Les Reed's statement in full

[HornseySaintsFan]

i used to live with this journo Jamie Jackson in London. He asked me for a saints line up to print for a forthcoming match and i gave him one with an injured player (delay i think). He printed it without checking the facts.

 

And he's an arrogant knob

[Secret Site Agent]

A good statement of fact, would have been nice a little bit earlier, but sometimes you need to check the facts before passing them off.

 

It's good to hear.

[Goatboy]

There won't have been any enquiry to the club, but you can bet your life somebody has sounded out somebody as to whether players are open to a move.

 

Look at the Suarez bit from arsenal last season, do people seriously think Suarez knew nothing about it until Liverpool told him "we've had an offer". Do people really think arsenal made that offer without some nod or wink from Suarez. The day before that offer Rodgers could say "we've had no contact" about Suarez and that would be the truth. Led reed receiving an offer will be one of the last acts of a transfer saga.

 

As for the press, they really don't just make things up especially if its a named piece. People make things up and drip it to the press, but they don't just sit there and pluck things out of their heads. I have a life long friend who works in the gutter press, as did his father as well. He's told me loads of dodgey stuff they've done, but he's always maintained they never make transfer stuff up . Clubs are looking at hundreds of players so it doesn't necessarily mean its a lie when deals don't happen. In this case a journo hasn't just gone in, sat down and thought " I need to fill some column inches, I know I'll make up Shaw and lallana to man u". Somebody has fed them this, my guess maybe Moyes camp, under pressure he was trying to ride it out by leaking players for next season that would excite the fans. It could be agents trying to unsettle them, it could be saints trying to fire up a bidding war. It could be any number of things, but it ain't a journo just making things up , not in this day and age.

 

Neil Allen is a journalist;)

[Wes Tender]

Somebody has fed them this, my guess maybe Moyes camp, under pressure he was trying to ride it out by leaking players for next season that would excite the fans. It could be agents trying to unsettle them, it could be saints trying to fire up a bidding war. It could be any number of things, but it ain't a journo just making things up , not in this day and age.

 

This is a reasonable scenario, but it doesn't excuse the line taken by journos that infers that United have reached agreement with Saints and that the deal is pretty well concluded. That's the part that constitutes journos making stuff up, which seems to have escaped your attention. Or as you might prefer to see it, adding two and two and making five. Honestly Gov, it was a reasonable conclusion to reach, given what we were told by the player's agent/ Man United's cleaning lady/ some United fan's blog/ hearing from somebody that Saints were looking at other left backs, etc.

 

So it seems that what they say is not confirmed by us and they have egg on their faces - again. But some of the mud will stick and when the time comes when Shaw or others wish to leave, the groundwork has already been done as to the price, which club will be favourite, etc. Except that the landscape might have changed by then, with these clubs having brought in other players or managers.

[Barry Sanchez]

There won't have been any enquiry to the club, but you can bet your life somebody has sounded out somebody as to whether players are open to a move.

 

Look at the Suarez bit from arsenal last season, do people seriously think Suarez knew nothing about it until Liverpool told him "we've had an offer". Do people really think arsenal made that offer without some nod or wink from Suarez. The day before that offer Rodgers could say "we've had no contact" about Suarez and that would be the truth. Led reed receiving an offer will be one of the last acts of a transfer saga.

 

As for the press, they really don't just make things up especially if its a named piece. People make things up and drip it to the press, but they don't just sit there and pluck things out of their heads. I have a life long friend who works in the gutter press, as did his father as well. He's told me loads of dodgey stuff they've done, but he's always maintained they never make transfer stuff up . Clubs are looking at hundreds of players so it doesn't necessarily mean its a lie when deals don't happen. In this case a journo hasn't just gone in, sat down and thought " I need to fill some column inches, I know I'll make up Shaw and lallana to man u". Somebody has fed them this, my guess maybe Moyes camp, under pressure he was trying to ride it out by leaking players for next season that would excite the fans. It could be agents trying to unsettle them, it could be saints trying to fire up a bidding war. It could be any number of things, but it ain't a journo just making things up , not in this day and age.

 

My wife used to work in the press and works closely with them now, most players have their go to person for information to give or get, its as old as the hills, the only difference is that agents play more of a role now in informing the club/players/press in a conduit role but Christ of course it goes on.

[CB Fry]

There won't have been any enquiry to the club, but you can bet your life somebody has sounded out somebody as to whether players are open to a move.

 

Look at the Suarez bit from arsenal last season, do people seriously think Suarez knew nothing about it until Liverpool told him "we've had an offer". Do people really think arsenal made that offer without some nod or wink from Suarez. The day before that offer Rodgers could say "we've had no contact" about Suarez and that would be the truth. Led reed receiving an offer will be one of the last acts of a transfer saga.

