Redslo

He might fail the medical when he bangs his head on the doorframe at the doctor's office. See my most recent blog on Concussions and Head Injuries in Football. redsloscf.BlogSpot.co.uk How's that for a plug?

This is only speculation. I have no inside knowledge. I was (and still am) considering writing a blog analyzing that statement by Reed. First, Reed used the term "want" rather than "will". Maybe he was misleading us with technical truths. However, I don't think so. I think that at the time the board thought that MP was staying. I think MP was leading them to believe that would happen. I think the Board believed that if MP stayed the long term contracts would hold. In other words, the players would stay and not need to have their salary raised. In effect, this is my everything is nearly fine plus scenario from my 5 August 2014 blog except that Lambert stays too. Osvaldo would be sold for a good amount saving both his salary and providing some funds for transfer. The team would then get in a few more players. There would be plenty of salary cap space. Possible under this scenario KL would put it a bit more money or no such infusion would be necessary given the TV money. But, if I am right, this scenario was completely unrealistic but Les Reed did not know that. MP was going and, inevitably, some players would too. But who knows. I could be completely wrong--although I stand by my understanding of the Salary Cap rules.

Thanks for doing that. My bad not to do it originally. I edited my first post to include it.

I have published a new blog entry. This one is entitled "Concussions and Brain Injuries in Football". http://redsloscf.blogspot.co.uk/ http://redsloscf.blogspot.com/ OOPS. Meant to post it first time.

While everything you said is true in some ways, it is also not true in others. (Please note that I am an American, but I pay lots more attention to the BPL than to MLS.) The lack of a promotion relegation system is due to the fact, among other, that people pay lots of money for MLS franchises and would not be willing to do if the value could disappear overnight with relegation. Also, the relegation/promotion system is the primary reason why so few teams have a chance to compete for the title of most football leagues. Big clubs are far more likely to agree to revenue sharing systems if they do not risk relegation in bad years. In MLS, every team can become competitive with just a couple of years of good management. The playoff system reinforces this by making it possible for several additional teams to have successful seasons and by eliminating the possibility that the league championship will be settled too early. Moreover, the only real flaw with playoff systems is that the best team doesn't always win. That has not stopped the Superbowl or World Series from being successful. For that matter, the Champions League is really a playoff system. As for America never winning the world cup, you are correct that the current batch of American-German players will not win a world cup, but they also might not have ever played for Germany. As for the more distant future, you should not underestimate the large number of athletes the USA can produce given its large population. And right now there are a lot of American kids playing soccer. And if something game changing occurred, the USA could easily become a soccer power. (For example, what if it became settled that American Football as played by the NFL was simply too dangerous so the NFL went out of business. An unlike possibility to be sure, but not an impossible one.)

Actually, if we want our payroll to exceed 56 million pounds this year we have to have transfer profits or other increased income excluding TV money. This is from the BPL handbook: E.18. If in any of Contract Years 2013/14, 2014/15 and 2015/16 a Club’s aggregated Player Services Costs and Image Contract Payments: E.18.1. exceed £52m, £56m, or £60m respectively; and E.18.2. have increased by more than £4m when compared with the previous Contract Year or by more than £4m, £8m or £12m respectively when compared with Season 2012/13; then the Club must satisfy the Board that such excess increase as is referred to in E.18.2 arises as a result of contractual commitments entered into on or before 31 January 2013, and/or that it has been funded only by Club Own Revenue Uplift and/or profit from player trading as disclosed in the Club’s Annual Accounts for that Contract Year. I analyze this in more detail in my blog: redsloscf.BlogSpot.com

I would demand the can hamper as well at that price.

I googled Luke Shaw release clause. All the release clause reference were to other players mentioned in the same article. Same with Chambers. Other than Southampton related forums I can't find a mention of releases clauses. Does anyone know of any source for this information other than unsupported rumors and speculations? Wait, I have just excluded the entire internet.

I think you missed the hint of sarcasm. I think the Kenyan reference was relevant given the possibility that we are overvaluing Forster because he is English.

