Redslo

Except that he wasn't spending his own money and financial fair play limits what can be done now. Merely declaring ambition and a willingness to spend money is no longer enough. Nearly all the money you want to spend must be earned through football activities. The profit from this year's transfer activities is itself an asset that can keep us ok for European FFP for the next three years if spending is carefully controlled. Spending big on a single player is probably too risky. On the other hand, current management has spent over 26 million pounds on two attacking players (Long and Mane) and 47 million plus on four attacking players so I don't see a big difference. This response assumes that the bolded language wasn't intended ironically. If it was, good point. It is not just a question of ambition, but how that ambition is to be expressed and what limits are imposed by the owner. If Liebherr wants us to be self-sufficient that is 8 million pounds of FFP losses per year that she is not willing to fund that she could fund (that is European FFP, BPL FFP would allow her to fund 35 million a year). This also means that she is not willing to fund the entire cost of the youth program and any further improvement in the facilities both of which are excluded expenses under FFP. If you want to characterize that as a lack of ambition, you can do so and I won't argue but understand what you are saying--Liebherr should be willing to spend 15 million or so of her own money on the club every year indefinitely. I don't feel comfortable saying that--although I would be happy if she was willing to do that. On the other, if Liebherr announced that she wanted to start taking profits out of the club to repay all the money she and her father invested, I would feel comfortable saying that reflected a lack of ambition. But she has not said that, at least not publically, and last summer would have been a perfect opportunity to start the process. Finally, keep in mind that even though we can compete with the bigger clubs on wages for a few players, that is only partially true. (I am using FM 2015 numbers for what follows.) We cannot afford to pay Schneiderlin what Liverpool would pay him, but we can afford to pay him what they are paying Lallana. We cannot afford to pay Schneiderlin what Arsenal would pay him, but we can afford to pay him what they are paying Arteta. We cannot afford to pay him what Manchester United would pay him, but we can afford to pay him what they are paying Valencia.

It is true that winning Europa and not get relegated turns Everton's season into a very, very good one. But if they do not win the Europa League they are out of Europe next year and they do not have the money to offer salaries comparable to Man U, Man City, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool, or even Tottenham. In terms of available cash they may have less than we do. But there is no way to know in advance what will happen to them this summer. If I were an Everton fan, I would not be too confident.

I think your understanding of economics is faulty here. If a business can get someone to do 10 pounds per hour of work for only 7 pounds, they have an incentive to pay the lesser amount and will do so unless forced to pay the higher amount either by their own morals, public pressure, the government, or the market. Given that the UK is now operating in a voluntarily austerity induced recession, workers do not have the negotiating power to push wages up at the bottom so the market cannot do the job. Since you government doesn't seem to care about ending the recession it has created, I doubt it will do the job either which leaves only public pressure and the business' own morals. The two work better in combination. As for different people needing different amounts of money to earn a living wage depending on their situation, that is certainly true but I doubt there is going to be system which employers investigate how much money each employee needs to have just enough to get by and then pays each employee that minimum amount.

I think so. Those players stayed (or signed) on following last season where Everton nearly qualified for the Champions League and where they had to think they were progressing. It does not look that way right now so Everton potentially faces a tough summer. Their annual revenue is greater than ours but not by that much--120.5 million pounds versus 97.3 million pounds according to Deloitte's money list (I think Deloitte's estimate of our income will be a little bit low whereas they are using Everton's actual numbers). However, Everton's wages last year were about 20 million pounds higher than ours so they don't have much room to maneuver especially since their net transfer spend this summer was greater than our net transfer profit. Everton did sign a significantly increased sponsorship deal for this year and will have Europa League prize money to make up for the drop in their Premier League revenue, but over all they do not have lots of spare money. So, yes I think it is a real question whether they can hold onto all four of the big name players--or whether they will even want to. They might prefer to take a profit on Coleman or Barkley this summer. I think we can all agree they will have trouble holding onto those players if they get relegated which is still possible, if not very likely. I suppose whether it is "The" real question depends on what you mean by "the".

The real question is whether Everton can keep those players after this season.

And the new regime got a little flak last summer.

