Wes Tender

I agree in part. As far as I can remember, Burley hadn't really given him much of a run as a floating attacking midfielder. As for the lack of motivation that he apparently has, hasn't Poortvliet got any skills of player motivation? Or is it a damned sight easier to just adopt the attitude that if he doesn't want to play for us we just get rid of him? Wouldn't Scacel like to have a free roaming role in midfield, playing as part of a young team employing a passing game? You'd have thought that if nobody came in for him before the transfer window closed, he would have nothing to lose and a lot to prove, so why not use him? It's not as if he has no talent.

Well, presumably being appointed as Stuart Pearce's assistant coach of the England under 21's might be deemed to be quite a good indication that he was respected enough to be considered as qualified to coach the best English youngsters in the land.

Had a quiet chuckle at one stage. People were welcoming back Killer, which drew applause. I think it might have been Dave Juson? who thought it appropriate to welcome back Andrew Cowen, which brought no reaction at all. You could almost see the tumblewood drifting by, until Dave ended the embarassing silence and said OK, suit yourselves or something.

Firstly Nick, if you're going to add to what I posted, when you quote me, could you please highlight your part of the comment in a different colour. Otherwise it looks as if I have said it. Glad you agree that it is OK to have a good moan if the manager is changed for little apparent reason other than petty spite. We'll have to agree to disagree about whether Pearson would have done a better job than Poortvliet, as my gut feeling tells me he would have. Presumably those players I was talking about in the past tense are Savage and D ickov, yes? Well, I hinted at why I had spoken of them in the past tense. It is probably the case that under our current circumstances we could not afford them, even if there was a need for them. Interesting to hear that the two ageing journeymen are only here as leaders on the training pitch and back-up. I thought that Wotton was supposed to be a leader on the pitch, part of the mixture of old and young that was to add balance and backbone to the squad. But I suspect that Wotton has been overshadowed by Schneiderlin or Gillett, whereas Perry will lose his place to Andrew Davies and Killer when they are both available. But at least Perry and Wotton were cheap, eh? That's the main consideration.

You're half right in that conclusion IMO. Yes, there were players who were probably paid more than they needed to be, but likewise there were players deserving of their pay at that level. If John or Raziak thump in 20 goals in a season, nobody will convince me that they are not worth above average pay for this division, as that is a performance level well above average for this division. But nobody knows at the beginning of the season what a player will achieve. The older players bought in command a price commensurate with their reputation of fulfilling a particular role. If they don't achieve that potential for whatever reason, that is not even conclusively their fault. They might have suffered injuries, been played out of position, not have received service from their team mates, etc. But then if they are put up for sale, they might be deemed to be overpriced on the basis of their failure to live up to expectations. That is why we got Lee Holmes on the cheap, incidentally.

1) Exactly. So Pearson should have been given the chance to forge his own team. But having thrown their toys out of the pram when they took over, they cannot moan if JP is gotten shot of if others take over, as they set the precedent. 2) Based on what exactly? Pearson took over a disillusioned, demoralised, unfit and unmotivated team and seemed to be making improvements in all those areas. IMO there is nothing to suggest that NP could not work with youngsters. He has had plenty of experience of that and there is no evidence to suggest that JP is more capable than Pearson in that respect. You have based your opinion on what you have seen or heard and so have I, but our opinions differ as to whom we prefer. 3) There are many who who hated both D ickov and Savage when they played against us, but who would have loved them to have played for us. I suspect that they are ideal players for Div1. Both give 100% effort and have decent records of achievement in the Premiership. Trouble is, even if they were players we wanted now, we probably couldn't afford them. Ironic, isn't it? OK to compare with McG and Schneiderlin, but how about comparing them with Perry and Wotton?

Paying a player higher than average wages is only a folly if that player does not play at a higher standard than the average fizzy pop league player. As with all things, the better the quality, the more you have to pay for it generally. If we paid higher wages and got a team full of quality that propelled us up to the Premiership automatically, then that would be money invested in the team well. If higher wages were paid and the team struggled to gain an average mid table position or lower, that would be a waste.

