SaintBobby

Ian Harte (Reading)

In what way is this thread "exclusive". Doesn't exclusive mean "uniquely covered here" Whereas the OP link straight to someone else's website - thereby totally undermining the "exclusive" tag.

Is this Saints related??? "It rained today....good or bad for us?"....might start a thread along those lines.... Sigh....

I can't see how the rules are enforceable relating to donations of cash. I can see how you could be punished for debt, obviously. If a major donation is received from the Liebherr estate how is this qualitatively different to a fan throwing £20 into a "Save our Saints" bucket? Surely, the efforts going on at places like Plymouth and Stockport to keep these clubs alive are entirely based on people giving cash freely or buying things at above the normal market rate (Peter Reid's FA Cup runners up medal etc). If Plymouth and Stockport et al could only sell things at market rate - and couldn't accept donations - they'd be doomed. This can't possibly be the intention of the Financial Fair Play rules. One difference this might make to philanthropists/billionaires is that they will have some loss of control. If they have to give money over to their clubs rather than frame them as loans, then they ahve less of a sword of Damacles over the club's board. But that doesn't seem to be a problem at Saints where the Liebherrs have always been very hands off.

I'm lost now. Does the historical debt, or lack of it, mean we can or can't, should or shouldn't, will or won't, sign Jack Cork?

Steward or cab driver? I have it on excellent authority that no bid has been submitted.

Is that about 50 programmes? If so, I'll offer 50 quid and pay p&p to London.

Gutted for Hudderfield. Very, very unlucky. They would have had to get 96 points to go up this year...

Comedy gold.

Best line I heard was "Ryan Giggs failed to keep coverage of last night's game out of this morning's papers. The judge ruled that you need to score in order to get a super injunction"

Nice idea. But come on. This Barca team are probably the best football team ever... They also regularly attract huge crowds and enormous TV rights. At a guess, their turnover is 50-100 times that of Saints.

Are Huddersfield the Trotters? Thought they were the Terriers?

Saints are quoted at between 10/1 and 18/1 to win the division. I think these odds are probably too short, but it makes us about 6th or 7th favourites. Much could change over the Summer (we are probably one of the least predictable Summer teams, we cld spend very big...or hardly at all...) My best - but slightly random - guess would be that Saints will finish somewhere between 8th and 12th. I think Boro are a good tip, and maybe Leeds.

I sometimes feel conflicted on this one. I actually really enjoyed the League One adventure. I can see the case for "fun" (and maybe cheaper prices) in the NPC. But all that said....imagine this...12 months from now we're in the play-off final. It's gone to a penalty shoot out. It's 4 all and Jose Fonte steps up to take the final penalty. Can you seriously conceive that you want him to miss? If the answer is NO, then you want Saints to be promoted... (note: I am assuming Fonte is playing for Saints!!!)

Get rid of him. But for max fee. No point in losing a few hundred grand by making him play reserve football.

Actually, the way airline pricing works is that the prices can fall as the departure time approaches....

We are probably approaching a (temporary) peak in prices. Attendances have, I think, fallen in the Premiership this year. This may be down to the economic downturn though rather than a long term trend. But I think that your economic arguments are a bit linear and over-simplistic. It's not really the case that player's wages force up ticket prices. A rational chairman will set ticket prices to maximise profits. If Southampton were to suddenly increase players' salaries by 10,000% this Summer, it doesn't follow that they should/could increase the cost of a Saints ticket to about 30 grand to try and offset this. Doing so would mean they'd fail to sell a single ticket. Their revenues would fall. They'd be better off keeping tickets at around £25-£30 and season tickets at around £400. The question is what the market will bear. To some degree, it's actually increased demand for tickets that is driving up players' salaries, not the other way round. If 30,000 people decide they are now willing and able to pay £250 for a ticket to a single match at SMS, expect the wages of Saints players to go up substantially as a result. You're also probably wrong in your implication that the ticket price should be set at a rate that sells out the stadium. Some clubs such as Man Utd set prices below the "market clearing" rate for filling their stadium (I presume this is for PR/community relations reasons). Other clubs (such as Saints) set ticket prices at a rate that they know is unlikely to lead to a capacity crowd. They are not irrational in doing this. That's because they face the problem of being unable to set up a pricing structure which perfectly segments the market. They can do this at the margins (cheaper tickets for kids, OAPs, disabled etc). But they can't discriminate very easily between different categories of standard adult fans. One might presume that there are fans who are both very rich and very devout. They might be willing to pay £100+ for a match ticket. A fairly poor but devout fan (or a rich, casual fan) might be willing to be pay just £20. A very casual and/or impoverished fan might only be willing/able to pay a fiver. But - with one or two small nuances - you have to set a standard price. It might be that, say, a standard ticket price of £12 would mean that SMS would sell exactly 32,536 (or whatever the capacity is) tickets. BUT this means you are effectively "losing" £88 for every "rich and devout" fan who'd be willing to pay £100 and you'd be "losing" £8 for every "typical" fan who'd be willing to pay £20. You're cramming in an additional 10,000 "casuals" at twelve quid a pop, but at considerable opportunity cost elsewhere. In simple terms, you're better to sell 20,000 tickets at £30 (revenue of £600,000) than 32,000 tickets at £12 (revenue of £384,000). (okay, I haven't factored in food/drink/programme/merchandise sales....but you get the drift).

