verlaine1979

The fact that our most potent attacker contributed 7 goals and 1 assist in 37 games (in other words a meaningful score-altering contribution every 4.6 games) speaks volumes about how very dull we've been to watch of late.

I think one of the commentators during the Huddersfield/Newcastle game mentioned that their new striker Mounie had one of the best records for headed goals in Europe last year. Bearing in mind how we struggled in the air against Antonio, Hoedt will presumably need to come straight into the side.

Probably a stretch to infer from those figures that Gardos could keep up his max speed over a full 100 metres.

I wasn't contesting whether it was technically a foul or not - my point was more that we got lucky because there was no way that chance turned into a goal without Zabaleta's unnecessary intervention. Owing to the slimness of the opportunity and the lateness of the moment, I'd say we got lucky that the ref didn't decide to turn a blind eye rather than changing the game so decisively in injury time.

There's no way an unimpeded Yoshida was getting that header on target - I suspect the shove only added a few inches of elevation on a ball that was destined to skim off the top of his head at an unfortunate angle anyway. Seen them given, seen them not, but felt we were pretty fortunate to get such a favourable decision at such a decisive moment in the game.

Long & Austin will both be on huge wages. Tough for a manager to bring on an untested youth team player when looking for a goal with those two on the bench. If no goal is forthcoming, the subsequent head-shaking ex-pro punditry practically writes itself.

A real papering over the cracks win in the end. We're so predictable going forward - nine times out of ten it winds up out wide for a cross, yet in Cedric and Tadic (when the latter is on the right) we have two dreadful crossers. Both the penalties were gifts in a way, one from Fonte and one from the referee, and without them you have yet another huff and puff attacking display enlivened by a solitary moment where Redmond and Gabbiadini combined with good movement and quick, accurate passing. Other than that, it was mostly the same story - nice quick stuff in midfield, followed by turgid predictable outlet balls to the wing when nobody has the nerve or skill to make something happen through the middle. After a shaky start I thought Lemina did okay and he definitely provides a physical presence that was missing last season. Davis did virtually nothing apart from getting tugged back for the pen, so if we stick with the same system I'd have JWP ahead of him every time just for the corners alone. Redmond was a passenger for the second half, and shouldn't feel aggrieved if he loses his place to Boufal. Gabbiadini is a good finisher with great movement, but we really don't have the passing or vision in central attacking midfield to get the best out of someone who plays off the shoulder of the last defender. Less said about the defending the better - hardly won a defensive header all game.

Well I'm glad Davis is finally back in his best position. He's making a real difference, just like everyone said he would once the defensive shackles were off...

If, as has been suggested, there's a defined, contractual timetable for her to sell her 20%, she'll be guaranteed that £52m anyway, leaving her with almost no risk at all, and the deal with the invaluable PR of having the safe, cosy European former owner sticking around a while until the new and unfamiliar owners get settled in. I take your point that at this stage, nobody knows how it'll turn out - but all anyone else has been saying is that there are warning flags and historical precedents for why a deal of this nature could turn out particularly badly. To assume that things will probably be fine, in spite of several worrying factors, based on nothing more than your impression of the character of people you've presumably never met and know almost nothing about, is asking too much. All of these concerns could've been assuaged from day one by the new owners giving a little more detail in their published statement. Instead both they and the outgoing owners dealt in fairly vague platitudes, leaving the full range of positive and negative outcomes firmly on the table. On top of that, as more detail emerges about the deal we're discovering that things are already not exactly as first described. A purchase funded with personal wealth becomes a purchase funded with loans secured on personal assets. A deal between friends becomes a deal between friends and an unnamed consortium from Macau. If nothing about any of gives you pause, I'd suggest you're being a touch naive.

You're taking a hell of a lot for granted. For a start, the $1.4bn figure for Gao's net worth is coincidentally the same as the market capitalization of Lander on the Shenzhen exchange. Bearing in mind how lazily/inaccurately Markus Liebherr's fortune was calculated and subsequently reported, I wouldn't say its outside the bounds of possibility that people have just looked up how much Lander is worth and applied the entire figure to Gao (I'm making the assumption here that as a publicly traded company, he isn't the sole shareholder of Lander). And, as has already been explained, it's immaterial whether the loan is secured against SFC or not - all that matters is whether SFC cash flows will be used to service the interest and capital repayments (as was the case with the Glazers take over of Man U, though in that case the club was also used as partial security against the initial loans). If the new owners have no intention of using money generated by the club to pay off the debt, it's a simple enough announcement to make, and the fact that they haven't said anything of the sort (and that certain aspects of the takeover quoted initially have already proven fragile, such as the existence of a consortium behind the Gao family) leaves ample room for doubt.

