Sour Mash

Strength in depth is a very hard balance to get. Unless you're playing into the late stages of the domestic cups, as well as European football, it would be very difficult to give players in their prime the amount of game time they want. Otherwise for strength in depth you would want younger up and coming players who are happy to dip in and out and gradually learn their trade as cover for a more experienced player or players coming towards the end of their career, but can still do a job when called upon and are great around the squad - that approach to squad management is one of the key's to Man Utd's success under Ferguson, as oppossed to some of the other higher spending rivals that have had problems with large squads. Can't see why this chap would play centre back if one of his key selling points is getting up and down the line or why playing as a wing-back would be a problem for Clyne, apart from his fairly poor crossing. Will be interesting to see how it pans out.

Sounds excellent and similar to Zabaleta who has been great for Man City. Just don't see how this fits with Clyne. If they're both fit for the majority of the season we'd have a problem keeping either happy.

So it's clearly not just a 'few total two@ts' but a sizeable percentage. As you say yourself you wouldn't even wear your Saints shirt into your local pub.

Absolute rubbish. Walk around Fratton Park on a match day in a Saints shirt and see if it's just a small minority.

Will be very interesting to see how he does. I think Ferguson has over-achieved in the last two seasons based on available players. I'm expecting Chelsea and Man City to be stronger than them next season.

We didn't contest it in court either though and wasted a lot of people's time. That article makes terrible reading for the club.

Why couldn't the companies pay by BACS or something similar? It's what every single company I know does.

Shouldn't need to play any music. None of it sounds good and it drowns out any actual atmosphere created by the crowd.

Which companies pay for anything by cheque in 2013?

No I'm not assuming. We know there has been an out of court agreement. That means that either the club didn't at least pay what it believed Benali was due when it was actually due and have had to pay that now or they've had to pay over that.

What a load of absolute BS. You're making more assumptions than anyone else.

It really shouldn't be difficult to understand - there was nothing stopping the club paying Benali what they believed he was due from day 1. The case then would have been solely about the disputed difference. I work on contract disputes - one of the things you're always taught is to at least pay what you believe is due at the time. It is very poor business practice and really doesn't look great when you reach the point of adjudication.

So you can't answer the question. Fair enough, you should have just said that at the start.

Yes, I know not many cases actually go to court. But I've never heard of a football club following this process several times - none of us know for certain - but it seems like a predetermined process for dealing with any sort of dispute - it's widely regarded as bad business practice at the very least.

So why didn't we just pay what we owed when it was due? You seem incapable of answering this straight forward question for some reason.

No, it would have meant we wouldn't have to have pay anymore now unless we are actually in the wrong.

Fair enough, that's your opinion if you just think it's a coincidence that all these cases just happen to be responsibility on both sides hence ending in an out of court last minute settlement, rather than a fairly regular policy by the club when dealing with such cases.

Why didn't the club just pay what it felt he was due? It's not a difficult question to answer is it.

If they didn't want it rumbling on and costing money it would have been dealt with before it got to this point. Thanks for telling me that court cases cost a lot of money. None of us knew that.

Why did we just "offer it"? Why didn't we actually pay it on "day 1"?

The fact that the club has paid anything shows that the club has been unreasonable.

How often do you hear of similar sized clubs as ours going to court?

Exactly that. The club are paying for private damage to private property by our Chairman - not very impressive at all.

But they did pay out? And were therefore in the wrong? Pretty poor from the club wouldn't you agree?

In the club's favour? Part of this case was for damage caused by Cortese to Benali's house - how can paying any money out of SFC's coffers in such an instance be considered in the club's favour?