stevegrant

The reports were inaccurate. £18m is what they've offered so far (or at least, that was the case a week ago), with SFC demanding £25m.

That's a point, what's happened to him?

We had a 60-odd point lead over Surrey a couple of months ago. That's going to be down to 5 after this game, with 4 games to play, them in great form and us falling to bits. ****s sake.

The club is bound by a contract regarding Saints Player, so there has to be a certain amount of exclusive content on there. That will include highlights from competitive games, which they almost certainly won't be allowed to put on YouTube until those end of season review videos.

4-0, Steven Davis

3-0, Billy Sharp penalty

2-0 right on half-time, Calum Chambers.

Season ticket holders get a discount in the club megastore, and many Veho products will be available there, so I guess that's similar if not exactly the same.

As a guide, here's a list of the published "commercial revenues" of all of the PL clubs from 2012/13 (our first back in the PL, and the most recent where all club accounts are available): Man United £153m Man City £143m Liverpool £98m Chelsea £84m Arsenal £62m Tottenham £57m West Ham £20m Sunderland £19m Newcastle £17m Aston Villa £16m Everton £14m Norwich £13m Fulham £11m West Brom £10m QPR £9m Southampton £7m Swansea £6m Reading £5m Stoke £5m Wigan £2m Clearly those figures will have increased for the clubs who are still in the PL. Largely, that is as a result of the Financial Fair Play rules put in place which have prompted clubs to dedicate much more time to increasing their commercial revenue. I wouldn't say it's inconceivable that we might double that figure to £14m by the end of this season. My understanding is that the Veho deal is worth around £2m per year basic, with various revenue-sharing add-ons with the merchandise. However, the long and short of it is that we're small-fry compared to the likes of Man United. From 2015/16, their kit manufacturing deal with Adidas alone - ignoring the actual shirt sponsorship deal with Chevrolet - is worth £75m a year to them, with Adidas supposedly budgeting to make £150m a year out of it themselves. Terrifying numbers, really.

I think that rule was quietly removed from the broadcasting contract that started last season. However, there are upper and lower limits for each of the seven packages that Sky and BT bid on as part of the current contract: Essentially, that graphic shows that Sky and BT could get away with showing a club as few as five times over the entire season, or as many as 28 (strangely, exactly the number of times Liverpool were shown last season) of 38 league games.

Also, Arsenal away has been pushed back a day to Wednesday 3rd December as a result of the Manchester City game being televised.

Games picked in Sky's first block of games: Liverpool away, now Sunday 17th August, 1:30pm Aston Villa away, now Monday 24th November, 8:00pm Manchester City home, now Sunday 30th November, 1:30pm BT still to announce their first block.

If it's on TV, as seems inevitable, we'll take the 1900 allocation tops.

You'd have to route your internet traffic through a proxy or VPN so Sky Go thinks you're in the UK.

Good start Win the toss and bat first against what appears to be a second-string Essex bowling attack (only Napier would be first choice at the moment), with the part-time dibbly-dobbler Jesse Ryder opening, and we're 30/4, FFS!

Depends what criteria have been used. If they take the cheapest adult season ticket available anywhere in the ground then we're probably quite high, but I'd expect all the London clubs to be comfortably more expensive than ours on average, likewise Liverpool and Man United, and perhaps Man City as well.

I still don't get why the club set a deadline for buying a season ticket, especially more than a month before the first home game. Why not give everyone as long as possible to come up with the money?

Have they actually signed anyone yet?

The main reservation I have with Forster is that, from what I've seen, his distribution is terrible. Boruc's is bad, but at least he throws accurately and kicks cleanly (perhaps too clean, judging by the number of long balls to full backs that end up out of play) - every time I've seen Forster play, he looks rushed with backpasses and ends up scuffing them all over the place. If we are likely to continue with the possession-based style, that could be a problem.

Snippet of info, by the way, I think they wanted to have everything done and announced yesterday, but it turns out that Tadic speaks much better English than his agent, so the club had to find a Serbian translator for all the legal stuff.

Brendan Rodgers has (rightly) realised that they were pretty fortunate last season in terms of injuries, and of course didn't have the distraction of European football. As a result his players remained fresh throughout the season. No such luck this time around as a result of finishing second, so his squad certainly needs bulking out. That said, it seems very strange that, with the exception of Lovren, he's concentrated his efforts on the attacking part of the team, with which he had absolutely no problem last season, and has done bugger all about the back 4 that shipped 50 goals. In terms of the finance, they were televised live a record TWENTY-EIGHT times last season (out of a possible 38 ), and their commercial revenues are huge. Of course, they're also selling Luis Suarez for around £65m.

I'm assuming she was reporting on a Pompey story there...

Official announcement incoming...

I think so. Used to be Mark McAdam, but I think now that Bournemouth are a moderately interesting club as far as SSN are concerned he tends to concentrate on them now.

In which case the obvious answer would be "we'll leave it, thanks". It's not "nearly impossible" to include him back in the squad, it's only us fans who will have any beef with him at all, his team mates won't give a toss - I suspect they'd be delighted to have him back.