Scaling down spend?

[farawaysaint]

Who are those odds with? There isn't that much difference between our squads.

 

http://www.oddschecker.com/football/english/premier-league/relegation

 

Highest odds I can see for Stoke are 10-1.

[Gingeletiss]

That's what I meant. It was a brief comment on a message board that I didn't really think much of. That you think I meant something else doesn't make what I meant less true. What reason would I have to lie? If I thought french people were idiots I would say so. I have nothing against French people, enjoyed many a boozy holiday there. Lovely place. you complete f*cking moron.

 

Oooh! name calling, thought that was beneath the great and mighty Hypo. Next you'll want to stomp on his face! You really are a boring contradicative SOB

[Heisenberg]

Saints 4-1 for relegation

 

Stoke (who we finished above) are 150-1.

 

As it stands our squad is relegation strength, even if first XI isnt too bad.

 

Youve made that up, havent you!?

[Saint Charlie]

Youve made that up, havent you!?

 

Sorry misread the Echo table!

 

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/11384555._/?ref=mac

 

We have dropped from 40 at the start of the summer.

[farawaysaint]

Sorry misread the Echo table!

 

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/11384555._/?ref=mac

 

We have dropped from 40 at the start of the summer.

 

Still, the bookies figure we are only 20% likely to go down, I'd take those odds.

[Professor]

Although new players may come in, at the moment you can only base an assessment of the team's prospects on the facts as they currently are. As the facts change, which they may do, then assessments can be revised accordingly. Most would probably agree that the starting 11 is currently weaker than last season, even if Lambert and Lallana have been suitably replaced. The back four looks weaker with Yoshida and Bertrand in place of Lovren and Shaw. Chambers' absence, while not affecting the first choice starting XI, has an impact as soon as cover is called on. Squad players will be needed as soon as the season is under way and that is where the team looks vulnerable with lack of depth. A strengthened starting XI would, of course, benefit the squad situation.

 

Conclusion must be that the spend matters to prevent a relegation struggle. Teams that begin badly have a more difficult task, so it is no surprise that many fans feel impatient. The club's Chairman, has indicated that the club will spend every penny that has come in, so if what he has said is taken at face value this should begin soon, but won't loan deals restrict the club's ability to spend? Surely if part of the wages budget is spent on loan players, there won't be enough to pay the wages of the 4 or 5 signings that have been talked about? The club has still only bought two players, and none of Les Reed's original target list, so continuing scepticism is no surprise until the promises are fulfilled. Panic deals in the last few days of the transfer window is unlikely to be the most effective way of strengthening, not least because 9 points will already have been competed for by then. Time to Extractum digitum.

Edited 4 August, 2014 by Professor

[Redslo]

Pretty clear that despite raking in 90 plus million in fees and a record amount of TV money the club will spent a fraction of that on players.

 

We may still have a good team but a huge trading profit will be made this window, and from KL's perspective she is well entitled to do that.

 

All the money being supposedly available to Koeman and it actually materialising is quite different it seems.

 

All the transfer profits cannot be respent on players--at least not on transfer fees because of the way the BPL salary cap works. I have addressed this is more detail on my blog:

 

redsloscf.BlogSpot.com

[Bearsy]

All the transfer profits cannot be respent on players--at least not on transfer fees because of the way the BPL salary cap works. I have addressed this is more detail on my blog:

 

redsloscf.BlogSpot.com

 

Cheers that was educational, I didn't know bout you can subsidise wage cap with transfer sales. Seems a bit odd! No offence but I'll prob wait for MLG to fact-check before i pass infos on to Les Reed

[farawaysaint]

Cheers that was educational, I didn't know bout you can subsidise wage cap with transfer sales. Seems a bit odd! No offence but I'll prob wait for MLG to fact-check before i pass infos on to Les Reed

 

Not sure you can actually, not from anything I've read anyway.

[Whitey Grandad]

All the transfer profits cannot be respent on players--at least not on transfer fees because of the way the BPL salary cap works. I have addressed this is more detail on my blog:

 

redsloscf.BlogSpot.com

 

Yes, interesting calculations and thanks for those. Regarding Osvaldo's pay I'm not sure about weighting it by 50%. If another club is paying for him that would count as income or, maybe they paid a big loan fee instead of salary?

