SaintBobby

Disappointed that we didn't wait an extra couple of hours to panic Celtic into dropping the price. I don't know why we are always in such a rush to complete our transfer activity so swiftly....

That open letter is ridiculous and pompous in equal measure. Hilarious though.

Given the c£30m disaster of Osvaldo and Ramirez, Mayuka often gets overlooked as a total waste of money. With the first two, I can see why we signed them though. I still don't really get why we ever got anywhere near signing Mayuka.

I can't see how that can be true. At kick off, half time, start of the 2nd half and full time, he was in the corporate seats, just behind the Saints top brass.

What's geography got to do with it? Derby and Norwich are small-ish citites with relatively large followings, largely due to a paucity of other recreational activities on offer. Southampton is a small-ish city with about an average-ish following. We must be the only club in the world which experiences a dip in attendance when a bloody boat show is on.

Was just discussing this with some fans at Soton Central station. Koeman has been so definitive that I think it's important we don't sell. There are no ifs and buts, he's ruled out a sale. If we do sell him now, it's a lot worse than if RK had been equivocal.

It's a bit like Derby. Small-ish city with a surprisingly big following. Because there is absolutely nothing to do in either Derby or Norwich other than watch football.

Sigh of relief. Important win and very good performance across the whole team. Tadic my MotM (mainly for his 1st performance rather than his 2 goals). Only note of caution for me is that Norwich were beyond dire. Truly, utterly appalling team. But you can only beat what's in front of you and we did that with ease and quite a bit of class.

Wasn't VvD cup tied in Europe anyway having played for Celtic who are now in Europa League? I guess if he's determined to play in Europa, this may incline him to stay at Celtic - but my understanding was that he wouldn't be eligible to play for Saints in that competition anyway.

It's certainly been a very poor start to the season. Worries that we are going to be involved in a relegation battle have started to enter my mind.

I'd merge the Europa League and the Champions League. You could do so by adding just one more round of games. The benefit would be that relatively smaller teams such as Saints, Fulham, West Ham etc could strive to regularly get into the top European competition. Having an A-list and a B-list competition means that middling teams can't ever really hope to get beyond the B-list. Since the European Cup became the Champions League, the UEFA/Europa League has become enormously devalued. When the European Cup just included the actual Champions, a case could be made that the UEFA Cup was actually more competitive than the European Cup. Surely, the latter included a handful of truly excellent teams. But the former included a vast swathe of very,very good teams.

I thought Everton were excellent. We were mediocre to slightly poor. If the rub of the green had gone the other way, we might have snatched something. But the truth is we were beaten by a very good team who played exceptionally.

Adequate start. We do need some better defensive players though, let's hope we get 1 or 2 in shortly.

Not worried about West Ham. They will probably lose. Even if they don't, I'm sure we will be given the nod (on 22 v 23) if that's decisive. Am worried we won't be in the top 22 though. That is a (potentially) nasty gig. And I really want group stage.

Make sure you guys can all sing your hearts out tomorrow night. Then you're allowed 2 hangovers :-)

Why is that clear cut? Saints are paying a hugely underperforming member of staff £70K a week. So the club should extend this lunatic inability to pay people their productive worth to waiters, bar staff, cleaners and toilet attendants? Or is it better to just say, heck, Ramirez isn't worth £70k a week? Rather than spreading the underperform/overpay meme through out the club?

I haven't checked the employee details, but let's say there are 50 full time equivalents on the minimum wage. The club could hand over an additional c £2,500 per annum in salaries or, instead, say donate an additional £2,500 to a worthy charity. It's not obvious to me that the former is the morally proper thing to do.

I don't understand why this applies within a specific company rather than, say, across a city or country. Why should a cleaner at a football club get more money for exactly the same job as a cleaner in a Southampton department store? It seems to me pretty irrelevant that the former employs some highly expensive staff. We have progressive tax to even out poverty/inequality. Saints players on £60,000 a week should be handing over about £25,000 a week in income tax (plus, no doubt, other taxes such as stamp duty when they buy expensive houses). It's this cash that should be used to relieve poverty, not an attempt to fix prices or wages.

UK GDP is measured in real terms. Average income per capita (which isn't quite the same as average wages, of course) is now the highest in history in real terms, I understand (well, if the last quarter's growth stats are accurate).

It's unlikely you'd be held responsible for a sub-contractor murdering babies. If someone from your company buys a coffee and claims it back on expenses, what steps should the employer take to make sure that the café and all it's contractors and sub-contractors pay the living wage (or aren't murdering babies etc)?

It seems to me very difficult to ask employers to make sure al their contractors pay the living wage. Even if you thought this was a good idea (I don't), it's devilishly hard to know where to draw the line. What if your contractors sub-contract, for example? And why not extend the principle to all economic activity? If the company pays to put up some of its staff in a hotel for a night for some work-related matter, does it need to be sure the hotel is a living wage employer? (the company has effectively contracted the hotel to provide a service, after all). Or that the cleaning company employed by the hotel is a living wage employer? Or that the various companies providing the hotel with food, drink, toiletries etc are all living wage employers?

Hmmm. Well, were to start? And apologies to take ages to reply. The economy isn't in recession and hasn't been for some time. There is growth of about 2-3% per annum, which is good in historical terms and there is also real wage growth. UK GDP per capita is now higher than at any time in history. Negotiating power to push wages up to the actual level of productivity is pretty good. Especially so, actually, in relatively low-skilled, generic jobs. If you're a cleaner and your cleaning is actually worth £10 an hour to your company, your employer might begin by offering you £7, but would be foolish to let you leave and suffer a net loss of £3 an hour by doing so. There is a widespread market for cleaners, bar staff etc. If you're worth £10 an hour, there will be dozens of employers willing to offer u more than £7. (It's trickier if you're in a highly specialised area of work with only one or a very small number of possible employers). The morals are ambiguous. A profitable company could choose to pay employees more than their labour is worth as an act of benevolence, but this carries an opportunity cost. For example, if a company chooses to reduce or cancel dividend payments in order to increase its payroll, this is likely to reduce the value of pension funds. It's not necessarily wrong to give workers more money and pensioners less money, but neither is it obviously the right thing to do. Similarly, a company could decide it can realistically increase its prices to pay higher salaries, thereby impoverishing its customers to the benefit of its workforce. Again not obviously morally wrong, but not necessarily the most benevolent strategy either. On your last point, I think you misunderstand the concept entirely. It's not that employers should pay someone who has seven kids more for exactly the same job/performance as a single person, that would be grossly unfair. Rather, the prevailing market rate for the job (and its terms and conditions) will probably attract different demographics. So, you will tend to find that lowly paid, junior bar work is often undertaken by young people or students. Paper rounds are usually carried out by the very young etc. Doing many hours of charity work is quite a rarity for those in their 30s and 40s (who tend to be time poor) but more common amongst relatively affluent retirees etc. I don't know if you think volunteering should be banned altogether. After all, paying an hourly wage of £0 to someone who is doing something useful and productive for your organisation must be the height of exploitation, no?

It's all good. It's damned hard for us to finish higher than 7th tbh....the six teams who finished above us last season will all expect to do so again. And we have a few teams maybe snapping at our heels. Everton? Stoke? Swansea? I think we will probably finish somewhere around 7th - 10th. To answer the OP's protracted question - That is where the club is now.

Not a punch the air/amazing signing. But pretty damned good cover. I'd still like us to sign another CB. At about the £10m mark. But Caulker as 3rd/4th choice is fine by me.

Is it true that Saints have now scored 16 goals without reply for the first time in our history? (MLG must know?)