angelman

A bit too good for us??? Strewth, some people here have absolutely no ambition. I am currently going through a non-pessimistic stage (can't quite bring myself to be an optimist), and think that there is no reason for us to push onwards and upwards. Not happy to accept that 8th is the best we can do.

Lallana: Adam, remember 11th April 2013 and the contract you signed on that day for 5 years? Shaw: Luke, remember 12th July 2013 and the contract you signed on that day for 5 years? Lovren: Dejan, remember 14th June 2013 and the contract you signed on that day for 4 years?

wrong thread

My boy is just coming up 8. He talks footie THE whole time, to the point of being boring, but at least it's mostly about Saints. He wouldn't know who the shirt manufacturer is of any team inc Saints, nor would he care. Are you seriously suggesting that a 5yo or 8yo really cares who makes a replica shirt? If so, what very strange times we live in!!

Fine, but you misunderstand my point. As it is, Germany 1-5 England was 13 years ago. I am talking about recent ones.

Virtually done and only sticking point is the fee is an oxymoronic statement isn't it?

That's all well and good, but if the national side play some **** system, how is anyone supposed to fit in? Take Gerrard for example - people say that he was/is one of the best midfielders in the world. Judge him on any England performance and you would say that they are ****ing mad. Same story with pretty much everyone in the England squad, especially the manager.

Exactly - they are going to have their pants pulled down, and the sooner they realise that the sooner they can build their team up. How many players are they needing - 7 or 8 is it? It might be quite a long closed season for them.

This. I know it's personal, but I am not a label whore and my clothes usually have the label on the inside. You don't get Hilditch & Key having their logo emblazoned everywhere, but then I guess it's a different thing. As i say it's personal. I also am more than happy to wear something out of the same factory, made of the same material to the same standards, if it is cheaper without a logo. I do realise people like to show logos off. If it is a different quality, then there is a justification to expect a different price. Anyway, I was wondering whether anyone knew the finances of shirt sponsorship? Clubs get paid (tens of) millions by the shirt manufacturers. Take Man Utd. They have recently signed a 10 year deal with Nike for £600m. They sell something like 1.5m shirts a year, so lets say 15m over 10 years. On their site the 2013/14 home shirt, pre discount, was £55-65 or £42 for a kids one. Does anyone know the cost of production, presumably Nike take something, Man U take something and the fan ends up paying the £600m back to Nike on top of their & Man U's profit. Let's face it, £55-65 for a natty shirt that cost something like £2 to make (if that) isn't very good value.

So for a club to be taken seriously around the world as a brand, we have to have a tick on the front of the shirt (or is it called a swoosh?)? You seem to be saying that the shirt manufacturer is either more or at least as important as the club, or have I got that wrong?

I'm with you FC. Just looking at last season, I can see us winning a fair few more games than we actually did, and while the points haul was our record for a 38 game season, I was slightly disappointed that we threw so many points away, as well as not finishing at least 7th. Maybe we should have had 4 more points from Sunderland, 3 from Spurs away, 3 from Villa at home etc etc. Just those lot come to 10 points and there are others as well. I am not sure whether we were still the team that threw away more points from a winning position or not, but not winning a game having gone behind is a bit concerning.

Amazing what people take as being important.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_football_transfer_record I know that this refers to the record ones, so are the exceptions, but to me, there has recently been a shift from £20/30m to £40/50m. Then of course Bosman has had a big effect on both transfer fees and wages.

PS...and can anyone honestly tell me that their enjoyment of watching the team last season was in any way diminished by what shirt we were wearing? The only problem that I cam across was explaining to my father who has Alzheimer's that we were sold red and that it was Newcastle who were in (black) stripes.

I still don't understand why it is so important as to who "makes" our kit. Can someone explain why a shirt made in some sweat shop out East is better than any other one either made in the same sweat shop or one next door, but has a different "makers" logo on it?

With regards to the fee I look at Rio Ferdinand. He signs aged 22 from WHU to Leeds for £18m and then 2 years later for Utd for £29m. Now while he was older and more experienced (although both he and Shaw are/were capped England players), this was 12/14 years ago, and an awful lot has changed in football finances since then. Some on Red Cafe are happy with £30m as they can see that if all goes to plan, then he might well be there for 15 years or so.

Lordy, the Mail article says that the FA were bound by FIFA's rules on retrospective punishment. Given that FIFA are opening an investigation into this, then I guess the rules might have changed. So whether Defoe was treated leniently isn't the point, but I agree that he got away with one. Also, as we all know, this is not the first time for Suarez, but AFAIK Defoe didn't do this habitually. Maybe you could say that Suarez got off lightly, like Defoe, for his eye gouging against Scott Parker. Some you get away with, some you don't. You get punished for being caught and with half the world's cameras focusing on him, he really must not be able to control himself. I guess that he might have also done it, in the hope that a reaction would be provoked that would get the man sent off.

For anyone in any doubt that it wasn't a bite (not sure there are many) here are two links that show it best. http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=314077.msg12946599#msg12946599 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiiS4sbp7po

http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=314077.520 seems to have got all excited. interesting that the mods there refuse to have it on the main board but stick it in some back water. Also lots of comments about it being the English media bigging it up, while there is a minority who realise that it can't be defended. I guess it natural that you don't want your prize asset being banned. Then there is a lot of "it's not as bad as a leg breaking tackle". But to me, this still is about pushing for a transfer as it was with the previous two incidents.

There's no such thing as bad publicity, so the old cliché goes.

Listening to R5L phone in. Lots of Scousers defending him and saying that the PL would be worse off without him.

^ aye, this. But there is also the fact that the financial situation at Saints is different than it once was. The big clubs used to be able to flash the cash and get what they wanted more on their terms. I am not so sure that they have realised things have slightly changed. Ultimately the end result may well be the same but the ease of getting there isn't. Also any ready made replacement that we might want is likely to be more expensive than it once was so it is natural that we ask for more. But the real killer is that the whole world knows that Utd need to buy. They are dealing from a position of weakness and other clubs will exploit that. They can refuse to pay over inflated prices for as long as they want, but do that and they'll sign no one.

The bite while at Ajax was because he wanted a move. The bite vs Chelsea was because he wanted a move, which didn't come off. The bite today.....because he wants a move???? Or am I reading too much into it?

Luis Suarez greatest hits. - https://vine.co/v/MtJwm0p3Jwh

have to disagree with you, and the commentators think it a bight as well. Not exactly the reaction from the Italian to a headbutt. As a serial biter, you get practised at disguising it.