[Wes Tender]

All the transfer profits cannot be respent on players--at least not on transfer fees because of the way the BPL salary cap works. I have addressed this is more detail on my blog:

 

redsloscf.BlogSpot.com

 

Fascinating insight into an area that I'm not very knowledgeable about. If what you say is correct, it throws some light onto quite a lot of the reasons for some players' sales, taking in loans, etc.

[farawaysaint]

Fascinating insight into an area that I'm not very knowledgeable about. If what you say is correct, it throws some light onto quite a lot of the reasons for some players' sales, taking in loans, etc.

 

Again, the very website he claims as a source says the increase may only be 4mill plus any increase in commercial deals pretty sure transfers do not affect the cap in any way whatsoever.

Edited 4 August, 2014 by farawaysaint

[Bearsy]

Ain't all deals commercial?

[farawaysaint]

Ain't all deals commercial?

 

Hah, think it's fairly clear they mean sponsorship deals Bear

Edited 4 August, 2014 by farawaysaint

[Bearsy]

Hah, think it's fairly clear they mean sponsorship deals Bear

 

Why would they make that rule? I figure either it's got to be £4m limit, or £4m plus whatever extra profits you come by. I dunno why the extra profits would have to be just sponsors & exclude i.e. tv monies, player trading etc. What does that matter?

[Window Cleaner]

Aain, the very website he claims as a source says the increase may only be 4mill plus any increase in commercial deals pretty sure transfers do not affect the cap in any way whatsoever.

 

to start with our salary mass would have to be 52 million for last season for these rules to even apply to us, not sure that that's the case at all.

There is no salary cap in the EPL, it's just that salary mass cannot increase by more than 4 million £ per season if it's over the threshold. So if we were at 51.568 million in 2013/14 we could increase it to 10000 million for next season an not be touched at all.

[buctootim]

I havent read it in detail, but this guy seems to know what hes talking about re FFP

http://www.financialfairplay.co.uk/financial-fair-play-explained.php

[Bearsy]

to start with our salary mass would have to be 52 million for last season for these rules to even apply to us, not sure that that's the case at all.

There is no salary cap in the EPL, it's just that salary mass cannot increase by more than 4 million £ per season if it's over the threshold. So if we were at 51.568 million in 2013/14 we could increase it to 10000 million for next season an not be touched at all.

 

Don't think that's right, the salary cap was £52m for us last year, it's £56m next year.

[SaintRobbie]

but until Saints spend some of that cash on some more players it's hard to not feel he is right.

 

Can't argue with that. Club ambition, KLs intent, Boardroom integrity.... it will all be judged on 1 Sep.

 

Simple application of money in from sales and and money out for replacements.

 

If we feel the club has lied about reinvestment of 'every penny from player sales' we will be in a position to let KL and her Boardroom know our feelings from the terraces. We will also have had a couple of games in the bank to judge where the team will end up.

 

So until 1 Sep I will try and remain optimistic. After 1 Sep, I may join 20000 others in making our feelings known to KL and her Board. Look forward to seeing 6-8 players arrive in the next 2 weeks to avoid the latter.

[farawaysaint]

Why would they make that rule? I figure either it's got to be £4m limit, or £4m plus whatever extra profits you come by. I dunno why the extra profits would have to be just sponsors & exclude i.e. tv monies, player trading etc. What does that matter?

 

Ok, here's how Deloittes defines commercial revenue in football

 

"sponsorship and merchandise"

 

I really don't think transfer fees can be applied Bear

 

 

http://www.businessofsoccer.com/2014/02/18/how-do-soccer-clubs-make-money/

[Window Cleaner]

Don't think that's right, the salary cap was £52m for us last year, it's £56m next year.

 

No it isn't,that's a threshold figure, if you're below it do what you like as long as you stay within the acceptable loss guidelines. If you're over it from last season then it's no more than 4 million £ increase except for new commercial deal finance. How do you think Citeh get below 56 million £? Answer they don't. If you boost ticket sales you can spend more as well.

