St_Tel49 Posted 22 June, 2011 Posted 22 June, 2011 Writing a long list of names is as meaningless as the original Twitter comment. Unless you have a list of which players (if any) have walked away from negotiations because their agent has the hump. A perfectly valid point but I suspect that such a list does not exist i.e. one in which a player has walked away because their agent was p1ssed off
St_Tel49 Posted 22 June, 2011 Posted 22 June, 2011 my word what a lot of hot air I think that this board is responsible for global warming
hypochondriac Posted 22 June, 2011 Posted 22 June, 2011 You made yourself look silly (as usual). Get over it. No I didn't. If a poster is going to make up lies then at least man up and post after they have been made to look foolish.
benjii Posted 22 June, 2011 Posted 22 June, 2011 No I didn't. If a poster is going to make up lies then at least man up and post after they have been made to look foolish. But you were the one that looked foolish.
Ohio Saint Posted 22 June, 2011 Posted 22 June, 2011 Haven't read the thread, but I'm assuming it went along the lines of GOOD agents won't deal with us, but BAD agents don't want to put the work in and ignore us. Sounds like we are doing a good job to me!!
doddisalegend Posted 22 June, 2011 Posted 22 June, 2011 It must be sh*te, it's something negative about the club. Has to be rubbish. I wider if your reaction would have been the same had it been a nice positive tweet? Take heart from this one hypo All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
norwaysaint Posted 22 June, 2011 Posted 22 June, 2011 There's been very little mention so far of the fact that there's a very high chance this tweet is referring to dealings the other way around than people are assuming. Clubs have apparently been coming in for Chamberlain, Cortese said that he was just putting the offers in the bin. Therefore we are tricky to deal with, as he won't enter into negotiations about players that we have under contract. It certainly makes more sense than the other way around.
Thedelldays Posted 22 June, 2011 Posted 22 June, 2011 There's been very little mention so far of the fact that there's a very high chance this tweet is referring to dealings the other way around than people are assuming. Clubs have apparently been coming in for Chamberlain, Cortese said that he was just putting the offers in the bin. Therefore we are tricky to deal with, as he won't enter into negotiations about players that we have under contract. It certainly makes more sense than the other way around. haha....good point and completely missed by everyone
View From The Top Posted 22 June, 2011 Posted 22 June, 2011 haha....good point and completely missed by everyone Yep, the Nordic chap makes an excellent point indeed.
JustMike Posted 22 June, 2011 Posted 22 June, 2011 That is up for debate. I would argue that the majority signed in our first season is what won us promotion. really? you surprise me
jimmysaint7 Posted 22 June, 2011 Posted 22 June, 2011 Spot on regards the chamberlain post.if u ask me it's about time we were bloody hard to deal with.
benjii Posted 22 June, 2011 Posted 22 June, 2011 There's been very little mention so far of the fact that there's a very high chance this tweet is referring to dealings the other way around than people are assuming. Clubs have apparently been coming in for Chamberlain, Cortese said that he was just putting the offers in the bin. Therefore we are tricky to deal with, as he won't enter into negotiations about players that we have under contract. It certainly makes more sense than the other way around. I thought that straight away but I couldn't be bothered to post it. Good post though. As others have pointed out, no agent is going to refuse to deal with Saints if Saints make an enquiry about a player they represent. We are probably deliberately being awkward with agents who tout players we're not interested in and try to engineer moves for players we don't want to sell. Quite right too. That doesn't mean "agents won't deal with us". Thread closure time, methinks.
Crazy Diamond Posted 22 June, 2011 Posted 22 June, 2011 I thought that straight away but I couldn't be bothered to post it. Good post though. As others have pointed out, no agent is going to refuse to deal with Saints if Saints make an enquiry about a player they represent. We are probably deliberately being awkward with agents who tout players we're not interested in and try to engineer moves for players we don't want to sell. Quite right too. That doesn't mean "agents won't deal with us". Thread closure time, methinks. Absolutely.
corsacar saint Posted 23 June, 2011 Posted 23 June, 2011 Perhaps NC is one of the few chairmen,who sees agents for what they really are-parasites.
david in sweden Posted 23 June, 2011 Posted 23 June, 2011 According to an agent on twitter agents won't deal with us. See below: " @FootballAgent46: Lots of people ask about Southampton deals. A lot of you on Twitter! They are so tricky to deal with now most agents and clubs don't bother" Worrying if true. On the contrary..I always felt that some managers put their own interests before those of their club, and do a deal with the agent first. Is this the agent's way of saying they can't do this sort of deal with us ? .. if so...it's one-up for Nicola Cortese's ethical stance.
John B Posted 23 June, 2011 Posted 23 June, 2011 On the contrary..I always felt that some managers put their own interests before those of their club, and do a deal with the agent first. Is this the agent's way of saying they can't do this sort of deal with us ? .. if so...it's one-up for Nicola Cortese's ethical stance. I think Cortese maybe difficult to deal with so as it is not the first time this has been raised But that seems how he operates and it appears to be working very well at the moment and I feel confident that new players will arrive and we will have a successful season like the previous two.
up and away Posted 23 June, 2011 Posted 23 June, 2011 That's a lot of words to not actually deal with what I said, or have said throughout this thread. I have said that the statement is a concern IF true. I have said that nobody on here knows the truth either way. I have also said that I doubt that it is true. Yes we have done a lot of deals in the past. We are now in with bigger boys chasing bigger boys. Relationships with agents will be important. IF we have poor relations we are at a disadvantage. Crystal? What you spectacularly fail to understand is the relevance of the comments from this agent. Does it mean we will stop signing players? No Does it mean we will not be able to sign players we desperately want, No It does mean that certain offers will be left non negotiable and happy to take the consequences either way. You don't have any social or business debilitating etiquette with agents, it's the size of the fee they can extract. This statement is nothing new and originally quoted back when we were in the middle of a buying spree. When this first came up it was in relationship with the agent wanting us to pay his fee after a deal had been done with a club, we declined.
