Willo

I still can't believe we are not aiming for the best keeper we can get. It is a massive risk to take on a "promising" keeper, or even an experienced but past-it keeper for half a season. It's bad luck for Fraser, but if he is good enough and motivated enough, he will win his place back when he is fit.

I will support him because this season (at least), he's a Saint. When i have watched him live, i have usually found him to be quite "safe", but almost to the point when he is a hindrance. Full backs need to be able to hurt the opposition, and despite early promise in his career, i don't think he hurts teams going forward. One game comes to mind when i was with a mate watching Chelsea v Man City in the FA Cup semi a couple of years ago. Whenever he got the ball he would go sideways or backwards to CB/keeper. I'm sure his stats will say he had a solid game. But my mate and I commented on just how comfortable Man City were when he had they ball. They had time to gently ease across the pitch and get position, and he never once looked like using the ball quickly to take advantage of a gap. It meant that Man City could actually encourage the CBs to always go to their left, rather than to the RB. I know it is only one game, and also against the best team in the league, but for some reason (probably because i didn't care who won the match), i focused on him throughout. He was very easy to play against. He played with fear. I've always remembered when Gordon Strachan talked about players needing to brave on the ball. I don't (yet) see that with Bertrand. I hope he can see this move as a chance to play without fear. Good luck with Saints, Ryan

Posted the following on another thread...there are so many, i don't know where to post it! Valuations are usually a combination of asset values and the future earnings of a company, not just the value of the assets/cash. So i do agree that the (downward) momentum of the club could more than offset the nicely inflated player sales. I think of it like this: If i were buying Man Utd i would have 99.9% certainty that the Premier League TV money will be received for the next 3 years or more. Nobody expects them to be relegated in the next 3 years because of their squad (and the presumed positive gradual evolution of it). Even a disastrous season by their standards never even closely thretened relegation last year. Therefore, it follows, that i will factor in the 3 years of PL TV money into my valuation for Man Utd. Now think of Saints. Maybe we got £30-£40m more of cash than the players were worth as assets. BUT, i would argue that under the previous squad (and the presumed positive gradual evolution of it) we would have very likely been a premier league club for the next three years - not as guaranteed as the Man Utd example, but certainly much, much more guaranteed than now. So it follows, that as a (rational) buyer, I no longer factor in 3 years of PL TV money into my valuation of Saints. I think the risk of relegation from a weaker squad, and the loss of years of PL TV money, more than offfsets the "added value" of getting good cash for our players. It's for this reason that i don't quite see what KL's strategy is with regards to selling. Maybe she hopes that she can find a buyer who doesn't know that relegation exists in the premier league...

Valuations are usually a combination of asset values and the future earnings of a company, not just the value of the assets/cash. So i do agree that the (downward) momentum of the club could more than offset the nicely inflated player sales. I think of it like this: If i were buying Man Utd i would have 99.9% certainty that the Premier League TV money will be received for the next 3 years or more. Nobody expects them to be relegated in the next 3 years because of their squad (and the presumed positive gradual evolution of it). Even a disastrous season by their standards never even closely thretened relegation last year. Therefore, it follows, that i will factor in the 3 years of PL TV money into my valuation for Man Utd. Now think of Saints. Maybe we got £30-£40m more of cash than the players were worth as assets. BUT, i would argue that under the previous squad (and the presumed positive gradual evolution of it) we would have very likely been a premier league club for the next three years - not as guaranteed as the Man Utd example, but certainly much, much more guaranteed than now. So it follows, that as a (rational) buyer, I no longer factor in 3 years of PL TV money into my valuation of Saints. I think the risk of relegation from a weaker squad, and the loss of years of PL TV money, more than offfsets the "added value" of getting good cash for our players. It's for this reason that i don't quite see what KL's strategy is with regards to selling. Maybe she hopes that she can find a buyer who doesn't know that relegation exists in the premier league...

It's true that my comment was about the "pulling power", and i think it could be alot harder to attract overseas players if we finish 17th versus a.n.other club who finishes mid-table. This, of course, assumes we are targetting players that other EPL teams are targetting... Actually, on reflection, the differences are probably marginal enough for them to be covered by adding a few extra grand a week onto the package...

At the start of the season i discussed with my Reading supporting mate where we'd each want to finish. His view at the time was "i'd take 17th if offered now". This is probably true of quite a few Saints fans, too. My own view at the time was that if we finished 17th, we would then struggle to attract the kind of player we needed to kick-on and make real progress. I felt that we had a one-off opportunity to get away from being a club always destined for a relegation scrap. But to do this, I felt we'd need to finish anywhere from 12th/13th upwards...anything less than this, and we would only attract players good enough for a team in the lower-half of the table. It could then become a circular, self-fulfilling prophecy until one year (much like Wigan this year) we finished in the bottom 3... Well, we now come down to the final game, and curiously, it seems we can finish anywhere from 10th down to 17th on Sunday (i haven't checked in detail). Obviosuly we'd all like to finish as high as possible, but i'm interested if anyone else shares my view that our final position would alter the appeal of Southampton to prospective players. If so, this final game could actually have quite a lot riding on it for our future progression (or lack thereof) Or perhaps i'm doing a disservice to the modern professional player, who would recognise that the difference between 10th and 17th is paper-thin this year, and therefore they should ignore the final league position...

yep, it really is a shame. The open top bus (assuming they have one) will feel a bit flat. This, along with many other reasons, is why the FA Cup should still be the final domestic game of the season...

This would be my take on it, too

would agree with every single comment and score...

would agree with every single comment and score...

One thing i find odd is that most fans/pundits don't have an issue with players being replaced with better players. e.g. Hammond and Sharp - decent players who always showed full effort to help us get to the premier league. In the summer they are replaced with better players and are loaned back out. This is seen as essential progress by most people. So why is that not also true of managers? Manager A gets the club to the premier league. Manager B is (perceived to be better) so is brought in to replace him. If the game is about "deserving a chance", should we not also give all our League 1 players the chance to play in the Championship, and all the Championship players the chance to play in the premier league? Most clubs wait until crisis point before replacing the manager. NC has done the almost unheard of thing - to replace the manager BEFORE the situation reached crisis point. Because, i presume, he thinks MP is better. Oh, and for the record, i will always appreciate what Nigel did for our club. Very, very few people could have achieved back-to-back promotions (even with our squad/resources), so he'll always be a legend to me

I noticed this before almost anything else...would suggest MP has certainly been informed (or has done a lot of research quickly) about our squad...

I like how the quote on the official site uses hypens to connect Nigel's words: "ever-so-well"

I wasn't trying to directly compare Gazza with Paul Jones. I do think there are similarities with signing a Keeper to be the No.1 (Niemi and Boruc), and with the delicate issue (as some would see it) of dropping someone who has just had a good game (Jones had a few good games before being dropped, and Gazza has had one). I'm pretty sure most people at the time thought that we needed a better keeper than Jones, and we probably all felt that Niemi would soon enough take the No.1 position. It just so happened that Jones had his best spell for us at the time the transfer was going through. The point of Boruc, I agree, is to be the No.1 keeper. But he wouldn't be the first to have to bide his time...just my view on it..

I remember when Niemi first came to Saints, at a time when Paul Jones had had a very decent few games. Strachan (it seemed) didn't feel he could drop Jones, but as soon as he made a mistake (IIRC the howler vs Derby away), Niemi was installed as No.1. The same could happen with Gazza - he keeps his place for as long has he avoids a bad mistake...but when one happens, Boruc will assume the role we bought him for...