[Redslo]

Ok, here's how Deloittes defines commercial revenue in football

 

"sponsorship and merchandise"

 

I really don't think transfer fees can be applied Bear

 

 

http://www.businessofsoccer.com/2014/02/18/how-do-soccer-clubs-make-money/

 

I guess I need to quote the actual rules from the BPH handbook found at

 

http://m.premierleague.com/content/dam/premierleague/site-content/News/publications/handbooks/premier-league-handbook-2013-14.pdf

 

 

This is rule E.18:

 

E.18. If in any of Contract Years 2013/14, 2014/15 and 2015/16 a Club’s aggregated Player Services Costs and Image Contract Payments:

E.18.1. exceed £52m, £56m, or £60m respectively; and

E.18.2. have increased by more than £4m when compared with the previous Contract Year or by more than £4m, £8m or £12m respectively when compared with Season 2012/13; then the Club must satisfy the Board that such excess increase as is referred to in E.18.2 arises as a result of contractual commitments entered into on or before 31 January 2013, and/or that it has been funded only by Club Own Revenue Uplift and/or profit from player trading as disclosed in the Club’s Annual Accounts for that Contract Year.

 

 

Player trading income is clearly available to increase the salary cap. I find it interesting that the rule uses "and/or" several times. I interpret this to mean that if your Revenue Uplift is negative, you can ignore that number and just use trading profits and vice versa.

 

The rules also define Club Own Revenue Uplift, by the way:

 

A.1.32. "Club Own Revenue Uplift" means any increase in a Club's revenue in a Contract Year

when compared with its revenue in Contract Year 2012/13 (excluding Central Funds fee

payments from its revenue in both the Contract Years). The Board may if necessary adjust

the calculation of a Club Own Revenue Uplift:

(a) to ensure that it is calculated on a like-for-like basis; and/or

(b) to restate to Fair Market Value any consideration which arises from a Related Party

Transaction.

The Board shall not make any such adjustment without first having given the Club reasonable

opportunity to make submissions as to whether such adjustment is necessary and/or (where

Rule A.5.2 applies) what constitutes the Fair Market Value of the said consideration.

 

Hopefully, this clarifies things. It certainly clarifies that I need to write another blog entry on the subject, but I will probably wait until I see what happens tomorrow with the expected incoming loans.

[farawaysaint]

I guess I need to quote the actual rules from the BPH handbook found at

 

http://m.premierleague.com/content/dam/premierleague/site-content/News/publications/handbooks/premier-league-handbook-2013-14.pdf

 

 

This is rule E.18:

 

E.18. If in any of Contract Years 2013/14, 2014/15 and 2015/16 a Club’s aggregated Player Services Costs and Image Contract Payments:

E.18.1. exceed £52m, £56m, or £60m respectively; and

E.18.2. have increased by more than £4m when compared with the previous Contract Year or by more than £4m, £8m or £12m respectively when compared with Season 2012/13; then the Club must satisfy the Board that such excess increase as is referred to in E.18.2 arises as a result of contractual commitments entered into on or before 31 January 2013, and/or that it has been funded only by Club Own Revenue Uplift and/or profit from player trading as disclosed in the Club’s Annual Accounts for that Contract Year.

 

 

Player trading income is clearly available to increase the salary cap. I find it interesting that the rule uses "and/or" several times. I interpret this to mean that if your Revenue Uplift is negative, you can ignore that number and just use trading profits and vice versa.

 

The rules also define Club Own Revenue Uplift, by the way:

 

A.1.32. "Club Own Revenue Uplift" means any increase in a Club's revenue in a Contract Year

when compared with its revenue in Contract Year 2012/13 (excluding Central Funds fee

payments from its revenue in both the Contract Years). The Board may if necessary adjust

the calculation of a Club Own Revenue Uplift:

(a) to ensure that it is calculated on a like-for-like basis; and/or

(b) to restate to Fair Market Value any consideration which arises from a Related Party

Transaction.

The Board shall not make any such adjustment without first having given the Club reasonable

opportunity to make submissions as to whether such adjustment is necessary and/or (where

Rule A.5.2 applies) what constitutes the Fair Market Value of the said consideration.

 

Hopefully, this clarifies things. It certainly clarifies that I need to write another blog entry on the subject, but I will probably wait until I see what happens tomorrow with the expected incoming loans.

 

Wow, very cool, you're right, we can beat ffp with player sales. Interesting, thanks man

[Bearsy]

Hopefully, this clarifies things. It certainly clarifies that I need to write another blog entry on the subject, but I will probably wait until I see what happens tomorrow with the expected incoming loans.

