15 Jun 2017 12:01:03
So. With Tuchel ruling himself out of Southampton, I think the bookies have made FDB as favourite by default.

I was told a few days ago that Saints enquired about Julian Nagelsmann, however were put off by the large compensation payment, even before trying to persuade him to give up champions league football.

Any one heard anything else?

1.) 15 Jun 2017
15 Jun 2017 12:15:18
All I heard is that Les would have kept Puel. on for nextbseason if he had agreed to change the playing style. He wouldn't so Les wrote him a £6m severance cheque and said au revoir.

2.) 15 Jun 2017
15 Jun 2017 12:44:09
I wasn't keen on the style in the second half of the season but some of that was due to lack of cover for vvd forcing a more defensive MF to protect a vulnerable defence.
I would have liked to see Puel given another season with the chance to build his own team before judging him fully.
I feel sorry for him after giving us a fantastic day at Wembley and I fear what the consequences will be with all the uncertainty now surrounding the club.

3.) 15 Jun 2017
15 Jun 2017 12:55:18
Don't be silly. Have you seen the list of candidates?! Roy Hodgson is 3rd favourite. Idiot fans driving the guy out before he really got a chance.

4.) 15 Jun 2017
15 Jun 2017 13:56:04
WanderingSaint you're the one being an idiot. just because the bookies have him as 3rd favourite doesn't mean he's genuinely being considered by the board. Odds are influenced by many things, one of which is the bets people place. Hodgson is a recognisable name which will induce some people to bet on him despite the fact he clearly doesn't fit with the club in the slightest. He's been in the top 5 favourites for just about every job in the last year, as has Ryan Giggs. Doesn't mean a thing.

5.) 15 Jun 2017
15 Jun 2017 14:22:35
Er, you seem inconsistent to say the least.

On one hand you say ". would still be our manager if it wasn't for a section of our fans who have the patience of a spastic in an ice cream parlour. " On the other you say the above?

Bookies set prices for a number of reasons, but all roads lead to likelihood. To say the list of potentials is uninspiring is the understatement of the millennium.

Puel wasn't a "big name" and a large section of fans wanted him out before we'd even kicked a ball. The guy is highly respected throughout Europe. If I was a manager on the up, I wouldn't go anywhere near us, having just watched the treatment of Puel. These fans wanted us to play 4 attacking midfielders whilst having 3rd and 4th choice CBs in the side! I remember the days of 4-3 or 4-5 under Chris Nicholl. It was exciting, there were loads of goals, but we always had to perform miracles in the last 5 - 10 games of the season.

I maintain that this is an idiotic decision, brought about by deluded and unrealistic fans, and one we'll all regret. I sincerely hope and would be delighted to be proven wrong, but I just can't see it.

6.) 15 Jun 2017
15 Jun 2017 14:53:54
Maybe the shortlist is made up of former England managers. Allardyce, Hodgson, Erickson, Hoddle etc.

7.) 15 Jun 2017
15 Jun 2017 15:06:31
To be clear, then, my opinion is that it was very harsh and based on stupid and impatient reactions by the fans who have behaved poorly, and very hypocritically considering we normally take pride in our club being run differently to the other PL clubs who chop and change their managers every year (e. g. Watford) .

I do, however, share all the frustrations that the football last year was terrible to watch and not in keeping with our supposed philosophy, and so there's a little part of me that's not sad to see the back of him, even though I would never boo him like some did and force the club's hand.

My point above was just that the bookie's odds are in no way related to the actual targets the board have in mind. Odds are influenced mostly by the bookie's desire to limit their exposure in the event of particular outcomes, and so by the bets people place. Household names like Hodgson, Giggs etc. therefore inevitably rise to the top every time, without any indication they're actually particularly likely to get the job. Therefore to use bookie odds to either criticise or defend the decision to sack Puel is idiotic, particularly when it comes to the names which are linked with every single job.

Don't see how that's inconsistent.

8.) 15 Jun 2017
15 Jun 2017 16:13:18
Every single available and realistic target is on that list, together with some who are neither. Given that, i'd say it's perfectly reasonable to assess the decision to sack Puel on the basis of those available and realistic replacements. I would rather we'd kept Puel than replace with him with any one of them. The only caveat to that is if he was doing actual harm, which I don' believe.

As far as our deluded fans are concerned, come on, you've read the comments everywhere, such as "let's just get Tuchel in quickly. " Yeah, 'cos someone who's just taken a team to the QF of the champions league and won the German cup is just waiting with baited breath for us to ask. Deluded just doesn't cover it.

9.) 15 Jun 2017
15 Jun 2017 18:58:07
Do you seriously believe the club sacked puel because a few fans booed, wenger would have been out of a job years ago, they knew he wasn't going to change his philosophy and didn't want a transfer window then get rid, also well known within the club at least 3-4 players wanting to leave if he stayed, nice guys don't always come first.

10.) 15 Jun 2017
15 Jun 2017 20:26:20
Yes, like I said twice now though your only basis for saying they're available and realistic is the presence of their name on a betting website. Like I said, Hodgson is not realistic, so to criticise the board because some bookie decided to lower the odds on Hodgson is ridiculous.

Judge the club on its actions, not on unrelated actions by the bookies.

Also I find it very hard to believe that every single available and realistic target is on the list. Indeed, this would seem to contradict the defining characteristic of a 'SHORTlist'. What with all the unavailable and unrealistic targets thrown in there, for no clear reason other than to avoid WanderingSaint having to admit he's wrong, I doubt we'll get around to actually hiring someone until sometime in 2020.

11.) 16 Jun 2017
15 Jun 2017 23:27:19
If anyone else who was realistic and available was indeed realistic and available they'd be on the odds list. There may be others who we'll approach but the experts who spend their days analysing the market don't think so, because they're, well, unavailable and unrealistic.

I have clearly criticised the board for their action of sacking Puel at all. The fact there's nobody out there to replace him is a side issue.

Yes, i'm sure all of the bookies visited this site and added them so as to ensure I don't have to admit i'm wrong.

I sincerely hope we get someone good, but doubt it. If we appoint someone from leftfield, the same fans mentioned above will want him out before we've kicked a ball.

Whoever it is had better damn well a) finish in the top 6, and b) play free-flowing attacking football regardless of the squad, and c) win they games they win by 2 or goals, d) get a SF of a cup at least. If they don't the fans will drive them out.