 

As for the press, they really don't just make things up especially if its a named piece. People make things up and drip it to the press, but they don't just sit there and pluck things out of their heads. I have a life long friend who works in the gutter press, as did his father as well. He's told me loads of dodgey stuff they've done, but he's always maintained they never make transfer stuff up . Clubs are looking at hundreds of players so it doesn't necessarily mean its a lie when deals don't happen. In this case a journo hasn't just gone in, sat down and thought " I need to fill some column inches, I know I'll make up Shaw and lallana to man u". Somebody has fed them this, my guess maybe Moyes camp, under pressure he was trying to ride it out by leaking players for next season that would excite the fans. It could be agents trying to unsettle them, it could be saints trying to fire up a bidding war. It could be any number of things, but it ain't a journo just making things up , not in this day and age.

 

You're wasting your time trying to convince the forum "intelligencia" whose stock response to every single newspaper article they don't like is "made up lazy journo lies" yet merrily hoover up generic club PR statements and press releases like they represent total unadulterated pure truth. Because a business or organisation or government would never, ever spin, overstate or play out a line. Just journalists. Yep, just them. The only people in the entirety of humanity who ever lie.

 

And the fundamental problem is people on here utterly incapable of actually reading press reports. That Guardian article is written entirely from a Man U perspective and is about how "convinced" they are about landing Shaw. It doesn't say Saints have accepted a fee, and the only Shaw reference is about him wanting to resolve things before the WC. Nothing Les said makes any of that article untrue, it's highly possible there is some truth in it.

 

And lastly, Shaw staying with Saints, or ultimately signing for Chelsea doesn't make the article untrue either. It's an article sourced from people connected to Man U saying they think they've got him. That's it. Get over it.

[Dig Dig]

You're wasting your time trying to convince the forum "intelligencia" whose stock response to every single newspaper article they don't like is "made up lazy journo lies" yet merrily hoover up generic club PR statements and press releases like they represent total unadulterated pure truth. Because a business or organisation or government would never, ever spin, overstate or play out a line. Just journalists. Yep, just them. The only people in the entirety of humanity who ever lie.

 

And the fundamental problem is people on here utterly incapable of actually reading press reports. That Guardian article is written entirely from a Man U perspective and is about how "convinced" they are about landing Shaw. It doesn't say Saints have accepted a fee, and the only Shaw reference is about him wanting to resolve things before the WC. Nothing Les said makes any of that article untrue, it's highly possible there is some truth in it.

 

And lastly, Shaw staying with Saints, or ultimately signing for Chelsea doesn't make the article untrue either. It's an article sourced from people connected to Man U saying they think they've got him. That's it. Get over it.

 

"Manchester Utd are convinced that a £30m deal to buy Luke Shaw on a £100,000 a week contract is virtually complete"

 

Hard to virtually complete a deal by talking to yourself.

[Secret Site Agent]

No mate.

 

This is a classic 'false flag' operation.

 

KL is simply saying to other clubs bidding on our players 'put up or shut up'.

 

Stating our players are not for sale increases their value.

 

RK wants to sell more season tickets and hospitality, so he needed Reed to make a pro spin PR statement.

 

The bookies are rarely wrong.

 

All talk and no action, actions speak louder than words.

 

No smoke without fire, this is a smokescreen.

 

Read between the lines, the ommissions, what wasnt said.

 

The use of the word 'probably'.

 

etc

 

What the devil are you on about man?

This would only be a 'False Flag' operation if someone claiming to be from Arsenal approaching and speaking to us, (as we like Arsenal) but actually being from Manure.

[NickG]

There won't have been any enquiry to the club, but you can bet your life somebody has sounded out somebody as to whether players are open to a move.

 

Look at the Suarez bit from arsenal last season, do people seriously think Suarez knew nothing about it until Liverpool told him "we've had an offer". Do people really think arsenal made that offer without some nod or wink from Suarez. The day before that offer Rodgers could say "we've had no contact" about Suarez and that would be the truth. Led reed receiving an offer will be one of the last acts of a transfer saga.

 

As for the press, they really don't just make things up especially if its a named piece. People make things up and drip it to the press, but they don't just sit there and pluck things out of their heads. I have a life long friend who works in the gutter press, as did his father as well. He's told me loads of dodgey stuff they've done, but he's always maintained they never make transfer stuff up . Clubs are looking at hundreds of players so it doesn't necessarily mean its a lie when deals don't happen. In this case a journo hasn't just gone in, sat down and thought " I need to fill some column inches, I know I'll make up Shaw and lallana to man u". Somebody has fed them this, my guess maybe Moyes camp, under pressure he was trying to ride it out by leaking players for next season that would excite the fans. It could be agents trying to unsettle them, it could be saints trying to fire up a bidding war. It could be any number of things, but it ain't a journo just making things up , not in this day and age.