 

It does Reslo, cheers! Welcome to forum btw, it will make change to have someone on here who actually knows what they're talking about, I'm a bit worried that it will stifle debate tho! Hopefully ur posts on who is best left back etc will be more dumb so you can fit in!

 

Edit: if we done the transfer dodge we'd have to sell big next year too ain't it cos it says always compared with the first year, not just the previous year?

Edited 4 August, 2014 by Bearsy

[Redslo]

Well, I just paid my five pounds so I can respond freely now. And the best left back is clearly OJ Simpson.

[Whitey Grandad]

I guess I need to quote the actual rules from the BPH handbook found at

 

http://m.premierleague.com/content/dam/premierleague/site-content/News/publications/handbooks/premier-league-handbook-2013-14.pdf

 

 

This is rule E.18:

 

E.18. If in any of Contract Years 2013/14, 2014/15 and 2015/16 a Club’s aggregated Player Services Costs and Image Contract Payments:

E.18.1. exceed £52m, £56m, or £60m respectively; and

E.18.2. have increased by more than £4m when compared with the previous Contract Year or by more than £4m, £8m or £12m respectively when compared with Season 2012/13; then the Club must satisfy the Board that such excess increase as is referred to in E.18.2 arises as a result of contractual commitments entered into on or before 31 January 2013, and/or that it has been funded only by Club Own Revenue Uplift and/or profit from player trading as disclosed in the Club’s Annual Accounts for that Contract Year.

 

 

Player trading income is clearly available to increase the salary cap. I find it interesting that the rule uses "and/or" several times. I interpret this to mean that if your Revenue Uplift is negative, you can ignore that number and just use trading profits and vice versa.

 

The rules also define Club Own Revenue Uplift, by the way:

 

A.1.32. "Club Own Revenue Uplift" means any increase in a Club's revenue in a Contract Year

when compared with its revenue in Contract Year 2012/13 (excluding Central Funds fee

payments from its revenue in both the Contract Years). The Board may if necessary adjust

the calculation of a Club Own Revenue Uplift:

(a) to ensure that it is calculated on a like-for-like basis; and/or

(b) to restate to Fair Market Value any consideration which arises from a Related Party

Transaction.

The Board shall not make any such adjustment without first having given the Club reasonable

opportunity to make submissions as to whether such adjustment is necessary and/or (where

Rule A.5.2 applies) what constitutes the Fair Market Value of the said consideration.

 

Hopefully, this clarifies things. It certainly clarifies that I need to write another blog entry on the subject, but I will probably wait until I see what happens tomorrow with the expected incoming loans.

 

Rule A.5.2 'Fair Market Value'? Presumably that's to stop clubs inflating transfer fees somehow?

[Bearsy]

Rule A.5.2 'Fair Market Value'? Presumably that's to stop clubs inflating transfer fees somehow?

 

You'd think more to stop Kat sponsoring our youth team for £50m, tho I've never understood why anyone wants to prevent that sort of thing

[Greenridge]

Well, I just paid my five pounds so I can respond freely now. And the best left back is clearly OJ Simpson.

 

I've only scan-read that but it makes very interesting reading. My apologies if the answer is already in your blog but why do we not see the other 19 clubs in this predicament?

[shurlock]

Of course, all this musing and speculation about FFP -which is ultimately informed guesswork (being charitable given the cursory treatment of the revenue side)- does not nothing to explain the extent of player sales.

Edited 4 August, 2014 by shurlock

[Whitey Grandad]

You'd think more to stop Kat sponsoring our youth team for £50m, tho I've never understood why anyone wants to prevent that sort of thing

 

I think that sort of investment gives you some sort of credit against the limits, or something.

[Whitey Grandad]

Of course, all this musing and speculation about FFP -which is ultimately informed guesswork (being charitable)- does not nothing to explain the extent of player sales.

 

I've only scan-read that but it makes very interesting reading. My apologies if the answer is already in your blog but why do we not see the other 19 clubs in this predicament?

 

Perhaps they didn't have the players to offload at massive mark-ups?

[shurlock]

Perhaps they didn't have the players to offload at massive mark-ups?

 

In other words, it was a choice, not some deus ex machina, a gun put to our heads by FFP/salary caps.

[Greenridge]

I've only scan-read that but it makes very interesting reading. My apologies if the answer is already in your blog but why do we not see the other 19 clubs in this predicament?

