jam

Let me break it down for you: We. Could. Use. Some. Players. With. Premier. League. Experience.

Totally random post with a bit of casual racism. Nice.

Nutshell.

Where did you get this 'most people' idea from? In Norwich?

Nope. I'm sure, however, that if there is a reverse chat then it will be as widely reported as the last one.

We all?

Ew.

McGoldrick and Martin Crainie as well, IIRC.

I must say the linked article was funny. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/s/southampton/8679885.stm What a coincidence that all those clueless muck ringing journos and dark forces with hidden agendas were talking about Pardew getting sacked, then a few months later he did!

That must be why Ferguson is renowned for his softly-softly approach in the dressing room.

You're starting to come across as obsessed...

Shoot me down for this but I think she/he's asking people to say which clubs do the best and worst nosh. I gather, Mr. Turks, that matchday food might not be your area of expertise..?

He's probably talking about a few years back when someone signing themselves off as Mike Osman suggested he had spoken to his lawyer about some post or other. Can't remember who's account he was using, I thought it was yours or Scally's.

Even though the league table and results said otherwise?

If JWP was a being a nob beforehand then you would suggest he had it coming.

Think that must be it. I listened to it and the taters seemed to be calling it that way. I think Guly might have bought himself a yellow by going through Zaha. IIRC I think it happened at a similar time to a West Ham player earning himself a red at Reading. I'm no fan of players being overly physical but do think that if a player wants to take the **** or dish something out then they can't really complain if they succeed in getting a reaction. The Holloway comment is a classic though - makes Zaha sound like he's got a real complex.

Cheers for the reply (and for taking my posts in the spirit they were intended). I'm inclined to agree with most of what you've written. My concern is that there is a lack of clarity over what is what at the club and it feels like Adkins has been positioned to take full responsibility for any club failures without being given the tools he needs to get results. I'm also concerned that Reed doesn't seem to think that the Adkins' job is as challenging or important as his. I'll post the link again, as I think it's pretty clear why I'm coming to these conclusions: http://www.2ndyellow.com/2012/five-minutes-of-your-time-please-les-reed/ Incidently, re. the Buttner* issue: While I'm with Cortese on the dropping that - something smelt dodgy there - he is clearly hypersensitive to anything he might perceive as an attempt to take advantage of the club. But I think this leads to some of the other issues discussed on this thread as he is coming from a different culture, where different things are acceptable (for example no free tickets for ex-players; rather 'matter of fact' customer service). Where I'd criticise him on this is that it's all well and good saying everyone pays for their own tickets including him but it's rather hollow if the decision maker's pay package is generous enough to easily absorb it.

Just to reiterate; I wasn't questioning your source, rather the information given to him or her. Especially as it contradicts what has been widely reported and an interview with Reed himself. Two things re. recruitment stick out for me: Firstly, in the summer Adkins said he wanted to bring in a goalkeeper, one or more defenders and (IIRC) a left back. Secondly, in that article I linked to, Reed says he is responsible for the FDSC, which looks after scouting and recruitment. We've eventually (after the season started) brought in a not match fit Boruc, and a single centre back, to effectively replace Jaidi. So to me the question is: Was Adkins unable to recruit to fill the positions he wanted, or were the club as a whole unable or unwilling to back their manager's judgement?

Cheers for the info Weston. I always appreciate it when you share stuff. I've got to say what you've been told does sound like the situation is being downplayed and doesn't really out the notion going round that Cortese and Adkins agreed to try things Adkins way and review it after a month. In some ways it kinda adds a bit of weight to it. The suggestion that they 'exchanged a few words' is totally vague and could be used to euphemistically describe a a short informal meeting to a bit of an argument. Re. Les Reed confirming that he has 'no input with regard to the first team'; contradicts other articles where he is attributed to claiming that he is responsible for "Coaching, Sports Medicine and Science, scouting and recruitment, kit and equipment and the Academy". Which of these statements is true? As an interested outsider I'd be inclined to take what your contact has been told with a healthy pinch of scepticism. Unfortunately because it's you posting it some posters are already taking it as gospel.

This - for me - sums up why the way the media and the rest of the football world view NC, the board and the club in general is actually rather important.

But that's not all they're saying is it. For someone who preaches about balance, that's a very selective interpretation of what I quoted.

Out of curiosity, how many other instances have people heard of where the electronic cards didn't work at the gate. We could make a list to clear it up: 1. Matt Le Tissier (when the club knew he wouldn't have been using it for that game). Anyone else? This is true, but is the line "Dignitaries from visiting clubs have been shocked to see Cortese demanding that the televisions should be turned off in the directors’ room at St Mary’s when Le Tissier came on." isn't true then they've just libelled Cortese in print, so I'd have thought the Mail would be fairly sure of their sources. So the ex-saints are basically all about the money; that's a balanced viewpoint. Not proven yet. We've regained some equilibrium but appear to be in a falsely high position thank's to Adkins' and the playing staff's outstanding last season. Cortese is talking about being established in the Prem, European competition and the academy providing the backbone of our team. None of that has happened yet.

What a fascinating story. Fact is just because something is okay for you and your 'taff mate', it doesn't actually mean that it's okay for everyone else. Life's a bit more complicated than that.

In theory it is totally sensible - especially for a club with limited finances (as in, they can't go and rebuild their team every few years). Two obvious problems: 1. Accountability: Who is to blame if the club hierarchy want to develop a certain style of play but they don't bring in the players to implement it. What if that style of play is being found out by the opposition? 2. Flexibility: If a formation and style of play are dictated from the top the manager/head coach loses the option to adjust his formation and style for the opposition. Great if you're Barcelona, or an have outstanding coach. Less good otherwise.

Amusingly I have actually read a post by a certain someone that continued an argument with someone who they themselves apparently had on ignore. They mentioned it in the post itself. If that's not the interweb equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting you're wrong, I'm right, I can't hear you then I'd like to see what is.