What the loan is secured against is irrelevant unless Gao defaults on the capital and interest payments (at least insofar as we need to be concerned about existential threats to the club's continued existence). What matters is the source of the money that will be used to service the debt on an ongoing basis. As Shurlock says below, with a relatively small asset base outside of China to secure against, and significant restrictions on where he could turn for cash, the cost of borrowing is likely to be high (for comparison, the Glazers used loans with interest rates of between c.8-16% during their acquisition and refinancing of Man Utd). If, as was the case with Man U, Saints end up providing the cash to service these loans on a ten year capital repayment, we could be talking about anything between £30-50m a year being taken out of the club to pay for the privilege of having a new owner. Of course, that could turn out to not be the case, and Gao could have every intention of funding the repayments out of his personal wealth, but if that's the case, they should probably come out and say something since it's such an obvious concern with a commercially-sourced debt-funded takeover such as this.

Even assuming your basic premise is valid (it isn't, as owner debt can be converted to equity) this is a false equivalence. If you borrow money from a financial institution they charge interest and will insist on a defined and largely unyielding repayment schedule. If you 'borrow' money from a rich owner, then yes, the debt can theoretically sit there until the club is sold unless they insist on clawing the money back. I've no idea what the going rate for the loans Gao has taken out will be, but for reference, the Glazers used various sources of debt during their acquisition and refinancing of Man U that attracted interest rates of between 8-16%, which if the rumour of a ten year repayment schedule is true could see the club coughing up nearly a van Dijk per year in capital and interest repayments, just for the privilege of having a new owner.

Considering the Lander deal was also to be financed primarily through debt, I don't think it was really a question of whether he could get 'his' money out of China, but just whether he'd be able to borrow money from within the country to purchase a foreign asset. Either way, the club will now presumably be financing the repayments of the funds used to acquire it, quite possibly to the detriment of our ability to compete in the transfer market.

So that's the worst possible outcome then. As expected, the club is now to all intents and purposes £210m in the debt.

I'd be amazed if it isn't just a temporary sop to anxious fans worried about the identity of the new owner. There will probably be a timetable for the further sale of 20% and she'll be fully divested of her share of the club after twelve months or so.

Davis and JWP presumably fighting for one starting spot this season when everyone is fit. Would pick JWP for better corners and a (very slightly) higher probability of scoring from open play (or at least making the odd run into the box).

Hmm £20m is the new £6m it seems.

Difficult to know which it is, but it's certainly not beyond the realms of possibility that during negotiation of the new contract he might have been quite open about the possibility that he'd still want to leave this summer and that he regarded the increased salary as compensation for helping the club maximise his sale value. The only complicating factor is then the captaincy.

Considering he signed the new contract in May 2016 and says in his statement that he's been telling the club he wants to leave for six months, that would potentially cast a bit of a different light on things.

Surely worth noting that the season of Long's life was in fact pretty mediocre. It's just that most of the other seasons have been dire.

Answer: not as many as your question seems to imply we did.

As it stands, no one is prepared to bid for him at our maximum valuation as they probably assume that the complete breakdown in relationship between player and club is going to result in us having to sell in a hurry towards the end of the window, thus saving themselves £15m+.

If the club lose their nerve now as a result of VVD mutinying and allow Liverpool to bid, it's highly unlikely we'd end up getting anything like full value for him as the balance of powerful will swing decisively towards the buying club. It'd be an acknowledgement that we have no choice but to sell, which is seldom a good look going into a negotiation. That said, I can see the equally negative outcome of him staying and then d*cking around for a year being injured and then moving for an equally reduced figure next summer.

This works for me, though I'd probably swap JWP to the middle of the attacking midfield three. As the most creative player in that lineup, Boufal should be encouraged to play from his position rather than rigidly stick to the wing, much like Hazard does at Chelsea.

I suspect you'd find for Davis that most of his pass-before-the-passes have been slow, deliberate shuffles of the ball out to a fullback who actually puts in all the craft and technique leading to a goal. Really, what this whole argument seems to boil down to is that I've been saying he's sh*t and we could do better for two years, and everyone else seems to be saying he's an underappreciated hero and we could do better. Which is it? Can we do better, or is he the most underappreciated midfielder in the league? If you'd just started out by saying 'yeah, he's average but we haven't got anyone better at the moment' I'd have agreed with you from the very beginning and we could've saved ourselves some time...