FloridaMarlin

As somebody said above, that is a high-risk strategy. High-risk is not something normally associated with the Swiss business ethic.

If the ploy is to claw back as much money as she can by selling as many players as possible, why would you then spend £20m on two players? Some will argue that was simply a ploy to pacify the fans, but clearly the way in which she has gone about her business suggests she is not bothered about supporters' feelings or views. So if the expenditure on Pelle and Tadic was not a pacifying gesture, what was it? There's just so much that doesn't add up.

More likely he will be bailing the slow, ponderous Ferdinand out of the clack.

He's got more than one son.

Everton in the top four? Martinez might be a good manager but he's not a magician. The top four will consist of the four teams who spend the most money. That's going to be four out of Chelsea, Man City, Man Utd, Liverpool or Arsenal. It's a said indictment of the Premier League that the best coaches - Martinez, Koeman - can do a brilliant job but unless they have the spending power of the aforementioned teams to put together a squad strong enough to sustain a challenge over the course of a season, they are not going to break into the top four. We saw that ourselves last season. Not only is the top four/five's spending power a sad indictment of the PL, it shows what a complete and utter nonsense the FFP rules are. Outside the top four/five, the PL is pretty weak. Hull and Stoke might hae beefed up a bit, but if Saints make a couple more signings, they can maintain the differential. As things stand, a top ten finish is all I'll commit to at this stage.

Samuels has always had a bit of a downer on Saints since he worked for the Sunday Times and Lowe sued for libel in an article about Dave Jones' dismissal and won £250,000 damages. But as a columnist he needs a selective memory to make his points. It would not suit his point that Saints are a selling club, for example, to point out Lallana's conduct in manufacturing his move. As others have said above, he's actually a good columnist from the Mail's point of view. Columnists do not have to be liked, but they do need to have an opinion to spark debate. One of the BBC website's most popular and widely-read columnists is Geoffrey Boycott, and he is a good columnist. You may not like him or what he says, but at least he isn't afraid to express an opinion. The worst type of columnist is one that doesn't stick his neck out and remains firmly sitting on the fence. Alan Hansen springs to mind. So Samuel has written a piece with an anti-Saints slant. We have free speech in this country. He's free to express an opinion, and the Mail does provide the mechanism for its readers to express their opinions on it. It's nothing to blow your top over. Nobody died.

Shoot! full-time staff writer is a a big Saints fan.

Claire?

What was Pochettino before he came here? Did Adkins have any Premier League experience before he took us up? Man Utd fans must be bricking it that Luis van Gaal has never managed in the PL.

Me too. And I also love palindromes. In fact, I'm a professor of palindromes. Call me Dr Awkward.

Those above proposing a knock-out competition involving the champions of the leagues of Europe might not recall we used to have just that. It was called the European Cup. The big fear and danger for Uefa - and the domestic leagues - is that the big clubs will clear off and do their own thing. I've said on here before that it would come as no surprise if a TV company (I can't think of any off the top of my head) came along and offered them a similar type of deal to what Kerry Packer offered cricketers years ago. Granted, Packer was after individual players for his WSC, but the principal is the same. "If we make it worth your while, leave your domestic and federation competition, and play in a TV-funded world league, or European Super League." I don't think anybody is under any illusions the big clubs stay around out of nostalgic feeling for domestic football. They're here because there isn't a better financial offer around. In fact, the big clubs probably hate the Premier League's collective bargaining process which means they have to share Sky's booty with the likes of Saints, West Brom, and others. If somebody comes up with enough money, the big clubs won't hang around. They did it once in 1992, when they left the Football League to form the Premier League. And Saints were among that number. They needed the other, smaller clubs at the time as there was no other game in town, but now, the clubs outside the top five are just a millstone to the big boys. I also think this scenario might have taken a step closer with the news that Fifa have sold the World Cup rights to BBC and ITV among the terrestrial broadcasters for the 2018 and 2022 competitions. Big clubs hate international matches and tournaments. Liverpool would have Suarez at the start of the season if it wasn't for the pesky World Cup, and how long will it be before we hear the first winge from Wenger about how tired his players are? Murdoch hates the fact that Fifa - in wanting the finals of their prime competition to be seen by as many people as possible - won't sell the rights to PPV suppliers like him. He could gain his ultimate revenge on Fifa, and at the same time, make sure he has all the best toys, by setting up a TV-funded Super League. Sky may not be able to do it on their own, but it would only need a couple of other big cable/satellite companies with eyes on the Far Eastern prize to climb into bed with Murdoch to make it happen.