Most on here would have been quite happy that Pearson would have had a couple of seasons to build his own team, but the first thing that Lowe/Wilde did was get rid of him. Why would it be any more insane to get rid of JP now than it was to get rid of Pearson a few weeks back? I'm not one for making changes for changes sake myself, I was just interested as to what the difference was between the two scenarios. It rather smacked to me of childish pettiness at the time, based on the fact that Pearson was Crouch's appointee.

As an empty vessel makes most noise, eh?

I at least made the point that Wilde's calling for unity was a bit rich under the circumstances that he was the architect of most of the disruption at the club. If you want to avoid giving examples of anything in his statement not being cliches and waffle by the simple expedient that you used, then I'll just take it that you couldn't respond properly, as you realised that there weren't any grounds for a response.

Well, I've stated my opinion on them, that they were a collection of cliches, platitudes and waffle. I picked up on them because there was a terrific ironic element in much of what he said, particularly as he stressed the need for unity when he had personally been the architect of the biggest change in our recent history and had returned a short while later to bring about another massive change in the opposite direction. I'd be obliged if you would be prepared to pick out anything else that didn't fall under any of those categories. There wasn't much to disagree with, as he hardly said anything controversial, did he? We have to cut our cloth according to our means, the players should wear the shirt with pride, we need you all to get behind us at this vital time, blah,blah,blah.

And what of these rather dark innuendos by other posters that due to some changing circumstances, we will not see Sundance again. Personally, I'd be gutted, as it was great fun pulling his posts to pieces. He was such an easy target.

Unless I'm mistaken, the bank had agreed to continue supporting us when Crouch's board was in control. Now nobody on here knows what conditions or stipulations were made to that agreement, as indeed nobody knows about them any better under the Lowe/Wilde regime. I suspect that the bank asked us to make some cost economies, but whether those demanded that we sell all players on high wages, that is debateable. We have already sold or released several players who fit into that category anyway. Viafara, Wright, Idiakez, Safri are all gone and Scacel looks set to follow. Before we get stuck into John, Rasiak and Saganowski, Euell could also go and I won't bat an eyelid. But I remain unconvinced that the bank's outlook is so one dimensional and blinkered that it does not realise that in the game of football decent strikers who score goals cost money, but give a return in terms of the team's success and bums on seats. Nobody can guarantee promotion, but it is easier to make a business a failure than it is to make it succeed. Easy ways to make a business fail? Reduce the quality of the product, raise the price to unreasonable levels, p*ss off the customers. I'd say that there were elements of this strategy already being put in place. There is just one saving grace; we are in the entertainment industry and the jury so far finds that the youngsters are entertaining for the moment. But it is like the theatre company on the breadline axing Gielgud to save costs, when many of the audience came only to see him. It could be that his unknown understudy becomes the new rising star in the firmament, but that is the stuff of dreams rather than a common occurence. So I'd rather say that the higher risk strategy was the one employed by two failed past chairmen, getting rid of the proven goalscorers and a rookie but respected manager, playing the untried youngsters under the direction of two foreign coaches with nil experience in this country, let alone at this level. It might work, but it is as unlikely a scenario as the theatre understudy becoming an overnight star. I wonder what the bank make of that position?

The thread only stayed on topic for a few posts, but then what did we expect? It was invevitable that it would turn into a pro/anti debate rather than discussing whether he said the "right things". Personally, I don't know what is being referred to by the right things. We have known for some time that we are broke and it therefore became inevitable that we would have to dispense with the services of those costing more in wages than we could afford. Although the double Dutch cost less than Pearson together apparently, I have not heard any convincing argument supporting the case that we could not afford Pearson's continuance, nor indeed that he would not have been prepared to play the youngsters. He didn't seem to me to be the sort to walk away from a challenge. So what were the things that Lowe said that thedelldays agreed with? Was it the same sort of platitudes uttered by Wilde, so full of the statement of the bloody obvious, so much waffle and little substance?