Cricketphilly Posted 23 June, 2011 Posted 23 June, 2011 No club in for Puncheon at the mo, horses mouth.
Window Cleaner Posted 23 June, 2011 Posted 23 June, 2011 No club in for Puncheon at the mo, horses mouth. Another loan move is about the best we can hope for I'd think.Everybody seems to know his situation with us and I really don't see anyone being wiling to pay us a lot of money for a player they know we don't want. I'd be happy enough to see him back in the group anyway,probably just as good as a lot of the players that are always getting mentioned in he rumour thread.Did he not score more goals than Danns at an equal or higher level last season,in less games?
Cricketphilly Posted 23 June, 2011 Posted 23 June, 2011 Another loan move is about the best we can hope for I'd think.Everybody seems to know his situation with us and I really don't see anyone being wiling to pay us a lot of money for a player they know we don't want. I'd be happy enough to see him back in the group anyway,probably just as good as a lot of the players that are always getting mentioned in he rumour thread.Did he not score more goals than Danns at an equal or higher level last season,in less games? Exactly
Junior Mullet Posted 23 June, 2011 Posted 23 June, 2011 I don't want Puncheon back, he's difficult to deal with.
Window Cleaner Posted 23 June, 2011 Posted 23 June, 2011 I don't want Puncheon back, he's difficult to deal with. well isn't that what managers and first team coaches get handsome stipends to be able to resolve?
hughieslastminutegoal Posted 23 June, 2011 Posted 23 June, 2011 What you spectacularly fail to understand is the relevance of the comments from this agent. Does it mean we will stop signing players? No Does it mean we will not be able to sign players we desperately want, No It does mean that certain offers will be left non negotiable and happy to take the consequences either way. You don't have any social or business debilitating etiquette with agents, it's the size of the fee they can extract. This statement is nothing new and originally quoted back when we were in the middle of a buying spree. When this first came up it was in relationship with the agent wanting us to pay his fee after a deal had been done with a club, we declined. But if a player we might want has asked his agent to find him a new club, and his agent thinks he can get a decent move for his player without the perceived hassle of dealing with us, we lose out. (That's not to say I'm wholly believing what the agent is saying though).
hughieslastminutegoal Posted 23 June, 2011 Posted 23 June, 2011 Perhaps NC is one of the few chairmen,who sees agents for what they really are-parasites. I thought someone on here said NC was all for player power. Except those players who have agents??
um pahars Posted 23 June, 2011 Posted 23 June, 2011 well isn't that what managers and first team coaches get handsome stipends to be able to resolve? Within reason, would be my reply to that. I certainly agree that for the majority of players, managers should use their skills to cajole, convince or kick the best out of them, but I do think there will always be a small minority who are just best given the cold shoulder as no amount of man management skills will win them round.
Gordon Mockles Posted 23 June, 2011 Posted 23 June, 2011 Well, 5 pages of complete, unsubstantiated b*llocks in response to some unproven nonsense typed by someone who may or may not be an agent on Twitter...the home of all solid news stories! Some troll must be sat under his bridge laughing his hairy a*se off!! This thread should be sponsored by Wikipedia!
jam Posted 23 June, 2011 Posted 23 June, 2011 Another loan move is about the best we can hope for I'd think.Everybody seems to know his situation with us and I really don't see anyone being wiling to pay us a lot of money for a player they know we don't want. I'd be happy enough to see him back in the group anyway,probably just as good as a lot of the players that are always getting mentioned in he rumour thread.Did he not score more goals than Danns at an equal or higher level last season,in less games? If whatever issues might exist could be worked out, I think he would be worth a look in central midfield alongside Hammond or Morgan. I thought he had a good game there against Blackpool reserves in the cup last season.
NickG Posted 23 June, 2011 Posted 23 June, 2011 thought Puncheon was excellent in CM for MK. Maybe his ego will take a knock if no bids come in!
xerox Posted 23 June, 2011 Posted 23 June, 2011 someone could tweet the agent back and ask him what he means etc........?
Dalek2003 Posted 23 June, 2011 Posted 23 June, 2011 Take heart from this one hypo All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) Agree with this,especially in relation to the clubs history over the last 10 years and one issue in particular. Of course, issues(and individuals who try and reveal the truth), are often ridiculed to deflect attention by those who are the chief perpetrators or have the most to lose.
Puddings and Monkeys Posted 23 June, 2011 Posted 23 June, 2011 someone could tweet the agent back and ask him what he means etc........? Far too bloody sensible for this place.
Nexstar Posted 23 June, 2011 Posted 23 June, 2011 Far too bloody sensible for this place. And so simple, right? Surprisingly this guy doesn't reply to all 15,000 followers. This is the last he said on the matter: "FootballAgent46 Funny reading peoples responses to Saints tweet. Relax guys very non specific comment just word round the agent campfire"
Puddings and Monkeys Posted 23 June, 2011 Posted 23 June, 2011 And so simple, right? Surprisingly this guy doesn't reply to all 15,000 followers. This is the last he said on the matter: "FootballAgent46 Funny reading peoples responses to Saints tweet. Relax guys very non specific comment just word round the agent campfire" So 4 pages of tripe then?
Nexstar Posted 23 June, 2011 Posted 23 June, 2011 So 4 pages of tripe then? Or pointless posts, in your case.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now