It looks as though they have appointed Salisbury City manager Mikey Harris to take charge of their youth set-up. I don't know what sort of salary managers at Conference National Level attract, but I wouldn't have thought he comes cheap. Regardless of its size, how they managing to add another salary to wage bill? Especially as the academy was supposedly going to be mothballed.

The Liverpool of the south. Livermouth, or Portspool, take your pick.

What a surprise. Running true to form. Not sure how the fans views sit with those of the club's American owners who are prepared to ditch him. Whether that is a moral stance, or a pragmatic one as they think he is damaging the brand, it's a policy that is sure to bring the owners into conflict not only with those lovable, witty Scouse fans but Brendan Rogers who knows Suarez carries their title hopes on his unbitten shoulders.

I wonder how many Scousers will continue to idolise Rodgers if that picture with him and Chris Kamara sporting The Sun t-shirts and giving it a huge grin and the thumbs up gets a wider audience? Considering the vehement hatred shown towards The Sun in Liverpool, will they revert to type and demand an apology followed by his dismissal or resignation? Or will they just laugh it off as a merry prank?

I liked this bit. "But Redknapp argued that an influx of foreign players at youth level was damaging the progress of homegrown talent. He said: "It's a problem at youth level. I'm sure the best youth teams in the country have plenty of foreign lads in them. "At one time, the youth team was probably more about local kids. Not just English kids, but local kids. I grew up at West Ham, and all the kids came from that area. We didn't even have kids from the north of England. "Now when you look at Chelsea and Manchester City, certainly in the last few years, they've got an awful lot of foreign lads in their teams. That is a problem as well." Hypocritical twunt. He really does have a short memory. He has one of the worst records as a manager of signing foreign players who keep young players out. He has never bothered about youth team players, and for all his bragadoccio about bringing Joe Cole and Rio Ferdinand through the West Ham academy, they came through despite him, not because of him. Redknapp doesn't trust young players with, perhaps, the exception of Bale. But even then, when HR went to Spurs he didn't want to play Bale and even tried to send him out on loan. It was only injury that forced Redknapp's hand. Again, he's just stirring. The unsaid bit of all this is Redknapp saying to the journo: "Of course, you can't put this in, but this wouldn't have happened if they had made me England manager."

This. Don't know whether it's peer pressure or suddenly giving working-class lads shedloads of money which gives them an inflated sense of entitlement and their worth.

