Jump to content

Matthew Le God

Subscribed Users
  • Posts

    30,633
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Matthew Le God

  1. Apart from having numerous players that have very good Championship goal scoring records.
  2. They aren't going to pay the amount it would take to buy him for him then to spend most of his time on the bench.
  3. That won't help much. If we don't go up this season, there'll be 3 more clubs with parachute payments joining us. Plus our parachute payments would be reduced in 26/27 and any decent player would want to leave next summer.
  4. The article in the opening post of this thread says Still, Spors and Parsons.
  5. Not many of them gone so far. Plus he didn't say it would be easy.
  6. Sonnie joins Kelvin's Eastleigh
  7. Season tickets have sold out again and they've opened a waiting list to get one in future seasons...
  8. The maths does not work like that at all. As well as parachute payments, Saints have large relegation wage reduction clauses in player contracts. Player sales are also not all upfront payments. We are still bringing in and spending money on past transfers. Any other players we sell or buy this summer will also be paid for other multiple years.
  9. What are you basing the £70m on?
  10. If he gets his bonus it isn't a bugger moment. "He had not been paid a €200mn bonus linked to the sale of some of the group’s assets, and has called on Dutch authorities to investigate a “serious governance crisis” at the media company. BC Partners has said it will pay his bonus, according to people familiar with the matter."
  11. BC Partners faces an escalating rebellion at one of its largest portfolio companies, United Group, as executives from its key operating subsidiaries gave their backing to the founder and chief executive ousted by the British private equity group. In a letter sent this week to United Group’s board, eight operating company chief executives at the sprawling telecoms and media group reproached the private equity firm for running the business in a way that risks causing “long-term damage”, after it fired the company’s founder and chief executive officer. All but one of the CEOs of United’s operating companies — representing entities that contribute 90 per cent of the group’s cash and about 70 per cent of its earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation — signed the letter, seen by the Financial Times, demanding the pair be reinstated. The breach between United’s private equity owner and its management comes after the board fired founder Dragan Šolak and chief executive Victoriya Boklag in June. Šolak, the owner of English football club Southampton FC, has since locked horns with the private equity firm over his dismissal from the company he founded in Serbia in 2000, and which has grown to €2.7bn in annual revenues. The Serbian-born billionaire has sued BC Partners, alleging he had not been paid a €200mn bonus linked to the sale of some of the group’s assets, and has called on Dutch authorities to investigate a “serious governance crisis” at the media company. BC Partners has said it will pay his bonus, according to people familiar with the matter. The Dutch court rejected Šolak’s request to have the claim’s considered urgently. United Group has previously said Šolak’s complaints “solely serve the interests of Šolak, and not United Group”. In the last year, Šolak, who continues to have a minority stake in the business, has tried to buy BC Partners out of the company but had his offers rejected. His stake continues to gives him sole responsibility for awarding shares in United’s incentive plan to managers, according to people familiar with the matter. A group of 14 senior managers at United, including the chief financial officer and chief operating officer but excluding the country CEOs, wrote to the board in the wake of Šolak’s ousting. They highlighted “deep concerns regarding the recent leadership changes”, which they said had caused a number of senior employees to resign, Bloomberg previously reported. “Sudden and unprepared regime change was not only a random but also a very irresponsible decision — and thus an existential threat to United Group and its businesses,” those managers wrote. United Group’s board and BC Partners have dismissed those claims as being greatly exaggerated, according to people familiar with the matter. However, in the most recent letter, another eight United executives echoed the concerns of the original 14 managers. “We join the Group’s broader senior management in stating explicitly: this is an unsustainable situation for United Group and for our operating companies,” the operating CEOs said. They added that they were increasingly concerned by the “rapid introduction” of external consultants surrounding the new leadership team. “Group management, with which we were closely collaborating, is excluded from governance and decision-making processes,” the latest letter said.
  12. First home Championship game for a club that will get a lot of viewers for the advertisers on ITV. Will probably get the biggest viewer numbers of all those games.
  13. We have a month of the window left! Transfers are generally left until late on at most clubs for numerous good reasons that have been outlined on here multiple times every window.
  14. We still have a lot of the squad that were promoted from the Championship. Plus our assistant manager has recently been promoted from the Championship.
  15. Fun and games for Dragan Solak. He is owed €200 million... https://www.ft.com/content/0c6cbb27-48e8-40b9-818e-13a4854abc9b?shareType=nongift
  16. I think it would still be considered a good (but not great) season if they closed the currently considerable gap between the two clubs even if they were still 2nd.
  17. They’ve given up then, because of he was filmed and photographed in training this week!
  18. He'd be right! He is far above the level of the rest of our squad, bar Fernandes.
  19. I wouldn't take accounts that call themselves "the home of reliable rumours" with only 166 followers seriously. We need to be selling centre backs, not buying more.
  20. Are you under contract with her until 2029?
  21. I did not say they would or should say no. But given he is under contract until 2029, if no bid is deemed high enough... then they could.
×
×
  • Create New...