CB Fry

I'll tell you what never happened. Me going anywhere near your protest website.

I remember the picture of you proudly holding up the receipt of the red shirt you scuttled off down the club shop to buy.

Please all red kit please all red kit please all red kit.

Kind of destroys the old argument that it is the Remain side talking the country down doesn't it? Liam Fox has been deliciously put down by various people through the course of the day who have, you know, actually had a real job.

Fair enough Charlie.

You're living in cloud cuckoo land if you seriously think VVD is going to be here for at least four years. Ditto Forster - if, say, Arsenal come in for him to be their number one next summer, he's gone. There's no evidence we only sell our players when they have two years left. I've given you a hatful of examples already. Accept it. We've done well on contracts this summer but all it definitely does is buy us one more season regardless of the contract length.

Not like Shane Long to miss a golden opportunity.

Not like Clasie to come off after an hour.

Lovely.

I've not said anything about roots or culture or traditions "as you and I understand it" - you're not reading what I've said at all. The killer, winning product is the Premier League. It's a successful TV product that is being exported around the globe. Even the Champions League isn't as successful as the Premier League as an exported TV product. Like Star Wars or Top Gear or Beyoncé it's an global entertainment product that works very well as it is. People in Beijing want to watch United v Arsenal and people in Chicago want to watch United v Arsenal but do people in Chicago want to watch United v Beijing and do people in Beijing want to watch Arsenal v Chicago. Just like Hollywood don't make movies with, say, Johnny Depp and two Chinese actors because Chinese people would be "dreaming to see that". And with such a compelling and profitable proposition I don't know why Manchester United would throw that away to then enrich Shanghai Rovers, LA Galaxy and Sydney Wildcats. They don't need to let them in to feed off their lucrative brand without actually adding any value. The Premier League are savvy enough to work out a way to maintain their dominant position without making other clubs rich or spreading out their earnings. A series of global touring tournaments I can see, satellite clubs (like New York City already is) also likely, but there's nothing I can see that will stop the Premier League remaining in control of their destiny. Certainly nothing suggests a global league of any significance in the next five years if the Prem have anything to do with it. Nothing to do with ropey old "traditions" everything to do with cold, hard cash.

Okay then. Keep blathering.

There are all the riches on offer in China now - look at what they're paying Pelle. But there's a reason why they've signed Pelle and not Pogba or Bale or Ronaldo at their peak. They could afford to sign all those players right now because they've got "all the riches" on offer. We are a million miles away from a world league - "riches on offer" is not enough. It would be a sh it product. There's a reason Dubai/Abu Dhabi bought into the Premier League and didn't try and create something else locally - the strongest product is the Premier League itself not just the clubs. Manchester United versus Shanghai Rovers is not the Premier League. Same reason why Hollywood blockbusters are still coming out of Hollywood with US movie stars. There are "all the riches" in China or Qatar to make China and Qatar blockbusters but it is not the global product that Hollywood is.

Err, my first post that you've quoted is me showing the inherent contradiction in what you're saying, ie I have no idea what you actually want because you're contradicting yourself. You're not too great at this.

We have chosen our own path so that's all fine. No idea what else you're talking about.

Except I'm not saying you have an agenda, I'm saying I have absolutely no idea what you actually want Southampton Football Club to do. You started the thread saying "what are the consequences, what are the consequences?" as if you want us to just spend regardless but you're also moaning about clubs running up debts like that's a bad thing. So I have no clue what you want the club to do. Is running up debts bad like Sunderland or something we should be doing because there are no consequences? Or I have no idea what you want the authorities to do - a) clamp down harder on clubs spending money so they all spend less, therefore minimal change to what SFC do now as we are within our means b) or relax the rules more so SFC can then spend loads of money like Man City which I thought you were saying is bad. What do you want the club to do differently? What do you want the authorities to do differently? There's something worse than having an agenda, and that's scattergun griping and contradicting yourself. I will now try and recover from your revelation that chatting on this forum doesn't actually affect anything. This will take some getting over.

If it is all about the money why are you saying "of course it would happen"? The English Premier league is the richest league in the world, I remain to be convinced that the biggest English clubs would walk away from that to join something which would be clearly less good and has the risk to generate less money. There's no evidence that Chinese people want to watch MUFC vs New York City significantly more than they want to watch MUFC vs Everton. They just want to watch MUFC. The Premier League is an efficient and very profitable way to deliver lots of that product. The logic frankly doesn't make sense: it's a bit like saying that people like One Direction, they were the biggest act in the world but it's all about money and everyone would make more money if two members of the band was Chinese and one was from LA because that would, like, open up the Asian market. No it wouldn't.

Do we? Let's say not quite. I think you might need to have a weeny little look at when the likes of Lallana and Shaw signed their contracts and when we sold them on. And, er, also when we sold Wanyama and Pelle which was only a few weeks ago. Sometimes two years, sometimes one, sometimes more.

Why are you claiming "I told you" so on something that hasn't actually happened yet? Let's be honest it would be a total crock of sh it. I'm not convinced the English clubs would ever leave the Prem to join some ditchwater dull F1-with-shinpads European Super League so a world version outside of glorified pre-season friendlies is absolutely miles away.

If we sell him next summer he will have to have been the greatest player we've ever signed. 20-odd goals or something from the wing. We've got him for 2 years whatever happens.

What is your actual position on this issue? You're trying to make out you are campaigning for fairness/level playing field and all that boll ocks but really you just want us to spend like Man City and be like Man City and have success like Man City and break the rules like Man City because that's what you want to see happen. Am I right? We are trying not be another Portsmouth with the way we are running the club so we don't need FFP to stop us being another Portsmouth so what's the problem?

Please say we'll win Lawro please say we'll win. Just say we'll win Lawro please. Please. Say we'll win. Lawro. Please say it please Lawro please.

Anyone looked at the Team GB Cycling, Rowing, Hockey, Equestrian etc teams recently. Basically it's like Hitler won the war.

Is it still Dave Kitson then? Surely he's not going to be enough of an insider anymore and they've moved on to someone else. I always thought TSF was a "composite" person anyway with inputs from more than one source to make it impossible to know for sure/legally who the "I had this manager once..." definitely was.

Can't say I care. We're not going to do it and that's good. Everton can do what they like.

We're not going to and good.