Jump to content

Chelsea to bid £4m for Luke Shaw?


saintchris23

Recommended Posts

Simon Peach ‏@SimonPeach

#SaintsFC will ignore any bids from #CFC & the like for @Luke_shaw3, I can report. Unlike w/Theo, Bale & Chambo, club will refuse to budge.

 

Great, so long as this position doesn't change and he does stay. If we do hold firm then it is a marked change in how a club like Saints behave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do find these articles funny, "Chelsea to bid £4m for Shaw" so what means nothing unless we accept the bid and if we do then that's the clubs decision. These stories are just daft it's like me saying I'm going to bid £10m for him, come on newspapers print that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do find these articles funny, "Chelsea to bid £4m for Shaw" so what means nothing unless we accept the bid and if we do then that's the clubs decision. These stories are just daft it's like me saying I'm going to bid £10m for him, come on newspapers print that.

 

But if he isnt under contract until he turns 17 surely the club cant stop him just walking away and signing for Chelsea, leaving a tribunal to sort out compensation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I the contract he signed is legally binding there is no way we will sell for 4mill. We have owners with ambition and resources now.

 

I'd imagine that no contract is legally binding until he comes of age. So for the next few days we are vulnerable. These latest moves smack of a last ditch attempt to prise him away. The club need to pull out all the stops to prevent this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Once again confirmation that he hasn't yet signed a pro contract, just a pre-contract agreement.

 

Shaw will begin a three-year professional contract at Saints when he turns 17 next week.

 

I'll feel more confident of the situation in 10 days time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if he isnt under contract until he turns 17 surely the club cant stop him just walking away and signing for Chelsea, leaving a tribunal to sort out compensation?

 

The pre-contract he signed in December 2010 ties him to the club to sign the 3 year professional deal on his 17th birthday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The pre-contract he signed in December 2010 ties him to the club to sign the 3 year deal on his 17th birthday.

 

I know he gave his word, promising to sign a contract when he was 17 - but afaik that doesnt mean anything legally. He can still welch on that if he wants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No club would bother with a pre-contract unless it was binding.

 

Not so. Pre contract agreements are just that - a document where each party sets out what they expect to happen at a certain date. They carry moral weight, especially if the parents co-sign but they arent legally enforceable if the player is under 17 afaik.

Edited by buctootim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not so. Pre contract agreements are just that - a document where each party sets out what the expect to happen at a certain date. They carry moral weight, especially if the parents co-sign but they arent legally enforceable afaik.

Theo was under a pre-contract agreement for us when he left for Arsenal. There was a great deal of worry at the time that he could potentially leave on the cheap if it went to tribunal, Lowe did very well to extract such a significant fee. It seems to be quite a grey area to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theo was under a pre-contract agreement for us when he left for Arsenal. There was a great deal of worry at the time that he could potentially leave on the cheap if it went to tribunal, Lowe did very well to extract such a significant fee. It seems to be quite a grey area to me.

 

The Walcott transfer was exactly what I was thinking of too. Supposedly it was the Walcott family's insistence that any deal was conditional on Arsenal treating Saints properly that meant we got the high fee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Walcott transfer was exactly what I was thinking of too. Supposedly it was the Walcott family's insistence that any deal was conditional on Arsenal treating Saints properly that meant we got the high fee.

That rings a bell. Interesting; I'll DEFINITELY feel more comfortable about this in 10 days time then.

 

EDIT: Not the most reliable surce, but an Arsenal blog:

 

http://goonerboy.blogspot.co.uk/2006/05/theos-performance-few-transfer-rumours.html

 

3. For Walcott, we only paid (a maximum of) 12 million because Walcott's family were decent enough to ask that Southampton be given adequate compensation. A less scrupulous player would've walked away and pocketed a huge signing fee for himself (i.e. like Harry Kewell after Leeds went bankrupt - not the same, I know, but similiar).
Edited by The Kraken
Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Matthew Le God viewpost-right.png

 

No club would bother with a pre-contract unless it was binding.

