FloridaMarlin

"...same as the old boss." I'll let everybody else decide if the title of the song is appropriate.

There was no freedom of movement at the end of a contract in those days. A club was able to hold on to a player's registration Clubs like Saints held the whip hand even over the likes of Manchester United and Matt Busby back then if they did not want to sell a player now. It's a different ball game now when you know a player can leave when his contract is up.

The BBC's chief football writer would have got the story from the Liverpool Echo's chief football writer. Phil McNulty used to work there and is long-standing mates with Dave Prentice. It all ratches up the pressure a bit, although at tis stage I would think nothing is confirmed.

That piece would have been written by somebody on the news desk. News editors and people on news desks get overcome by jealousy when sports stories dominate the news agenda, which is often the case on provincial papers. They feel they are missing out and try to have an input in what is the biggest story on their patch. There is nothing more frustrating for sports journos than when the news desk tries to muscle in on the action and gets involved by writing sports stories. Leith is in Scotland, by the way.

Take your pick. Somebody could have taken the contract out to him. They could have scanned it in and emailed to him, he printed it off, signed it and scanned it back in. They could even have used a fax. We're not living in the 16th century.

Serious question. Why are bookies more reliable than media reports? Where do they get their information from? Have they got more reliable sources at clubs than journalists? My understanding - and I could be wrong on this - is that bookies tend to react to the markets and betting patterns. We all know bookies close the book when lots of money is lumped on one person as an indication that he is favourite. That might well be as a result of somebody indulging in a bit of insider trading and looking to make a few bob, and if that counts as reliable information, then fair enough. But I wouldn't think their information at this stage of the game is any more reliable than journalists whose job it is to maintain close contacts with reliable sources inside clubs and the game at large.

Jaap Stam, who was in charge of the Ajax kids, was appointed Reading boss yesterday. Keep a watching brief on him for a couple of years while he learns his trade.

So if Kowman came back and said: "Give us £10m and Pelle and you can have Lukaku" who would you have on tonight's evidence?

Talked to a few people I know and asked a few questions of some journo mates. Bear in mind that nobody - apart from the parties involved - really knows what has happened, but they have leaned on their various sources to glean what info they can. While they would stand by the reliability of their sources, even my mates admit that on this one, the real reasons for Koeman's departure might never really come out, although to all intents and purposes, it is nothing more than the money. Despite all the conspiracy theories, they have no reason to think Koeman's move won't go ahead. Most were agreed that if Koeman still hasn't been unveiled by Tuesday afternoon, they might smell a rat or two, but other than that, most sources at Saints confirm the deal has been done. Saints were caught on the hop by Koeman's change of heart. As of the Thursday, they had no reason to suggest Koeman would not sign the new contract put in front of him. They had largely dismissed the rumours of interest from Everton because there had been no approach from the club, but then approaches from clubs for permission to talk to managers/players is usually just a formality and means the pourparlers have already been completed. Saints began to get concerned when they realised Koeman had changed agent and they could not contact him and his new agent wasn't initially picking up the phone (not until it suited him in any event). The first contact they had with Jansen (Koeman's new agent) was when he told them the size of Everton's offer, and by implication invited Saints to better it. Saints were in no mood to do so, having offered Koeman £4m a year (yes, £4m a year). At that point, Saints realised the game was up, and - rightly in most people's view - decided they were not going to get into a bidding war from which the big winner to emerge would be the agent. As previously said above, all other negotiations on the other issues had gone well and Koeman had given no indication that when he came back from his hols he would not be signing, so it's clear it was the money, and nothing else, that turned his head. Now here's the rub. Koeman's success has made it tricky when it comes to finding a replacement. It's a bit like asking a band to follow Coldplay at Glastonbury. Managers have looked at next season's Premier League, and feel that with Chelsea, Man City, Man United and Liverpool all likely to be stronger they are not likely to improve - or more importantly - maintain Saints position. De Boer's agent has indicated his man does not want it because he doesn't want to follow his fellow Dutchman and risk not being as successful as him and although Howe hasn't been approached, he would turn it down for the same reason - not because he has a special affinity with Bournemouth, but simply that anything other than another sixth-place finish will mark him out as a failure, especially among a section of Saints fans. And this is the dilemma that Saints find themselves in. The sort of managers they would want to recruit are those that have had a measure of success and would use Saints continued success as a springboard to bigger things. But they are reluctant to come for fear that anything less than sixth place will brand them as a failure, if not necessarily in the eyes of Saints realistic fans, then in the eyes of football at large. I asked people about the alternative view that now that Chelsea, United and City have filled their managerial vacancies, Saints is the most attractive PL job, with the carrot of European football, a good squad and a well-run club with a good infrastructure. Apparently that doesn't float the boat of those that Saints might want. The likes of Emery, de Boer and AVB don't need the job, which they view as too risky for their reputation. So it might be that Saints will end up appointing somebody who is out of work and desperately needs the job. That might not be a bad thing as he's likely to be hungry to prove himself, and that's the sort of background from which we found Poch. Saints will cast their net very wide and you can bet it's already travelled along the agents' grapevine that Saints were ready to offer Koeman £4m a year. That means they will be able to recruit a very good candidate, but it might not be at the sort of level Saints fans might want and expect. As was pointed out we are in this situation because we have been successful. Everton didn't chase Mark Hughes, Tony Pulis or Alan Curbishley. I'm not claiming to be ITK in any of this. I get info from journos and other sources I have and i realise the fact that a lot of this does come from journos will make it suspect in some people's eyes. It's wrong to dismiss such info because most journos are very well informed and suffer the frustration of journalism that you invariably know more than you can publish. I've put it up as another viewpoint for discussion and while I trust the people who gave me the info, they themselves admit the nature and convoluted circumstances of this whole byzantine episode mean a lot of it will be clouded in mystery for some time. There is another person I need to speak to who will give me another perspective, but that might not happen for a while. Koeman's legacy to Saints might well be that they are victims of his success.

