Graffito

It would be naive to think that transfer business is done through formal channels only. Holloway says he will report the club (let's assume Saints), to the authorities, not that he has reported them. Probably a warning shot and at the same time a bit of public pressure on his player. Though I doubt Saints will be remotely concerned with Holloway's threats and if the player wants to move, as we all know, eventually he'll move.

It's enough.

Presumably he won't be going to West Ham either then. If he's too choosy he might end up in the Championship this season.

Yeah that eagle was impressive. I didn't see it prancing though.

How many times have you seen him play?

No problem just an observation. I'm pleased you now realise I was agreeing with you.

I'm sorry I can't help Michelle and her group of 7, including you. I was merely contributing to the discussion about lack of transparency, a point raised by you and others. You see a surcharge isn't a booking fee,otherwise it would be called a booking fee wouldn't it? I think the OS is probably means to convey that there is a booking fee per ticket of £1.50 except where you buy on match day when it increases to £2 but the OS doesn't actually say that. It refers variously to booking fee and surcharge i.e. lack of transparency. If you don't mind I'll take your word for it that you're pretty well informed.

I quoted "match day". Not sure what point you are making. Try being transparent.

Small print - "There is a £2 surcharge per ticket when bought on match day". Is a surcharge a booking fee? Not exactly transparent is it?. I expect there's a customer charter somewhere but just can't be arsed..

It bloody does. I've proved it....many times.

I'm hoping that once the season starts and we have something meaningful to discuss the bickering will get diluted by a higher volume of posts and it will be easier to ignore.

Yes there is a chance that this is retaliatory - the club sending a signal to Arsenal to lay off Luke Shaw or we'll target one of yours.

Difficult to draw any firm conclusions as the new formation is a work in progress and this was after all a friendly. The formation provided defensive solidity, defensive lapses from Fonte being due probably to lack of concentration/poor judgement. It worked better when Saints played a higher line and got forward in support of Lambert. Playing deep and soaking up pressure will only work if we have more pace in the side to break on the counter attack. In any event we need to move the ball much quicker and for players to keep interchanging in midfield and upfront. It will take time to bed in.

Can't read that but I saw him with his kids last season two rows from the back of Block 34.

I think it suggests we do have clearance but the fee should be held by the SFA (a bit like an escrow account) until the uncertainty over oldco/newco is resolved.

Sell him or part exchange for someone better.

Good question. I assume it's something the club wanted from the player which it got in return for resolving uncertainty of Davis' situation.

Yes, probably some irregularity (uncertainty) in the way Davis ended his involvement with Rangers.

£800k just to get the job done? I don't think so. There must be another reason he's paid the money.

Tommy's there to fetch the ball when it gets booted in the lake. What a backdrop. Beats being fking stuck here.

Would take all of 5 minutes to learn that.

Agree. I always thought he represented our club well but this is all very unfortunate and quite why he's said it is a mystery.

If we sign him "Cody Cropper cops a whopper".

The quote below suggest that the third party is not the agent. It suggests that the third party claim is being made against Vitesse not against Saints: "Last Friday Vitesse came to an agreement with Southampton about the transfer of Alexander Büttner to the Premier League club. "Because Büttner himself also agreed on his personal conditions with Southampton FC, Vitesse was in the supposition that the transfer was a fact, with the proviso that Büttner would pass a medical examination. "However, in the course this weekend the player informed Vitesse via his agent that a third party had a supplementary demand towards the club. "Vitesse gave to understand to the player that it would not comply with that demand, since it was applied in retrospect and Vitesse will not be pressurised. "Vitesse is disappointed about the course of things, all the more because Vitesse negotiated with Southampton FC on the player's request. "Southampton FC has taken up an absolute correct position and is not to blame for the possible fall through of the transfer. Vitesse have also tried all possible to keep the set deal going."