 

Whether journalist or someone else made it up, bottom line is someone did and the journalist reported a made up story.

 

The story was fee agreed deal nearly complete. Unless you think a director of a company would make a false statement as clearly as this (he wouldn't) the story is totally made up. As I suspect majority are.

 

Its good that we now have clear proof.

[Wes Tender]

You're wasting your time trying to convince the forum "intelligencia" whose stock response to every single newspaper article they don't like is "made up lazy journo lies" yet merrily hoover up generic club PR statements and press releases like they represent total unadulterated pure truth. Because a business or organisation or government would never, ever spin, overstate or play out a line. Just journalists. Yep, just them. The only people in the entirety of humanity who ever lie.

 

And the fundamental problem is people on here utterly incapable of actually reading press reports. That Guardian article is written entirely from a Man U perspective and is about how "convinced" they are about landing Shaw. It doesn't say Saints have accepted a fee, and the only Shaw reference is about him wanting to resolve things before the WC. Nothing Les said makes any of that article untrue, it's highly possible there is some truth in it.

 

And lastly, Shaw staying with Saints, or ultimately signing for Chelsea doesn't make the article untrue either. It's an article sourced from people connected to Man U saying they think they've got him. That's it. Get over it.

But you obviously have no issue with a paper such as the Guardian (which attempts to be a serious newspaper), lacking balance and objectivity. You know, the sort of balance that points out that this is an article solely from the perspective of the United Camp, but that Southampton had recently issued statements to say that no player would be sold without the approval of Pochettino. Therefore there ought to be an acceptance that the article is one-sided until Southampton provide their input as to their position; which they have now done. But I don't see much admission from these same journos that they got it wrong. We're obviously wasting our time expecting them to do so.

 

And it's intelligentsia

[alpine_saint]

You're wasting your time trying to convince the forum "intelligencia" whose stock response to every single newspaper article they don't like is "made up lazy journo lies" yet merrily hoover up generic club PR statements and press releases like they represent total unadulterated pure truth. Because a business or organisation or government would never, ever spin, overstate or play out a line. Just journalists. Yep, just them. The only people in the entirety of humanity who ever lie.

 

And the fundamental problem is people on here utterly incapable of actually reading press reports. That Guardian article is written entirely from a Man U perspective and is about how "convinced" they are about landing Shaw. It doesn't say Saints have accepted a fee, and the only Shaw reference is about him wanting to resolve things before the WC. Nothing Les said makes any of that article untrue, it's highly possible there is some truth in it.

 

And lastly, Shaw staying with Saints, or ultimately signing for Chelsea doesn't make the article untrue either. It's an article sourced from people connected to Man U saying they think they've got him. That's it. Get over it.

 

Curious that Manyoo think they've got him when they havent even spoken to him...

[CB Fry]

"Manchester Utd are convinced that a £30m deal to buy Luke Shaw on a £100,000 a week contract is virtually complete"

 

Hard to virtually complete a deal by talking to yourself.

 

If it says they are convinced, then it says they are convinced. That's the article. Believe what you want.

 

It's unlikely people connected haven't been communicating.

[DuncanRG]

The naive believe a statement they want to believe shocker, its like asking a Christian do they believe in God.

 

At least they've signalled their intent to buy players, which is what you've been whining about the most recently.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Faz]

You're wasting your time trying to convince the forum "intelligencia" whose stock response to every single newspaper article they don't like is "made up lazy journo lies" yet merrily hoover up generic club PR statements and press releases like they represent total unadulterated pure truth. Because a business or organisation or government would never, ever spin, overstate or play out a line. Just journalists. Yep, just them. The only people in the entirety of humanity who ever lie.

 

And the fundamental problem is people on here utterly incapable of actually reading press reports. That Guardian article is written entirely from a Man U perspective and is about how "convinced" they are about landing Shaw. It doesn't say Saints have accepted a fee, and the only Shaw reference is about him wanting to resolve things before the WC. Nothing Les said makes any of that article untrue, it's highly possible there is some truth in it.

 

And lastly, Shaw staying with Saints, or ultimately signing for Chelsea doesn't make the article untrue either. It's an article sourced from people connected to Man U saying they think they've got him. That's it. Get over it.

 

There is quite a bit of ground between a PR piece issued by the club, and an article in one of our leading newspapers stating that a deal was close to being agreed when there has been no contact. If that article had been on the front page of that newspaper, rather than the back, it would have been subject to more rigour I fancy. Bu it's only sports journalism so its ok to be sloppy.

[CB Fry]

Curious that Manyoo think they've got him when they havent even spoken to him...

 

As I say, believe what you like.

[OldNick]

"Manchester Utd are convinced that a £30m deal to buy Luke Shaw on a £100,000 a week contract is virtually complete"

 

Hard to virtually complete a deal by talking to yourself.

