JxgrSaint

9 minutes ago, miserableoldgit said:

No they didn't. They were part of the Allied army led by Wellington. They were driven off by the French at Ligny and Wellington held the field for most of the day at Waterloo. They managed to avoid Grouchy's attempts  to find them and managed to arrive on the battlefield toward the end of the day and it tipped the balance in the Allies favour. It was an Allied victory.

Enjoying trying to figure out how this can possibly relate to our transfer business on the previous few pages?

1 hour ago, Suhari said:

Too soon?

Or is he, in fact, the Messiah?

1 hour ago, Jeremy Corbyn said:

A forward line of Long and Gray, like an elderly porn star

Difficulty finishing as well…

7 hours ago, Vancouver Saint said:

Chelsea's model is the 'cuckoo' strategy. Get lots and lots of promising young players on contract, and then farm them out to smaller clubs to grow in their nests...if they flourish, they have the option to bring him home or sell him at a profit. Maybe only 1 in 10 survives that test, but that one covers the cost for all the others many times over. Broja is such a one.  

So IF Chelsea decide they're okay selling, they won't care who it is they sell to - it'll just be about the money.

The only thing that might change that is relationships. IF Broja really wanted to stay at Saints that would help and IF Chelsea wanted to maintain a good 'train our young talent and/or help us make a profit on them' with us, then it might, might just happen. A few too many IFs and mights to make it anything more than an outside chance.

Still as Jim Carey said in Dumb & Dumber to Holly Hunter - 'You're saying there's a chance!'

They might also want to f**k over Newcastle - given if they go down they definitely won’t be a rival for European places next year

6 minutes ago, TWar said:

Wouldn't be that high. JWP is on £100k and Ings was offered the same. If we offered him £120k I think they could see the advantage if it ment not having a liability in goal

Goalkeepers are statistically the least valuable member of the team; hence the (relatively) lower transfer fees and wages.
 

Would rather we bought a statement no. 10 with the cash instead as that’s much more likely to translate to improvement

Just now, Streaky said:

But can't his telecoms company sponsor us 100m a season as a get around. Think so.

Well the Premier League just brought in these new related party sponsorship rules. 

Think the crux of them is that all deals with related parties have to be independently assessed as being done at fair value to stop Newcastle doing a City.

As a young person (unfortunately not a millionaire) - I don’t think I’d leave London for Newcastle even for double or triple the money I’m on tbh.

Where would you spend it? There’s far fewer fashion boutiques; few fine dining establishments (only 24 Michelin star restaurants in the North); all the nightclubs have the Geordie Shore lot in; if one were a foreign player who doesn’t have great English, the Geordie accent would be a struggle; further to fly to get to anywhere nice; even colder than the rest of the country etc…

12 hours ago, Saint86 said:

Think a lot of saints fans got into it when it was Anka and they were giving out silly offers. Now its Sheldon and the reality is that he isn't good enough for people to bother paying for it.

Exactly this - Carl Anka's stuff was really in depth and asking interesting questions/looking at tactical trends whereas Dan Sheldon's articles are so incredibly basic. I find it very annoying that he never actually looks for anything that nobody else has thought of covering yet and he has a real "so what?" problem where he just states things and doesn't explain why we should care or how this could impact things - just terrible analysis.

I like a lot of the other stuff on the Athletic so keep paying for it but on the Saints coverage it really feels like us going from Virgil Van Dijk to Wesley Hoedt - both Dutch defenders but one's world class and one has to be paid to piss off to a Belgian club.

4 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

His question was rhetorical. How is anyone on the forum going to be able to list the 15%?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question

3 minutes ago, JustinSFC said:

Yeah except he went to Chelsea first.

Since 2015 (when we signed Romeu) - Barcelona have 0 Champions League wins to Chelsea’s 1 so arguably Chelsea>Saints represents more of a step down than Barca>Saints

I’d much rather it be a 20 team Premier League where everyone has broadly the same resources and can therefore have a chance of winning through the use of superior tactics and recruitment, rather than there be 6 teams with double the money of the other 14.

