stevegrant

imo I think this would have made the 5yr plan very difficult, if not impossible. I'm not so sure - the system in League Two made allowances for direct contributions from club owners, hence why Notts County were able to sign the likes of Kasper Schmeichel, Lee Hughes and Johnnie Jackson in that division. The thing that was a bit odd was that the Football League didn't take a closer look at the situation when the Munto Finance thing all started to unravel, as in the end that money didn't actually exist so they massively exceeded the salary cap.

*sets remote record*

I love the fact that either Wigan or Blackpool, in the bottom 3 going into the final day, could lose their last game and still stay up I could see Spurs battering Birmingham on Sunday, while Blackpool and Wigan only lose by the odd goal against Man United's reserves and Stoke respectively.

Yes. I don't see why that is a bad thing. It's basically financial doping. The majority complained when Abramovich came on the scene and started spunking money Chelsea didn't actually have, creating an imbalance and artificially inflating transfer fees and wages way above what most other clubs could afford. The reason many clubs are in financial difficulty is because they have either had someone pumping in money who has then stopped doing so, or they've been trying to keep up with the clubs who have had cash injections from benefactors. Are you advocating that the only clubs that can compete are those with benefactors willing to pay out of their own pocket, and ******** to anyone else who can't (or don't want to) attract such an individual? IMO, that scenario will only attract more of the sort of people who have been involved down the road, wanting to find a business willing to act as a laundry. The clubs coming down from the Premier League also invariably retain Premier League wage bills for at least the first year, which then guarantee losses, and as such they would fail this break-even test, with more money being distributed to the other clubs as a result.

Agreed, although would argue that exemptions should be granted to directors who are appointed in situations where they're essentially fire-fighting, but then that would create further grey areas. Disagree. Directors should not necessarily be independently wealthy people. Club directors should, in theory, be people who know how to run a business and/or a football club, and responsibility should not fall upon the directors to finance the club when it should be self-sufficient. I'd say a better deterrent against clubs racking up debts and spending money they haven't got would be automatic relegation for clubs who enter administration. A points penalty has been proven to not be a big enough deterrent. Ultimately, that's got to be down to the clubs to implement, and unfortunately there will always be clubs willing to leave out that clause from a player's contract if it's going to be the difference between that player signing for them and that player signing for a rival.

I actually think rules like this will be to our advantage at Championship level. While at the moment things are skewed in favour of the clubs who are receiving parachute payments from the Premier League, these clubs also have enormous and unsustainable wage bills. As a result, they all make losses while they're in the Championship. As a result, they've then got a choice of either cut the wage bill dramatically to comply with the break-even test or potentially suffer a further financial penalty with that money being redistributed to those who do comply. If we can get ourselves to a situation where we're breaking even - certainly possible - then we stand to reap the benefits of that at the expense of those whose income would still be greater than ours.

It's not that simple, though. These rules would almost certainly dictate what types of income and expenditure is counted towards the break-even test. For example, finance for infrastructure (building/renovating facilities, etc) would almost certainly not count towards it, as that's generally regarded as good long-term planning. It won't be a case of just looking at a bank statement, seeing £25m resting in it, and saying "OK, that's fine, you pass". Just because a company has cash in a bank account, that doesn't automatically mean it's solvent.

I would imagine they would have "fair market value" rules to cover that sort of thing, just like UEFA.

That's correct. I don't know whether this one covers a similar period or if they're going to do it on an annual basis - I suspect they'd rather do it annually rather than over a longer period of time, but that then doesn't take into consideration that one year a club might have a profitable year and the next it might make a loss to a similar value, which would obviously then be evened out over that two-year period.

Barnsley, while clarifying their position on the speculation surrounding Mark Robins' future at the club, have revealed that a meeting of all (presumably current, rather than next season's) Championship chairmen/CEOs has been convened for this coming Thursday to discuss a proposed "break-even test" for clubs in the division. Clearly, based on last year's financial figures and the likelihood that the position probably hasn't changed a great deal this year, it's going to have an impact on us. The proposal is for a test similar to that being brought in by UEFA for clubs wishing to compete in the Champions League and Europa League competitions, with sanctions applied to clubs who don't "pass" the test, which could include transfer embargos, a competition tax or a fine structure depending on how badly the club fails the test. The competition tax would likely be a system where clubs that fail the test have to pay an amount as a proportion of their losses into a central fund which then gets distributed among the clubs that do pass the test - that then gives clubs an additional incentive to break even, as they'll then be eligible for a payout from this fund. Any thoughts?

And Redknapp's blown the best part of £100m in transfer fees himself since he became Spurs manager, so it's not as if he's been lacking in resources.

Certainly the level of sympathy will be greatly reduced this year as the club set a precedent last season. However, that doesn't mean the club is right not to give supporters a choice as to how they pay for a season ticket.

