stevegrant

I present to you the significant example of Burton Albion who, to my knowledge, have never spent beyond their means, despite relatively (compared to clubs like Pompey, Plymouth, etc) meagre attendances and exposure, and yet have secured a second season in the Championship next season. If you get things right, having someone pouring their own money in shouldn't be necessary to be successful at those levels. Obviously once you get up to the Premier League (and arguably the Championship), there is a pretty obvious glass ceiling, even with a rich backer, but until that point, there is at least a vague sense of a competitive but fair playing field.

Surrey

Runs have dried up with Dawson, Crane and Ervine into the attack, a few wickets falling have helped as well. Trouble for us is that Darren Stevens is now at the crease, and he ALWAYS scores loads against us

Rested, I'd have thought. Both have bowled 128 overs in 4-day cricket already this year!

Having played 3 games against last year's top two. Mustn't grumble, really.

Taking a bigger allocation for Middlesbrough away than Chelsea. Our ticket office :adore: :adore:

The TV picks are already sorted - the Man United game was picked for TV when it was originally supposed to be played, so will still be shown, and Arsenal wasn't picked so won't be shown.

I assumed he'd been learning from his mate at the other end on how to take as long as humanly possible over a goal kick in injury time when defending a one-goal lead.

Yeah, as I said, I could see what he was trying to do, but it obviously backfired and we got away with a draw really - I'm not convinced we can play Boufal and Tadic in the same side with the system we're most comfortable with. Last night's game proved that when you're on top, you don't necessarily need to change the personnel to force the issue.

For me, the only time I can remember him absolutely getting the subs wrong was on Saturday against Bournemouth, but he learned from that error last night. You could see what he was trying to do on Saturday, to force the pace a little bit more to win the game, but it only succeeded in disrupting our flow when we were on top. Last night, we were absolutely battering them, so no need to change what we were doing. Tactically, I think we've been fine all season, but let down by individuals not doing their jobs - either the midfielders not supporting the striker(s), or the strikers not finishing the many chances that have been created for them.

Technically, it's accurate. He wasn't at fault for conceding against Bournemouth because he didn't concede.

To be fair, the City v United game had already been picked for TV, but the original had to be postponed due to the EFL Cup final. Similarly, Chelsea v Saints was due to be on TV anyway, but had to be pushed back to the following midweek because of Chelsea being in the FA Cup semi-final. They were original picks, so they'll still be shown, just at a different time to the original selection. Thursday's a bit weird, obviously, but both sides don't play until the Sunday on the next weekend, and I think they'll also fit another game in on the Wednesday. The Saints v Man United game - also to be televised - can only be on Wednesday 17th May. With the notice the PL need to give both teams, they're not going to be able to wait and see if United end up ballsing up the Europa League tie against Anderlecht, so that last midweek of the season is the only available slot. It'll definitely be on the Wednesday rather than the Tuesday because if they get through against Anderlecht, they'll be playing on the preceding Thursday, so the weekend game will be on the Sunday.

Still TBC, I put a placeholder date in for it when it was originally postponed (weekend of the EFL Cup final), would expect it'll be early May now.

One thing I noticed yesterday was a difference in attitude in Forster from the rest of this season. While he may not have connected with everything (apart from Jack Stephens' back), he was much more willing and inclined to come off his line to claim or punch crosses and swept up through balls a few times as well. For me, that bodes well.

So, it turns out they made another loss in the last financial year (to June 2016). £492,000, despite turnover increasing by £1.25m overall (with a "significant" increase in gate receipts). Made a cracking £77,000 profit on player transfers, though.

To be fair, even if they'd wanted to dump Fratton Park and build elsewhere, I don't think that was ever a viable option. The cost would have been prohibitive, and there isn't exactly a long list of potential sites. Pretty much zero on Portsea Island itself, so anything would have to be outside the city, which I think they'd probably turn their noses up at, and understandably so.

I don't think it's as bad as that, there are some away grounds that were ludicrously expensive which have now been brought into line, while some of the cheaper ones (but there weren't many) have taken the opportunity to squeeze a few more quid because they can. Looking back through my purchase history for last season, here is what we paid before the £30 cap came into force: Newcastle £37 Watford £36 West Brom £25 Chelsea £50 Liverpool Sunderland £34 Man City £42 Crystal Palace £40 West Ham £45 (50% subsidised by SFC, so we paid SFC £22.50) Norwich £45 (50% subsidised by SFC, so we paid SFC £22.50) Man United Arsenal £26 Swansea £35 Bournemouth £33 Stoke £25 Leicester £35 Everton Aston Villa £41 Tottenham £37 Liverpool, Man United and Everton prices missing as I didn't go to those, but they were at the top end of the pricing - think Man United might have been £50, Liverpool and Everton around £42. From that, it's only West Brom, Arsenal and Stoke who charged us less than £30 last season. Stoke kept theirs at £25 this season, with West Brom and Arsenal increasing to £30. That means that, from the 16 of the 19 away games where prices are listed above, we've saved £109 from comparable games this season. Add in the three rough estimates and that's up to £153. Fans of clubs like us who previously used to be in low-rated price categories for our opponents would have saved the least from the new price cap, while supporters of the big clubs would have benefited the most as they'd have been paying Category A everywhere.

As I said, "I know why Virgin Media have done it ... but that doesn't make it any less irritating".

The point being that EVERY away fan who comes to St Mary's has a subsidised ticket from OUR club sponsors - I know why Virgin Media have done it, they've already got a captive audience with our fanbase so it gives them exposure to the other 19 clubs as well, but that doesn't make it any less irritating. Also, why subsidise trips to two of the most popular away games? They should have done free coaches to Hull on a Sunday and Everton on a Bank Holiday in January, not Man United when we'd have sold out anyway.

I'm not sure there's an awful lot of sound financial advice being offered (or, more accurately, listened to and acted upon) at Eastleigh, to be fair...

The only free midweek Man United will definitely have available is the last week of the season, so with the final game already scheduled for the Sunday, it'll surely be played on Wednesday 17th May. With the Chelsea game pushed to 25th April, the Arsenal game will need to be squeezed in during a European midweek. Suspect they'll wait until one of the semi-final weeks, hoping/assuming Leicester get knocked out by Atletico Madrid, so there's no English interest remaining in the competition so they don't get in trouble with UEFA for playing a game at the same time as European games.

Goes without saying, but every deal is different. Most will include structured payments, but some deals will be done based on the circumstances. For example, I would expect that we would have paid the Charlie Austin fee in full because it wasn't a massive fee and he only had 5 months of his contract left. Similarly, I believe some of our sales have been heavily front-weighted so the initial payment is 60-70% of the total due, rather than a 50/50 split between up-front and a year later which is apparently the most common arrangement. I could imagine that having a bigger up-front payment might mean the total amount received is negotiated down (so, for a hypothetical £30m player, we want £18m up front rather than £15m and another £15m in a year's time, but that means the negotiated total is actually £29m, so £18m up front and £11m later), but cashflow is often more important than balance sheet strength.

He's made such a difference to their lineup after all... 5 starts, 0 wins.

No it isn't. The original statement on Monday when both players were charged specifically said that "the FA has submitted a claim that the standard punishment that would otherwise apply for the misconduct committed by the Bournemouth defender is 'clearly insufficient'".