SaintBobby

Superior goal difference isn't worth a point. It doesn't "count as a point" It doesn't "equate to point" It doesn't = a point either. It is worth 0 points. Less than a point. In all cases. At all times. If you're only tie-breaking teams, you may as well say it's worth an infinite number of points. Why fixate on the number 1? Pick your favourite, lucky number. 7? 42? 1,0000? 7,888,343, 562? Up to you. But best to say it's worth 0.5 points, to stop the mathematically cretinous believing that it could ever lead to you actually catching a team that's ahead of you by one point. If a superior GD "equated to a point" (or more), then you would be able to do that.

It is worth less than 1 point and more than zero points. That's what it's worth.

No. If the top two teams in a division tie on points, then let's say GD is worth a million bonus points. You're still only one place above the other team. Once again, having a better goal difference isn't "worth an extra point". It does not "equate to an extra point". It only comes in to play if two teams are tied. If it was actually "worth a point" or "equated to a point", it could be the factor that actually led to a tie between two teams, rather than breaking a tie. The easiest way to measure it is to say that a better GD is worth half a point (or pick any number above zero and below one, it makes no difference)

No. The BVI loan would be a very odd way to leverage £30m from c. £5,000,000,000 of available capital assets. The loan could be set against the Liebherrs' capital with exactly the same tax implications, and no need to use a loan at all from the British Virgin Islands.

In the same way that the better GD difference team would be ahead of the less good GD team if the former had an extra million points. So, let's just say a better goal difference is worth a million points. Sigh.

At which point did you think I didn't know the rules of ranking teams in a division? The GD rule only comes into play if teams are tied on points. A superior GD doesn't equal "an extra point". It doesn't "equate" to an extra point either.

No it doesn't. See my example above. Team 1 is above team 2. On points. Team 2 has a better goal difference. But that better goal difference emphatically, mathematically, conclusively DOES NOT count for an extra point. The better goal difference does not "equate" to an extra point either. If we end the season like this: 17. Wigan Pld 46 Pts 40 GD -18 18. Saints Pld 46 Pts 39 GD -11 ....then I look forward to hearing your explanation as to how our superior goal difference "equates" to a point. Specifically, the point we are behind Wigan by. How does our better GD "count for a point"? If it did, Wigan fans would be similarly bemused. It doesn't. Saints would be relegated and Wigan would stay up.

I was replying to this post. Having a better goal difference is handy, I agree. But it definitely does not "count for an extra point".

So, the better goal difference ISN'T worth "an extra point". Better points are what put you ahead. Not better goal difference. Having a better goal difference IS NOT worth an extra point. Is it?

If the Liebherr money is a loan, we have a problem. A big problem.

But, in regards to the WBA game, I expect a 1-1 draw from two teams on the beach. (like the last two matches, tbh)

Will people stop saying this, please? It's mad and innumerate. Which would you prefer? 1. Pld 46 Pts 42 GD -8 2. Pld 46 Pts 41 GD +5 Please tell me, in simple words, how goal difference "counts for an extra point" in situation 2? If it did, the 2nd team would be level with the first team, right?

That's not very likely. You are usually better to use your own money, if you have any available, than to borrow from the BVI. Your own investments may earn interest, of course, but so does a loan. In the same way a normal person with £5,000 in cash wouldn't tend to notch up a credit card debt, a billionaire with huge cash to spare wouldn't usually leverage a BVI loan against a piece of equity. There may be a reason - but it's not about variable interest rates. If the BVI are willing to loan the Liebherr family money at, say, 3% and the Liebherrs are making over 3% on all their cash, then the Liebherrs should borrow many hundreds of millions from the BVI and just write a philanthropic cheque to Southampton FC themselves.

Did he even have a pop at Kennedy? These pics suggest there was little contact http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=lee+harvey+oswald&hl=en&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=eOt1UbpF6LzRBfHcgNAP&sqi=2&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1600&bih=799#imgrc=8OATfjm4Ld72-M%3A%3BU-bAH-pixQ29lM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.biography.com%252Fimported%252Fimages%252FBiography%252FImages%252FProfiles%252FO%252FLee-Harvey-Oswald-9430309-2-402.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.biography.com%252Fpeople%252Flee-harvey-oswald-9430309%3B402%3B402

If only we'd had Hammond at centre back (even at the tender age of 10-12), this never would have happened.

Bless. It used to be quite cute. Now, it's just a little bit dull, sadly.

Well, that's reassuring then! Seriously, if anyone on hre wants to take the odds I've stated (min bet £100), I'll place them for you, with a 10% slice for myself (on either stake or winnings, you choose)

It's now quoted as either Wigan or Villa to take the 3rd relegation slot at 1/4 - that's about an 80% chance. 20% is anyone else - Stoke, Newcastle, a massive point deduction being applied to Liverpool on grounds of cannabilism etc. You can now easily get 2,500/1 in Las Vegas or - through a very good broker - 5,000/1 on Saints being relegated. You can also, in Vegas, get 4,000/1 on Saints failing to start at all next season in the Football League of 92 teams (the city is nuked, the club goes bust etc). Our chances of being relegated are about the same as Armageddon, basically. I'm inclined to worry more about Armageddon.

Just a cpl of quick questions. 1. Do you still think it will need 41-43 points to stay up? 2. What do you think we will do if we don't yo-yo? Your record to date has been so sharp, wld be cool to know what u think here. I consider myself quite fan. We're still on the cusp of relegation, right?

I looked up the link to the squad that supposedly shows their contracts and their transfer values. ( see other thread) In the entire first team squad, we only have (available at present) as many strikers as goalkeepers. Three of each. Just saying.

lmao

Debt to equity is basically tax avoidance. Reasonable, fair and totally acceptable tax avoidance (in all cases, not just Saints), but that's what it amounts to. It's also usually a sign of commitment to the enterprise from the equity owners. In the case of the Liebherrs, it's essntially a tax write off. But the BVI loan is still a curiousity....

And harsh on Bournemouth too. This saga is basically over. They won't be coming back in the next few decades.

So, you mean we might save more than £7m? Say, £10m+?

I'd say that Mayuka making the bench and getting a little bit of play time shows that he may still be somewhere on the cusp of the manager's longer term plans - in a way that some of the other players listed clearly aren't. If we were to get rid of c.15 players, then that does free up a lot of cash on the wage bill. What are these guys costing us on average? Maybe around £10K a week each? So maybe frees up as much as £7m per annum?