Dig Dig

Lets just see how we get on without a massive windwall of £150M through player sales to invest in the squad from a set of players who collectively cost next to nothing to bring into the side. If we're acting relatively conservatively in those circumstances and with fhe huge riches which the PL brings, I wonder what what we'll be looking like in a couple of years time on all fronts.

The mournful part about the number of players sold has been their sheer quality and it begs to question whether we achieved enough with players who are now competing for silerware every single season. Of course people wouldn't be happy to see us 15th but have players not wanted by others. As you say, there are no guarantees in any approach but there is a lot of waffle on here from some posters suggesting that we'll just keep doing what we have been doing over the last couple of seasons. We won't and can't. IMO.

The poster I replied to was saying exactly that, that we will buy cheap or use academy players to sell big. If within 5 years we go from knocking on the door of the top 4 to 15th or whatever (which could be a handful of points away from the Championship) then I wouldn't say that it's an example of being brilliantly run although that could easily happen. I'm guessing you'll qualify this by claiming it will be great as long as we go on a cup run but seeing as we've horrible in the cups for some time now, I wouldn't hold your breathe.

There is no problem with that model but the reality is that it's far too early to suggest that this is sustainable for Saints on the assumption that a) the vast majority of our big sales have been academy products and the pipeline is not looking great as it gets harder for players to get into the first team. The others have been young, high potential English players, the likes of which he haven't signed since Clyne and Rodriguez and b) how many players do we have in the squad at the moment who would attract the fee's needed for this model to work? We'll be lucky to recoup what we paid for Wanyama now and Mane is the only other realistic one. If we're doing what we're doing now in 5 years time then brilliant but I think too many on here are pretty naive to call this out as sustainable model based on what is essentially one season. Except for Mane, none of the signings we made last year meet the profile of a player we'll be selling on for big bucks any time soon.

On the salary front, we will eventually have to look at our existing structure. If the clubs that we are supposed to be competing with now can effectively double or triple player wages over night, our players will always be attainable for others and easy to unsettle. Is 25K per week enough for Mane over 4 years? Utd would find it slightly more difficult to offer a triple pay rise as reported if the starting position wasn't so low and he'd still probably be on the lower end of scale at that rate in terms of what Utd pay first team players. Madness really.

It's probably too early to draw any conclusions on your last point but when people debate whether this has been a good transfer window or not, there is a fair argument around whether we did enough to improve upon first team options. Juanmi, Martina and Caulker at this moment in time suggest not.

Lots of ifs and maybes there. The fact is, your idealistic approach actually trends a fine line and we've had one seasons success to draw upon so far. Our pool of potential 20M-30M players could just as easily diminish in a shortish space of time with only a couple of poor decisions, something we're not immune to. Using academy products as an example, we've raised a huge amount in the last few years, about £70M in fact. We're not likely to be in a position to get a jump start like that in a hurry as it's much more difficult for players to make it relative to our position now.

There was talk of him or Lamela as a loan which we wouldn't have been able to do anyway. By the looks of things, the cash offer was less than what we paid for him.

Cheers, Dwight.

If the arguments you make don't make any difference, just move on. It's really easy to ignore. Just scroll down. What's worse than anything Alpine writes is the dozen or so replies squinnying because they don't like what he says. Either see the funny side in it (as usually there is an element of perfect timing to it) or move on.

What about? Him not leaving?

Always amazed that grown adults can't learn to ignore stuff that they don't like on here. Either counter the points, ignore them or see the amusement in it and move on.

The black box is just a room where all the analysts work from.

I'll be indifferent to him until he eventually ****s off.

Why would VVD have anything to do with Koemans contract? Think you're clutching somewhat there.

Unless Kane has a similar season, no chance.

They probably are on the basis that their rivals have all strengthened and they will go into the season with only one decent striker and an average midfield, both of which they are clearly trying to improve. Spurs look remarkably average IMO.

So the sky comparisons using that data are completely meaningless and a pointless gimmick?

I think most people were saying that at 80 odd prem games, he hasn't looked close to securing a known position in the team and lacks physicality, speed and aggression which are all hallmarks of how we play in midfield. I think the comments have been more in relation to some of the more outlandish stuff which is written about him in the media such as the comparisons with Beckham, Lampard and the apparent imminent inclusion in the England team.

Players and agents should also show a bit of nous. Is a below market bid from Spurs really worth upsetting the apple cart over? It's hardly in the same league as an Man Utd or City bid.

Good stuff, let's hope he's as good as the hype.

Definitely the latter.

He said per month. If true, I'd be worried that my agent is telling randoms all this info if I were Mane. Very unprofessional.

Exactly, if anyone is underestimating him, surely it's Koeman and previously Poch who both haven't even trusted him to be on the bench.