A manager will usually issue an "I'm not interested" statement as a face-saver when he knows he's going to be considered.

Not that they need the money as the HNWIs are bankrolling them and all that £750,000 will be given to Cook to strengthen the squad and not used to keep the club going. No, not all. No siree!

I think it's more down to the skillful interviewing of the reporter, not that he would put any words into his mouth or anything like that. The interview probably went; NA: "I'm thinking of a word. Technically, it refers to an unrealised ability or having the capacity to develop into something in the future. But it can also mean having a vain unrealistic hope to offer to gullible people. Can you guess what the word is? DR: "Potential" NA: "What was your least favourite subject at school? PE or history? DR: History. NA: "If a city has a population of 190,000 is it more likely to be the size of Cairo, or the size of Portsmouth? DR: "The size of Portsmouth. NA: "If Scarlett Johansen promises to call you offering a blowie, when she does, are you going to refuse to take it or divert it to voicemail?" DR: ‘When that call comes it is not one you can turn down. NA: "While for most of the year, it is cack brown, what colour is the sea around Portsmouth on the couple of days a year the suns shines on it?" DR: "A sea of blue around Portsmouth." NA: "Now this is a tough one. Would you describe the people of Portsmouth as happy at the prospect of their team being confined to another season in football's basement?" DR: "‘The whole community was blue." NA: "How would you describe the feelings on the day Apollo 11 astronauts landed on the airless moon?" DR: "The atmosphere on the day was incredible." NA: "What did your team-mates say when you were taken to Heathrow airport and stood underneath the engine of a Boeing 747 trying to have a conversation?" DR: ‘I couldn’t even hear my team-mates next to me because it was so loud!" NA: "When your team mates played a prank on you by super-glueing your mobile phone to your forehead, how did that feel?" DR: "That was something that stuck with me." NA; "I want you to think hard about this next one, as it requires several answers.What does Rory McIlroy say to his caddy when he tries out his new driver, why do people travel thousands of miles around the world to see Bruce Springsteen, and what can you tell me about Halley's Comet?" DR: "Seeing what this club is like, how passionate the fans are – it doesn’t come around very often." NA: "That should do it, thanks very much."

