Matthew Le God

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?

That does not answer the two questions I asked.

We'd have to, to make room in the 25 man squad. Cornet being an obvious example.

Players would need to leave to make way for them in the 25 man squad. Why couldn't they be good enough for PL level? We did sign a few this year that were. Ramsdale and Fernandes for example.

Why wouldn't any January signings be potentially beneficial in our likely place in next season's Championship? Not only do they get 6 months of PL wages to attract them, but it gives us 6 months of bedding in time ahead of the summer to get them settled.

None of those cost much at all. Plus Juan and Matsuki are Saints assets that hold and may increase value plus may even end up in our first team to benefit us.

If someone has had previous financial disasters, saying that "another one won't make a lot of difference" is utter nonsense. Staying in the Championship beyond the first season of parachute payments sees a huge drop in revenue. Staying beyond the end of parachute payments sees such a vast difference in income that the club would not be able to support a level of player remotely close to want we have now and would make promotion extremely difficult when competing with newly relegated clubs.

What about that post is untrue? Plus I have acknowledged SR have fucked up a lot of things with us.

We have been absolutely terrible this season. Yet every home game has sold out. That shows the stadium is currently too small and we are missing out on revenue that could be used to make the team better. We only have 2 players on loan at Göztepe. Both were extremely cheap. Sport Republic have managed them well enough to get them competing for European places when they weren't previously. Ig shows they can run a club. Sure many Saints fans won't care until they turn it around for us, but it does shoe they are capable of getting things right in a relatively decent league.

Nonsense. Saints only have 2 players on loan at Göztepe. Both were extremely cheap. Those two signings are not the main reason they are doing well.

That is nonsense. If someone has had previous financial disasters, saying that "another one won't make a lot of difference" is utter nonsense. Staying in the Championship beyond the first season of parachute payments sees a huge drop in revenue. Staying beyond the end of parachute payments sees such a vast difference in income that the club would not be able to support a level of player remotely close to want we have now and would make promotion extremely difficult when competing with newly relegated clubs.

They've messed up a lot of things with us. But how do you think they've got Göztepe to 4th? Sure, you might not care about Göztepe, but they've done very well. What does a protest or turning the stadium atmosphere toxic achieve? It doesn't help turn results around, if anything a negative match atmosphere makes it harder. What do you what then to publicly acknowledge? What do you want them to publicly state about a plan that would satisfy you? The business and football operation aren't seperate, they are intertwined. Increasing revenue helps us spend more on players and hopefully a better team performance. So it is not irrelevant at all.

What checks are you suggesting they should have done that they didn't do? Plus why would Gao care beyond getting the best price possible?