dvaughanwilliams

I think that the club are trying to develop a distinctive way of doing things through all the age groups. At the moment it is meaningless. If you think about a club like Ajax, they have a very distinctive training regimen that operates at every level of the club. This article by the New York Times is really interesting http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/magazine/06Soccer-t.html?pagewanted=all (warning: it is pretty long). They have an idea of the kind of attributes that they want from their players, they have a model of the style of football they want to play, so they make sure that they bring in the right players from the age of 7. It's the kind of thing that can't be brought in over night, but over time, if pursued could reap real results. If you wanted a model to copy, Ajax's is a pretty good one. Think of all the great players that their Academy produced. They all went into the first team and then got sold on to teams abroad for generally pretty large sums. It has worked well for them for a long time, why not copy it? The 'Southampton Way' is a slogan, but could actually effect the mindset of people within the club and could help to build the culture that they are aspiring towards.

I have recently been informed about a service that is promoted by the police http://www.immobilise.com and was wondering if anyone had had any experience of the site or if it is worth using? The idea seems to be to register all of your most nickable stuff with their serial numbers so if any of it does get stolen and the police find it, they know who to return it to. Thoughts?

Scotland will be the test for these speculations. If players are less willing to sign for any Scottish club, where there is an alternative offer, it will show the effect of the FCR. It may be that clubs like Celtic have to offer higher wages to players who also get offers from English clubs, even from the Championship because of the difference in rules. The player would have to balance the potential to play in Europe, the size of the clubs involved, the wages offered as well as the implications of the FCR. I don't think that any player would make the decision purely based on the differences in insolvency rules, but I think that for some it would be a consideration among many other factors. I can imagine that some agents would want to have a look at the accounts of a Scottish club before the player signed.

The advertising on the edge of one side the pitch is being digitally superimposed, which is even more annoying than when they use the LED boards. Good finish from Ashley Young.

I think that you're approaching this from the wrong way. I agree that players don't think about the FCR at the moment. However, consider the situation in Scotland: there is no FCR and Rangers have been able to make players redundant and renege on the contracts. I think that from now on, players in Scotland and players who are offered contracts in Scotland will think twice about it. If the FCR were abolished or amended in this country then I think that there would be no immediate change, but after the first high profile set of redundancies or unpaid wages, there would be a sudden change. Footballers who were in demand and had a choice of clubs would probably get advice from their agent about the clubs finances and it would become a consideration in future. For the majority of players, where just getting a club is the priority, these financial concerns won't play a part.

Two things that I've picked up from a highly reliable source (The Snooze comments section): 1. Chainrai's bid is a conditional, preliminary bid. I would speculate that the condition is that TBH and some of the other earners have been run out of town. 2. The trust bid is even more doomed than I thought. It is based on the fantasy that they can reduce Chainrai's secured debt to their value of Nottaarf, which they consider to be £2m. As if that helps. So now Chainrai would have £2m of secured debt and £16.6m of unsecured debt (it wouldn't just disappear). Now the club would have a total unsecured debt of £56.6m. So, after having his secured debt converted into unsecured, his bid turned down in favour of the trust, he would be asked to vote on the CVA. With more than 25% of the unsecured debt. I wonder which way he'd vote? Also, they're expecting the Council to borrow the money to buy Nottarf. You have to admire their optimism.

Tomasz Kuszczak would be a good signing in my view. He's now third choice at Man U behind Lindegaard and desperate to leave. Also Ben Foster is due to go back to Brum from WBA now his season long loan is up. Pretty sure Brum can't afford his wages and will look to move him on again. Of course you can't rule out a keeper coming in from the continent who turn out to be brilliant, like Vorm.

I have heard from a number of sources who have connections within the club that Pardew's removal was not for footballing reasons. I can't think of any precedent of a manager winning promotion for a team and getting replaced before the start of the season. Di Matteo was given the boot from West Brom, despite getting them promoted and replaced by Hodgson, but that was mid-season. Adkins has managed the club well, in my opinion. Also, I'm not convinced by the story that Cortese wants to suddenly start throwing money about. Most of our transfers have been taking the best players from clubs who are skint and can't turn down the money (Barnard, Sharp, Dickson, Lambert, Seaborne, Fonte) or players who are out of favour at their current club and can be bought on the cheap (Chaplow, Hooiveld). It would seem odd to suddenly change this previously successful strategy. However, if this journo has heard talk from three sources, then there may be something in it. Having met Cortese at one of his dinners, he did come across as fiercely ambitious. He told a story at the one I went to where Markus said [paraphrased], "When we get to the Premiership, I don't want us to spend too much, too soon. Let's just consolidate within the league." to which Cortese replied "But I want to win the Champions League." This is easy to laugh at, but I think it's an insight into his mentality. I hope we keep Adkins, that he neither gets sacked nor lured away to manage another Premier League team.

