Patrick Bateman

Exactly this - I was saying yesterday that it's refreshing to see football played "properly". I mean, the tippy tappy stuff can be nice to watch, but it's very dull and as we saw under Pochettino, possession doesn't score you goals and I think he's just got very lucky with Harry Kane right now. I actually like the way Saints play at the moment too, some really good defensive play that would be good for any kids to watch and learn from. When we break and counter properly, it's great to watch.

I would agree with this. BUT, a genuine question; are they worse, or is the game just so much faster (with so many silly non-contact rules) that it's easier to make a mistake that when analysed at a very slow speed from many angles, everyone can agree is wrong?

Bah, p*ss off Arsenal

I've never disliked an Arsenal team as much as this lot - so much so, that I actually want Pochettino's Spurs to finish above them, now that's some dislike!

He's a very very good player - really good tackler as well.

This.

TV is weird though isn't it - at the moment I mean. For example, I can't work out (as I'm not in that exact sector) whether sponsoring a programme has more value than being in the ad break? I couldn't tell you for example, what ads are currently running as I watch everything on catch up or boxsets. BUT, I could probably have a good stab at guessing/remembering who sponsors programmes. But then, I know what brands I like and from the sponsorship I do remember, I'm not certain anything has changed my purchase - certainly not online, but maybe subliminally in store maybe for the rare occasions I'm in a shop. It certainly would be interesting to know more about how TV advertising works, as I have no doubt about the reach, but it's how it "converts"?

That's not entirely true though. Firstly it's easy to measure reach of a campaign, you ask questions/ask for feedback, you force a little box which says "where did you hear about us", you ask people in the street, you look at the dataset in your analytics tools for visitors that have arrive straight at the site etc etc etc. In my last 3 online ventures, what you would call traditional advertising is actually a much smaller segment than driving traffic through SEO/SEM and ad retargeting. All these companies have absolutely enormous budgets dedicated to SEO & SEM. You said; "The headline remains that TV spots will **** all over any other medium in terms of effectiveness/return." Take booking.com. Not that many years ago, no one had heard of them, knew about them or anything. They acquired a shed load of hotel inventory and "search-engined" the f**k out of it. They grew through SEO & SEM ONLY, to become the biggest hotel booking engine on the internet, while rivals such as Expedia were playing catch up, trying to advertise in printed media (foolish) and on TV. There is *some* value, but nowhere near the amount of value as SEO, SEM and click-through ads using relevancy to retarget. Ad clicks are not a false metric, its just the start of the funnel. If your bounce rate stays the same and your conversion stays the same, if you're attracting more ad-clicks, you'll make more sales, simple as that. Of course also having someone to own the conversion and site/page bounce rates will drive revenue up higher, but it's certainly not a false metric. I don't know what your background is, but FWIW I do know and respect so22saint's industry achievements.

As a side note - didn't know you two knew each other. ericb and I strolled round unchallenged in Seattle in our previous company before

Just not surprised. Who buys these printer versions? On my daily commute, people pick up the free paper, Metro, or they're looking at papers on tablets/phones - I barely see anyone with a printed paper now except the FT.

Plumber who saw the contract and told his best mate down the pub, who is a taxi driver, who told a passenger, who is your mate. Yeah?

Couldn't care less if they do! I don't see a panic or worry like Wenger etc do, let all the mercenaries f**k off, we may end up with a league full of British players again, which may lead to a more competitive England team.

Exactly this. Let this mega league go and make all their masses of cash playing against the Chinese champions. Most people won't care.

To be fair that was more than likely from touching something else (on the train or stadium loos etc) than the food. The food is heated to such a ridiculous temperature, I'm pretty sure nothing would survive it, not even the food!

I have no answer to that, it was an ill thought out idea!

What an utterly pointless news article that turned out to be!

I think it would be right and proper to keep the prices as they are, but include two home cup matches for either the League Cup or FA Cup?

very good!

Definitely agree with this. He wasn't at his best earlier this season, no one can deny that, but over the last couple of months, he's stepped back up.

+1 ...

This. Many seasons have gone by when I've bemoaned our lack of ability to time waste, that was first class. I'm being serious, every other bloody team always seemed to do it to us and we were always utterly inept at it.

F**king 'rosters'. That's just so, tongue pushing out within bottom lip noise inducing.

Exactly this. If Wenger and all the other cash-rich plebs f**ked off to China, we'd still have a league to watch that would not be harmed and you never know, it might be more fun again.

I still think it'll be Spurs, the one team that no one is paying any attention to. Leicester - "shouldn't be up there", so all eyes on them Man City - Pep coming in, all eyes already on them Arsenal - eyes on them as they're expected to win Man Utd - eyes on them as Van Gaal is guff Liverpool and Chelsea are nowhere, leaving Spurs, who have only lost 3 matches all season, to quietly get on with business.

Couldn't agree more with this. It's clinical and a little weird. It needs livening up (and you CAN understand why all the good posters don't post anymore).