DuncanRG Posted 19 May, 2013 Posted 19 May, 2013 The Sunday Times have proposed that Chelsea might convince us to sell Shaw by loaning him back for a 'season or more'. Simple question - would you do it and at what price?
Crab Lungs Posted 19 May, 2013 Posted 19 May, 2013 No, as they'll be getting a massively better deal. We have to continue to develop a player that is not ours and in the meantime, what we sold him for looks like a bargain as he comes on leaps and bounds ala Gareth Bale. Of course, it could go the other way and he could actually get worse but I don't think that's going to happen. Keep him, hold out for the big(ger!) fee 2 years down the line if we're not matching his ambitions and he wants to go....
Golden Balls Posted 19 May, 2013 Posted 19 May, 2013 Don't sell. He's more likely to get more valuable
Matthew Le God Posted 19 May, 2013 Posted 19 May, 2013 (edited) It makes no sense to do that. Either way he'd be playing for Saints and gaining value. By selling him and loaning him back he is gaining value for Chelsea and not Saints. So why not keep him, not as if we need the money with the Liebherr trust backing Cortese's ambitions. He will be signing a long term deal for Southampton Football Club on his 18th birthday (12th July 2013) like James Ward-Prowse did with a 5 year deal... Edited 19 May, 2013 by Matthew Le God
The Kraken Posted 19 May, 2013 Posted 19 May, 2013 If its the only way to keep him then yes. If not, no.
Appy Posted 19 May, 2013 Posted 19 May, 2013 It makes no sense to do that. Either way he'd be playing for Saints and gaining value. By selling him and loaning him back he is gaining value for Chelsea and not Saints. So why not keep him, not as if we need the money with the Liebherr trust backing Cortese's ambitions. He will be signing a long term deal for Southampton Football Club on his 18th birthday (12th July 2013) like James Ward-Prowse did with a 5 year deal... It means **** all until it's on the OS saying he has signed.
Saint Charlie Posted 19 May, 2013 Posted 19 May, 2013 It means **** all until it's on the OS saying he has signed. This.
swannymere Posted 19 May, 2013 Posted 19 May, 2013 I get the feeling we're going to get shat on from a great height.
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 19 May, 2013 Posted 19 May, 2013 When you you have a prospect quite this good you are bound to get press speculation I suppose, but watching the posted OS interview with Luke Shaw, this lad talks like he plays - composed, level headed, and with a degree of maturity far beyond his years. A credit to his family, his club, and himself. He may go to a 'bigger' club one day, he has all the time in the world for that, but for now I see no reason at all to doubt that he will sign a full contract on his birthday and be here for years to come. Why is it so many of our fans still think we're your stereotypical impoverished 'selling club' ?
Supersubpuckett Posted 19 May, 2013 Posted 19 May, 2013 the media still seem to think we are a selling club. if he does go elsewhere it would completely contradict the fundamental strategy of the club - we can't state that 50% of the side will be home grown only to start selling these very players off as soon as they hit the first team. what we do with morgan and luke over the summer will tell us alot
The Kraken Posted 19 May, 2013 Posted 19 May, 2013 Why is it so many of our fans still think we're your stereotypical impoverished 'selling club' ? Because we have yet to see much evidence of it. As soon as one of the big boys came calling for Chamberlain he went the way of Bale and Walcott before him. This summer could be a benchmark; if we can resist any overtures from the really big clubs for our key players than that sea of change may start happening.
SaintBobby Posted 19 May, 2013 Posted 19 May, 2013 Does Shaw being under 18 mean he can go for a song? I seem to recall a similar problem with Walcott. If Chelsea offering him a contract now (or next week), would we get anything more than a derisory fee for him? As to the OP's question, depends on price for me rather than "loan back". Ultimately, every club is a selling club if the price is right. I definitely would rather keep him than take £10m though. But if you doubled that to £20m, I'd definitely sell.
SNSUN Posted 19 May, 2013 Posted 19 May, 2013 No. We should be keeping hold of our talented youngsters for the future. Whether we will or not is another question, but No to the OP's question.
Gemmel Posted 19 May, 2013 Posted 19 May, 2013 the media still seem to think we are a selling club. We are. Maybe not to the extent we have been previously. But if a big four or five team want one of our players and they want to go - They will.
Georgie Posted 19 May, 2013 Posted 19 May, 2013 No. I don't think we would entertain any offer for him though. However if he wants to go then that's a different problem, there would not be a lot we could do but try and get the best offer we could.
scotty Posted 19 May, 2013 Posted 19 May, 2013 Because we have yet to see much evidence of it. As soon as one of the big boys came calling for Chamberlain he went the way of Bale and Walcott before him. Different situation now, though. He was offered prem football with Arsenal, which at the time he wouldn't have had with us. There wasn't any guarantee we would go back up. Shaw would now only be moving to another prem side, albeit a richer one.
