stevegrant

The 17 will be reduced to 12 next year, and geographically we're probably competing directly with Brighton. Considering the ****athon that continues whenever anyone in the media mentions the Amex, I wouldn't hold out that much hope, to be honest.

No idea, really, perhaps when you get to a certain level, withdraw half of it and go again from that slightly lower level. That way, you're still betting with a fairly significant stake, but one low enough for the bookies to accept.

Oh, and as I've said on a related FB post, you'd never be able to get up to £10k in "dead cert" bets because bookies wouldn't let you place that much on something with such short odds. I was messing around with some spread betting on the cricket yesterday when Australia collapsed early in their innings chasing 206 to win in 20 overs and the most I could buy or sell Australia's projected total for was 16p per run. I won a whopping £1.60

Today's bets: All homes: Chelsea v Norwich, Swansea v Reading, WBA v QPR, Blackpool v Charlton, Leicester v Bristol City, Crewe v Hartlepool, MK Dons v Portsmouth, Southend v Barnet. £2 wins £84.52 All aways: Wigan v Everton, Birmingham v Huddersfield, Millwall v Bolton, Oldham v Preston, Oxford v Gillingham. £2 wins £155.68 Draws (trebles from 4): Blackburn v Wolves, Crystal Palace v Burnley, Coventry v Bournemouth, Plymouth v Wimbledon. 4 x £2 wins up to £209.71

To be fair, I'd imagine that some sellers sell more than others depending on where they're positioned. Those on the four corners of the stadium (particularly those in the Northam/Itchen corner outside the ticket office and away end) would surely sell many more programmes than those halfway along any of the stands or those inside the ground. For most fans, I would imagine it's a case of you either want a programme or you don't, and you make that decision at the first point you see a seller, which would be at one of the corners of the ground due to the access routes. The last time I heard (a number of years ago, admittedly), the club printed the equivalent of 20% of the expected attendance (therefore max 6500 for a sell-out).

The seller I know said the first he knew of the new plans was when a letter dropped on his doormat yesterday informing him that his services were no longer required with immediate effect. It does seem odd that they didn't just ask the old sellers whether they'd be happy to be a bit more mobile, I don't think any of them would have taken offence to it.

I'm not sure that's the way they're looking at it - they've already dropped the online programme idea because it didn't get anywhere near as many subscribers as they were expecting, and it was easy enough for one person to subscribe and redistribute to his/her mates.

Just thinking about how they might go about selling programmes now, I expect they'll just sell them from the catering outlets in the concourses. Naturally that'll make it really easy for people to buy because there are never any ridiculous queues there

Anyone have any idea what the "unique" way supporters can buy a matchday programme is going to be? Telepathy, perhaps?

They owned the club anyway

I think that's just down to the ridiculous inflation that's taken place in the game over the last decade. If we were building St Mary's from scratch in 2012, there's no way we'd be able to do it for as little as £30m. Rotherham's new stadium holds less than 15,000 but cost the thick end of £25m to build.

My mistake, Harchester Rovers was that horrendous Sky 1 show Dream Team, wasn't it Still, the point stands. Players get injured, every transfer is a risk in that sense.

Not entirely sure I see what your point is... are you suggesting that players only get career-ending injuries in Roy of the Rovers?

I would be amazed/appalled if we didn't have insurance covering every single one of our players if that were to happen.

Yes, that's definitely reassuring.

Nobody needs reminding of that, thanks. We're well aware.

That would be some impressive Iraqi Minister of Information-esque denial, considering there is a document lodged at Companies House which states that SFC has taken out a loan with a company registered in the British Virgin Islands, secured against broadcasting revenue for the 2013/14 season with a fixed and floating charge over the club's other assets. That is an undeniable fact. What is unknown is the amount borrowed and the terms of the agreement in terms of the interest rate and when it is due to be repaid.

Let's face it, Cortese is known - rightly or wrongly - as a bit of a control freak. It's not beyond the realms of probability that he's demanded that things be changed at the last minute which has meant the contractors have had to down tools and quite literally go back to the drawing board.

Oddly, the FFP rules currently only apply to teams in the Football League, and teams in the Premier League who qualify for UEFA competitions. Those in between can - at the moment at least - do as they please.

Maybe the "other people who can" just happen to live in the British Virgin Islands?

To be fair, it's not his money, so it's much easier to be brave (or to gamble, depending on which way you want to look at it)

Worth noting that the timing of this means that we might not find out the amount of the loan until the end of March 2014 when the 2012/13 accounts are filed.

It's lodged by Southampton Football Club Limited, not the holding company.

No problem with the bit in red if true, although the summer transfer spending doesn't really support that idea, IMO. Regarding the bit in orange, the fact that we're borrowing from a mysterious fund in a tax haven would suggest to me that any sort of Liebherr "rainy day" fund has already been used and that Cortese and the rest of us are now on our own. If that wasn't the case, why wouldn't we be using that rather than leveraging the entire club in order to get a loan which is presumably interest-bearing?