According to FM 2015, he is making 34K per week. Doubling that would cost an additional 1.8 million a year. This would make him our highest paid player. That can easily be covered by this year's trading profits and still keep the club well under the salary cap. We can afford to pay a few players high wages--just not as high as the bigger clubs and we cannot pay everyone those kind of wages. Just to illustrate FM 2015 says that Manchester United has 17 players on their roster making more than Schneiderlin would be making if Southampton doubled his salary. This includes, by the way, Luke Shaw whom they believe is making 110K per week. Arsenal has 14 players making more--yet Arsenal's salaries as a whole are much lower than Manchester United, but I digress. My point is that FFP does not stop us from signing Schneiderlin, Clyne, and Alderweireld to big contracts--we just can't sign everyone to big contracts. And if we can afford to pay Schneiderlin an additional 1.8 million a year, Arsenal can afford to pay him an additional 1.8 million a year beyond that and Manchester United can afford another 1.8 million on top of that.

It can't be enforced because players will have to be medically stabilized before they can get up and leave the field. Can any referee really second guess whether the actions taken by the medical personnel are necessary?

I think Palace is entitled to 4% of the transferee fee as a solidarity payment under FIFA rules because they had him through the season he turned 21. I do not know if exactly the same rules apply to non-international transfers. Of course, a sell on clause would add to that. I don't think we get anything if he leaves on a free at the end of his contract.

Thank you for the suggestions. I don't think I will be doing any of that. I am not sure that will help, but okay.

I guess I am a little slow on the uptake because I have only now realized that I have my very own internet troll. Does anyone have any suggestions as to how I should deal with the harassment? If I ignore him from now on will he go away?

It is not clear that he can play. The rules permit the transfer agreement to excluded him from playing in this game and I have not heard anything specific about what actually occurred.

You should publish all your future posts in the form of a junior saints word search. Clarity!!

While I disagree with Art's opposition to even playing in the Europa League, the Champions League would provide us with enough additional money to expand the side to better handle the extra games where as the Europa League would not. Also, for reasons that are not entirely clear to me everyone agrees that Thursday/Sunday is tougher than Tuesday-Wednesday/Saturday. Also, more Europa games are played in Outer Mongolia requiring more time consuming travel.

The question is why did Southampton's players agree to give the ball to Palace. Either they felt that Palace was properly in possession or they felt that kicking it to them at the far end of the field was better than a contested drop in our end of the field or they made a mistake.

I think we can be confident that Morgan is not going to sit around and do nothing from August until January.

It is simple enough at the end of the season when you can look at what happened. Figuring out the possibilities along the way is not so simple.

That would be my choice as well. It would put us somewhere between 1st and 6th but most likely third.

This response inspired me to research the difference between facts and factoids. Since that information actually meets one of the definitions of factoids I will spare you. On the other hand, I always assumed that players and fans were happy when their club had mathematically assured themselves that they would not be relegated. Maybe it is only bad teams that worry about that and Southampton is now one of the big boys and above petty concerns like that. Hooray for us.

We can qualify by finishing 8th under one of three very unlikely circumstances: Arsenal wins the Champions League, but finishes fifth or lower in the Premier League. Everton wins the Europa League and finishes 5th, 6th, or 7th in the Premier League. Someone who finishes above us is excluded from Europe as a Financial Fair Play sanction--realistically only possible for Manchester City if they really, really botch their accounting. We could also qualify for Europa if England qualifies for a place via the fair play table and we finish ahead of everyone else who hasn't already qualified for Europe on the English Fair Play table--but as of February 6 we are well down that table. http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/matchday/fair-play.html

And I answered with rhetoric.

Not entirely. (The number was 58 by the way. It is now 55.) Rich owners can still fund excessive expenditures in League One and League Two without FFP rules stopping them--although they have to do it correctly. If someone like Markus Leibherr bought a League One club now, he could outspend the other teams to earn promotion into the Championship. Once there, however, different FFP rules apply and he would have to be careful to keep his spending, including salaries under control. Also, the mathematically safe number is not entirely meaningless since it allows clubs to know when they are officially safe from relegation. I remember we were all happy last year at how early that occurred for us. If things go right we could be safe even earlier this year--after the Chelsea game. And yes I know that the sun going supernova before the end of the season is not much less likely that us being relegated this year even if we didn't earn another point.

No it does not. That rule has been changed effective for qualifying for the 2015-2016 Europa League.

It might make the top five out of the last six games.

True. Although given how FFP works in League One and League Two a billionaire could buy one of those clubs and offer salaries competitive with those offered by Manchester United. It would be crazy to do that, of course, if only because the chickens would really come home to roost when they got promoted to the Championship.