Redslo

I posted a new blog post: "How are things going? (Southampton 2017-2018 Premier League Roster/Squad Update 2)" http://redsloscf.blogspot.com/ http://redsloscf.blogspot.co.uk/

I post a blog post relevant to this topic. http://redsloscf.blogspot.com/

I have some stock in Berkshire Hathaway (alas, not a lot), but for tax purposes it is on my books for about 25% of its current value. But it is worth its current value not the price I paid for it. Players are on the books for even less than what the club paid for them. In VVD's case, his book value was reduced by 20% after his first season and by 17% of what was left after his second season. So (assuming a 13 million pound purchase price) he is on the books for about 8.7 million pounds now. But that is not his real worth. Shouldn't some of his other posts get fair consideration before the award is finally decided? I think Ward-Prose signed a six year contract too. As an American I have no idea who Chris Sutton is, but The9's posts are generally among the most well thought out posts on Saintsweb so he was probably talking about Sutton.

This is what the FIFA rules says: 2. The minimum length of a contract shall be from its effective date until the end of the season, while the maximum length of a contract shall be five years. Contracts of any other length shall only be permitted if consistent with national laws. Players under the age of 18 may not sign a professional contract for a term longer than three years. Any clause referring to a longer period shall not be recognised. Presumably a six year contract is consistent with UK laws. I can answer your question, but it won't help much. I would take the increase in pay but I am a self-employed attorney who is appointed by courts. I would have to take my old clients with me to my new job and finish there cases. I would just stop taking new ones. My new employer would have to accept that because attorney ethics don't give me any real choice. I might be able to get out of a few of the more recent appointments, but only if I declined to claim my pay for the work I have already done. (My version of a loyalty bonus?) But realistically that is not going to happen. At most I might be offered a job for twice what I am making now and that is pretty unlikely.

But Mane didn't sign the new long term contract we offered. If VVD had turned it down, things would be completely different--although we might still have expected one more year since he originally signed a five year contract rather than a four year contract.

We save the loyalty bonus but not the salary which we would not have to pay if he transfers. The salary would only have to be paid if we wanted to release him from his contract on a free transfer--like with Osvaldo.

Agreed.

I meant that if we sign 10 bad players who take roster spots it matters in a bad way.

If they are old enough to take roster spots it does.

I am not assuming something different. When he signed his new contract, he had four years left on his old contract--in other words 1 to three more years with us. After he signed it he had six years left which I interpret as meaning 2 to 5 move years with us. Of course, the 5 would have been ridiculous but 2 or 3 wasn't. And if 1 more year was contemplated, there would be no reason for the new contract.

Thinking of making this the motto of my blog. Do I need to attribute the quote to you?

I've posted it before, but here goes. The reputation we want is that if you sign a four or five year contract with us and you progess we will offer you a new, improved long term contract. If you accept it we expect you to stay longer, if you refuse we will sell you on after two or three years. That is (I believe) our position here and it is the reputation we want. But yes, this is my assumption. Possibly, we want a reputation as being Liverpool's farm club. Or maybe we want a reputation as gang of Russian spies. Or maybe we want a reputation as the first Premier League club to relocate to the United States. But the evidence I see causes me to infer (and assume) that my first guess is the right one.

A fair comparison would be the last ten signings for a transfer with the last 10 sales for a fee. That would add VVD to the incoming list. Also, didn't we get a fee for McCarthy and Turnbull.

After signing the agreement VVD said it meant he would be spending a couple more years here. There was a whole debate on Saintsweb as to whether Dutch speakers understood the difference between a couple and a few. For the purpose of this discussion, it doesn't matter--either one would have him staying for this season. That being said, of course I don't know what was said but the deal makes no sense for the club if it contemplated a departure this summer. For that matter, making him the new captain made no sense if he was going to leave this summer either. And if that was contemplated, why all the sneaky behavior--just let Liverpool put in the bid that he knew we would accept.

No that is not a reasonable possibility. The new contract had to assume at least one extra year here--this year--or maybe two. He could have been sold just fine this summer on the old contract.

Most policies have a wildebeest exclusion clause. Or maybe that is just an American thing. Nevermind.

The first bolded idea is brilliant. As for the second, technically, he is on the books for approximately 67% of what we paid Celtic for him.

It might even go up since we don't have to split the unpaid loyalty bonus with Celtic.

The deal will cause them Financial Fair Play issues and they do have a past violation so, in theory, they face greater sanctions. They will have to sell some players at a profit to conduct this transaction.

Swapping out Fonte was inevitable. He was getting old in football terms and unable to do the job to the necessary standard--at least in the future. Getting West Ham to overpay for him was a good deal.

If VVD wanted to leave this summer all he had to do was not sign the contract extension. As he himself acknowledged when he signed it, it meant that he would be here for a couple more years. Players who will join us in the future know that we are happy to sell them on after a couple of years (not one), but if they sign new long term contracts that means that they will stay here longer. That is not a problem. It is what we want them to understand.

I guess NO ONE.

It is also worth pointing out that if Barcelona can't keep a player, it isn't really our board's fault if they end up selling VVD.

There is absolutely nothing in the history of Southampton's ownership by Liebherr to suggest that this would happen. And if the money really just disappeared it would involve some kind of accounting fraud. In England your statement borders on libel. Since I am an American, it is fine.

Just out of curiosity why is VVD's disloyalty unacceptable, but Paul Mitchell's ok?