I'm sure the Blue Noses who have suddenly infiltrated and infested this board will shoot me down in flames, but there's something in all this that doesn't smell completely of roses. For 10 years Everton have been a moribund club, starved of outside investment mainly because nobody fitted the profile Bill Kenwright set out. If we are to believe, numerous people have wanted to be involved at Everton, only for the one-time Corrie actor to turn them away as suspected fly-by-nights. To be fair to the gushing luvvie, he has always tried to do the right thing and run Everton in the same honourable traditions as Sir John Moore and Sir Philip Carter. That was back in the days when Everton won things and long before most of those coming on here and giving it large, were even born. But times and demands change and suddenly, along comes Moshiri, a former accountant with Ernst and Young and Deloitte who became friendly with Alisher Usmanov thanks to their many deals and investments together (you can script your own story about how Russian billionaires make their money out of former state-owned industries). Out of the goodness of his heart, Usmanov gives Moshiri a 5% shareholding of one of his companies. Because Russian billionaires are known for their kind-hearted nature. As good an accountant as Moshiri might have been, not too many employees of E&Y and Deliotte become billionaires, but the 5% Usmanov provides Moshiri with is enough of a grubstake for him to start up an investment portfolio to suddenly become one of the world's great entrepreneurial business brains. I'm sure the luvvie Kenwright did his due diligence on Moshiri and it is not simply a case of a club chairman desperate to drag a rich sugar daddy on board being duped by a smooth talking Middle Eastern businessman, who turns out to be not quite as rich as he claimed and everybody thought he was. There's a club not a million miles away from us who can talk, with experience, about that and looked what happened to them. I know Arsenal's share structure is a strange and wonderful thing, but you have to wonder why they were reluctant to let him increase his shareholding. And if he is a billionaire what is £100m to him? That's almost chump change and if I was an Everton fan I would not be crowing about the size of his investment (which has already had a £10m dent knocked into it thanks to the change of manager) but slightly worried. I've no doubt the blue noses will point to Katharina and crow they have a better owner who is more prepared to pump money in, but she has a business model for the club based on self sufficiency, and she doesn't go around shouting Harry Enfield style about the size of the wad she is going to pump into the club. The best owners do not go around shouting the odds as to how rich they are and how much money they are going to pump in. For starters, they know it's not good business practice because as soon as you start telling people how much you have to spend, the price goes up. And for all his faults, you don't hear Abramovic mouthing off to the world at large about how much money he is going to put into Chelsea. He just does it. Likewise Sheikh Mansour at Manchester City, and the Glasers at United. I've always found it strange that some rich people involved in football clubs feel the need to do this? Why do they do it? Is it an ego thing, or do they make these pronouncements to get dumb football fans on their side? Experience hints that it doesn't end well for those who do give it the big one, from Michael Knighton at Manchester United, to the fly-by-nights who brought p****y to its knees and League Two ignominy. I'm intrigued about this £100m. As several others have pointed out, in the scale of things these days it doesn't buy much and it's already down £90m if you factor in the £10m cost of changing managers, so suddenly it doesn't look so much. I would also be asking why somebody who is ready to pump £100m in is only getting 49% of the shares. OK, he might have an option to buy more, but if he is the club's great saviour, why hasn't he got a controlling interest already? I'm sorry, but it doesn't wash that somebody with a wallet and matching ego of that size is happy to spunk £100m - now £90m, don't forget - for a nice seat in the directors' box. And how much - if any - of the £100-now-£90m - has he stumped up already? All of it? Enough to pay for the change in manager? If he hasn't stumped up all of it yet, when is the rest arriving and how? Cash? Cheque? Money draft? Is it in a building society account gaining a bit of interest? I'm sure the Blue invaders will tell me he has options to increase his shareholding. Fair enough, but the question still remains. Why hasn't he got a controlling interest already? Does he not want to buy a controlling interest yet, but prefers to have a look-see first to see how things shape up, which has scary implications. or does The Luvvie not trust his money, his motives, his commitment and his longevity? Why did he cash in his shareholding at Arsenal? Has he gone to Everton and forsaken the chance to sit next to his big mate Usmanov every Saturday because he couldn't run the train set at Arsenal? They certainly did not want him to increase his shareholding, and again you have to ask why. It's not our business, but when you sit down and analyse this boast of "he's going to invest £100m into the club" it starts to look a bit hollow for so many reasons, not for the least reason that it doesn't seem that huge an amount for somebody supposedly so rich.