The Kraken Posted 19 May, 2013 Posted 19 May, 2013 Different situation now, though. He was offered prem football with Arsenal, which at the time he wouldn't have had with us. There wasn't any guarantee we would go back up. Shaw would now only be moving to another prem side, albeit a richer one. Which is why I said this summer could be a benchmark. Up to now almost all offers that have come in from clubs bigger than us have been accepted and the player has left. In our rise through the leagues we didn't have to stave off big clubs showing interest in our players; Lallana to Fulham was the biggest and you'd be hard pushed to argue that Fulham were/are a bigger club than us, even if they were a division above us when the Lallana speculation came about. If we can see off the interest in Shaw, and if we can keep our best players despite overtures from the big boys of the Premier League, then it'll be a sign for me that we've progressed significantly. Until then, the only evidence of our harder stand against losing our best prospects has yet to be proven.
Gemmel Posted 19 May, 2013 Posted 19 May, 2013 He's not going anywhere. It's all sorted. If Mourinho comes in with a 15million bid and 60k a week contract at Chelsea, he will be gone, regardless of what he or his family say now. I have no doubt he will sign a contract with us. That protects us and him. But some fans are going to be hugely disappointed if they think we will keep all of our stars from this season.
SNSUN Posted 19 May, 2013 Posted 19 May, 2013 I'd take Ryan Bertrand in part exchange though. Perhaps. If we absolutely had to sell Luke.
scotty Posted 19 May, 2013 Posted 19 May, 2013 Which is why I said this summer could be a benchmark. Up to now almost all offers that have come in from clubs bigger than us have been accepted and the player has left. In our rise through the leagues we didn't have to stave off big clubs showing interest in our players; Lallana to Fulham was the biggest and you'd be hard pushed to argue that Fulham were/are a bigger club than us, even if they were a division above us when the Lallana speculation came about. If we can see off the interest in Shaw, and if we can keep our best players despite overtures from the big boys of the Premier League, then it'll be a sign for me that we've progressed significantly. Until then, the only evidence of our harder stand against losing our best prospects has yet to be proven. Lallana was linked with so many clubs that I'd forgotten the fulham one. Didn't spurs want him as well? And Pards at the toon? He's still here though.
The Kraken Posted 19 May, 2013 Posted 19 May, 2013 Lallana was linked with so many clubs that I'd forgotten the fulham one. Didn't spurs want him as well? And Pards at the toon? He's still here though. Never heard the Spurs link; nor Newcastle, although I remember the Lambert links. The point is; we won't find out what resolve the club now has until they start rejecting offers from the big clubs. And that will come out in the press one way or the other. It'll be an interesting summer; since our L1 days we're now into unchartered waters of having showcased some very good young players and then claiming that we're better placed than ever to keep bigger clubs' hands off them. So we'll see.
Fan The Flames Posted 19 May, 2013 Posted 19 May, 2013 Why is it so many of our fans still think we're your stereotypical impoverished 'selling club' ? We may not be a selling club in the true sense of the term, but these type of payers will continue to leave for bigger clubs. Arsenal and Spurs can't keep hold of their best players, they are not selling clubs but they are not the biggest fish in the pond either.
DuncanRG Posted 19 May, 2013 Author Posted 19 May, 2013 We may not be a selling club in the true sense of the term, but these type of payers will continue to leave for bigger clubs. Arsenal and Spurs can't keep hold of their best players, they are not selling clubs but they are not the biggest fish in the pond either. Exactly. I agree with the Kraken, if we make it through the summer without losing any key players then we'll be in business. I'd be content if we got through it only selling one or two!
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 19 May, 2013 Posted 19 May, 2013 We may not be a selling club in the true sense of the term, but these type of payers will continue to leave for bigger clubs. Arsenal and Spurs can't keep hold of their best players, they are not selling clubs but they are not the biggest fish in the pond either. It goes without saying that in this era of 'player power' no football club can long keep a player who is really determined to leave. That fact - not the want of money - is why AOC is no longer here. Why on Earth would any football club want to keep a player who desires to leave anyway? My definition of a true 'selling club' is a club that needs the money more than the player. Given that our Chairman seems to have secured funding and is utterly determined to transform this club into a significant force in the Premier League, then I would say that this club needs the player more than the money. Therefore if I were a betting man I put a whole English £ on Luke Shaw still being here next season.
stu0x Posted 19 May, 2013 Posted 19 May, 2013 Once again... Buy-and-loan-backs within the Premier League are no longer allowed, due to a rule change about 5 years ago. So, every time you read a story suggesting this as an option, you know it's a load of made up nonsense by an ill-informed journo.
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