Makis

Blunt? Yes. Aggressive? Hmm...

So you think paying 500k instead of 100k makes them less motivated? I don't and that's why I said it doesn't matter anymore. It stopped mattering at the point where a single contract made a player's future secure. Which would be about a four-year contract at 10,000 pounds per week (which is roughly 2 million pounds, or much more than most people make in their entire career). After that it's rather academic. Players at that level are not motivated by money. Top players would own much more than they could ever need even if they didn't push themselves quite as hard. Maybe they made 100k instead of 200k, but so what? In the end, players get what others are willing to pay them. Just like in many other professions when we talk about the absolutely top performers. Entertainment in particular, maybe the artists should also be forced to give most of their money to music and acting schools? Fact is, they are paid well because they also generate a lot of money. You pay someone like Rooney shitloads of money because he brings shitloads to ManU. Not just on the pitch either. Just like you pay a famous actor instead of hiring some nobody to play a part in your movie.

Those top players are the reason the game makes so much money. If you don't like the way the money is spread, why not spend your money on grassroots football? I find it somewhat hypocritical if people complain about the huge wages and yet keep giving their money to the top clubs. Stop going to the matches and stop you Sky subscription. Go watch non-league football, go spend your time in kid's football instead. YOU are the ones paying those wages in the end. You are just like people moaning how the movie industry has turned into a blockbuster industry. And then you go watch the latest Marvel movie instead of that indie flick. Should other industries give their money to small businesses as well?

20 million + van der Wiel is tempting, though. That would put his value at around the 30 million mark. And I'm saying this despite him being one of my favourite players in the current team.

100k or 500k, does it really matter? And I've always wondered why people find it somehow wrong or strange that players get paid. Who then should get most of the money if not the players who make the game, and thus make it interesting enough for others to pay ridiculous amounts to sponsor and broadcast? I'd rather the players get it than owners. Ticket prices should be lowered, but at this rate they will soon be pretty insignificant anyways.

Well, the team conceded 37 goals in 2008-09. Last year it conceded 50 and the season before 39. And I have to say that personally I'm not very convinced about their abilities. Way too often opponents are allowed to run through our midfield. Barry is just too slow and has the turning circle of an oil rig. Opponents also get quite easily into shooting positions near the edge of the penalty area.

Naismith is nowhere near as good as Cahill, not even attitude wise. But the biggest difference was that that midfield scored loads of goals. How many will McCarthy and Barry get? Or Besic? Osman won't score the same number he did that season. The current crop won't probably score half the goals.

Really? We had Arteta, Cahill, Fellaini, Rodwell, Osman and Castillo. Arteta scored 7, Fellaini 9, Cahill 9, Osman 7 and Rodwell and Castillo 1 goal each. That's 34 goals. Never mind the fact we don't have as good a passer in the team now as Arteta was, or no-one with the same attitude as Cahill.

Exactly. Gregg had money to pay for his share of TBH, Kenwright didn't. Later he didn't have the money to buy out Gregg.

Gregg told KEIOC people in a meeting that his shares were bought with money from Green.

So why did Gregg lie to KEIOC?

Kenwright's lies started from the very first interviews claiming he mortgaged his house to buy the club when the house had been mortgaged four years earlier. And MC11's analysis is correct, that's the gist of it. Green would in reality be controlling the club if he gave the money to both Kenwright and Earl. Green doesn't really own the shares, he's just lent the money. From his point of view getting that money annually is much better than waiting for repayment on the loans he gave for the shares. It's practically the same as if someone could pay dividents to only himself, not every shareholder. Law doesn't allow this as all shareholders must be treated equally (i.e. if you pay dividents, you pay the same amount for each share*). And fans wouldn't take too kindly if the club started paying them instead of spending the money on players. * Yes, there are different kinds of shares in some companies, but let's keep this simple. EFC does not have them, every share is worth the same.

Soton is at the bottom because they have sold and bought a lot. Change to net spend and the results look different. They are also quite recent arrivals and does take time to build a PL team from a Championship team. What's the idea that just money spent without considering sells is the best metric? If we sold Stones, Lukaku and Barkley and spent half that money on new players, we would need to improve our league position or our standings would fall.

