trousers

Good question. Dunno. I'm just thinking out loud on a football forum which means there's a significant danger I may be talking nonsense...

I was hypothesising that Goa might have some kind of masterplan that involves buying more land around the stadium (in due course) and turning the whole area into some kind of super-dooper leisure & living quarter. He is a real estate developer by trade, after all. There again, he could simply be a con merchant whose intention is to buy the club, milk a few years of Premier League riches, and then bugger off leaving the club in dire straits. Who knows?

Fair point. I'm open to the notion that this could all go tits up. I'm also open to the possibility that it might turn out OK. I'm not making a judgement either way...yet...

This

To also buy up the land around the stadium and make a fortune out of developing the area? Maybe?

I'm easily confused

Maybe she needs the money for something else? (the supposed tax bill on Markus's estate for example?) So, in the scenario where she needed to raise funds for personal reasons she had two options: 1) maintain 100% ownership of Saints and realise the money she needs out of the club profits going forward, thus reducing the amount of money available in the club for maintaining the same levels of self sufficiency Or 2) sell 80% of the club to someone who she is convinced will maintain the same level of self sufficiency that she's been able to uphold over recent years, thus not needing to tap into club profits as much as if she'd stayed on 100% So, could it be argued that by taking option 2 she has, potentially, left the club in the best financial position overall, all things considered? i.e. the financial status quo has been maintained rather than us taking a step backwards? Dunno. Just flopping it out there, so to speak

What makes you think Gao 'hasn't got any money'?

Possibly. Or possibly not. Difficult to judge at this early stage. Although I'm sure that won't stop people jumping to conclusions...

Katharina resigned from 'Southampton Football Club Ltd' before the takeover but not 'St Mary's Football Group'. Could that mean she is still the 100% of the 'parent company' that the football club resides under? I've no idea how this company hierarchy malarkey works so equally have no idea about the implications of any of this (Does it show?!)

Could it be argued that this will incentivise the club to unearth even more Manes and Virgils in order to retain the same level of self-sufficiency? Which can only be a good thing? (Yes, I know I'm in danger of entering Devil's advocate territory here but 'debt' isn't necessarily a bad thing per se, as long as it's managed prudently. But I do accept that one possible outcome to Gao's "investment" is that it could all go tits up and we end up back in League 1, so I'm not completely blinkered We can then start moaning about the League's inadequate 'fit and proper owner' tests, much like our friends down the M27 )

Agree. My hunch is that if we knew why Rogers left it would shed a fair amount of light on the circumstances behind the Gao takeover / partnership. Gotta be someone ITK on that out there, surely? AR-10?

Do we know whether Goa invested in St Mary's Football Group or Southampton Football Club Ltd? And does it make any difference either way?

I'm inclined to agree. Shouldn't these two paragraphs from The Times report makes us feel more rather than less comfortable? "Gao’s backers are demanding a return on their investment and will not grant him a transfer budget so the club will continue to operate as it has done throughout the Liebherr family’s ownership Liebherr has retained a 20 per cent stake in the club that she may sell to Gao at a later date, but in the meantime her statement on Monday that it is “business as usual” for Southampton is an accurate reflection of the club’s position" In other words, we're going to continue to be self sustainable rather than go down the unsustainable route than the likes of Pompey went down in recent history. Or am I being too pragmatic/optimistic (just for a change)?

[emoji38]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40965581

IIRC, someone posted on here a while back that the club did look to loan him out a couple of years ago but Reed was keen to stay to try and break into the first team. Agree that the club should have probably tried harder to convince him otherwise if that's true.

Hopefully, he'll get a similar reaction from fans as Schneiderlin got after he threw his toys out of the pram... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/southampton/11146640/Morgan-Schneiderlin-Southamptons-broken-promises-forced-me-to-send-controversial-tweet.html

Wow, what a corker. We could have the best midfield options in the Premier League at this rate...

A skate... lecturing us about well run clubs...

...

He's probably referring to the last two paragraphs in the Echo's account of the interview: Krueger was asked whether Saints would even turn down a ludicrous offer if one came in and replied: “I will tell you one thing - over the years we have spoken I don't give definite answers where there isn't a definite. “With all the knowledge I have today and all the information I have on my plate right now my answer is we are carrying our strategy through the summer and that's it.