CB doesnt like the facts or direct quotes to get in the way of his tirades,abuse and attempts of cutting people down. Now dont dare point out mistakes in his tirade or you will be seen as a very naughty boy.

[CB Fry]

There is quite a bit of ground between a PR piece issued by the club, and an article in one of our leading newspapers stating that a deal was close to being agreed when there has been no contact. If that article had been on the front page of that newspaper, rather than the back, it would have been subject to more rigour I fancy. Bu it's only sports journalism so its ok to be sloppy.

 

You are basing the there has been no contact line on what Les Reed said. And you are basing your 'sloppy' dismissal on the same, single, biased, source.

 

Les Reed is not Shaw's agent, and he isn't Luke Shaw either.

 

So the only "ground" between the two sources is what you want to believe.

[Secret Site Agent]

I'm going through it at wok at the moment with a local rag and the EA.

 

The story is that sheet piling in a river cause a flood wall to collapse causing houses to flood.

 

The facts are:

The height of the flood was the highest ever and higher than the top of the flood defences. No one could have predicted the height.

The piles are being put in as the old ones were failing.

There is vibration associated with sheet pile installation.

 

They bolster the story with two pictures, one of the 'Piling Machine' and another of 'the flood wall collapsed'.................except the picture of the 'Piling Machine' shows a long reach 360 deg excavator, the second shows a perfectly good floodwall and no collapse. Their two sources were not present when the flood happen and don't live in the area, but know all about it. Where as my view don't count as I was there up to my knees in flood water putting sandbags in front of peoples houses.

The truth of the matter is that if the piles weren't there, their soaken houses would have fallen into the river.

 

A quick fact check on their statement reveals that there is, in fact, two o's in flood. The rest needs to be checked more.

 

They don't let the facts get in the way of a story as they don't have the time to check these days.

[Verbal Kint]

If you read between the lines i think you can have a decent guess at what the situation is. I doubt Les Reed is lying and therefore clearly no bids have been made. It’s also clear that United have been in contact with Shaw’s agent, and if they are prepared to pay him 100k a week it’s no surprise Shaw has agreed in principle to join them. But they have to agree a fee with us and neither Shaw nor Lallana are showing signs of demanding a move. In fact, some of the noises coming out have suggested both are very happy here and are in no rush to leave providing MP stays.

 

The only way i see them leaving is if we get an outrageous offer, particuarly considering they both have 4 years left on their contracts. What consitutes ‘outrageous’ is pretty subjective.

 

We’ve had 6 months of constant speculation now and I don’t think it reflects particularly well on United as a club and the way in which they do their business. Leaking stories to the press consistently without taking to the club seems a bit underhand, but i doubt they care. They’re tapping Shaw up and probably Lallana as well

[Fitzhugh Fella]

CB doesnt like the facts or direct quotes to get in the way of his tirades,abuse and attempts of cutting people down. Now dont dare point out mistakes in his tirade or you will be seen as a very naughty boy.

 

 

But he is making some good points Nick. It is true on this forum a negative Saints story is shot down in flames with the journalist derided for being a fool whereas for all positive stories the journo is hailed as a mega God. Similarly we do all accept the club statement as being 100% kosher. CB is just pointing out the truth lies somewhere near the middle. I tweeted Jackson yesterday basically suggesting his piece was a lie but he declined to respond. Mind you he must have been hard at work because this morning's Guardian is full of United crap!

[CB Fry]

If you read between the lines i think you can have a decent guess at what the situation is. I doubt Les Reed is lying and therefore clearly no bids have been made. It’s also clear that United have been in contact with Shaw’s agent, and if they are prepared to pay him 100k a week it’s no surprise Shaw has agreed in principle to join them. But they have to agree a fee with us and neither Shaw nor Lallana are showing signs of demanding a move. In fact, some of the noises coming out have suggested both are very happy here and are in no rush to leave providing MP stays.

 

The only way i see them leaving is if we get an outrageous offer, particuarly considering they both have 4 years left on their contracts. What consitutes ‘outrageous’ is pretty subjective.

 

We’ve had 6 months of constant speculation now and I don’t think it reflects particularly well on United as a club and the way in which they do their business. Leaking stories to the press consistently without taking to the club seems a bit underhand, but i doubt they care. They’re tapping Shaw up and probably Lallana as well

 

That's a good assessment of the situation. Definitely an element of Man United trying to work up a new story to distract from the Moyes fiasco.

 

And also possible that Shaw's agent is playing games with Chelsea.