The reviews for that are brilliant. Also all the 'related items' had fantastic reviews too. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Aluminium-Foil-450mm-75m-establishment/dp/B003MAEDNA/ref=pd_sim_sbs_kh_2 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Barrettine-Methylated-Spirit-500ml/dp/B002ATI4VG/ref=pd_sim_sbs_kh_3 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Townsend-Director-Communications-Manchester-United/dp/B00214G18I

So, there is £5.5m of football debts which can't get written off with a CVA. Potential spoilsports who can hijack the CVA are CSI and whoever gets to vote on behalf of the Old Co CVA creditors, both of whom have more than 25% of the debt.

See the 20th page of the pdf for breakdown of unsecured creditors. PKF creditors report Unsecured creditors ('000s) CSI PLC - Non Interest 10,525 Trade creditors 2,239 Transfer & Agents Fees - English Clubs 1,119 Transfer & Agents Fees - Overseas Clubs 1,060 Players bonuses 09/10 1,754 Unpaid Salaries 11/12 1,604 VAT 735 PAYE & NI 1,576 Net Salaries Control 505 CVA creditors 16,500 Accruals & Other creditors 1,634 Deferred income 1,255 Total 40,506

All deposits in banks in the EU are protected up to €100,000. This is why the UK protection increased to £85,000, which was based on the exchange rate at the time of the rule change. I'm not sure who backs the guarantee. If it's the ECB within the Eurozone, then there's no problems, but I suspect that it's actually the national government. Ultimately, I can't imagine a situation in which the ECB would allow depositors to lose money, there would be a bailout.

There are a few places on the internet that do made to measure shirts for about the price of an M&S shirt. I've just put an order in with http://www.everythingbespoke.com Of course, this does have the hassle of having to get the measurements, but seems worthwhile to me.

Firstly, I don't think that the trust's bid has a chance. It's is based on getting shot of the highest earners, which is rather optimistic, in my view. As I understand things (and accept I may be entirely wrong), they hope to reduce the amount of secured debts to the value of the security. The remainder of the currently secured debts becomes unsecured. They then offer the creditors some trivial amount, say 1p in the £. The club pays the dividend on the CVA, the interest on the secured debt and has a low cost squad. They expect to run at a small loss, funded by the pledges. Of course, getting the CVA through might be tough, plenty of possibilities of >25% of creditors revolting. Also, given that the high earners haven't voluntarily re-negotiated their contracts up to now, I can't see them suddenly agreeing to waive their rights now. Currently, the secured creditors will get all of the proceeds of liquidation. In this option, the unsecured creditors would get something. Hopelessly over optimistic, but this is what I understand to be the plan.

Greece has a few choices, none of which are very appealing. It's a question of the least bad option: No default, stay in the Euro. In my opinion, the best choice. Can use funding from the ECB, IMF, EIB, etc to run a reducing deficit over a number of years. Will go through a horrible recession, high unemployment, deflation and misery. Default and stay in the Euro. Instant elimination of deficit as they can't borrow any money. Deflation, high unemployment, bank failures and bankruptcies happen quickly. Still trapped in an unsuitable currency. Default and leave Euro. Long-term, may be the best option, but the practicalities of re-introducing the drachma, pretty terrible. as soon as the Greek people heard a credible rumour that it would happen there would be runs on banks and people would be desperate to get their hands on Euro notes. There would have to be border controls to prevent anyone taking notes out of the country without being stamped or converted to new Drachma. The new currency would instantly fail as the people would reject it. Hyperinflation would take hold with the accompanying hardship. Like being asked which of your children would you kill, or would you rather lose an arm, leg or eye?

As I understand the trust's bid, they are hoping to buy the club for £1. The pledges and money raised from the issuing of shares is to be used to fund the losses of the club for the first 2 years.

