Hold on. No. Because, actually, we are sort of doing that and that is still a big issue. In part because we aren't spending it - although we never spent it all under the Walker Trust either - but mostly because supporters, rightfully, want us to hold onto good players in order to put together a competitive squad. I'm not trying to compliment our current owners, but those saying that they turned us into a selling club are absolutely wrong.

Right, so think about it. How hard were we fighting to keep players when we'd made it a standard policy to put release clauses into contracts? Under the Walker Trust and John Williams we had accepted the idea that we had to be a selling club and turn a profit on players when possible. In some instances, this probably helped us to sign certain players (Bellamy), but we also created a culture that made that the standard approach for contracts. I'm not defending Venkys, but they would be crucified if they were putting in release clauses at the rate that we were in the 2000s. You'd struggle to find another club that not only put release clauses in for virtually all of their key first team players, but also set them at a relatively low number.

It's as if we would have sold Duff the season before we were promoted - although even then he was more proven than Wharton is now. Duff had made more Premier League appearances before we were relegated than Wharton made appearances for our first team before he was sold.

I just don't believe that for a second. His agent was far more active in the months leading up to the window and a lot of effort has been put in to build his profile in the time leading up to the move and immediately following it. I'm sure he enjoyed his time here. I'm sure he loved playing with his brother. But this was a big move to the Premier League, more money, and a bigger stepping stone. Many believe that he wanted to stay, but it likely isn't the case. After all, if he had really wanted to stay he would have turned the move down. Oh wait, I forgot that he supposedly took the move because the club told him how desperate they were for money...

Did we ever really do that? I can't remember any point where we've really put up a great fight to keep players. Duff went fairly easily. Bellamy, Santa Cruz, Bentley, Jones... It's not really anything new.

Mainoo, Elliott, Chukwuekema, and Buonanotte have all definitely impressed this season. Then you have some highly touted prospects like Rico Lewis who is playing as a right-back but could definitely have his future in midfield and players like Lavia who haven't really played this season. It's not a knock on Wharton. He's very talented and he could go onto big things, but as he was our player there is a tendency to look at his talent as being more unique than it probably is. Still a long way to go before he even starts putting himself in England contention. *I'll also add that I'm almost certainly forgetting or overlooking certain players as I don't watch as many matches from some clubs. Again, we benefit from paying attention to Wharton in a way that we wouldn't have had he just signed for Palace from Leicester.

I think you'll struggle to find something saying that I didn't rate him. I think he's very talented, but I've always said that there are players of equal talent dotted around clubs in England. As for not many? It's a relatively short list, but there would definitely be 5-10 on it virtually every season (including this one).

Wharton definitely looks very comfortable at that level, but he is something of the flavour of the month and a lot of the praise is a bit overboard. Even yesterday, he played well, but he wasn't that involved and really should have been part of a Palace side that lost by 5. I wish we had kept him for a bit longer - although I think Wharton and his agent had more to do with that move than they are given credit for - but he still has a long way to go in his development until he is the player this thread would make him seem like. Let's also not forget, much like the Duff kissing the Chelsea badge, Wharton has become incredibly active on social media with a lot of 'up the Palace' stuff. But, he didn't want to leave, right?

We can be hard on our squad, but we've got more quality than they are currently showing. Over 50% of our starting 11 would be in the running to start for most sides and a couple would be definite starters for virtually every side in the league. What more do you need in order to be competitive? With 1 win in 13 you'd think that he was managing a newly promoted side. And not a side promoted from League 1, but a side promoted straight from League 2 or below. That type of form is unacceptable for ANY SIDE in this league. We can't drop our standards this low.

🙄

But, you just happen to believe it to be sound policy at the moment and have indicated that you would have also seen it as sound policy 3/4 years ago. It ultimately proved to be a pretty correct assumption.

So what words was I putting into your mouth?

OK, which player under 23/24 do you think we should let walk at the moment?