[OldNick]

But he is making some good points Nick. It is true on this forum a negative Saints story is shot down in flames with the journalist derided for being a fool whereas for all positive stories the journo is hailed as a mega God. Similarly we do all accept the club statement as being 100% kosher. CB is just pointing out the truth lies somewhere near the middle. I tweeted Jackson yesterday basically suggesting his piece was a lie but he declined to respond. Mind you he must have been hard at work because this morning's Guardian is full of United crap!

Yeah Im sure CB is trying to find the middle ground, but sometimes it is hard to find it when he does so in such a disparaging manner. He in my opinion is questioning LR 's integrity. Reed has come out and said the club has had no offers. In doing so he has put his head on the line and put himself to be shot at if LS or AL leave very soon. If something was going on he could have said to me knowledge etc etc , but no he has given a straight and honest answer. how many times is the club asked to communicate and then when they do, they have CB's of the world basically calling Reed a liar.

Now of all the people in the know i would think Reed would be pretty high on the list. I hope Iam misinterpreting CB's post or position (it is hard to tell sometimes) but I am to live in my dreamy world where i believe Reed (the clubs spokesman) rather than a hack who may be being fed info to try and unsettle our players.

I do have no doubt that Shaws agent will be constantly having contact with clubs, but nearly a done deal? i dont think so

[NickG]

But he is making some good points Nick. It is true on this forum a negative Saints story is shot down in flames with the journalist derided for being a fool whereas for all positive stories the journo is hailed as a mega God. Similarly we do all accept the club statement as being 100% kosher. CB is just pointing out the truth lies somewhere near the middle. I tweeted Jackson yesterday basically suggesting his piece was a lie but he declined to respond. Mind you he must have been hard at work because this morning's Guardian is full of United crap!

 

Firstly its not surprising that fans on a message board are biased towards their club. Nor is it surprising that people are more inclined to want to believe good news, its human nature.

 

Why does the truth need to lie somewhere in the middle? If I made up a lie about you, which you deny...my lie isn't suddenly half true.

 

This is straight forward. The story wasn't true. The reason I say that confidently is that a director of a company would not make such a clear statement, with preparation, without anyone else rebutting it, if it wasn't. I think we can take the club's statement as 100% fact. Remember it also fits in with previous statements on Shaw from both the manager and chairman.

 

The story stated deal almost done, fees agreed etc. This has been shown to be made up and without fully checked provenance. The journalist may have failed to put it to the club.

 

If CB thinks the criticism is biased fans (nothing wrong with that) he is wrong. Fans were criticised for doubting these 'done deals'stories and shouldn't have been.

 

...there may have been a bid last night though

[CB Fry]

Yeah Im sure CB is trying to find the middle ground, but sometimes it is hard to find it when he does so in such a disparaging manner. He in my opinion is questioning LR 's integrity. Reed has come out and said the club has had no offers. In doing so he has put his head on the line and put himself to be shot at if LS or AL leave very soon. If something was going on he could have said to me knowledge etc etc , but no he has given a straight and honest answer. how many times is the club asked to communicate and then when they do, they have CB's of the world basically calling Reed a liar.

Now of all the people in the know i would think Reed would be pretty high on the list. I hope Iam misinterpreting CB's post or position (it is hard to tell sometimes) but I am to live in my dreamy world where i believe Reed (the clubs spokesman) rather than a hack who may be being fed info to try and unsettle our players.

I do have no doubt that Shaws agent will be constantly having contact with clubs, but nearly a done deal? i dont think so

 

This is exactly what I am getting at, an almost archetypal Saints Web post. Total good/evil and nothing in between.

 

Not once have I called Reed a liar or questioned his integrity.

 

I think everything he says is completely true and was pleased to hear it said so unequivocally. Great stuff.

 

Anyone reading that Guardian article and thinking we'd accepted a bid from Man U and that Shaw was discussing final terms would be a ruddy fool. Of course we haven't.

 

The world really, really isn't that black and white, Nick.

[CB Fry]

Firstly its not surprising that fans on a message board are biased towards their club. Nor is it surprising that people are more inclined to want to believe good news, its human nature.

 

Why does the truth need to lie somewhere in the middle? If I made up a lie about you, which you deny...my lie isn't suddenly half true.

 

This is straight forward. The story wasn't true.

 

The story was about Man United’s confidence that they will sign him. Les Reed cannot, whatever he says, make that not true. Man U can base that confidence on a number of things, some may be based on sounding out people close to Shaw. Some may be from the fact that they think when it comes to the crunch we would take £30m for a left back. They are allowed to be confident about what the hell they want to be confident about. Les Reed cannot make that not true.

 

Whether MUFC are utterly misguided is another matter.

[Faz]

You are basing the there has been no contact line on what Les Reed said. And you are basing your 'sloppy' dismissal on the same, single, biased, source.

 

Les Reed is not Shaw's agent, and he isn't Luke Shaw either.

 

So the only "ground" between the two sources is what you want to believe.

