Weston Saint Posted 12 January, 2014 Posted 12 January, 2014 If top clubs want to pay silly money they obviously think he is the best left back around. Why would we want to see our best players going for any price. Why should supporters settle for second best in any positions!
Saint 76er Posted 12 January, 2014 Posted 12 January, 2014 The question is "should we" not "would we" sell him. If we didn't need the money, I'm yet to hear one compelling argument as to why we should definitely sell him at that price. Just because most clubs would, isn't a reason to do it. Of course, that sort of money would pay for half the cost of the proposed stadium renovations .... just saying, like.
Glasgow_Saint Posted 12 January, 2014 Posted 12 January, 2014 They are creaming themselves on the City forum! "He is probably the best left back in the league right now. So why not buy him ? I think he can also play as a winger. He has the touch of Eden Hazard. He can deliver balls like Kolarov. He closes players down like Fernandinho. We can with more ball-winners in our team." "He is worth £30 million. The guy is absolutley solid in defence. Going forward he is brilliant. You have to remember that he is 18. He can be with us for the next 14 years. £30 million is basically £2 million a season." http://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=289241&start=150 They do seem to rate him highly.... Rightly so.
Saint_Tony Posted 12 January, 2014 Posted 12 January, 2014 If the papers are saying 30 mil, Cortese will want to drive the price up to at least 40. Fact is, if and when a bid like that comes in he will more than likely leave
Give it to Ron Posted 12 January, 2014 Posted 12 January, 2014 (edited) You stick to your opinion.. but 30M does nothing for us.. and we lose a potentially world class Full back... I'm really surprised you think its crazy Do you really think 30m does nothing..? Cripes some have short memories. He isn't even an international yet. He has the potential to be ....the problem I have is I don't trust us to spend wisely. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Edited 12 January, 2014 by Give it to Ron
farawaysaint Posted 12 January, 2014 Posted 12 January, 2014 Aaand now the fake Olallana profile is on that City thread trying to make them hate us Our trolls are a different breed
Saint Matty 76 Posted 12 January, 2014 Posted 12 January, 2014 You stick to your opinion.. but 30M does nothing for us.. and we lose a potentially world class Full back... I'm really surprised you think its crazy Does nothing for us? £5-£10m gets you a top standard PL LB, we have a good first team but a very weak squad; £30m would go a long way to change that.
Saint Charlie Posted 12 January, 2014 Posted 12 January, 2014 Should resist any offers. His value will only increase. He will have virtually all the top clubs keen on him. Lets have him in some of his best years rather than when he is learning. Besides, the club won't sell for any price. Shaw will only leave when he pushes strongly to.
Glasgow_Saint Posted 12 January, 2014 Posted 12 January, 2014 Aaand now the fake Olallana profile is on that City thread trying to make them hate us Our trolls are a different breed I think thats our Olallana? The guy is nuts
mynameisthehulk Posted 12 January, 2014 Posted 12 January, 2014 Anyone who is saying no to £30m up front, if Shaw wants to go is in cloud cuckoo land, on acid having smoked off a massive bag of cracked cocaine. Talking about NC continuing to spend as he has previously done makes no sense the £30m just adds to the kitty. My only concern is not having a good enough replacement lined up, and when I say lined up I mean the deal is done already before Shaw goes. If other clubs know we are desperate for a left back and have got billions of squid in the bank we are going to get skanked to fck.
Dellman Posted 12 January, 2014 Posted 12 January, 2014 Is the purpose of the academy to make a profit for Liebherr or to strengthen the team to win things? Everything NC and Liebherrs have done suggests the latter, thank God. And in any case if we win things the value of their investment goes up anyway. So selling our stars makes no sense either to the owners or the team. We are no longer a selling club! Thanks NC and COYR
Batman Posted 12 January, 2014 Posted 12 January, 2014 Is the purpose of the academy to make a profit for Liebherr or to strengthen the team to win things? Everything NC and Liebherrs have done suggests the latter, thank God. And in any case if we win things the value of their investment goes up anyway. So selling our stars makes no sense either to the owners or the team. We are no longer a selling club! Thanks NC and COYR why did we sell OxO then why not just TELL him to stay?
jampot Posted 12 January, 2014 Posted 12 January, 2014 If we had signed Alexander Büttner, I wonder how Shaw would of been handled. Why were we in the market for another left back anyway. Were we trying to protect Shaw but were forced to play him when the deal fell through? Did we not expect Shaw to take to first team football as well as he has?