And therein lies the problem with the England national team. The self-styled best league in the world will be crowing that it supplied more players for World Cup squads than any other league. 120 players in the finals ply their trade in the FA, the next best is Italy with 82, then Germany 77. Take out the 22 players in the England squad from that 120 and that leaves 98 foreign players in the top flight. Don't blame the clubs for signing those players, blame the system. The Premier League's dog-eat-dog nature provides clubs with the financial wherewithal, and excuse not to spend valuable time and resources developing domestic young talent. The huge rewards in the Premier League are not conducive to long-termism and patient development. Why spend time and resources on developing a young player and bringing him through when thanks to the largesse of Sky and BT you can go out and buy a ready-made product off the shelf of your nearest European or South American quicki-mart? The TV companies don't dole out huge wads of cash to screen games featuring up-and-coming youngsters, they want clubs to spend their money on big-name overseas players. After all, it's what makes the Premier League the self-styled Best League in the World. And of course, it suits the TV companies to have some of the world's top players in the EPL, they can sell their packages predicated on the great players you will be able to see on the haunted fishtank in the corner of your room. It's win-win for the TV companies, win-win for the viewer and pretty much win-win for the clubs. The loser is the long-term future of the England football team and development of English players who can't get into their club's first teams. especially when clubs are becoming increasingly ambivalent about international football. Liverpool don't want Suarez playing at the World Cup and risking his knee. Citeh must wince every time somebody tackles Aguero, and who can blame them when they are investing £100,000 a week in the player? If you feel sorry for Hodgson now (and I do, even allowing for some of the mistakes he has made) what faces an England manager 10 years down the line? You can only build a pyramid high if the base is broad and development of players is always a numbers game. It stands to reason that if fewer young English players are getting into squads populated foreign players courtesy of TV money, then the quality of England players available to any manager is going to be lessened. We're seeing that now after 20 years or so of the Premier League. What's it going to be like over the next 20? Most people agree our big problems at the moment are at the heart of our defence, and a lack of a predatory goalscorer. But do you see any of the next generation of English centre-backs currently plying their trade in the Premier League (Stones at Everton, perhaps). Where is our Luis Suarez? It's easy to point the finger at the FA and tell them to do something about it, but what can they do? They are pretty much hamstrung, and at the behest of the clubs and the Premier League. The only way I can see a sea-change is if the Premier League and its clubs are reigned in and forced to adopt a quota system, but that ain't going to happen. As a special shareholder in the PL, the FA are limited to veto power during the election of the chairman and chief executive and when new rules are adopted by the league, so the PL can effectively tell the FA to get lost. We effectively have the England football team our system deserves. We don't have the collective and national mentality of, say the Germans. The DFB - not the clubs- still holds power in Germany and their view is that a successful national team benefits all domestic football. So the clubs work with the DFB towards producing a successful German team, knowing the trickle-down benefits. Until Premier League clubs have their hand forced to realise that, the England team will suffer. Clubs will always be self-centred and as long as the hand that feeds them keeps lobbing a rich diet at them, they are not going to bite it.

As i said after the Italy game, Hodgson's big problem is that he has nailed his colours firmly to the mast of Gerrard's captaincy and doesn't know how to get out of it. England's whole system is based around picking Gerrard in the deep-lying role in which he has supposedly re-invented himself. Of course, he re-invented himself after Pirlo tore him a new one in the Euros two years ago and he realised his legs had gone. Picking Gerrard in that role means you have to have a minder to do his leg work for him, in this case Henderson. Not only can Gerrard not get up and down the pitch, as I said in the Italy aftermath, he struggles to get across it. That means in a similar formation to Saints, if the full-backs push on, there are inevitably gaps behind them that Gerrard can't cover. Two things he failed to do tonight cost England goals. He missed a tackle in the first half, and missed the header in the second. For whatever reason, Hodgson believed the hype about Gerrard re-inventing himself and being England's version of Pirlo and picked a team to fit in around him. And when a strong personality like Gerrard knows he's being pandered to, he'll exploit it and he exerts an undue influence over Hodgson. That team for the first two England game was as much Gerrard's team as Hodgson's.

Oops! http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/27860269 Lovren and Corluka the two players involved.

Probably to do with this: "In keeping with requirements of the Professional Footballers’ Association, 50 per cent of the transfer figure will go towards paying legacy debts." They will try and fiddle the amount they need to hand over to the PFA.

It might be something to do with the long-term contract he wanted which the club gave him and he was happy to sign just over a year ago, and now wants to rip up because it suits him.

I don't think Les's ball has bounced back up yet and it is still out of shot.

I don't think anybody - apart from the most cock-eyed cranks - will place any blame at Koeman's feet if The Wantaways do wriggle out of the door. But it will be down to him either way, and so it should be. The board have always said that nobody will go in or out without the manager's say-so, and the very least Koeman will be offered is a chance to sit down with them, because he will be the best judge of whether to play hardball with them in an attempt to keep them. I've no doubt Koeman will sit down with them and say; "Right, I'm here now, do you want to play for me?" I also think his stature in the game is such that he can ask them; "Put playing for the club to one side, do you want to play for ME?" If he gets the slightest vibe they don't want to play for him, he'll get rid. And I think I would trust him to bring in the right replacements But I wouldn't be surprised if he can win one or two around.

I haven't got any Dutch blood. But I once met a Dutch girl in a pub wearing inflatable shoes. I asked her for a date and she said 'yes', but she didn't turn up the next day. When i tried to get hold of her I was told she had popped her clogs. Coat? I'm OK, thanks, I'm wearing a thick jumper.