 

I think you've missed the point, but I'll bite; if your point is "do I want to believe a Director of my football club who stands up in front of the media and make a clear unambiguous statement, against an unattributed piece in the sports section of a newspaper", then the answer is unequivocally yes.

 

Do I think there MAY have been contact between Man U and Shaw's agent quoting possible wages, then maybe - I'm not a complete innocent. But when that piece goes on to state that they are close to agreeing a fee of £30m then, given the aforementioned statement, it calls in to question the integrity of the whole piece. IMO.

[egg]

Reed also said live on TV that he didn't agree with sending young players out on loan.....the very next day and.... I like Reed but this is a PR stunt to try and keep some stability in very uncertain times. Read no more into it than that

 

But these aren't "very uncertain times". The club are in fine shape. Its just unfortunate that too many people wrongly interpret what is written between the lines and have an opinion on the figures without having the ability to understand them.

[CB Fry]

I think you've missed the point, but I'll bite; if your point is "do I want to believe a Director of my football club who stands up in front of the media and make a clear unambiguous statement, against an unattributed piece in the sports section of a newspaper", then the answer is unequivocally yes.

 

Do I think there MAY have been contact between Man U and Shaw's agent quoting possible wages, then maybe - I'm not a complete innocent. But when that piece goes on to state that they are close to agreeing a fee of £30m then, given the aforementioned statement, it calls in to question the integrity of the whole piece. IMO.

 

Where in that Guardian article does it say they are close to agreeing a fee of £30m? It doesn't. Just talks about Man U being confident/convinced.

 

You can believe Les Reed and accept that article on it's own terms for what it is. I do. Come and join me.

[Viking Warrior]

Where is graham Hiley these days ?

[OldNick]

This is exactly what I am getting at, an almost archetypal Saints Web post. Total good/evil and nothing in between.

 

Not once have I called Reed a liar or questioned his integrity.

 

I think everything he says is completely true and was pleased to hear it said so unequivocally. Great stuff.

 

Anyone reading that Guardian article and thinking we'd accepted a bid from Man U and that Shaw was discussing final terms would be a ruddy fool. Of course we haven't.

 

The world really, really isn't that black and white, Nick.

Thankyou for a civilised reply. It seemed to me that you were defending the Guardians report and dismissing Les Reed. If you are supporting the fact that Man Utd are convinced they are buying Shaw for 30m, then it would mean Reed was lying as the clubs would have had to have spoken to get the fee agreed. in that case you are calling Reed a liar and questioning his integrity.

i will admit at all times I support the club first others 2nd. it is a stupid loyalty thing i have in my psyche. i am cynical about many things, in my trade you have to be but when I see somebody who has so much to lose by giving the wrong information out in the media I believe it.

If it comes from an agent or a reporter then forgive me if Iam a tad sceptical.

I suspect in the longterm some will be able to come out and say I told you so when Shaw leaves, but at present i believe the clubs are not talking.

[CB Fry]

Thankyou for a civilised reply. It seemed to me that you were defending the Guardians report and dismissing Les Reed. If you are supporting the fact that Man Utd are convinced they are buying Shaw for 30m, then it would mean Reed was lying as the clubs would have had to have spoken to get the fee agreed. in that case you are calling Reed a liar and questioning his integrity.

i will admit at all times I support the club first others 2nd. it is a stupid loyalty thing i have in my psyche. i am cynical about many things, in my trade you have to be but when I see somebody who has so much to lose by giving the wrong information out in the media I believe it.

If it comes from an agent or a reporter then forgive me if Iam a tad sceptical.

I suspect in the longterm some will be able to come out and say I told you so when Shaw leaves, but at present i believe the clubs are not talking.

 

You can make that leap if you like but I repeat you can believe that Man U can be convinced they can get him and believe everything Les said yesterday, as I do.

 

And just to confirm, I don't think for one second that Man U have made a bid or had it accepted. I didn't even need Les to speak yesterday to think that. If they had, it would be reported widely as a fact, not least because MUFC are listed on the stock exchange and this would be a huge sum.

 

It's not black and white.

[Bearsy]

You can make that leap if you like but I repeat you can believe that Man U can be convinced they can get him and believe everything Les said yesterday, as I do.

 

And just to confirm, I don't think for one second that Man U have made a bid or had it accepted. I didn't even need Les to speak yesterday to think that. If they had, it would be reported widely as a fact, not least because MUFC are listed on the stock exchange and this would be a huge sum.

 

It's not black and white.

 

No doubt Shaw's agent advised them £30m would get it done. There's deffo rules against even approaching player agents tho, but I spose we ignore them just as much as everyone else!

[OldNick]

You can make that leap if you like but I repeat you can believe that Man U can be convinced they can get him and believe everything Les said yesterday, as I do.

