Graffito

I’m not sure you’re right about that and would be interested to know where you got that information. From what I can tell buy out clauses are different from release clauses. 1. Buy out clauses are prevalent in La Liga. They are as you describe. Essentially, the player can buy out his contract for the sum specified in his contract. In practice the buying club pays. 2. A Release clause is a clause in a players contract linked to specific events or conditions e.g. sale of the player is triggered when say a top six club offers a minimum sum. In fact, there is another type of Release Clause called a “Good Faith Release Clause”. This merely requires the selling club to negotiate in good faith should say an interested club offer a minimum sum specified in the players contract. But the key difference is that there is no obligation on the part of the selling club to sell. They simply have to negoatiate in good faith. An example is Wenger offering £40m plus a penny for Suarez, or whatever it was. With release clauses the drafting is key. So with Promes, I think any clause in his contract is not a Buy Out clause because he isn’t with a Spanish club. Any clause in his contract would be a Release Clause. This could be a trigger type release clause but one where the the drafting was poor or silent on e.g. payment terms, meaning negotiation by the clubs. Or we could have offered less than the trigger sum and the selling club was willing to negotiate (unlikely imo). Or the release clause could be a Good Faith Release clause leaving the clubs to negotiate in good faith and we eventually agreed terms. Either way we didn’t get it over the line but I believe the club did indeed want Promes, as second choice to Walcott. Finally, not aware of any UEFA rules on these clauses. They appear to be contractual.

Yes he did that. Does make you wonder doesn’t it? I mean, we sat back under Puel in matches towards the latter part of last season. Just saying.

It was the only decent cross of several he made, as I recall. He gets into positions to cross well enough but in contrast to Bertrand who fizzes in early and accurate crosses (e.g for Carrillo) Cedric’s are all too often a bit limp and aimless. I noticed in the second half he didn’t look up before crossing even although he had time to do so. We attacked down the left flank where we were more incisive, more in the second half than in the first, when Cedric had the bulk of the opportunities to cross but didn’t capitalise. Nonetheless I still want to see both our fullbacks getting forward as much as possible, especially now we have presence in the box with Carrillo. I believe it’s key to winning matches.

I think you’ve described a buy out clause which is different. Unless someone can demonstrate otherwise then I am assuming a release clause may be whatever is written in the contract and nobody knows what that is. If it’s a simple case of paying a set sum, say 30m in this case, and the selling club doesn’t want to sell, then Saints offering less than the trigger sum is pointless and of course they wouldn’t waste their time doing that.

How do you know release clauses are usually payable up front? Surely it depends on the terms of the release clause in each contract doesn’t it?

Nobody knows exactly what’s in the release clause but you can well imagine the clause is poorly drafted and doesn’t make explicit who pays the player’s 15%. Otherwise I can’t think why Saints would still be offering less than the trigger of 30m a day before the window closes.

We don’t buy success we destroy it. We find potential and we crush it. We march on.

Millwall away is an interesting trip back in time. And if the football is crap you can always watch their fans, from a zoological perspective.

Who wants a Quincy in their team anyway. We’d be a laughing stock.

Lol yes, that’s the beast.

I took a look at one of his YouTube clips earlier. If we’re making comparisons, he seemed to me more Pelle than Lambert. I don’t care if he’s paddy mcginty’s donkey as long as he sticks the ball in the net.

Sounds like a description of Austin.

He hasn't signed yet. If he signs, can I respectfully suggest we give the **** a few matches before writing him off.

Sorry but that's complete nonsense.

Good performance from saints. They all put in a shift. Fans totally behind the team. No criticism of the substitutions. A couple of signings, sharp end and rear end, and we're good to go.

Some of the people in the Kingsland are a little unsteady on their feet to begin with. Standing up and turning around will make them dizzy and a little confused.

Do you lot just want him sacked or do you have any idea who might replace him? A reminder. There are two sides to the coin. If there is nobody better to replace him then sacking him at this point would be the wrong decision.

If Shane Long believes the players are taking responsibility for our position, he could start by not claiming they deserve to be further up the table.

I think you're right. In January, in our predicament, we need someone who is oven ready. In the summer then maybe look abroad for the value buys. Add in Walcotts pace, and goals, which we lack, and I think there's a case for going all out to get him. Maybe we did and he just doesn't think he'll make his case for the WC in the current Saints team.

Ought to be possible to attract decent signings from abroad, even in January, with this kind of comparative wealth. "For the first time, the average wage bill of the Premier League (153.9m euros) is more than double that of the next highest-paying league - the Bundesliga (75.3m euros)." http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/42704713

Everton........ because I want to work with Sam Allardyce.

The manager has a problem with substitutions but....what bothers me about what you've said is that in the home game against palace, a similar scenario to Saturday, the manager took off a midfielder and put on a forward (hope I've got that right) which left a big hole in midfield which palace quickly exploited and we conceded and lost. Yes that was a LOSS not a DRAW like saturday. Pelligrino was hammered for that substitution against Palace including by me. On Saturday he tried to shore up the defence and we conceded. Which approach is right? Secondly, the manager is primarily responsible for performances and if there were anyone better to replace him I think he would have gone by now but without wishing to sound condescending by stating the bleeding obvious there's clearly a whole range of reasons why the team is struggling on the pitch this season which are not within the managers control, from the ownership down to crass refereeing decisions which robbed us of a win on Saturday.

Pellegrino, though, defended his decisions. “When you decide to play direct maybe we did something normal to put Oriol in front of the back four,” said Pellegrino. “We don’t have somebody else to press the centre back for example because Tadic plays a little bit deep. “Why? Because in this aspect in the physical battle they are stronger than us and you have to do it. “We have to manage the ball when we regain it. We gave it away and couldn’t be danger in counter attack when we have possibilities. “I think most of the time we control well the direct balls and for this reason it was hard.” It's logical. Maybe another tactic would have been to bring Gabbiadini and for him and Long to press their centre backs but that may not have worked either and would have left us light in midfield. Normally we try and keep the ball. It's a difficult one. Imo it's failing in the execution, or yesterday with the officials.

Left at home for tactical reasons.

Is it unreasonable to expect this team to be able to defend a lead? Any number of duffer teams have come to St Mary's in recent seasons and defended deep and taken points. Even the top six have often found it difficult to get past the bus. Yet our lot seem incapable of defending deep. Begs the question why the manager keeps taking decisions which suggest we are playing to see out games but is he really being cautious by telling them to defend deep. Why would he tell them to defend deep? After all, it clearly doesn't work so it's the opposite of cautious, it's high risk. Why would he do it? We saw this phenomenon last season under Puel. This season, same players (more or less), different manager. I see a lack of aggression from some players (we're basically a soft touch) and a collective mental fragility.