Could be a chance to make real, positive change - add in a salary cap/financial regulations to keep it at a level playing field (the one good bit of MLS) and it’s still a compelling product. Invite Celtic and Rangers to come in and add 4 Championship teams and I’m all for it.

I’ll honestly be furious if the FA, UEFA and FIFA just bend over at the end of the day and let them get away with their brinkmanship in order to get a bigger slice of the pie. Just let them take their ball home with them and see how it works out for them - I think it would get very boring after a couple of seasons and would subsequently relish the 8-10 years it’ll take the Big 6 to all get back from National League to Premier League…

Double remainer

Per Jeremy Wilson on Twitter

“Southampton have submitted a deal sheet to Premier League in an attempt to get extension for Danny Ings deal. They are now hopeful of getting it done”

I quite like the way that last season everybody appeared to be of the opinion that our squad was far too good for us to go down, and any half decent manager would easily see us mid table. We now have a half decent manager and yet many have us down for relegation before a ball is kicked. Which is it?

 

Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk

Whilst this is true it also is not true any more. The 3 teams that went down last year were definitely worse than us - yes.

Now though, both Wolves and Fulham have better teams and more exciting managers than we do; West Ham have sorted their life out and got some good players in. Basically everyone has strengthened a lot from last year.

Who is definitely worse than us now? Cardiff, Huddersfield, Newcastle once Rafa leaves, Brighton maybe, Bournemouth maybe? Not a lot of scope for cock ups needed on paper to leave us in a bad position...

West Ham dropping £93m plus whatever signing bonus wilshere and Fredericksburg got for being free seems.... a bit Leeds-y

Obviously they will replace him, So where will they spend the money? Hazard? Neymar? Salah? MBappe? Could be the transfer that kick starts the market?

Mbappe wants to play for Real and PSG can’t afford to exercise their £160m option on his loan due to FFP. Would seem the best choice to replace Ronaldo for the next 10+ years at a net £100m-ish cost

Armstrong scored 17 season before last (when he was fit); no reason to class him as "not creative"

I've been shorting lander for a while.

*Cough* Bullshirt *Cough*

How far away is the line?

 

Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk

239 miles, give or take....

Genuinely mad that 75% of the goals in the Champions League Final were scored by Ex-Saints

Just moved back to London and would rather watch the game with other Saints fans in a pub, rather than behind the sofa on my own.

 

I live and work south of the river, so if anyone is watching, let me know what pub. COYR

I’ll be at The Ship by Borough tube station in all likelihood

I am sure I read somewhere that PSG have already sold 170,000 Neymar shirts

 

At say £50 a pop that's £8.5m gross revenue (probably pays Neymar's wages for a week!!)

About 98% of that goes to the shirt manufacturers, it's only going to be useful when it comes to renegotiating the deal with them. Clubs ony get a small fraction of shirt sale money, and usually that;s after they've sold a certain number of shirts

just a hypothetical question? but would anyone, entertained the idea of letting vvd go, to allow the purchase of gylfi sigurdsson,??

Hmm - not sure, I reckon it might be prohibitively expensive to buy him from Everton the day after he's signed for them at a cost of £45m...

But selling van d-ick doesn't pay off anything that Mr GAO has paid. vd is an asset of the company and any profits made on his sale don't go straight in the owners pockets surely?

Net Income Attributable to Shareholders > Retained Earnings

Oh no. According to this kKat is facing a very large tax bull!!!!!Is that when they put you in a rink and release the bull with Dollers on it's back?

I just hope Mr Joshing Geosynchronous had better have a lot of Cosh if we are to investiture and hopefully keep Virgil Van Dyke, rather than sell him to Liverspots.

:lol:

So whose going to leave the baord now?

Managed to find a picture of him, not sure what to make of it...