stevegrant

The commercial operations at German clubs is on another level to those at Premier League clubs. There is also almost an implied deal between clubs and their season ticket holders that, in exchange for cheap tickets, they'll spend a fortune on all sorts of club merchandise. If you think clubs in this country take the **** with replica shirts being replaced every year and costing a fortune, the Bundesliga goes one step further. Dortmund brought out a "winter" replica shirt, which was ever so slightly different from their normal home shirt, and they had a different shirt for the Champions League. The cheapest of those at the start of the season was €65.

How can the average price be £893.50 when the highest one is £759?

I think your maths needs a bit of work there.

Let's face it, nobody wants to pay more money than they did previously for the same product, so I can't say I'm overly thrilled, even though in the grand scheme of things a rise of £24 isn't that much. I can't help but think it would have been a quick and easy (and not that expensive) PR win for the club to at least freeze prices, especially with all the supposed uncertainty surrounding the first team at the moment. The club made a net loss of more than 700 season tickets last summer, I suspect we may see the same again this time around.

We have a lead Some truly woeful bowling figures for Gloucestershire, basically Gidman and Payne have restricted our scoring quite well, but we've been able to see them off and then score heavily against the others. MD Taylor 17 - 5 - 74 - 2 - 4.35 JK Fuller 12 - 1 - 79 - 0 - 6.58 TMJ Smith 12 - 1 - 71 - 0 - 5.91 Another point of interest, if Adam Wheater gets 55 or more in this innings, his first-class average will go above 40, from 94 innings. He's batting at number 8

100 for Vince, currently 283/6 going at more than 4 an over.

Looks like this wicket's a "get in and cash in" wicket. Scores of 139, 81 and 55 in Gloucestershire's innings but nothing else above 6!

Nope, the club confirmed yesterday that it'll remain on the Saturday.

I chucked a bit on Rose each way. That's gone well

Very much this. Southampton as a city can only cope with a certain amount of retail - there are enough shops in the city already, so all that will happen with this new development is stores further away from West Quay will end up closing, causing a different part of the city to fall into disrepair. As you rightly say, the waterfront is drastically underused and underdeveloped and would be a massive opportunity to create something genuinely interesting and appealing.

It won't be quiet

Yeah, it would have taken either side being particularly **** for the other to win it given the lack of time available. Only 189 overs bowled in the entire match, you'd probably need two innings of less than 150 to get a result there. Good of Surrey to oblige accordingly at the Oval

While the operating profit figure is calculated before amortisation of player contracts (i.e. the portion of transfer fees being evenly deducted over the course of the year), it would be very foolish to ignore the figure after said amortisation was applied. It is still something that affects the profitability.

Quite surprised by that. On the face of it, though, paying your main (only) executive board member just shy of £2m a year when the company has total revenue of around £80m doesn't seem that excessive to me.

And while we lament our own woes, there is always someone worse off than you. Surrey, despite having one of the strongest (and highest-paid) squads on the county circuit, are on the verge of being battered by Glamorgan in what has basically been a 3-day game. Bowled out for 81 in their second innings, with Glamorgan currently 71/0 chasing 153.

By way of a comparison, this graphic shows how poorly we've done with commercial revenue despite being in the Premier League: Five Championship clubs (Leeds, Brighton, Watford, Wolves and Leicester) all earned more money through commercial sources than we did last season.

Dawson's taken two wickets in an over to restore a bit of respectability, 203/3.

Correct, but the idea of these reciprocal deals was to increase away attendances by charging them less than home fans, which apparently the rules allow.

I think what happened is that Newcastle agreed a load of reciprocal pricing deals with other clubs so if the other club would charge travelling Newcastle fans a knock-down price, they'd reciprocate at St James' Park. We wouldn't agree to it, so Newcastle decided to charge us the same amount that we would charge them at St Mary's, i.e. £37.

Newcastle charged us considerably more than home fans sat in similar seating for our game before Christmas, which Saints complained about to the Premier League. They have found in our favour and ordered Newcastle to refund the club accordingly. As a result, those who went will receive a partial refund as follows: Adults - £10 back Seniors - £11 back Juniors - £9 back

Sean Ervine's played a blinder here. Added nearly 100 with Wheater and now another 60-odd with the last two to get us two batting points.

Can't sell out until at least Thursday.

I don't remember anyone saying the money had been used to upgrade coaches (the only coach the club owns is the one the team travels on, which they bought last season IIRC). The club freely admitted earlier in the season that at least part of the £200k away fund had been used to decorate the away concourse at St Mary's and to put on the family fun day at the Fulham home game.

Considering the supposed strength of the "no" brigade before this vote, it seems absolutely staggering that there wouldn't be a larger turnout in the ballot. While the question is clearly weighted with the threat of Allam selling up (who's going to buy them, seriously?), if the fans opposed the name change so much they'd have at least bothered to vote and registered their opinion, even if Allam ended up trying to force the change through anyway.