I can't see how a contract for a minor would be as watertight as a contract for an adult.

 

Arsenal shelled out all that money for Theo on the basis of a pre-contract. That I would imagine was D'sA tight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theo was under a pre-contract agreement for us when he left for Arsenal. There was a great deal of worry at the time that he could potentially leave on the cheap if it went to tribunal, Lowe did very well to extract such a significant fee. It seems to be quite a grey area to me.
IIRC Pre-contract agreements for teenagers weren't in place when Theo was 16. Pretty sure they came in a year or 2 after to stop poaching of promising youngsters and effectively allowing clubs to sign their trainees as professional at 16 (even though the contract doesn't kick in till the player's 17th birthday).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IIRC Pre-contract agreements for teenagers weren't in place when Theo was 16. Pretty sure they came in a year or 2 after to stop poaching of promising youngsters and effectively allowing clubs to sign their trainees as professional at 16 (even though the contract doesn't kick in till the player's 17th birthday).

You don't recall correctly. He was on a pre-contract agreement with us. He also signed a pre-contract agreement with Arsenal, until he signed pro when turning 17.

 

Poor choice of reference material, but his wiki page:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_Walcott

 

Walcott transferred to Arsenal on 20 January 2006............................. He signed an initial pre-contract agreement to sign a professional contract on his 17th birthday on 16 March 2006, and was given the number 32 shirt in the process.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd imagine that no contract is legally binding until he comes of age. So for the next few days we are vulnerable. These latest moves smack of a last ditch attempt to prise him away. The club need to pull out all the stops to prevent this.

 

Agreed. Until he passes his 17th birthday and we tie him down to a contract, then our position is considerably weakened. Although he could leave now and leave the fee to be decided by a tribunal, one hopes that his parents and advisors would feel that there is some moral obligation to repay the investment that the club has put towards his development into a player who could command this sort of interest at such a tender age. At the very least, the repayment would be via him signing a contract with us, which would mean that if in future he wished to go to one of the glory clubs, we could gain a substantial fee, as we did with Walcott, Bale and Chamberlain.

 

But if in future he decided to go for one of the glory teams, then that would have no bearing on whether we lacked ambition, as there are no clubs in football who are not forced to sell a player if he wishes to play elsewhere, as was proven by Ronaldo when he left Man Utd. At least if he is contracted to us and wishes to leave some time in the future, we could up his price if there are several interested parties after him, as there were for the others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've done my best to decipher what you're trying to say, so please excuse me if i'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that it's easier for a championship club to hold onto players than a Premier League club. Is this correct (yes or no will suffice to prevent confusion)?

 

No...your have it all wrong.... not for the first time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FC, we're going to disagree here. I believe it does set a precedent. As I've previously said it doesn't spell the end of the academy by any means; but (if Shaw leaves, which I actually don't believe he will) it would carry on a trend that we as a club have had and will continue to have sincere difficulty in hangin on to our young players when the big clubs come calling. There have been plenty on here arguing that back in the PL and with Liebherr money behind us that would not be the case, at least to a much lesser degree than before. That even if young players wanted to leave we would have much more success keeping them until their early to mid 20s. I have consistently argued against that rationale (whether we are a PL side or pushing for a top 6 spot, I believe it makes little difference when the top clubs come calling) and I continue to believe it.

 

My premise is that until the club achieves a higher level, we can not expect that the club will be in a better position to hang on to them. The players want success and to be associated with it. Players ultimately make up tehir own minds and no matter what we offer them financially, unless we have the Kudos of a CL side, with CL footbal, we will never hang on to players who have the abilty to compete at that level. My point was that this is sadly the way of football, and nothing new, happens to all clubs outside that pinnacle. Therefore you can NOT use the fact that bets talent leaves as an indicator of lack of ambition or that our ideals are all wrong. Its certianly what makes any realisation of our aspiration more difficult, but does not invalidate the clubs 'way'

You're again twisting what is being said (or at least by me). I didn't say it would undermine anything. But (again, only if Shaw leaves) it is a poor example to leave behind, when we are embarking on a supposed new era, we have decent funding behind us, new training ground etc etc.