McGoldrick, Lallana, Paterson might set the world on fire and amaze us. Brilliant if they do. As I said though, if they don't it's a high risk strategy and a failure to knock in the goals that we might have reasonably expected from John, Raziak or Saganowski will almost certainly be fatal to our chances of surviving this coming season, especially as there are still holes in defence. If they are a revelation though, how long are they going to stay here if a Premiership team dangles megabucks under their noses? If they gain us promotion, they would probably stay. If we score lots but let in more so are not promoted, then they might well go leaving us to replace them again with either cheaper alternatives, or the next crop of youngsters. As others say, along this route lies our future as a feeder club rather than a contender for promotion.

As far as I can see, the only vital role Wilde is filling for our club is propping up the return of Lowe. Granted he is the titular chairman of the football board, but as to whether this strategy was dreamed up by him or by Lowe is open to conjecture; I'd say Lowe, personally. So is his primary motivation the good of the club, or the saving of his shares? Call me a cynic, but I'd say the latter. Are we actually relying on Wilde for success? I'd say that notion was a bit far fetched myself, as I believe that rather more depends on the players and manager/s now. But let's imagine that the scheme to rid the club of all the players on high wages and replace them with the youngsters was a joint one between Lowe and Wilde. Was it born out of desire or necessity? My money's again on the latter. That's not to say the plan won't work; merely that the more options of choice there are, the better the finished plan will usually be. Most on here accept that without significant investment, this path is the only sensible one that the club can follow to avoid administration. Not many other options there, then. Whether the return of Michael Wilde is any more beneficial to the club than his last incarnation remains to be seen.

As in life, people don't measure you by how many times you express your opinion, but by what you say.

Why is it important to broadcast how many posts you have made? Is it the equivalent of my dong's longer than yours in your eyes?

No. It's being run on hot air.

I had attempted to comment on some of his assertions individually, but apparently his piece was so long that even though I had not much written more than a line or so to respond to each bit, when I came to post it put up a message to say that the thing was too long to post! Well, a lot of it was waffle and platitudes. Did anybody else feel as if they were being lectured like a naughty schoolboy?

I'm afraid that whereas your little manifesto the last time struck a chord with me after what had gone on before it, this all sounds dreadfully hollow and contrived. All waffle and sentiments without much substance.

No, let's get shot of all the good ones who have proven goalscoring records and replace them with cheap alternatives and hope that we might strike lucky and unearth a gem. Never mind the quality, feel the width - our new motto.

I see from the OS that tickets for the forum can now be picked up from Radio Solent reception desk. Is that the ones that have been pre-ordered and there isn't time to send them out before Thursday, or is it how I might have misunderstood it? I had read it that they had tickets still available and they could be collected by anybody turning up at Radio Solent until they were all gone. If that were the case, then if I recall correctly it would be the first time in my memory that all the tickets had not gone within a couple of days of them being touted.

Echoing another post, is there live commentary anywhere? Having taken my son to the West Ham match, wifey says I ought to sit this one out. I agree though that this is match will better reflect our current standing than the West Ham game.

Sooner or later the message is going to strike home, that if we are to sell any of the strikers capable of scoring goals and rely on unproven youngsters who have not played at this level, then we are taking a huge risk. If we are to have any hope at all of progressing, then we need to score more goals in a match than we let in. We will not manage that if we are jettisoning the very players who are more highly paid because they have a capability to score goals. At the other end of the pitch, we are short of cover at full back, so things don't look great. But where it's been proven that it is possible to replace one manager with two others for less money, no doubt this philosophy will hold good with strikers too. Step up to the mark McGoldrick and Paterson and let's see what you can do. If it's a step too far for you, then we're deep in the brown stuff. But if you produce the goods, then it's off to pastures greener with the glory of playing for a Premiership team for you, to be replaced with other players worth half as much again.