Do you have a source for the existence of the two release clauses. I am not disagreeing with you, I would just like to check the information out.

Please feel no obligation to keep us advised as to the return on your most recent investment.

Do you mean exclusive or independent?

I think it is pretty much established that any athlete who does something worthy of mention in the media is, ipso facto, a star.

As an American, I endorse this message.

She could probably invest about 40 million pounds a year without violating financial fair play. The money just couldn't be spent on player salaries.

True. And, if they are to be believed, the new board is working on this. Of course, that wouldn't have happened fast enough to hold last year's team together.

Who will then have to keep his mouth shut and be accused of being assimilated.

I have published a couple more blog posts addressing my earlier error of using the full Southampton salary in my analysis rather than just the player salary portion of it. redsloscf.BlogSpot.com

Yes.

That article deals with UEFA FFP not BPL FFP salary cap. It is irrelevant to Southampton until the year after we qualify for Europe.

is there a link where I can listen to it, if I missed it live?

Thanks for that link. It was helpful. Next time I blog about this subject I will incorporate that information. I disagree with you about bonuses not being included in the salary cap calculations. Admittedly, there might be some special Englishnesses in the rules that I, as an American, do not understand, but they seem clear to me. This is from the BPL handbook: A.1.119. "Player Services Costs" means: (a) the total of all gross remuneration and benefits payable by a Club to or in respect of its Contract Players; (b) (where applicable) employer’s National Insurance Contributions thereon; and © any direct contributions made by a Club for a Player’s benefit to a pension scheme or to an employee benefit trust or an employer-financed retirement benefit scheme. "total of all gross remuneration and benefits" should sounds like it would include bonuses. And I think it would have to. What if Man City, for example, structured their player contracts as consisting of nothing but appearance bonuses and bonuses for not finishing in 20th place. That would let them evade the restrictions entirely.

My theory doesn't explain this. My guess is that selling Lovren was never part of the plan. My guess is that the board viewed Luke Shaw as the best one to sell and that Lallana was replaceable and, relatively, overpriced--although given the need to pay off Bournemouth I am not sure this is correct. If my theory is correct we will buy one or two CBs before the transfer deadline. If we don't it either means that the board doesn't know what it is doing or our new coaches likes the CBs we have now.

That is not correct. Let me quote the relevant rule from the BPL Handbook. "E.18. If in any of Contract Years 2013/14, 2014/15 and 2015/16 a Club’s aggregated Player Services Costs and Image Contract Payments: "E.18.1. exceed £52m, £56m, or £60m respectively; and "E.18.2. have increased by more than £4m when compared with the previous Contract Year or by more than £4m, £8m or £12m respectively when compared with Season 2012/13; then the Club must satisfy the Board that such excess increase as is referred to in E.18.2 arises as a result of contractual commitments entered into on or before 31 January 2013, and/or that it has been funded only by Club Own Revenue Uplift and/or profit from player trading as disclosed in the Club’s Annual Accounts for that Contract Year." If we were lower than 52 million in 2013-2014, then our limit in 2014-2015 is 56 million plus the club's revenue uplift (essentially non-TV increase in revenue, not profit) plus net transfer income. What my calculations cannot determine, because the information is not publically available as far as I can determine, is how much of our 47 Million payroll expenses for 2012-2013 was for non-players. We know that NC got a little over 2 million pounds himself and there must have been several million spent on coaches and such. But my basic point remains unchanged. We were limited in how much we could raise player's salaries and that limit was not high enough to sign a bunch of good new players and retain the players we had given their inevitable demand for pay increases. Once you accept that you need a net positive transfer income to increase wages, multiple sales are requires. If, for example, we had just sold Luke Shaw for 30 million, then we would have undoubtedly spent more than 30 million on incoming players and would not have had a net positive transfer income to use.

This is basically true. I do not know how exactly how much we spent on player wages (and other player payments such as appearance fees and loyalty bonuses) in 2013-2014. It is possible that we were so far below the 52 million cap that this years 56 million cap gives us plenty of maneuvering room. But I do not believe it would have allowed us to give raises to the want away players to match what they could earn elsewhere