jam

Cheers for the reply, Um. The impression that I got, mainly from the Crouch "interview" on Radio Hampshire a couple of weeks back was that there finances were no way as tight as was being made out by the incumbent board, which led me to wonder as to what the facts really are. I hear what you say about Pearson and the mix of youth and experience and I think we'd agree that the biggest weakness with the team is that lack of balance. I saw the signings of Perry and Wotton as attempts to address this. Which is why I wonder about finances as I want to know how much that lack of balance (sorry, focus on youth), comes from simple lack of resources and how much comes from a dogmatic belief that we don't need to make signings.

In fairness A_S, Lowe wasn't sanctioning a campaign of violence against anyone who was threatening to vote against him, which was why Tsvangirai (along with the fac the Mugabe can easily ride roughshot over domestic and international law) rightly pulled out. Crouch and co should have stayed to vote against Lowe. It would have made a statement to those who don't see another way.

The poster said Lowe is TRYING to sort the mess, not that Lowe IS sorting it. You clearly rate Pearson (I'm thinking of your reply to me on that other thread that I couldn't reply to as I'm to lazy to sign up properly) but do you really think that Crouch staying (and as a result NP too) would have led to us keeping some of the so called high earners that left or were shipped out in the summer? To me it seems to be boiling down to Crouch's view that we could have kept NP and sustained paying "high" wages to some of our players from last season, or Lowe's view that we had to cut the outgoing as much as possible and work within that. From the little I know, I lean towards the latter. Do you have any evidence / knowledge to back up what Crouch seems to be suggesting - that we have more financial leeway than Lowe says, or is it just a feeling? Genuine question and interested in your answer, Um P.

That's how I read it. Long Shot, I personally didn't dislike Pearson and would been happy for him to stay here but I think that his run here gets over hyped on this board. I could go into why but that would really take this thread off topic!

So what do you think he mains by 'make a goal'. Personally I think he's talking about putting the ball in the back of the net. Is there another interpretation that I don't know about that is causing confusion?

The fact that we secured survival on the last day of the season, after going a goal down and all the time relying on other teams to lose is the very definition of JUST surviving. When Burley left we were mid table - hardly on the rocky road to ruin. The abysmal period of Dodd and Gorman in charge saw the real decline - how many points did we get under them? Yet you ignore their disastrous tenure completely. Now that is bizarre.

There's always the hope that with a few games and goals, the pressure will be less and the composure will come. I seem to remember the beginning of the play-off season BWP was scoring fairly regualrly alongside Rasiak...

Are you thinkning of 'new Michael Owen' Mark Paul, that we signed from King's Lynn?

I wasn't making a point I was asking a question, dont be so defensive. When you said you wouldn't rest you implied that you were actively doing something. So are you actually doing something or not? Becuase if what you originally meant that the crap that he has inflicted on SFC was still upsetting you then you could have simply said that the first time (which 'some of us wont rest' does not mean, not even remotely).

What are you actively doing to get rid of him?

Thanks, exit2. Proper "I saw X at the club with X" gossip. Much more of this needed I reckon. so much better than the"I know something you don't" coded messages between posters favoured by others on here...

Dare I say.. "whooosh"?

Not fact. Opinion. Or spin.

Nice bit of selective quoting. If you look at the full sentances he's clearly speculating what the Southampton fans will THINK.

Good work, Trousers; You've just saved our club!!

I'd like to see what JP could do with the mandate to go out into the transfer market and strengthen our team rather than relying too heavily on youth players coming through.

I've just posted on the All Saints' Day thread but it's on the OS now: http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/news/?page_id=10855

http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/news/?page_id=10855 On OS.

Needs a space after the comma rather in front of the full point as well.

I really don't want to seem rude (and I have had a couple of drinks, so my eyesight might be decieving me) but do these figures add up? And I really don't understand why you are comparing a run of games that includes the total disaster that was Dodd and Gorman's tenure in charge of a team that should have been challenging for the play offs (that's the criteria that mad Burley ****, remember?) with Jan's results with what is for the most part our youth team.

You wont find many takers on here.

When we're playing well we can beat anyone but when we don't play well we lose. Hopefully in the future we will start winning games even when we are playing badly. But first we have to [always?] win when we're playing well (rather than play well and lose). Any help?

The post was neither pathetic nor abusive. John's lost interest in Saints and has found other things to fill his life, which he prefers now. Fair play to him and to be honest I can sympathise (although my reasoning is more to do with the disappointment of last season). However he says he will NEVER come back, which is obviously his call to make but it kinda makes his post totally irrelevant to this thread, which is supposed to be discussing and article in the Rag where in which someone is trying to call back wavering stay away fans. John also goes on to imply that all the comments about fans who are staying away 'because they don't want to line Lowes pockets' are somehow directed at him personally, and therefore invalid. Which is somewhat egotistical, no?

I doubt we'd benefit that much (are we really hoping other clubs go into admin?) as far as I can see only three teams go down each season... We'd still have to get promoted on off our own back.

Leicester are not a league one team. They should never have been relegated and the fact that they were should be a sign for some of our fans about what inept management really is. Pearson is in no way a boot boy (are you really letting a certain wind up poster pull your chain like that?), he may turn out to be a very good manager and good for him if he does, but he didn't show anything amazing here. He didn't turn our season around - if he did we would have ended the season in a hgher position than when he took over. At best he put the brakes on. Slowly.