In the forthcoming season we will be seeing quite a few former Saints. Who will you cheer and who will you boo? When we play Norwich at SMS, if he's playing, I'll cheer Surman when his name's read out. He left to keep the club running and have no ill-feeling towards him at all. Might cheer Bale as well. I don't really do booing, but I'll make an exception for Fuller and maybe Dyer. Pretty neutral about most of the others though.

I'd take 17th. I hope for better and I'm sure that the club are aiming for better. I expect Nigel, in common with other managers, will stress the importance of survival in all of his interviews for at least the first half of the season. I want the club to be run with financial stability and would not want the long term future of the club to be gambled for the sake of chasing unrealistic dreams. Stoke are probably a good benchmark for us. They have spent money sensibly, slowly improving their squad over the years. Obviously I don't want to see us copying their playing style.

I think that this trust thing might work out, I mean all they have to do is: hope Chainrai accepts that his secured debt will be mainly converted to unsecured debt and have some way to pay the principal and interest back to him hope that the unsecured creditors, including Baker Tilly, HMRC, Gaydamak, Chinny agree to a CVA hope the amount of money that they raise is a better deal than selling the ground to a property developer convert the pledges into real money persuade all of the overpaid 'stars' to voluntarily accept a massive pay cut or tear up their contracts despite being, in effect, preferential creditors fund any losses that accrue over the next season Easy!

Expansion or relocation only makes sense if you are relatively sure you are going to fill it. It isn't just a case of 'build it and they will come.' Surviving for one year doesn't mean anything. Wolves survived for 2 seasons, getting relegated in their third season. They spent money on their squad and still got relegated. They've put the second phase of their expansion on hold and probably won't fill the ground next season. Look at Blackburn, Wigan and Bolton. They can't fill their stadia, despite being in the Premiership for a while. The question of re-development vs relocation depends on how big you wanted the stadium to be. If you were just adding a few thousand and increasing the corporate area, then adding a tier to the Itchen Stand (if practical) would be the best option. If you wanted to increase capacity to 60,000 then the difference in cost between the two options would be marginal and relocation would make sense. Realistically, we need to be selling out every game for a season, with a high percentage of the ground as season ticket holders before any expansion should go ahead.

I read some of the pieces by David Conn on the Guardian about Ken Bates' "contentious" ownership of Leeds and in the articles he discussed the different levels of disclosure of ownership in the Premiership and Football League (last para here ). In the Football League, you don't have to disclose all owners, in the Premier League, you do. Any beneficial owner with 10% or more of the shares has to be publicly disclosed. I don't know when it will be disclosed, but it will be made clear soon.

The problem football clubs have with money isn't transfer fees, but wages. Signing players with sensible wage demands is the most important thing. Also the players who were most instrumental in achieving promotion will all want pay rises, if it isn't already written into their contracts. My main hope is that the future of the club isn't put at stake. I would rather have a season like Blackpool had, than put the long term financial sustainability under threat.

Yesssssssssss! Fonte to Hooiveld. Our new strike partnership!

I think the problem is that he seems to have operated over quite a wide area, with other attacks in Banister Park, Bedford Place and Bevois Valley. Difficult to know where to set it up with any hope of success. I think that more needs to be done to persuade young women to take taxis or night buses home rather than walking. Particularly trying to stop them walking through the parks at night, where there have been loads of attacks.

Wseton Super Saint hints at what I consider to be one of the most important factors when he mentions rates and beer ties. In this country most of the independent pubs are owned by a company like Punch Taverns who then lease the premises to the landlord. Part of this deal is that they have to buy their beer via Punch. Punch Taverns is a company with an *innovative* financial structure that is so good it lead to the FT's Alphaville Blog to call it the Toxic Pub Co. It went in for that 'securitisation' that worked so well for the American mortgage industry and is absolutely stuffed with debt. This means for the company to survive, they haven't been able to improve or modernise the premises whilst also charging extra for the beer. The beer may be available on the open market for a lot less, but the tie means it would be a breach of contract to buy it. A few years ago when the economy was running well, the debt was cheap and it was probably a little bit easier to make money. People were much happier to go out and fling their money about. Now that people are feeling the squeeze, they are still going out but drinking more at home before they go out. Less disposable income for customers + increased costs for landlords, forcing them to increase prices is not a formula for success.