. He wants to try and get forward, to be positive and to create something. Sadly, his decision making (e.g. when and where to release the ball, rather than try to do too much alone) lets him down and his first touch can be heavy at times. Both of those problems can be fixed with coaching and guidance... do we have a good attacking coach, though? Far too few players want to get the ball and get forward quickly. It doesn't always come off with Redmond and he does it often, so stands out, but to criticise him for it is short-sighted as the rest of the team are too comfortable going sideways and keeping the ball.

I bet you're right. For every fan who wants to boo, there will be 100 who still love VVD and are delighted that a player of his quality is still with us. I think he's a cockwomble who needs to apologise just as publicly as he cried about being hard done by, but like with any player, they get my full support on the pitch and I won't ever boo. Off the pitch, go **** yourself, VVD.

Clasie is a constant 6/10, who occasionally has flashes of something better. He rarely does anything badly wrong, he's consistent, but rarely looks superb. Hojbjerg is a 4/10 one game and an 8/10 in the next. He's shown how good and how talented he is in flashes, he now needs to find consistency. Given we're not short of central midfielders, I'd let Clasie go and hope Hojbjerg achieves what he is capable of.

IMO, a captain has to be: Professional A regular starter, every week ideally A leader on and off of the pitch A role model to other players and to fans Able to represent the brand commercially (e.g. marketing and promo work) In a position on the field where they can influence things (why I rarely like GK's as captains) Therefore, only Romeu and Bertrand fit the bill for me. If I had to pick, I'd pick Romeu.

Above all else, this is the bit that annoys me most. The timeline of reported events would suggest this is exactly what happened. It's not something you expect from your captain and is disrespectful to everyone who was helping him at the time. My initial emotional reaction is to agree... but there are two flaws in this plan. First, the general consensus is every club does it. We (managers, mainly) have spoken about players publicly before deals have been agreed and we also know that players have signed for us and commented about another existing player they spoke to about signing for us. It seems clear that not only do we do it to some degree, but we'd have any formal complaint turned straight back on us at some stage. Secondly, our business model is to give players a platform to grow, develop and showcase their abilities, before selling them on... so making it too formal would upset our customers, the companies we do the most profitable business with. That's unwise in any industry.

He should have gone out on loan a couple of seasons ago.

'Success' is massively contextual. What we consider success is very different to what Chelsea or City consider success and also different to what a newly promoted or bottom-5 team would consider success. IMO, success for Saints is Europa League qualification. That would be a big positive and we'd all celebrate... but if Chelsea did the same, it would be failure. Samuels seems to think if you're in the Premier League, you have to win something. Therefore, it'll be interesting to see if he posts a similar article about Crystal Palace, who have been far less successful in recent years than us and also have a new manager (I admit, he may well have already done so, I don't tend to hunt out his articles).

Agreed, with the slight exception that I'd afford Boufal some time to adjust, as we did Mane. Mane was far better in his second season; Boufal needs to be the same.

I agree entirely, which is why I don't think you can judge a potential manager on record alone. Puel's achievements in the French league were very good given his resources and getting to the ECL, he had a track record of working with youth and was happy to work on limited budgets... all sounds perfect, no? My (badly made) point was historic records alone can't determine how successful a manager will be.

There's nothing to say those two aren't young hungry managers. I think your logic applies more to the likes of Tony Adams and Sol Campbell, who seem to have a chip on their shoulder about the lack of opportunities they have been gifted (despite being utterly dreadful, in Adam's case). Our problem is we have absolutely no way of knowing whether an appointment will be a success or not, regardless of the managers history or 'record'. MoPo was OK with Espanyol, but then had a poor season and got sacked and he worked out well for us. Puel did very well in the French leagues and didn't work out so well. Equally, at other clubs, Howe had no 'record' before getting his opportunity and that's turned out OK. We just have to have faith in the people making the decision, as they've been right more than wrong in the past.

Let's pretend this Reed conspiracy is right - does it matter and what difference does it make to our choice of manager? Who would we expect to get if we were not looking for a Les Reed Yes-Man, who is currently not an option for that reason alone? Who has been ruled out for not being a yes-man?

Isn't this the exact same question the press and football pundit experts ask every single year, about managers and players? We've done OK so far. We brought in a new manager last year, who many people didn't want in the first place, who took us to Wembley and 8th place. There's nothing to say we will be better or worse if we do it all again with a new manager.

FDB is the manager you turn to when you've run out of good options, but still want a 'name' to look like you've achieved something with your appointment.

Anybody, in any job, working for a company who are about to be taken over will have concerns about what the future holds. This is normal in any walk of life. On the playing side, if there are players who want out and an unhealthy atmosphere in the dressing room, I'd find it hard to believe one of these isn't causing the other. Let those players go if it's that big a deal; we've done it before, we're still doing well.

I hope they don't make a statement to appease impatient, spoilt brats who think they deserve everything the moment they want it. I hope they take as long as they need to make the right decision, whatever that may be.

That's not always the case. We've seen examples before of people being fed a story from an inside source, as it suited that sources motivation at the time. Sometimes people leak information (real or false, likely or not) deliberately, because it suits their agenda. It doesn't make the person who claims to be ITK a liar, but it does mean you can't treat any "ITK" comments as fact or likely to happen.

Only if you believe everything you read in the Red Tops or Twitter. If you do, life is going to be one big disappointment.

I've highlighted the important bits... The first two names you mention, yes... I think it's reasonable to say that in at least 5 games, our problem was nothing more than not being able to score. We frequently created chances but just couldn't do anything with them, so if we had two more goal scorers in the team, we might have won those games. Fonte and Wanyama wouldn't have earned us an additional 15, IMO. Fonte especially just wasn't the Fonte of old this season. We didn't buy a quality goal scorer when we needed it, nor give them enough time to get prepared and settle. That's our biggest failing this season.

If we were in exactly the same position, with exactly the same points, with exactly the same Europa League and Cup run, but played more beautiful, attacking football, nobody would be calling for Puel to go. This level of top-flight consistency IS a big deal for a club of our size, who not so long ago were fearful of going out of business. When we were promoted the one thing we all called for was establishing ourselves in the top flight, which we've done. No sane person really expected us to continue to improve our league position every single year without fail, as there are constraints that we and most other clubs cannot overcome, even with unlimited funds, due to the rules of the league. But... this is Saints, our fanbase have been brought up on drama and need something to get worked up about, so if there isn't anything, we'll go and find it. We're upset about a top-10 finish in the Premier League.

Pushing for more is one thing... but simply standing still requires increased year-on-year investment, so if KL has reached her limit and simply doesn't have the funds to invest more and more, the time to change is now. That may have nothing to do with her desire for growth and success, but an honest reflection of her wealth and the earning potential of the club.

It's not a game for billionaire individuals though. FFP means an owner can't simply pump cash into a club, they have to structure it through sponsorship and other commercial deals. You therefore need a billionaire owner who also owns one or more billionaire-value companies, who can justify crazy sums of money in OTT sponsorship deals through that company.