 

My comment was not aimed at you.

 

...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My premise is that until the club achieves a higher level' date=' we can not expect that the club will be in a better position to hang on to them. The players want success and to be associated with it. Players ultimately make up tehir own minds and no matter what we offer them financially, unless we have the Kudos of a CL side, with CL footbal, we will never hang on to players who have the abilty to compete at that level. My point was that this is sadly the way of football, and nothing new, happens to all clubs outside that pinnacle.[/quote']

 

And my contention is that whether we are 14th in the league or 7th, it makes little difference when one of the really big clubs come calling as to whether a player's head will be turned or not. It is not an indictment of the club but the situation in general; in that young players will want to eventually play for the Champions League clubs, and if they come calling its extremely difficuly for them to ignore that.

 

Therefore you can NOT use the fact that bets talent leaves as an indicator of lack of ambition or that our ideals are all wrong. Its certianly what makes any realisation of our aspiration more difficult' date=' but does not invalidate the clubs 'way'.[/quote']

Lets clear this up, because that's two things you've accused me of that I haven't said.

 

Firstly I don't believe Shaw leaving would show a lack of ambition by the club. Never said that. I said it sets a precedent an is an inidication that our ability to hold onto players when the big boys come calling has not and IMO will not change unless we become a Champions League club.

 

Secondly I have also never said that it would invalidate the club's way. I've been accused of that in this thread, that it would "undermine" the club. I don't believe that and haven't said it. Not to repeat myself, I would think that Shaw going would send a sign that we are no better off in being able to keepour young stars than we were before.

 

I personally think (and of course hope) that Shaw will stay. Apart from financial and monetary reasons I feel he is better served staying here, he will get more chance to break through into our side than Chelsea's. For me the true acid test comes when he has played 10, 20, 30 games in the PL and is really getting noticed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And my contention is that whether we are 14th in the league or 7th, it makes little difference when one of the really big clubs come calling as to whether a player's head will be turned or not. It is not an indictment of the club but the situation in general; in that young players will want to eventually play for the Champions League clubs, and if they come calling its extremely difficuly for them to ignore that.

 

 

Lets clear this up, because that's two things you've accused me of that I haven't said.

 

Firstly I don't believe Shaw leaving would show a lack of ambition by the club. Never said that. I said it sets a precedent an is an inidication that our ability to hold onto players when the big boys come calling has not and IMO will not change unless we become a Champions League club.

 

Secondly I have also never said that it would invalidate the club's way. I've been accused of that in this thread, that it would "undermine" the club. I don't believe that and haven't said it. Not to repeat myself, I would think that Shaw going would send a sign that we are no better off in being able to keepour young stars than we were before.

 

I personally think (and of course hope) that Shaw will stay. Apart from financial and monetary reasons I feel he is better served staying here, he will get more chance to break through into our side than Chelsea's. For me the true acid test comes when he has played 10, 20, 30 games in the PL and is really getting noticed.

 

er... I dont believe I have accused you of anything... was merely clarifying my POV. My comments in response the 'undermining issue' was not aimed at you. I agree that there is 'always a bigger fish' - even Man U selling Ronaldo illustrates that, but the key IMHO for the ideal to work is gaining enough 'success' to hold on until these players are 22/23 etc so we get some benefit from them... this IS a cultural thing IMHO. Example I have used in the past is Germany, which is why clubs like Leverkusen, Schalke, Bremen and even Dortmund have cyclic success whe youngster come through, who stay for 2 or 3 pro seasons before teh big move (Ballack at Leverkusen, Goetze and Dortmund are perhaps the good examples) - so for me its now about whether we can in any way influence the culture within Saints youth, to recognise the benefit of staying for a few pro seasons, rather than leaving at 16/17 or after 10 appearences - do that and we have a chnace of cyclic success which in turn makes retention of others (for a few seasons) that bit easier. I believe NC is pragmatic enough to know this and why he feels that it is possible to progress in this way IF we adopt this more 'continental' attitude and can get the kids and their families to come along for the ride.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe NC is pragmatic enough to know this and why he feels that it is possible to progress in this way IF we adopt this more 'continental' attitude and can get the kids and their families to come along for the ride.

