SaintBobby

I'm not sure I really buy that. I'd have said Man Utd were easily safe by the time they'd accumulated 39 points, although it would have been true that they'd be cutting it fine if they'd lost all their remaining games. Sure, it's more likely we will lose 3 in a row than Man Utd would lose c.23 in a row, but this really comes down to whether you're using absolute maths or not. There is still a very small % chance we'll go down, but as I've said before, if you're worried about the future of Saints over the next few months, relegation should not be your top worry.

Sure, it might be close. But that's a rather different thing. I'd still say it's about 95% certain that we go into the Stoke game effectively guaranteed to stay up (e.g. as long as we don't lose 10-0 or something mental). The final table might still look close though. I think back in the early 90s we were 7 points clear with two games to go and ended up just 1 point clear of the relegation zone. Anyway, the final table looked tight but in reality, we'd been safe for a while. Might happen again...

For us to be relegated, you basically need the following to happen: Saints to get zero points from 3 games AND Wigan to get 8+ points from 4 games AND Villa to get 6+ points from 4 games AND Newcastle to get 3+ points from 3 games AND Norwich to get 2+ points from 3 games The chance of all these things happening is as close to 0% as makes no difference. If we decide to not just lose all remaining games, but to lose them all by 3 or 4 goals, it gets a bit tighter. But not much. Bewilderingly, we're still only 3 points away from 9th place.

Yes. Probably slightly safer than at 3pm. Even if we lose all our remaining games, it's very, very unlikely that we'd go down. We're more likely to be kicked out of the league for some irregularity or go bankrupt before the Summer than we are to finish in the bottom 3. If you're worried about our immediate future, it's more rational to worry about the first two issues than the chances of being relegated tbh.

42 points is safe. Hope this helps. Unless you think Swansea and Fulham are in the relegation mire. Looks like one of Wigan or Villa will finish on under 38 points, tbh.

Pretty poor today. Wouldn't say abject. Thought we'd get a point until they hit us for 2-0. Morgan was good. Boruc okay. Everyone else below par. I left with 6 mins to go to cheer on Spurs. Would have got a tad nervous if Wigan had won. But we are possibly even safer now than we were at 3pm as the games are running out. No change, at worst. Wigan prob need 8 points and Villa 6 points. At least. Even assuming we lose all the last 3 games.

...between losing 3-0 and having 2 players sent off or losing 4-0 and only having one player sent off, which would you choose?

If you're willing to throw in a guarantee that Luke Shaw signs a ten year contract, I'd have to plump for the latter on balance...

If you had to choose between Saints winning the Premier League next season or merely coming in the top 4 next season and then winning the Champions League Final 4-0 against Barcelona the season after, which would you choose? ;-)

There's only so many ways you can conlcusively prove people wrong on the GD argument without finally giving up on any appeal to rationality or numeracy. As for the game, I guess another low key draw. 1-1

You what? OMFG. If points are rounded to the nearest whole number, a superior goal difference is worth zero points. Unless you care to show me a table where this mystical "equated point" has been added. Who will get the "bonus point" this year in the Premier League? Do tell... God, what an innumerate, dribbling cretin you truly are.

Given on the "WBA build up thread" you are unable to distinguish between the numbers 0, 0.5 and 1, I'm inclined to treat your tax advice with considerable scepticism. Or is the £13m BVI loan the "equivalent" of guaranteed riches for ever? To load the company with debt and then write off for equity is close to standard procedure. But it would be unusual behaviour if you're highly liquid and very rich to actually borrow this money rather than provide it from your portfolio. If the Liebherrs can borrow from the BVI at X% and make X+% from such loans, this would be mildly surprising. To use Southampton Football Club as your financial vehicle to facilitate such a loan - if you're worth £5bn - would be very surprising. Not utterly inconceivable. But definitely eyebrow-raising.

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.