 

A second question. If this is the case that we are having to comply then why don't the Club just say so. What benefit would there be to withholding this information?

[Whitey Grandad]

In other words, it was a choice, not some deus ex machina, a gun put to our heads by FFP/salary caps.

 

It may have been, but if it was then it means that the club has big ambitions and wants to pay players more.

[Whitey Grandad]

A second question. If this is the case that we are having to comply then why don't the Club just say so. What benefit would there be to withholding this information?

 

Because they don't have to? They have more things to worry about that appeasing a handful of wet fannies on an Internet forum.

[Redslo]

I've only scan-read that but it makes very interesting reading. My apologies if the answer is already in your blog but why do we not see the other 19 clubs in this predicament?

 

It is not in my blog, but that would be another good subject to write about.

 

In this answer, I am using information from David Conn's 1 May 2014 (you don't know how hard it is for me, as an American, to type a date in that order) Guardian article. I assume it is reliable, but it doesn't really matter for this quick answer. Obviously, this information is from last year. His article is at

 

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/may/01/premier-league-accounts-club-by-club-david-conn

 

Arsenal is up 11 mil, but I have no doubt their income increased by 7 mil.

Aston Villa is up less than the 4 mil permitted under the rules. Clearly, they are having financial issues and are limited by the rules. Plus, they no longer have anyone to kick in lots of money so they probably don't want to raise salary any way.

Chelsea is up 6 mil. I am confident they increased their commercial income by 2 mil.

Everton's wage bill was flat.

 

Bah going through each one is pointless. Let me summarize. Relegated teams don't have to worry about this. Nearly all of the other teams were either under the 52 mil cap or increased by less than 4 mil. The only teams that look like they might have potential problems are Stoke (7 mil increase), Manchester United (19 mil increase), Manchester City (31 mil increase), and Liverpool (13 mil increase). I have no doubt that Man United and Liverpool added enough additional sponsorship money to be ok. Stoke has a bunch of sponsors so I think it likely they have the necessary 3 mil in increased sponsorships. In fact, since their primary sponsor BET365 is owned by the same people who own Stoke they can, and probably do, increase the sponsorship as necessary. True this is a related party transaction, but I think bet365 is probably so lucrative, that it would appear to be fair value.

 

That leaves only Man City. Their related party sponsorship deal is dubious but only 27 mil a year needs to be valid for their salary increase to pass muster. I suspect it does--especially in conjunction with other less dubious sponsorships.

 

Southampton has this problem (in my view) because we are the only team at or above the salary cap with the desire to grow significantly. (Actually, West Ham probably has such a desire too, but their new stadium and London presence may make this easier for them). In other words, our player sales are, to a certain extent, a sign of the team's ambition. That being said, I think the team would have been happy to sell Shaw and Lallana and kept everyone else.

[Greenridge]

Because they don't have to? They have more things to worry about that appeasing a handful of wet fannies on an Internet forum.

 

Are you Redslo WG? I would love half a pint of what you've been drinking this summer.

 

Back to the point / question. My reason for asking is it would stop the 'wet fannies', it would answer the Club's supporters concerns, it would stop the rest of the football world questioning and laughing at the club. Would you like a few more reasons. Of course they don't have to tell us but to avoid the above then why not. Is it possible that that's because that's not the reason they are keeping schtum?

[shurlock]

It may have been, but if it was then it means that the club has big ambitions and wants to pay players more.

 

Why if KL wants to cash in on her investment? There's no reason why this summer's sales should go on transfers and wages.

[Saint Charlie]

Our lack of transfer spend isnt to do with FFP rules.

[Redslo]

In my view, there is no benefit to withholding the information now that the sales have gone through. Earlier in the summer, we needed to seem to be completely reluctant to sell. And the big sales needed to go through after July 1.

[Greenridge]

In my view, there is no benefit to withholding the information now that the sales have gone through. Earlier in the summer, we needed to seem to be completely reluctant to sell. And the big sales needed to go through after July 1.

 

Thanks for the replies Redslo.

[Redslo]

Redslo WG does not mean anything to me. Redslo is based on the color red which is part of all my online gaming characters' names and slo is for San Luis Obispo where I live.

[Greenridge]

Redslo WG does not mean anything to me. Redslo is based on the color red which is part of all my online gaming characters' names and slo is for San Luis Obispo where I live.

