shurlock

Yeh, similar memories. They do use that jingle now days, though without the synthy bit at the end and the way Solent used to blend it seamlessly into whatever track they were playing so that it crept up on you - that was different class.

Exactly: that one jingle put the fear in me as a nipper. Definitely a case of less is more. Even then there was only a 1/3 chance the goal would be at our game which just added to the terror and suspense. Probably why certain generations of saints fans turned out the way they have

Good song but not a patch on John Cooper Clarke's Chickentown

Does anyone have a file of the old solent jingle (early/mid 1990s) that was used to signal a goal had been scored- before the days of live commentary of our games. Trying to track it down for something and wonder if anyone has any bright ideas.

Chris Commons? I'm sure it was said we put in a derisory bid for wittingham. And that's only the bids we quasi-know.

But I thought the poor kids dress like they're rich.

Don't think I was saying that Just saying that relatively speaking more of the transfer fee is paid upfront - perhaps 30-50% with the rest paid in installments/on the satisfaction of various benchmarks. The point was more rhetorical than anything. That even in an extreme scenario i.e. 100% upfront transfer fee, some of the figures bandied about i.e. £152m aren't all that intimidating oncespread out over time and income is taken into account. Of course, you might want to query whether £152m is enough and IMO it is way too low.

So its £152m over three years with transfer fees loaded up front? If so, bring it on. Clubs generate income as well as incur costs. In 2010/2011, Wigan had the lowest annual income in the prem with £50m - the Bolton's and Fulhams of this world, hardly heavyweights, generated around £70-80m - over three years, that's close to £210m to £240m more than enough to cover the kind of costs you're talking about. Arguably we're talking about needing to £250m+ to challenge for the CL but thats another argument.

Blue lighting in every public toilet to discourage the smackheads Queues for the phone box Birds with more tats than men Lads in shirts that look like table cloths Kids playing in cemeteries - the only area you'll find a bit of greenery and wildlife A closed down Woolworths as the jewel in the crown of the town's shopping attractions TVs bolted to the wall of every hotel you stay in New Labour cut and paste colleges that make even MFI's furnishings look timeless and sturdy Subway as the healthy alternative - Crawford biscuits here, there and every f**king where.

Its not £152m a year. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/premier-league/9255617/Revealed-the-financial-health-of-the-Premier-League-laid-bare.html If you're going to project the wage bill over three years, you have to do the same for income (and of course transfers). In fact, 6 out of the 20 prem teams had a positive cash flow in 2010/2011 -that is 6 clubs were richer at the end of last season than at the start. Looking at the numbers and how teams have fared this year, I reckon £90m a year on transfers and wages spent wisely would give you an outside shot at a CL place and a great chance at a UEFA place. To qualify for the latter, you could probably spend a great deal less. And that's before taking into account income....

If you believe the Telegraph numbers, league positions are closely related to spending on wages and transfers. Recently, this relationship has been weakening, so that a few like Newcastle have punched above their weight and others like W Ham have splurged money without reaping the rewards. At the same time, there are limits to how far you can buck these trends - how far you can get by on shrewd budgeting and transfer activity alone. Newcastle performed the best in this regard -so it is a very much an outlier (not sure if the Carroll sale is included in these numbers which would make it even more of an outlier). Still it hardly turned lead to gold: it only finished six places higher than its transfer/wage bill indicated it would. Those trends suggest that Saints would have to be in the top ten spenders if wanted to challenge for a CL place -assuming we could be as productive in our transfer activity as Newcastle, a heroic assumption. Indeed, we would probably need to spend a bit more given the amount of concentration at the very, very top.