I'm always intrigued by the mechanics of these deals. Unfortunately, we will never know the truth. Even if somebody produces an autobiography in the future, the chances are the truth will be embroidered. So who, how and why was the first contact made? Having sacked Martinez, Everton needed a new manager and we are told the owner liked the job Koeman had done with us and identified him. Bear in mind that clubs use agents (sorry, but they do) as well as players and managers, did Everton use an agent to approach Koeman's representative to sound him out? Or did Koeman's agent - knowing that Everton were looking for a manager - approach the club and suggest he might be interested if the circumstances were right? How did Everton know Koeman might be interested in managing them? How did Koeman know they were interested in him? I can't imagine that Koeman's agent stuck his pin in a map and landed on Goodison Park? At some point, somebody somewhere, approached the other party with the suggestion, and it would be interesting to know who. Of course, what this does show is that 'asking for permission to speak to him' is just a formality after all the negotiations between the two parties have been completed. It shows that the protocols around clubs approaching players/managers are a complete and utter sham, But they have been for years. Whenever the phrase; "Seeking permission to talk to...." is uttered, you know the deal has been done. I fully expect that Saints are already doing the same. That they have used their agents to approach the representatives of their target and for the pourparlers to have already taken place. For all the fact that the line fed to the public that this has happened in the space of 48 hours or since Koeman came back form holiday, Saints would have had an idea for some time that he would not be signing and their agent would have started to put feelers out, of the sort; "In the event that Koeman does not sign, would your client be interested in managing Southampton, if so, what would he be looking for?" Despite what the bed-wetters and doom merchants on here might think, Saints search for a manager will not be starting from scratch at the moment Koeman is paraded on the Goodison pitch with a blue-and-white scarf above his head and shaking hands with an emotional, tearful and gushing luvvie Kenwright. I could be wrong, but I would think Saints will move quickly on this and appoint a replacement swiftly.

They need taxpayers money to subsidise their cruise terminal because no self-respecting cruise company would want to sail out of there. They boast about the Cunard Building forming the hub of their new cruise terminal, but Cunard pulled out of the city years ago. A lot of Liverpool's port is moribund whereas Southampton is looking to expand into West Bay. Those plans were thwarted by a Government inquiry but we know that Liverpool moans and bleats that life isn't fair in a similar fashion to a navy port not a million miles away, and ends up getting a healthy suck on the government teat. I agree largely with what Highfield Saints says. I'm not happy with the way successive governments (mainly Conservative, but Labour have played a part) have dismantled our manufacturing industry and devastated large parts of the north. But people shouldn't be fooled into thinking we have it soft in the south and are immune to the loss in manufacturing industries. Look at the jobs lost in Southampton down the years - Harland and Wolff, Vospers, Fords, AC Delco have all closed with the loss of thousands of jobs, but at no time have we revelled in self-pity and bleated for government hand-outs. Anyway, to get back to the thread. Koeman has disappointed a lot of people who thought he was a little different. When push came to shove, he went for the money. Nothing inherently wrong in that and I would defy anybody to say they would remain loyal if somebody offered to double their wages. He proved to be no different to any other professional, although to paraphrase Le Tissier when he was spurning overtures from Chelsea and Spurs, what more can £6m a year buy him that £2.5m a year could? Only time will tell if he has made the right decision. My gut feeling is that he won't be at Everton any longer than he was with us, either by being sacked for not living up to the expectations of a club run by a flaky Iranian and a jobbing Coronation St actor, or because he has done such a bang-up job that Barca come a-calling. I know which one I thin it will be, and could well involve a luvvie sobbing into his hankie.

If they think it's that wonderful why do so many of them want to escape at the first opportunity?

Love the hypocrisy on this board. We moan like f**k at Everton coming in to steal our manager, but it's perfectly acceptable for us to do the same to Bournemouth.

Our manager is one of the best defenders to have played the game. If Chambers could not learn under him, he won't learn under anybody. At Arsenal, he is learning under the tutelage of Steve Bould.

I would think that will largely depend on whether he can cope with John Terry. If not, that's the dressing room gone right away.

We're allowed to recruit further north than beyond what would be the usual radius as there are not too many promising young players in the middle of the English Channel.

Greg Stobart. Enough said.

So while Liverpool won't be needing their passports next season, Brenda is back in the Champions League. Oh, the irony.

Why would they need to sell their best player? Lord knows we know how difficult it is to keep players if their heads wander off to another club, and we may yet find it difficult to hold on to Wanyama and Mane. But we don't need to sell, to either fund team building or - perhaps - to keep the wolf from the door. The fact that Webster is being flogged for either of the above reasons hints the HNWIs are not prepared to dip their hands in their pockets. The really funny thing is they think Jack Whatmough is the answer. Yes, the same Whatmough who was the pivot of the p****y defence in this. The same Whatmough who spent a spell on loan at Havant this season, and did so well they were relegated.

Please don't discount that scenario entirely. It only needs one disgruntled company or individual whose invoice has not been paid to serve notice on them. Or a government department whose role it is to collect tax.

I can't wait for Champers Iain to chow down on the hat he said he was going to eat if Cooke didn't lead them to the Promised Land of League One. We've got some great things to look forward to this summer - Gary Lineker presenting MOTD in his keks, Kate Hopkins running down Oxford St with a Wall's banger up her bumhole, and Champagne Iain tucking into Blanquette de Chapeau avec herbes fines.