The proof will be in the pudding. If Shaw, JWP progress to the first team, U21s, fringes of the national team and stay with us until 22/23 years of age then we'll have advanced. I still think this is an enormously difficult area to just say "we're well financially backed and ambitious now so its less likely to happen if Man Utd come calling". despite what they're doing in Germany or wherever. Rooney at Everton is the "typical" example I'd use for the PL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The proof will be in the pudding. If Shaw, JWP progress to the first team, U21s, fringes of the national team and stay with us until 22/23 years of age then we'll have advanced. I still think this is an enormously difficult area to just say "we're well financially backed and ambitious now so its less likely to happen if Man Utd come calling". despite what they're doing in Germany or wherever. Rooney at Everton is the "typical" example I'd use for the PL.

 

Exactly. Just had a debate with a work mate along similar lines. We're all getting excited about SFC and rightly so, exciting times. But lets not confuse that with being big enough to hold onto very talented youngsters if the likes of Man Utd, Chelsea and Arsenal are interested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The proof will be in the pudding. If Shaw, JWP progress to the first team, U21s, fringes of the national team and stay with us until 22/23 years of age then we'll have advanced.
wouldn't we be just back to roughly where we were when Bridge ****ed off to Chelsea (worse perhaps as Bridge supported Saints unlike Shaw, apparently)?

 

No idea why people think things will be different this time round. There is a pecking order and we are no where near the top. The only way you can prevent the very best players leaving is be right at the top. If Arsenal can't keep hold on to a player what chance have we got?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote_icon.png Originally Posted by up and away viewpost-right.png

 

Arsenal shelled out all that money for Theo on the basis of a pre-contract. That I would imagine was D'sA tight

.

See above about Walcotts family insisting we were treated fairly.

 

You have missed the point. Arsenal shelled out all that money on a contract that was signed with Theo before he was 17. The reason things took so long was for Arsenal (Dein, I believe) to get everything water tight. The point being that if Arsenal were happy about splashing all that money behind a contract at 16, others will surely be able to do likewise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. Just had a debate with a work mate along similar lines. We're all getting excited about SFC and rightly so, exciting times. But lets not confuse that with being big enough to hold onto very talented youngsters if the likes of Man Utd, Chelsea and Arsenal are interested.

 

wouldn't we be just back to roughly where we were when Bridge ****ed off to Chelsea (worse perhaps as Bridge supported Saints unlike Shaw, apparently)?

 

No idea why people think things will be different this time round. There is a pecking order and we are no where near the top. The only way you can prevent the very best players leaving is be right at the top. If Arsenal can't keep hold on to a player what chance have we got?

 

Yep, exactly, that is entirely my point. I've been saying this for some time and have consistently been shouted down on it, with various posters claiming that that days of AOC, Theo etc leaving so early are behind us and we now have a much better chance of keeping players until their early twenties and beyond, even if the big clubs come calling. I simply don't believe that to be the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wouldn't we be just back to roughly where we were when Bridge ****ed off to Chelsea (worse perhaps as Bridge supported Saints unlike Shaw, apparently)?

 

No idea why people think things will be different this time round. There is a pecking order and we are no where near the top. The only way you can prevent the very best players leaving is be right at the top. If Arsenal can't keep hold on to a player what chance have we got?

 

Are you really comparing the lack of ambition, resources and investment under Rupert Lowe when Bridge left, to how we are today?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...