Southampton spent in 12/13 and 13/14 about 70 million NET on transfers.

Great. So we only need about five Cleverleys next summer. Maybe Moses, he's used to working with Martinez and might not ask for a huge signing-on bonus? And of course most fans will moan how we sign shite players (seriously, how many of the people who are now happy with him were moaning when we were linked?).

Where do you find good enough players for free (remember someone like Ayew wanting 5 million signing-on bonus)?

And you still asked that? Sorry but you either didn't understand what you read or ... well, that's the only reason I can think of. Those two are not automatically tied together. We would need to find how much the other clubs pay interest. As hafnia says, we pay almost 10% interest rate when the going rate is close to 0. And this is practically risk-free, since even if we were relegated the 100 million parachute payment would make sure the lender got his money back.

*Sigh* Why don't you read the article? Did Green loan money to the owners of Southampton, Fulham, Reading and West Ham to buy the clubs?

How many Seamus's have all the Premier League clubs managed to find in the last ten years? He was a winning lottery ticket. How did you feel when we signed Junior, Joao Silva, Guaye, Vellios, Peterlin, Plessis and other punts that didn't work out?

How about 2008-09? Howard, Hibbert, Neville, Yobo, Jagielka, Lescott, Baines, Saha, Arteta, Cahill, Pienaar, Osman, Yakubu, Fellaini, Rodwell, Anichebe, Gosling, Vaughan, Castillo, Jo, Jacobsen, van der Meyde, Jutkiewicz, Baxter, Valente. Yes, some were crap. Just like some in the current squad. Some didn't play many games. Just like some won't in the current squad. Right back position has improved, but currently CB is slightly worse (Stones will eventually be better than Lescott but not yet). Arteta, Cahill, Pienaar, Osman, Fellaini and Rodwall is a better selection to central midfield than the current crop. Wings are better now. Lukaku is better than any of those strikers, but there was more depth then. Next season looked like even better before we realised Bilyaletdinov wasn't worth the money. We lost Lescott and some peripheral players but bought Distin, Heitinga and Mustafi.

At what point does that 500k investment turn into automatic Premier League quality? What makes people think he's better than, say, Chris Long? Try to look at this from the outside. If someone like Stoke had signed Rodriguez, what would you think? That they got an exciting striker from South America who will improve their first team?

It's actually almost funny how the board uses the same tactics as oppresive dictators: Control the media: Echo is in their backpocket and they can also have a PR piece printed in one of the big nationals when they want. This way you don't get any articles undermining the leaders in the papers. Strong propaganda with an emphasis on bigging the leader. Aim is to build an image of someone who is very much a people's man (even if he isn't) who only cares about his subjects' best. He got to where he was through big personal sacrifices. Media control is needed for this as well. Use special people to survey, search and identify dissidents. After that, punish them. Create a group or groups that look like they can offer an alternative voice but fill them with pro-government people. Make people believe things are always on the up. They might not be perfect right now, but the leader and his trusted aides are working hard to correct things. Never admit making a mistake. Either use media to turn things on their head so that mistakes look like brilliant achievements or simply brush them under the carpet because people have short memories. If this fails, get your subjects fighting each other. Divide and rule. Make sure people loyal to you argue your case so that dissidents end up arguing with them rather than criticizing you. Fill all positions of power based on loyalty, not skill. Get rid of anyone who could undermine your position. Pocket as much money as you possibly can.

Yeah, that's one thing, too. A lot of people are saying we should look at the clubs that got poor owners. There's absolutely no reason we automatically get better ones. On the contrary, since the club is just a money-making scheme for Green and Earl they are probably just looking for the buyer who pays the most. No matter what sort of crook that buyer happens to be. If Green says he has found a buyer, Kenwright in reality can do nothing. Green would just ask his money back and there's no way Kenwright can find enough to pay him back. So the club is sold, be it a corrupt ex-prime minister or shady Russian businessman.

What's the longer term plan? Treading water while Green milks the club?

If the team had no obvious issues why not just enjoy them play rather than expect issues to be solved months from now?