verlaine1979

"A source close to Allen said he 'believes there is long-term investment value in UK soccer.' He added: 'Southampton is a sleeping giant, a family-supported club with traditional values, and we see the value in taking the brand global.'"

Could you secure a loan against the stadium without violating the terms of Macquarie's charge against our TV central funds?

The issue with that is the likelihood that we will fall behind and eventually be relegated if most other clubs are not operating under such a constraint. By the sound of it, you'd prefer to see Saints relegated as long as it improved Gao's chance of a positive ROI.

You seem to be confused. I'm not saying that Gao is obliged to put money into the club. I'm simply pointing out that in a world where, over time, budget correlates with performance, if we spend significantly less than our peers, we will eventually fall behind them. And in football, there's a specific word for falling behind, and it begins with R. My starting point is that I want us to be competitive and work back from there. If the prevailing economic reality in the league is that the owner has to support the club for it to compete, then yes, I'll be dissatisfied if we're one of the small number of clubs in that position where the owner is either unwilling or unable to do so. I'm not really sure why you're finding this so difficult to grasp? Or are you just content for the club to be eventually relegated as long as it means we remain pure and self-sustaining?

Right, which is why nobody is comparing our spending with that of clubs like Liverpool and United. The apt comparison is the likes of Bournemouth, Leicester etc. - the clubs we imagine we should be competing with in mid-table. Those clubs have largely similar wage bills to ours, largely similar TV, commercial and matchday revenue, but they have had significantly higher net outlay on players over the past five years. If you have a moral objection to the idea of wealthy owners injecting cash into their clubs to boost league performance, that's fine. But over the medium-long term, performance in team sports tends to correlate quite strongly with budget, so the corollary of that position is being happy to see us fall behind those clubs and permanently into the lower quartile of the league that traditionally dices with relegation until eventually there's no more dicing to be done. The only alternative strategy is to hope that you can make up the difference with better-than-average recruitment, boosting revenue through player sales. However, contrary to received wisdom, we haven't really adopted this strategy with any determination: a) we don't cast a wide enough net bringing in young players with potential - recruitment has always tended to be one in, one out; b) our stance over VVD's departure suggests we don't want to be seen as a selling/stepping-stone club; c) over the past few seasons the average age of signings seems to have risen dramatically towards the 26/27 age range, in which players are already known quantities.

My expectation is continued dicing with relegation if we are consistently outspent by the clubs we imagine ourselves to be competing with (as opposed to the newly promoted).

Nothing, if it's the norm. However, if 3/4 of the rest of the league either have dramatically higher commercial revenue or an owner prepared to inject equity at the maximum rate allowed by FFP, then it becomes a problem.

Debt-laden isn't an option. You're either a club where the owner supplements income with injections of cash that convert into equity (max £105m over three seasons), or you're a club that finances itself purely from tv, sponsorship and player sales. Either way, FFP means clubs can only really be in debt to their owners, and even then not for very long without the debt being converted. Leaving aside the top six, whose commercial incomes are so much bigger than ours they don't warrant comparison, you'd have to say that the spending patterns of the likes of Bournemouth, Leicester and Everton suggest their owners are providing additional funds, while Gao is saying categorically that he wont.

The squad has been absolutely crying out for genuine pace in transition and on the counter ever since Mane left. Looks like he brings that, and can finish with either foot, which is a bonus.

Eh, Lingard got 4 goals and 3 assists in just under 1700 minutes of league football last season. Redmond got 6 goals and 4 assists in just under 3300 minutes. Taking into account the fact that Lingard has already performed well for England, there's no injustice in him keeping Redmond out of the squad when fit.

So, essentially, what you're saying is that Southgate has picked a experienced backups in case the likes of Rice, Sancho and Rashford aren't working out. Put like that, it makes copious amounts of sense to the alternative of picking similarly average players with no tournament experience.

That depends. If the club really does want to be entirely self-sustaining, then profit from player trading will have to be substantial, as wages alone eat up the vast majority of TV money. Part of the club's calculation for incoming signings this summer will have to be based which ones are the most likely to increase in value over two/three seasons. Maehle might make even more sense on those terms, with Valery stepping up to remove any anxiety over succession. I think that was probably a big part of the calculation in signing Gunn last summer when a new GK wasn't exactly a priority, and similar thinking will be in evidence with signings this year.

Moreover, Valery's delivery is still quite unreliable, and he often fails to get his cross past the opposing fullback. He exceeded expectations last year, but I'd be happy with Valery being an understudy/going on loan while Maehle hopefully has his two good years here before being sold for a profit.

No, you're just oblivious to the fact that we've got no money and he's one of few players we could sell.

Gunn made a few mistakes towards the end of the season, but he's clearly better suited to the style RH wants to play where the keeper has to be comfortable sweeping and starting moves from the back.

Nope. Clubs can 'lose' up to £105m over three seasons as long as the owner is prepared to foot the bill by injecting equity into the club (i.e. paying off the debt). No need to dice around with dubious sponsorship deals - Gao could hand over an additional £35m per season in new cash (or the whole £105m in one season if he fancies it) without incurring any penalty at all from the Premier League. But as someone said above, neither is this likely to be a way of removing money from the club - as the majority shareholder, it's not like Gao needs elaborate schemes to do that. Mostly they just seem tin pot, and unlikely to be around for very long.

Last accounts had total staff wages at £96m (including directors and 130 or so non-footballing staff). Adding up to about £110m when additional costs like social security and pensions are factored in. Sky money for the period was £117m.

Strikes the ball extremely well, but comically one-footed. Looks almost allergic to touching the ball with his right boot.

Eh, whoever plays up front for Benfica seems to get about 30 goals a season, year in year out. One purple patch at 27 after multiple seasons only registering 2/3 goals a year does not a £50m player make.

Hope not, he's always looked absolute gash when I've seen him during international competitions.

Personally, I wouldn't even say it's anything as complicated that. I'm mostly concerned that if such a dubious sponsor is a) the best we could do & b) managed to get through our due diligence process with such glaring issues, it doesn't make me very optimistic about the running of the club and our future prospects.

'Move some of his investments' is a funny way to describe taking on £200m in high-interest debt.

Augustin looks a little more polished than either of them (and a cleaner striker of the ball) but if Everton and Leicester are after him, I think we can forget that one, even with the RH connection. Adams doesn't seem to strike the ball that cleanly, but from his goals last season, he does have a knack for finding the corner. Looked at a few clips of Aye playing and impossible to tell how good he is - the standard of defending is about as bad as I've seen in a decade or so of looking at YouTube clips of potential signings.

Aren't both Lookman and Adams pretty short? Maybe Adams is built like a bricky privy, but 5'9 doesn't really scream physical presence. That said, I think either of them would strengthen our attack. Clear out as much deadwood as possible and get both? I could live with a summer window in which we got Adams, Lookman and a decent CB. In particular, I think a young, English front three of Lookman, Adams and Redmond would probably start to get us a bit more favorable coverage, which always helps turning around a toxic atmosphere like the one we've had the past few seasons.