SaintBobby

Is there any hard evidence that: (a) Saints do always start slowly? I know we're notorious for doing badly in game 1. But this could be a statistical fluke. is it actually the case that - over the last decade or so - our league position on, say, October 1st is measurably worse than our finishing position? Possibly, but I'm not persuaded. Does anyone actually know? (b) Is it actually the case that Saints sign new players later in the transfer window than other clubs? of course, fans of all teams want to sign great players very quickly and very cheaply. But are Saints really slower off the mark than others? Do we sign players, on average, on August 1st whereas our rivals sign players on July 1st?

That's quite a staggering U turn in your analysis from what you were actually saying last season. You had a string of complaints about the team's weaknesses and predicted, endlessly, that we'd only make the play offs. What changed your mind?

I want us to have a new kit every season and am happy to shell out the £40 or £50 to buy the new home shirt every Summer. I don't know where the assumption comes from that all fans only want a new kit every 2, 3 or 4 years.

I'm a bit worried now. I don't understand the "stars in stripes?" slogan. Or, to be more accurate, I don't understand the question mark. Given that it's 99.9% certain we will be in stripes...surely the "?" can only refer to the lingering doubt as to whether we have any stars!!!!

All Saints players who have gone on to coach here?

They'll do okay. mid table ish. c. 12th

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.