Maybe you would have been. Maybe, that's the benefit of hindsight. I know I didn't. In the same way that I don't want Gallagher to be offered a new contract right now. If Gallagher re-signs and we get more of the same then it will prove to have been a massive waste of money. If we let him go and he goes on to score 15-20 goals at a Championship club next season, supporters will be questioning the decision. BBD had done nothing to justify a new deal and, by the time he did, he was too late. You're basically advocating that every player under 26/27 should be offered a new deal to protect our investment. That will work out some of the time, but it will lead to some awful contracts.

Having printed masks in the past for some events we've hosted at UNESCO, you'll need a far higher image quality than that if you want to avoid us being the laughing stock of the footballing world for a day.

I think a very key point has to be made here. Sometimes those dismissing conspiracy theories are labelled as Venky's defenders. I'm not defending our owners. They've been awful and their decision-making, particularly in those early years, has been highly questionable, negligent, and stripped this club of any sense of professionalism and dignity. However, I don't think they're involved in match-fixing.

This is just far too strong of a statement.

No, as in getting players to agree to carry out very specific actions. It could be as simple as a booking. It could be the number of corners. Le Tissier has famously spoken about agreeing to have the first throw-in of a match occur within a specific period of time - although that was also spread betting so the time became an even more crucial factor. The problem with this approach is that there isn't a ton of liquidity in those markets, so you'll have bet limits and any unusual betting patterns will be flagged - this includes across different bookmakers. You cover that with illegal betting, but that comes with separate issues.

Yes, Tim Donaghy. We actually had the former investigator who wrote the book on the betting scandal in the NBA on our podcast a couple of years ago: https://open.spotify.com/episode/5MBsIQIQSwsjcEY8Jo8rgf?si=bfacb337868745a3 He continues to research and speak about match-fixing and sports gambling. It's a really interesting topic and he speaks about it all very well. See above, I might not know as little about the topic as you'd like to make out. I 100% believe that there is match-fixing in every sport on a weekly basis. I just remain highly skeptical of the idea that a team at the highest level of a sport would be throwing matches. Spot-fixing definitely, but games being thrown is a little bit harder for me to wrap my head around. Match fixing in individual sports or at a much lower level? That I do buy.

How much money are you going to have to pay a group of Premier League players to start throwing matches? How much would you then have to bet? Keep in mind, we were awful. Not a lot of opportunity to get value in the opposition. It is actually quite the opposite, we actually had the biggest upset (from an odds perspective) in Premier League history when we beat United. Spot-fixing is the route you have to go in team sports to be consistently fixing outcomes. Bookings, throw-ins, corners, etc. But to think that 6/7/8 of our players were taking money to throw matches is a wild conspiracy theory.

Cleaned up meaning what? A nice payday for your average person? Or something that would interest a billionaire? The reality is that these aren't very liquid markets, so the exposure that comes with any sizeable bet is too much to be worth it - even for illegal bookmakers. Why would you want to make a book where you are guaranteed to lose tons if a specific outcome comes in? Nevermind the fact that who in their right mind would take a big bet on a specific market like that without being suspicious of the fact that the bettor has more information than the bookmaker. Could someone give me a decent tip on a next manager and I could have a nice day? Sure. I could spread 100-200 (absolute max) bets around across a few bookmakers and have a nice day, but we aren't talking about a payday that would interest the UHNW.

Eh? Even odds-on shots are profit if you know the outcome.

But that's the thing. It really isn't a possibility.

The point remains the same. It would have to be so tiny and so often. I've bet on next manager markets and putting 100 pounds on either radically shifts the market or makes it close altogether. You cannot make millions, hundreds of thousands, or even thousands betting on next manager markets easily. Do you really think they're charging someone with placing 50 pound bets at dozens of bookies? They might be dodgy, but they are billionaires. Hardly worth it.

Quiz question I had not too long ago: Southampton went down from the First Division in 1973-74 (along with Manchester United) but Mick Channon was top scorer in the division with 21 goals.