 

That was for Whitey Grandad (WG). I was asking him if he was you as he replied to my specific question to you. He's a very positive chap!

[CanadaSaint]

A second question. If this is the case that we are having to comply then why don't the Club just say so.

 

Maybe they just did.

 

Redsio - a new arrival on the forum today - might just be a conduit for this kind of vital information, in a similar way to Guan. We're seeing far more of this informed stuff coming "out of the blue" than we ever saw under Lowe or Cortese, which to me might be more than a coincidence.

 

I certainly don't mean that suggestion as an insult to Redsio - I'm just delighted to see someone who knows what they're talking about when it comes to FFP and football finances; it's far more helpful and interesting than the mindless, repetitive, knee-jerk piffle that infests so many topics.

 

Anyway, Redsio, welcome. Excellent blog BTW.

[shurlock]

In my view, there is no benefit to withholding the information now that the sales have gone through. Earlier in the summer, we needed to seem to be completely reluctant to sell. And the big sales needed to go through after July 1.

 

Where does the massive increase in TV money and to a less extent prize money factor in?

[Greenridge]

Maybe they just did.

 

 

Yes. That occurred to me as well.

[farawaysaint]

Yes. That occurred to me as well.

 

Dunno, a quick google search shows he's been commenting on Saint newspaper articles sensibly for months, why choose now to reveal himself on the forum?

 

I do concede the posts are pro new board leaning but so are a lot of the posters on here

Edited 4 August, 2014 by farawaysaint

[Sour Mash]

I guess I need to quote the actual rules from the BPH handbook found at

 

http://m.premierleague.com/content/dam/premierleague/site-content/News/publications/handbooks/premier-league-handbook-2013-14.pdf

 

 

This is rule E.18:

 

E.18. If in any of Contract Years 2013/14, 2014/15 and 2015/16 a Club’s aggregated Player Services Costs and Image Contract Payments:

E.18.1. exceed £52m, £56m, or £60m respectively; and

E.18.2. have increased by more than £4m when compared with the previous Contract Year or by more than £4m, £8m or £12m respectively when compared with Season 2012/13; then the Club must satisfy the Board that such excess increase as is referred to in E.18.2 arises as a result of contractual commitments entered into on or before 31 January 2013, and/or that it has been funded only by Club Own Revenue Uplift and/or profit from player trading as disclosed in the Club’s Annual Accounts for that Contract Year.

 

 

Player trading income is clearly available to increase the salary cap. I find it interesting that the rule uses "and/or" several times. I interpret this to mean that if your Revenue Uplift is negative, you can ignore that number and just use trading profits and vice versa.

 

The rules also define Club Own Revenue Uplift, by the way:

 

A.1.32. "Club Own Revenue Uplift" means any increase in a Club's revenue in a Contract Year

when compared with its revenue in Contract Year 2012/13 (excluding Central Funds fee

payments from its revenue in both the Contract Years). The Board may if necessary adjust

the calculation of a Club Own Revenue Uplift:

(a) to ensure that it is calculated on a like-for-like basis; and/or

(b) to restate to Fair Market Value any consideration which arises from a Related Party

Transaction.

The Board shall not make any such adjustment without first having given the Club reasonable

opportunity to make submissions as to whether such adjustment is necessary and/or (where

Rule A.5.2 applies) what constitutes the Fair Market Value of the said consideration.

 

Hopefully, this clarifies things. It certainly clarifies that I need to write another blog entry on the subject, but I will probably wait until I see what happens tomorrow with the expected incoming loans.

What is the definition of "Central Funds fee payments"? Is this the tv money?

[Whitey Grandad]

Redslo WG does not mean anything to me. Redslo is based on the color red which is part of all my online gaming characters' names and slo is for San Luis Obispo where I live.

 

Hi Redslo, welcome to the forum and thanks for your info. Whitey Grandad is what some of my grandchildren call me to distinguish me from their other grandad on account of my extensive white hair, a consequence of a lifetime of trouble and strife. Some posters understandably use the abbreviation WG.

 

That was for Whitey Grandad (WG). I was asking him if he was you as he replied to my specific question to you. He's a very positive chap!

Why, thank you sir!

[Greenridge]

Dunno, a quick google search shows he's been commenting on Saint newspaper articles sensibly for months, why choose now to reveal himself on the forum?

 

The post July 1 comment may be relevant.