stevegrant

The problem with those figures is that for our one, they've simply guessed. We haven't even released figures for LAST season yet!

And if anything it makes their life easier - it draws a line under a situation they probably thought they'd washed their hands of as soon as Pompey were relegated.

This isn't necessarily true, IMO. While the Premier League may say "we won't pay out if there's no club to pay the money to", I'm sure they'd be rather keen to keep the PFA (and potentially some of the PL's member clubs) onside by distributing what's owed to them out of the parachute payment they no longer need to pay.

Part 3: http://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/portsmouth/fb_news.php?storyid=31413 Mildly amusing

Why would he do that if, as many are suggesting, he's simply a trojan horse bid for Chainrai?

It's the only one in April. We have 3 games in May, and Sky/ESPN won't make a decision on those games for a while yet.

They can do what they want, more or less. It's possible that they'd just show the original game when it's rearranged, but I'd say it's probably unlikely as they'd have to find something else to show in those primetime slots.

I don't know for certain, but there isn't a single team who haven't had at least 10 televised games during a season in either 2011/12 or 2010/11, and you would imagine there are a number of clubs who Sky/ESPN would like to only show the bare minimum of. I'd imagine the April fixtures will be sorted by the end of this month.

Perhaps, but the most attractive game won't necessarily be at the top of Sky's list at this stage of the season. There are some teams they need to fit games in for as each package that makes up the broadcasting contract with Sky and ESPN requires each team to be shown a minimum number of times. While Reading haven't been on many times so far (5 to date with one more scheduled), Villa will have been shown 11 times by the end of March. As the graphic below shows, last season, the vast majority of teams in the bottom half of the table only got the bare minimum 10 televised games, so I wouldn't necessarily expect to see Villa shown in April or May unless there's something to play for on the final day when they go to Wigan. By the look of it, we're going to have to put up with a lot of Stoke on our screens in the last couple of months of the season

Depends on whether Man United or Chelsea get through to the FA Cup 6th round. They both have televised Premier League games on 6th round weekend which would obviously be rearranged if they progress in the cup, which could leave our game open to be moved into their place. Currently on Saturday lunchtime it's West Ham v Man United and on Sunday it's Fulham v Chelsea.

Goal for Ben Reeves as well

Johnno Quick's just scored for Sheffield United

The payment due this week (I believe) is the second half of season 3, with two payments (August and February) due next season as part of season 4 parachute payments. No idea whether there's any agreement with the Premier League to automatically divert some, all or none of that money to football creditors before it touches the club's bank account though.

Probably the only time they're ever going to be in a "Premier League" news section again...

I see David Bick has many fingers in many pies... For those who don't know who he is, he is the chairman of Square1 Consulting, a PR firm who have worked for Saints for a number of years on and off. Bick's work with the club first began - from what I remember - under the chairmanship of Michael Wilde and has since continued under our current leader. He is the man who made up the rumour about the "real" reason behind Alan Pardew's departure.

Fixed

Sounds like a load of rubbish to me, firstly the source is Talksport, and secondly Getafe don't have a pot to **** in, if anyone came in with that sort of money you could probably buy their entire first team.

Unless you are only interested in the real estate assets of that business, rather than actually continuing to run the business in its current guise, of course...

Correct. It's quite telling that they've only set allowable wage increase levels for the next three seasons, which coincide with the next round of broadcasting contracts. Depending on which way the 2016-19 negotiations go, I'd expect the PL to revisit the allowable increases and other criteria in three years' time. As our wage bill will surely be less than £52m, we can also increase it by as much as we like initially. I wonder whether that would enable a club to go from, say, £30m (a ballpark guess of our current wage bill) to £70m in the space of a year because they were below the £52m threshold at the start of that season, and from then onwards they could only increase by £4m per year...

The vast majority of their loans will come under the "emergency loan" rules. It's a ridiculous name for the system because they're clearly not emergencies.

That seems to be the suggestion, although I'm not sure anybody's actually confirmed the trust upped their offer, just a rumour posted by Radio Solent on Twitter.

While these automatic reduction on relegation clauses are generally a good idea, I'm not entirely sure it would be legal for the Premier League or FA to make it compulsory to force a player into taking a pay cut.

Or that he's planning on spending a small fortune in the not-too-distant future on the playing staff...

The Football League is a private members' club. If it chooses to reject somebody's application for membership, it is entitled to do so.

Villa would vote against because Randy Lerner is still propping them up quite considerably. Their wage bill is astronomical, mainly because they've still got a load of rubbish wasters on £50k a week sat rotting in the reserves or limping to the treatment table. West Brom have said they're voting against because they run themselves perfectly well already without the need for regulation - if others don't have the discipline to keep costs under control, that's their problem. It's an admirable stance, although you'd imagine a club of West Brom's size would be in favour of regulation as that good management could be more likely to see them overachieve.