 

And just to confirm, I don't think for one second that Man U have made a bid or had it accepted. I didn't even need Les to speak yesterday to think that. If they had, it would be reported widely as a fact, not least because MUFC are listed on the stock exchange and this would be a huge sum.

 

It's not black and white.

ok thanks for clarifying. it is also nice to debate at a civilised level

[aintforever]

"Manchester Utd are convinced that a £30m deal to buy Luke Shaw on a £100,000 a week contract is virtually complete"

 

Hard to virtually complete a deal by talking to yourself.

 

Their agents would talk to Lallana's agent.

[Glasgow_Saint]

Les Reeds comments prove that the VMAN was/is full of poo poo

[itchen_dan]

Seems the statement fell on deaf ears with BT Sport.

 

http://bcove.me/ltat84dq

 

Brilliant from Poch though!

[iansums]

I really don't know how managers keep so calm with this ridiculous questioning.

 

Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk

[OldNick]

Seems the statement fell on deaf ears with BT Sport.

 

http://bcove.me/ltat84dq

 

Brilliant from Poch though!

it is a masterstroke having the interpretor as it gives MP time to formulate his answer.

[Badger]

I really don't know how managers keep so calm with this ridiculous questioning.

 

Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk

 

it is a masterstroke having the interpretor as it gives MP time to formulate his answer.

 

Might have been better if MP had adopted a 'arryesque "nah, f^ck off, I'm not bleedin' answerin' that .. " (as per the 'wheeler-dealer' interview) , leaving the translator to give this in English after MP had stormed off the set.

[Window Cleaner]

Might have been better if MP had adopted a 'arryesque "nah, f^ck off, I'm not bleedin' answerin' that .. " (as per the 'wheeler-dealer' interview) , leaving the translator to give this in English after MP had stormed off the set.

 

 

Not seen Mourinho's interview for the Liverpool game then ?

[CB Fry]

If you really believe you can't convince anyone, and that's it's all positive PR and denying press rumours etc., then why are you still bothering?

 

Still bothering with what?

[Viking Warrior]

Interpretor was doing his best to keep a straight face he knew MOPO was going to give the same answer

[Badger]

Not seen Mourinho's interview for the Liverpool game then ?

 

No.

[Fitzhugh Fella]

Where is graham Hiley these days ?

 

Lecturing at Solent University and at the game yesterday HTH

[SaintRichmond]

And if no statement was made would you have been saying that the silence from the club speaks volumes?

 

 

The Club (Katharina Leibherr/Ralph Kreuger) instructed Les Reed to make the statement for ONE purpose only, and that is simply to get as many existing ST holders to renew by 39th May (After that date they go on General Sale).

 

So, you have to ask yourself this. By 30th May, what will we know about SFC 2014/15 ?? . .... in reality, not a lot

 

We WON't know who our Manager will be, we WON't know how many (if any) of the players will be leaving, and we WON't know the CALIBRE of player the Club are looking to replace them with

 

Les Reed's statement was carefully worded. Read it through a few times and you do realise that it doesn't really say a lot. Serious transfer talk/action doesn't start untill close season, BUT everybody has a mobile phone. Don't you think the airwaves are Buzzing already betweem Clubs and players.? Of course they are. Nothing OFFICIAL though, so Les Reed is correct, no Official contact with the Club.

 

Pochettino. Les Reed says he is happy with the way things are between the Club and Manager. That tells us Zilch. Doesn't make a lot of sense though. Plus of course the bit about no player will be sold that Pochettino wants to stay. Very applaudable, IF Pochettino were our long term Manager. But we DON't know if he is staying, and if he goes, SFC can sell as many as they wish without Les Reed's uttrances being false.

 

My view of Pochettino ? Simple, If you have a valuable Diamond, you insure it, you don't leave it hanging around for someone else to steal

 

One thing that has come out of all this is that the Leibherrs are NOT going to spend the Mega Money needed to "enlarge" St Mary's (Ralph Kreuger said there were no immediate plans ) So you can forget about becomming a Big Club, able to compete with the Big Boys, and start using Cortese's DVD as a Coaster

 

By saying that, Kreuger has indicated VERY clearly that our "Future" will be within the constraints of a 32500 capacity average Club. No more, no less

[hutch]

The Club (Katharina Leibherr/Ralph Kreuger) instructed Les Reed to make the statement for ONE purpose only, and that is simply to get as many existing ST holders to renew by 39th May (After that date they go on General Sale).

 

So, you have to ask yourself this. By 30th May, what will we know about SFC 2014/15 ?? . .... in reality, not a lot

 

We WON't know who our Manager will be, we WON't know how many (if any) of the players will be leaving, and we WON't know the CALIBRE of player the Club are looking to replace them with

 

Les Reed's statement was carefully worded. Read it through a few times and you do realise that it doesn't really say a lot. Serious transfer talk/action doesn't start untill close season, BUT everybody has a mobile phone. Don't you think the airwaves are Buzzing already betweem Clubs and players.? Of course they are. Nothing OFFICIAL though, so Les Reed is correct, no Official contact with the Club.