£1bn and the title's ours. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/manchester-city/9255702/Manchester-Citys-930-million-spending-spree-to-turn-club-into-Premier-League-title-contenders.html Other interesting tit bits from the 2010-11 season: • Top-flight clubs spent £2.51 billion in cash, which was £285.8 million more than they earned. • The Premier League generated £2.23 billion of income, which equates to 0.148 per cent of the entire output of the UK economy. • Clubs spent almost £400 million on signings after player sales. • Wages for players and staff cost clubs £1.52 billion. • Premier League clubs’ net debt was £1.39 billion, costing them £97.2 million in debt-interest payments. • City’s spending loomed large in the results for the league as a whole. In 2009-2010, City were spending £3.04 for every £1 they earned. Traditionally, a club’s league position has reflected their spending on wages. However, in recent years, clubs who spent greater sums than direct rivals on transfers actually suffered in the league. For instance, West Ham were relegated -despite having the 12th highest transfer/wage bill in the league. The article also shows how some teams manage to prosper despite being ‘selling clubs’: "Wigan Athletic (£574,000 profit), Blackburn (£2.2 million) and Arsenal (£15.9 million) all made more money in the transfer market than they spent in 2009-2010, and yet all three finished higher than teams with bigger wage bills. Chelsea did the ‘double’ that season and yet made a profit of £18.2 million on transfers. Last season, Newcastle United over-achieved more than anyone in this regard, making £5.4 million in the transfer market and yet finishing six places higher than their wage bill indicated they would. The figures point to how the club have skilfully identified talent at bargain prices while attracting big fees for selling players whose departures have not prompted a slump in the team’s form".

Cardiff game at home - had we lost, they would have leapfrogged us and we would have dropped out of the top 2 for the first time this season. Our first real 6 pointer and bang in the middle of our blip. 1 down at half time, could have been more had Kenny Miller been less wasteful. We got an equaliser and saw the game out. Only a point but it did stopped the rot and helped kickstart a run in form.

Love these grab bag wishlists, only one step up from the owen threads. Shaquiri has signed for Bayern; Clyne is most likely off to United (if it already hasn't been agreed in principle).

Agree -he's been utterly discrete in his dealings. Ironically people want to hear more from him not less.

Re. SMS: not sure it was ambition - it was simply the next step in our development. Most chairmen would have understood the economics and feasibility of moving stadium. Ambition in football is defined by your willingness to pay players wages as wages are the main cost in running a club. You can't claim to be ambitious or classify somebody as ambitious if they don't walk the walk. In this respect, the jury is still out on NC. Lowe thought he could defy footballing gravity and he crashed and burned. Perhaps it was a combination of delusion and arrogance, but I think Lowe realised over time the impossibility of what he was trying to do but, ultimately, was unwilling to spend the money necessary to change course.

Knowing ashley, would be very surprised if they spend that much on wages.

Tottenham levels of investment at the very minimum -and even then thy've been able to buy players relatively cheap, knowing they wont have much resale value.

Coz they're not very good. Not like they've taken the league by storm.

I don't think either has made it, though. They've probably done more than other asian players here - and the Bolton lad has looked decent, albeit in a poor team. But he's injured while the Sunderland lad has practically disappeared sinceMON's arrival.

Its about costs and benefits. It takes practically no effort and investment to market us in places like japan (still one of asia's largest markets in terms of discretionary spending), so even selling one extra shirt is a good return. From my own experience -and I'm bumped into the lad at Heathrow, I have been surprised by the extra exposure Lee's move has got us and it is bound to increase now we are in the prem, especially if we're successful. Your reference to Hull, Norwich, Swansea is odd given none have asian players (I agree with you- I dont think you can succeed on branding and sponsorship alone a la Leicester or Everton). Indeed given no asian player apart from park has really made it in english football, its too early to conclude that asian fans wouldn't care about us. If Lee scored 10+ goals next season, I'm sure the impact would be noticeable.

Anyway, playing in red gives you an advantage - evolution and all that. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4559071.stm No doubt referenced on here before.

True

Saving grace of the generic OS is that you can log-in to everyone else's commentaries and highlights - more than compensates for its blandness.

Sure it's sunk in among all the albion fans you've been pestering.