stevegrant

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.

They won't get another point all season.

It's already Van Gaal's job. Has been for months.

Some things never change...

They would have been banking on beating West Brom on Saturday to give them enough of a cushion that the last 5 games wouldn't matter and they could get rid of Hughton in the summer and nobody would really bat an eyelid. Losing that game has changed everything - Fulham will be 2 points behind them if they win on Saturday, with a run of winnable games in the run-in. The view now is probably that with Hughton in charge they're more or less guaranteed to lose all 5 games, so they might as well make a change in the hope that they get something different, rather than any sort of expectation. Let's face it, Neil Adams can't really do an awful lot worse.

Must admit I couldn't be bothered to trawl through the Premier League rulebook to find whether they had anything about it, so credit to you for doing so Actually quite surprised they've accounted for this specific issue - I would have thought the vast majority of their rules that could see disciplinary action taken against clubs would be quite generic, thereby leaving the PL 400 miles of wiggle room in which to not do anything.

Any other league would have deducted points, either the points gained in games played by the ineligible player or 3 points per game, depending on the league's rules. It's interesting that Hartlepool were docked 3 points in 2010 after they fielded a player who should have been suspended for a game which they won against Brighton. That's Gus Poyet's Brighton. Here's what he had to say on the matter back then: Wonder if he still feels this way...

From what I recall, the club doesn't own all of the land it currently uses, part of it is leased (long-term). Entirely possible that the same applies here.

Sadly you cannot libel the dead.

Indeed. I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out that the clause was active during Johnson's initial contract period (i.e. 4 years), but is no longer valid. I wonder if the Pompey board are already deciding how to spend the £1m before Liverpool pay up, only to find that they've spent money they don't have. Again.