If we're not in a position to be backed well enough in the transfer market, the manager is immaterial. I'd be more comfortable if the takeover was sorted. We sold 30 odd goals last season and scraped 8th, sell 2 of a dream back 4 and any manager will struggle.
That would be best possible scenario if it does turn out to be him tbh. It all seems a little strange to me atm as I would've thought that we would be pretty sure on who we were going to appoint before getting rid of Puel. The way the odds have jumped about and speculation in the media would make it appear that this isn't the case as some word would've got out of the club if they were decided on who it was going to be.
The current list of candidates is looking a little thing: one would have thought we had done our own accidently bumping into someone and had a spot of lunch in Cleethorpes, Blackpool or somewhere else equally salubrious...
The truth is everyone is guessing because nobody knows what is happening. That is the way it should be. I do agree though that so far the names that have been put forward are no different or better than Puel.
Viera would use us as a springboard to obscurity mate. Seriously doubt, on the evidence I've seen, that he has a clue.
****ing hope not mate. Perhaps I got them on a bad day, but having see NYCFC play at Yankee Stadium, I'd be appalled. Somehow he got a team containing Lampard, Pirlo and Villa to look like they'd never been coached.
I'm hoping against hope now that there's a 100% leftfield appointment the club have up their sleeve. Otherwise someone needs to write a very nice 'Dear Claude...' letter!
Let's not assume that the fluctuations in the betting market are a proxy for what is happening internally. Those prices change every time a few bets are placed, or there's a new speculative article in a 'news' paper somewhere, and it simply reflects the fact that the market doesn't know, not that Saints don't
I honestly hope this does not happen. For me, the lack of entertaining football last season was down to the style of play not the quality of the players. That aside the 'buy cheap and sell high' policy has worked well for us. Fans get frustrated when we pay £12m for a player who doesn't actually match up to the hype and conveniently forget the other three players we bought for £12m and did deliver (and perhaps then sold for a huge profit). When we start forking out £30m for a player the frustration will be even higher for those that fail to deliver and those that perform well will still move on after a year or two - just for less profit to us. Can you imagine the stick Pogba would get on here if we had paid £90m for him and he performed for us as he did for Man U at the start of last season??
If you look at our buys last season: Hojbjerg £13 million Redmond £11million Boufal £17 million Gabbiadini £14 million Can hardly say that those players are cheap, but some so far have not lived up to their price tags, which I'm more then hopeful will change next season. Can't say that Puel wasn't backed money wise in the transfer market though.
I don't disagree. My point was more that trying to persuade players/managers to sign deals for a club that is looking to be sold will be tough. Unless they are confident in what saints are offering, why would you take the risk? A manager will want to know expectations and budgets etc Players in/out bound would want to know who they are going to be working with. Sacking Puel may have been needed later in the day but we should have put our ducks in a row first.
As a Saints fan, I truly hope we appoint a good manager who will start a few seasons and be "successful".... Ad a devious sod, I can't wait for the meltdown when we appoint a manager who really doesn't wet anyone's appetite, especially those who were having pops at Puel. "Be careful what you wish for" is a line some should heed more often.