Amusing. Surrey, captained by KP, have just been thrashed by 10 wickets by Cambridge University

The people actually serving the stuff will have absolutely no input on what they sell, they're agency staff who come in on what's probably minimum wage for a few hours every other week.

I'm liking Stoke to win after extra time at 16/1

I'll be trying out this place (Croydon branch) tonight - should be interesting. It seems to be really popular, I was intending to go there a couple of weeks ago, didn't bother booking thinking "it's only a Sunday evening, how busy can it be?!", and then when I got there, there were 50-odd people in the queue to get in with a likely waiting time of 2 hours

And you know that happened? Last season's instalment plan wasn't done under the direct debit scheme (because of the timing of the takeover, there simply wasn't time to set it up in that way), so they relied on the goodwill of supporters to pay the money. There was a grand total of twenty-eight people who failed to pay the full amount over the course of the season. There were a (larger) number of people who had a payment missed either because the card they provided had expired or because the club kept changing which day of the month they were taking the money, but a quick phone call or email resolved the problem. In previous years, the responsibility for collecting the money fell on an external finance company (which I think ultimately went through Saints Financial Services when it still existed) and it was set up under the national Direct Debit scheme, whereby the company has a signed agreement from the customer and they will keep trying to take the DD until it's successful. I guess there's a bit of psychology involved there as well, if your money's going to a finance company, you're more likely to ensure it gets paid, even though I don't think these schemes are in any way linked to your credit rating.

http://www.soton-chamber.co.uk/index.php/pg/227 £850 for a squad of 7, works out at just over £120 per person. No idea how many games you get for your money though. Two-course dinner after the event included.

While the football creditors rule has its merits, unfortunately all it's done is put clubs in a safety zone knowing that no matter what happens to the club they deal with, they'll get their money in full. It's completely at odds with the idea of the "free market", where businesses worth their salt do due diligence on businesses they seek to trade with before selling their prized assets on hire purchase. If you or I defaulted on a payment on our mortgage, there's a possibility we'd find our house being repossessed. The FA should automatically trigger a ban on any player whose transfer fee payments are overdue - that would then ensure that both purchasing teams and the players themselves take a degree of responsibility in transfer dealings. If a player decides to chase the cash and sign for Pompey who they know might default on the transfer payment, and he ends up not being able to play (domestically or internationally) then that's his own fault for ignoring the problems. It's all well and good saying that the FA, Premier League and Football League have to take responsibility for the position the national game finds itself in, but the players, agents and clubs themselves also have a significant burden to bear.

Surely something like that would have to be in the new Guildhall square? Plenty of space, and I'm sure the council would be happy to build a stage for it. Nothing like getting ahead of ourselves though, eh?

In the first two years in the Championship, the finances were fairly stable, mainly as they were being propped up with the parachute payments, so there wasn't an "apparent" need to save relatively small amounts of money in that way - particularly in a way that was likely to be unpopular among the fans. Unfortunately, by the time the decision was taken to close that part of the ground, it really was a case of saving whatever money the club could in any way possible. When I used to sit in that area of the ground, there were stewards every two or three rows, so would estimate there must have been at least 10 stewards in a static position lining the metal barrier between block 1 and the away section. I've no idea how much stewards get paid, but if we assume a 4-hour shift (including pre-match briefing and then on duty from the moment the turnstiles open until the ground has emptied after the game), multiplied by the 10 stewards, and then add the (much more expensive) cost of having police officers on duty in the ground as well, you can probably imagine the match-by-match cost gets pretty expensive pretty quickly when those parts of the ground are open. I'd certainly agree that having those blocks open (particularly with season tickets available in them) is a massive advantage to us in terms of the atmosphere. However, I'm sure the club would counter that - with a fair bit of justification based on the last two seasons - the atmosphere has been pretty good even without the "stereo" effect around the away section.

Ultimately, regardless of the atmospheric rights and wrongs over the decision to close those three blocks, the fact does remain that it is the most expensive part of the ground to police when it's open (even more so than the Northam, strangely). As a result, I would imagine it'll remain closed (and re-opened on an ad-hoc basis) until there is proof that the attendances can justify it being re-opened permanently.

I think it might work quite well for big away followings, but not so well for teams that don't bring many fans. What I believe they currently do is cordon off the back couple of rows in block 4, so they could easily do that in 1-3 as well, so there's a gap between them and the corporates, and also to ensure standing supporters wouldn't be blocking any views. The usual netting could be used between block 4/5 and the corporate section, where there's already a rail which can act as a natural barrier anyway. The concourse in the Itchen North is massive, which is fine when the away team brings 3,000, but you can't segregate it at all if the away team only brought, say, 500, which obviously can be done in the Northam.

There is not a cat in hell's chance we'll be signing Pratley

All well and good the FA complaining, but they've recently announced that they'll be backing Sepp Blatter in the presidential elections, so it's going to make absolutely no difference.