 

Pochettino. Les Reed says he is happy with the way things are between the Club and Manager. That tells us Zilch. Doesn't make a lot of sense though. Plus of course the bit about no player will be sold that Pochettino wants to stay. Very applaudable, IF Pochettino were our long term Manager. But we DON't know if he is staying, and if he goes, SFC can sell as many as they wish without Les Reed's uttrances being false.

 

My view of Pochettino ? Simple, If you have a valuable Diamond, you insure it, you don't leave it hanging around for someone else to steal

 

One thing that has come out of all this is that the Leibherrs are NOT going to spend the Mega Money needed to "enlarge" St Mary's (Ralph Kreuger said there were no immediate plans ) So you can forget about becomming a Big Club, able to compete with the Big Boys, and start using Cortese's DVD as a Coaster

 

By saying that, Kreuger has indicated VERY clearly that our "Future" will be within the constraints of a 32500 capacity average Club. No more, no less

You forgot to mention the Malaysian Airlines plane. I don't think he mentioned that either.

[Goatboy]

The Club (Katharina Leibherr/Ralph Kreuger) instructed Les Reed to make the statement for ONE purpose only, and that is simply to get as many existing ST holders to renew by 39th May (After that date they go on General Sale).

In your opinion.

 

So, you have to ask yourself this. By 30th May, what will we know about SFC 2014/15 ?? . .... in reality, not a lot

They will still be my club and as such will have my support.

 

We WON't know who our Manager will be, we WON't know how many (if any) of the players will be leaving, and we WON't know the CALIBRE of player the Club are looking to replace them with

MoPo has another year on his contract. Yes, we won't know who is in or out until it happens. Well observed.

Les Reed's statement was carefully worded. Read it through a few times and you do realise that it doesn't really say a lot. Serious transfer talk/action doesn't start untill close season, BUT everybody has a mobile phone. Don't you think the airwaves are Buzzing already betweem Clubs and players.? Of course they are. Nothing OFFICIAL though, so Les Reed is correct, no Official contact with the Club.

And?

Pochettino. Les Reed says he is happy with the way things are between the Club and Manager. That tells us Zilch. Doesn't make a lot of sense though. Plus of course the bit about no player will be sold that Pochettino wants to stay. Very applaudable, IF Pochettino were our long term Manager. But we DON't know if he is staying, and if he goes, SFC can sell as many as they wish without Les Reed's uttrances being false.

Your point? Players come and go. Poch has also said he is happy with the way things are going. If we sell some players we sell some players. We won't know until next season. So what?

 

My view of Pochettino ? Simple, If you have a valuable Diamond, you insure it, you don't leave it hanging around for someone else to steal

Yes, and in the summer, hopefully, Mopo will sign up.

One thing that has come out of all this is that the Leibherrs are NOT going to spend the Mega Money needed to "enlarge" St Mary's (Ralph Kreuger said there were no immediate plans ) So you can forget about becomming a Big Club, able to compete with the Big Boys, and start using Cortese's DVD as a Coaster

Do we need a bigger stadium? Cortese has gone. Get over it.

By saying that, Kreuger has indicated VERY clearly that our "Future" will be within the constraints of a 32500 capacity average Club. No more, no less

Good. Why spunk a ton of money when it's not needed. Yet.

[CB Fry]

SAINTRichmond PROVES once again what a SENSIBLE and BalanCED forum contributor HE is.

[saintalan]

The Club (Katharina Leibherr/Ralph Kreuger) instructed Les Reed to make the statement for ONE purpose only, and that is simply to get as many existing ST holders to renew by 39th May (After that date they go on General Sale)....

 

Why do I need a statement to make me renew, I did so through the Branfoot and Lowe years...I renew because I support Saints and want to watch them.

[ericb]

Why do I need a statement to make me renew, I did so through the Branfoot and Lowe years...I renew because I support Saints and want to watch them.

 

I'd imagine it's probably aimed less at the renewals to be honest and more at the fickle JCL/premier league fans who might buy a season ticket this season if we're doing well. I'd imagine the club probably factor in about 18-20k renewal rate no matter what as that's what we did in league one at our worst so represents the core of the support.

 

To the club/merchandising people the more interesting and valuable ones will be the new customers, since they're higher value and represent an improvement in numbers, and i'd guess there's probably a target to improve to each season (unless there's a relegation when i guess the target would be around retaining).

 

What i do wonder is how much the club prefer some of the older season ticket holders to drop out and be replaced by new ones as it makes far more financial sense to do that.