Matthew Le God

Sure, I'm not going to deny it is no where near PL level. But they've still done very well with a club that has struggled to compete at the top end of the top flight for a very long time.

That smaller clubs than Saints can sign £40m players. And that rather than going for quantity and signing Onuachu and Sulemana for £40m, it may have been better to fork out all that money on a single player from a quality bracket above them. Like Bournemouth did this summer.

The Bournemouth owner...

Bournemouth managed it.

It isn't a choice of one or the other for the reasons I've already outlined. Both can be done simultaneously and one helps the other.

Not any that have been publicly announced. I'd be surprised if he didn't have something in it to give him an easy route out as he is far to good for a season in the Championship.

Of course he isn't the player he once was and has fitness issues. But in terms of his current ability, he'd be a stand out player in the Championship.

That is due to recruitment issues and in some ways due to opting for quantity over quality. No guarantee, but signing a £40m striker might have been better for us than signing two £20m attacking players like Onuachu and Sulemana. That doesn't mean infrastructure investment couldn't be done at the same time, the funding of them is exempt from rules so doesn't impact transfer funds.

I'd be amazed if he stayed even if we had the miracle of avoiding relegation. He will be on the radar of the elite clubs this summer. The extra year trigger to 2027 allows Saints to negotiate a higher price.

It might not be done as debt. The club accounts show Solak has put into the club accounts significantly more than that into the club since the takeover. So he has available funds for that, so why not for this? Even in the Championship we averaged 29k+ last season, with numerous sold out games that would have sold more if the extra seats were there. A key reason why it wasn't even higher than 29k in the Championship was away teams not selling out 3k allocations. Plus, infrastructure developments shouldn't be decided on short term fluctuations between leagues. That can happen to any club. A long term approach is needed and if you keep putting it off even when you sellout to watch one of the worst top flight teams we've ever had, it shows current capacity is too small.

It won't be 2026, the club (not the player) has a contract option to trigger to take it to 2027. That gives Saints a better position to work from.

It isn't a choice of one or the other. An owner can max out how much they can invest in the team in a year, they can't max out infrastructure spending and infrastructure spending increases the amountyou can spend on that elusive striker!

You keep overlooking how the new financial rules are tied to % of income. So an expansion increases revenue and increases the amount you can spend on transfers/wages. Plus infrastructure spending is exempt from the rules even if owners have maxed out how much they put into the club each year. So it is still beneficial from match day one of it being finished even even you take on debt to pay for it and it takes a long time to make a profit. That is why many clubs are looking to do similar... because it helps with the incoming rules!

It is exempt from financhial rules. So if SR are maxing out the amount they are allowed to invest on transfers/wages, then the infrastructure money has no negative impact on their ability to invest short term on the team. This season has shown even when losing every week we sell league every league game. So it shows thd current capacity is too small. We could sell more tickets this season if the stadium was bigger even though the team is dreadful. If the team was half decent we'd sell even more.

Depends on the specification and size. It will be a large amount of cash but the amount could vary significantly on how many additional seats and what other facilities are included. But it is exempt from financhial rules. So if SR are maxing out the amount they are allowed to invest on transfers/wages, then the infrastructure money has no negative impact on their ability to invest short term in the team.

I wasn't talking about next season. It would take the big riverside development and/or stadium expansion project to make a notable difference. Infrastructure investment is excluded from the rules so wouldn't impact transfer funds if that is also maxed out from an owner.

You did not. Because you said "due diligence because one of the important rules is that you don't always sell to the highest bidder". Who has made that rule and why should Gao follow it? See Turkish's post regarding Ankersen's involvement compared to Parsons and Kraft. When investor spending on transfers and wages is maxed out within the rules, infrastructure investment is not included in financial rules, so it allows a club to invest in capital projects that increase revenue so that it can then be spent on transfers and wages.

I agree with most of that post, apart from the bit in bold. They hired a manager that they knew would stubbornly stick to a style of play where that would likely happen (especially at PL level).

What reason would Gao have to not sell to the highest bidder if they pass football governance checks? You've failed to give an answer. Ankersen'a football experience is not only at Brentford. Increasing revenue and improving the team are not disconnected. Increasing revenue with infrastructure projects allows for increased spending to help the team.

Going through your list... SR have invested large amounts into the club so financial stability isn't an issue. I know he is heavily derided given what has happened with us. But prior to the takeover Ankersen has experience of being heavily involved in the running clubs. Plus in any case the vast majority of new owners in the PL are new to the sport and many don't appoint football experience to the boards. So it is not a prerequisite. We know they have plans to develop the riverside area and stadium itself. You keep talking about Semmens duties. But why would he be held to any duties to not only sell to the hughest bidder? Again... please do not take this as a blind defence of Sport Republic. I acknowledge they have fucked up big time in many areas. But it isn't quite as bad as many make out.

Why do you think that graphic shows that? What it actually shows is the players we have in the squad have increased in value by €104m in the last year (based on their valuations of player worth). It is actually a positive graphic if you trust their player valuation system.

The questions were... 1) What checks are you suggesting they should have done that they didn't do? 2) Why would Gao care beyond getting the best price possible? You have not answered either. What are you basing Semmens 'duty' on?

Finding a way to end Cornet's loan opens up a spot for a new signing. Loan with an option or obligation to buy.

Yep, why is that term an issue?