Redslo

I am unable to access that link but you are right about the pocketing being nonsense. MTG's quote from the annual report shows that quite clearly.

I do not think the league's choice of agents would be likely to align with the actual best interest of the players. A rule limiting agent fees to a percentage of the money paid to the player in the contract over the life of the contract would help. A rule prohibiting an agent who works for a club from representing any players for that club would help too. Possibly a rule prohibiting an agent for a manager of a club from representing any players for that club would be good as well.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/3945467/chris-willock-is-blazing-a-trail-for-british-starlets-with-bold-move-from-arsenal-to-benfica/ http://www.goal.com/en/news/11/transfer-zone/2017/06/30/36746942/arsenal-starlet-chris-willock-signs-five-year-deal-with

By signing Tella at age 17, he will become club trained for European purposes once he is old enough to be put on the squad list. This is obviously a consideration for the club because they expect to qualify for Europe on a semi-regular basis. After all, Isgrove was kept around for two extra years for this reason.

Or we would want to hold onto it in case we needed it in the future.

I would suggest that such a system would be incredibly valuable and well worth exploiting.

Would that make a good Echo headline?

The money does not go to the owner. It has gone into buying and paying players. Given that the club does it best not to discuss its transfer business publicly, I do not see how you can blame them for the inaccurate transfer figures being published. Also, the fact that the income from transfers is lower than reported can be due in part to some add ons not yet being met and some transfer fees being paid over time rather than all at once. As for your list of players, if your point is that it is not a winning strategy to sell your good players to competitors and replace them with more expensive less good players that is too obvious to have been worth a post. Of course, that is not what is being done. Also, your list of names is flawed. You list the players you think were good as the ones sold and the players you think were not so good as the ones bought. But most of the players sold were, at one time, players bought. Or do you seriously suggest the club should only employ home grown players who will never be sold?

It goes the other way too. There are people who seem to believe the club can do nothing right and there is a lot more evidence that they are wrong.

I think Reed would rightly view that as the equivalent of doing something in the transfer market just to get people excited. There is no reason for Reed to leave right now unless he thinks that he can no longer do the job. There is no evidence of this. Otherwise, it is up to the owner to fire him if she so desires. I am confident she has no serious complaints about the job he has done. But please explain what the club should be looking for in Reed's replacement. And someone to help us progress further is not an answer.

When has transfer income not been invested in the squad under the Liebherrs?

I have an idea. why not contact the club directly and let them know that the fans will turn against them if the sell VVD to Liverpool this year.

I would be surprised if you could name any actually exceptions right now.

I agree that this deal is suspicious, but the 75m is for two deals--this one and a new shirt deal. This deal is over 5 years as is the shirt deal. Therefore, they are worth 15m a year. Very helpful, but not lucrative enough to pay for their new signings.

One could argue that Sunderland's problem was not the changing managers, but the fact that each new manager was allowed (or required) to do everything all over again. There was no continuity from year to year imposed by the upper management or ownership of the club. We don't have that problem. I don't see the restrictions as ridiculous, just realistic and sensible. To suggest that Reed stops managers from managing is nonsense. To suggest that we are on a downhill path is more nonsense. We have had one slightly off year in the past eight. Sure it could be the beginning of a downhill slide, but there is no more reason to think that than to think the drop in temperature in 1999 was the end of global warming. (Ok I am overstating things. The end of global warming is, alas, less likely than a relegation battle for us.) I am truly puzzled by Reed's critics. I simply cannot see what he has done wrong. I don't mean that he has made no mistake but everyone makes mistakes. Overall he had done very well for the club and replacing him would be far harder than replacing a manager. The worst think we could do is turn over recruitment to a new manager and have to get rid of his personal players when, inevitably, he leaves and yet another new manager comes in. Except that we do not need what is normally though of as a decent manager. We provide the recruitment expertise and an in-place quality coaching staff. Our requirements (and actual needs) for a manager are not the same as the requirements at, for example, Everton or Manchester United. Right now what you consider top class coaches would not work here so that doesn't matter. But I doubt anyone if football is really twice as bright as Reed. I am not sure canniness is really a quality you want from a manager unless you mean tactical canniness which is not something we need in Reed. Mainly, this is just more nonsensical criticism of Reed based upon a detachment from reality. (Your detachment, not Reed's.) Exactly.

They can't unless they are willing to risk sanctions or don't plan to play in Europe in next three seasons (after the upcoming one). They have to be planning to sell for big money. Obviously, Lukaku is the logical choice. Assuming the information on Transfermarkt is accurate, they still have 14m Euros in unamortized cost in his contract, so their profit on the sale will be reduced by that before calculating how much it leaves them to spend. So that gives them 75m pounds more to spend. If they have really spend 150m, they must have more sales planned. Or the prices are being overstated by someone with a vested interest in making the deals sound bigger. https://www.transfermarkt.com/romelu-lukaku/profil/spieler/96341

No but strangely, even while inactive or mostly inactive, my blog has been getting thousands of page hits from Russia. Possibly I am being hacked.

After a long absence I have posted something new on my blog: Southampton 2017-2018 Premier League Roster/Squad Update http://redsloscf.blogspot.com/ http://redsloscf.blogspot.co.uk/

I would assume it is because nearly all of that guaranteed turnover is already committed in the form of player salaries and owed, but not yet due, transfer fees.

I must take this rare opportunity to agree with you. But if we do this we need to be hyper vigilant about the tapping up rules.

Still better than having a minority shareholder appoint Trump as the new manager.

Much worse seems likely.

I am not convinced he would not be an improvement on Ramos. Fewer insane red cards, if nothing else. Plus Ramos is 31. I have watched virtually no Bayern this year so I have no comment there.

Just out of curiosity which clubs are the ones he wouldn't improve.

http://www.espnfc.us/video/espn-fc-tv/86/video/3140198/hislop-befuddled-by-liverpool-over-van-dijk