A lot of understandable nostalgia on here - but sometimes it does sound like sentimental old tosh. Firstly, the games are now played at St Mary's not the Dell. You'd expect prices to rise. For all the wonders of the Dell, SMS is nicer/cleaner etc. Secondly, people aren't being priced out of football. Inflation is not the right comparitor - growth in incomes is. If people really are being priced out, why are attendances so much higher than in the 1980s?

Noted. Thanks.

A good candidate for the most ridiculous post of the year. And that's against some very stiff competition.

I'm quite sure you read the whole thing...

Errr....of course it's after the fact. This was a thread about what we would need when there were ten games to go. Those ten games have now gone. It is, therefore, as you accurately point out "after the fact". So, we're revisiting things - "after the fact" - to see how we all fared. As you rightly acknowledge, we are "looking back when all the results are in". It is only through this empirical approach that we can judge how good/bad/mad/acceptable/deluded/overstated/fanatical/random/insane those initial predictions were. I feel sure you will agree. Well, the OP got it bang on. I was a tad on the optimistic side. I reckoned 20 would be okay, but we actually needed 22. I certainly wouldn't have thought anyone saying 21/22/23 was a "loon". They would have been a smidgen more accurate than me, for sure though. In fairness to you, you did correct your initial innumerate error. You said we'd need 28 points when 27 points made it 100% mathematically certain that we'd be promoted automatically. I'm happy therefore to accept your prediction - after proper consideration, rather than in the midst of a brain fart - was indeed 27 points. This wasn't portrayed as a wild guess. It was emphasised with some clinical degree of certainty. Anyone saying 20 points was, in your words, a "loon". I take this to mean someone whose ability to judge the facts before them is utterly lacking. Someone whose predictions should be totally disregarded, essentially on the grounds of mental illness. Even as events took their course, you reasserted your view that your prediction of 27 would be enormously more accurate than predictions of 20. Those who you consider to lunatics ended up enormously closer to the truth than you did. As I've said before....it's not just your utter wrongness, it's the beligerent certainty with which you cling to - and reassert - this wrongness (even after the facts!) that is so extraordinary (and - I concede - sometimes unintentionally entertaining). You'll recall that you also felt it supremely unlikely that Saints would be automatically promoted - I think you put the chances at about 20% by recollection. At the same time, I was confidently predicting we would go up automatically. I actually posted up a strong recommendation that Saints should be backed at 1/4 - yielding a 25% return in mere weeks. Anyone who followed my advice enriched themselves. Also, I was pretty confident we'd get something from the Brighton game, actually. And I said so at the time. Most other people thought this too. We entered the match with the odds showing Brighton only at 2/1 to win (i.e. a vast majority of the money was on Saints to win or draw). So, your assertion that "Nobody was expecting Brighton to lose to us" is simply innacurate. In fact, as far as we can tell, most people were expecting that Brighton would fail to beat us. Excepting you, of course. And you turned out to be wrong. It's just as well you "never placed a bet in [your] life" as this could end up being an extremely expensive hobby for you. Although previously, you claimed you no longer bet since you suffered from someone you won a bet against then not paying up. So, even with regard to your recollection of your own behaviour you don't seem to be in full grasp of the facts. Given this - and also your catastrophic record of Saints predictions to date - I'd strongly advise you to avoid making grand, sweeping statements about how others are likely to behave/perform. Truly, it will only lead to further embarrassment, ridicule and possibly even a growing sense of self-loathing. Please, for your own sake at least, steer clear.

But all of these imponderables don't alter the final tally. One could also argue that if they'd failed to get such an impressive points haul earlier (e.g. no last minute penalty against Posh, not every shot on target going in vs. MK Dons), then they'd have "given up" sooner and our required points tally would have been correspondingly much lower. As it was, the number of required points was 22. That's it.

This needs framing.... Tell me something about the number 22. Is it closer to 20 or to 27. I don't have enough fingers and toes to work that out...but by recollection, it's a "damn sight" closer to 20...

errrr....run that past me again? we now KNOW 22 points was enough. If we rewind history, I'd still argue that 20 points was very likely to be enough - but Huddersfield performed at the very high end of expectations. Run through that last run of games in 100 different universes, and in 90+ of them, Huddersfield would not do as well.