The Kraken Posted 12 January, 2014 Posted 12 January, 2014 If we had signed Alexander Büttner, I wonder how Shaw would of been handled. Why were we in the market for another left back anyway. Were we trying to protect Shaw but were forced to play him when the deal fell through? Did we not expect Shaw to take to first team football as well as he has? Who knows why we were in the market for another LB, but its not exactly beyond the realms of possibility to suggest that it was to eradicate the need to use Dan Fox. Shaw didn't break through until a few games in, so he wasn't the de facto first choice when we looked at Buttner. Perhaps Shaw's rapid progress was a surprise; but Fox still played in 20 league games that season, so he got a pretty good run which Buttner would likely have had were he here. We still need a better reserve option at left back than Fox so Buttner could have been a decent option.
red&white56 Posted 12 January, 2014 Posted 12 January, 2014 If the Cortese plan is European football then I presume he will want us to not just make up the numbers but to participate and win games, and perhaps have an outside chance to win. We won't get there if we go weak at the knees every time someone flashes their wallet at us and we sell our better players. Our reaction should be, No Deal!
ottery st mary Posted 12 January, 2014 Posted 12 January, 2014 40 milllion and loaned back to us for this season and the whole of next....they pay the wages:) and my season ticket for 5 years. Deal:D I will even accept the proviso he does not play against City...
Leicestersaint Posted 12 January, 2014 Posted 12 January, 2014 Selling Shaw would be madness - he is a top-quality player and only likely to get better.
Pastor Patrón Posted 12 January, 2014 Posted 12 January, 2014 It's a big fee but not a club transforming amount and could easily be spent on two dud signings so why risk it? Swapping him for Lukaku would be the only move I'd even consider.
skintsaint Posted 12 January, 2014 Posted 12 January, 2014 Take the cash and get a suitable replacement and another 15m signing in..... Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk
Glasgow_Saint Posted 12 January, 2014 Posted 12 January, 2014 Before answering the question you'd need to understand what we would do with the £30m Gaston and Osvaldo cost us £27 million + £19 million in wages!! On the flip..... Wanyama, Lovren, Morgan, Lambert, Boruc, Clyne, Cork, Davis and Fonte cost us a combined £26 million! It's a big fee but not a club transforming amount and could easily be spent on two dud signings so why risk it? Swapping him for Lukaku would be the only move I'd even consider. Agreed.
ART Posted 12 January, 2014 Posted 12 January, 2014 I've often thought the same as jampot about where Shaw would have stood had we signed Buttner. It might have been a whole different story. Certainly we should cash in on Shaw due to him being prone to injury/sickness. 30 million shouldn't be scoffed at, but perhaps we should go for a Chelsea like deal with Ryan Thomas in exchange. Then again, we don't need a replacement as we have Chambers and Clyne, both capable of switching from right to left. That would leave the 30 million for strengthening other positions.
Matthew Le Tissier Posted 12 January, 2014 Posted 12 January, 2014 (edited) 100% Yes Easily replaced with enough to spend elsewhere. Clyne is as good at left back I would stick chambers on right Clyne left Zero cost Chambers to good to be on the bench Its proven Clyne can play left back We have great taken coming through in that position so there's the cover. Looking at Nathan's crossing with his right foot yesterday maybe he should use his left lol Edited 12 January, 2014 by Matthew Le Tissier
Saint Charlie Posted 12 January, 2014 Posted 12 January, 2014 100% Yes Easily replaced with enough to spend elsewhere. Couple of examples of who could 'easily' replace him?
Batman Posted 12 January, 2014 Posted 12 January, 2014 Couple of examples of who could 'easily' replace him? clyne is just as good and cost???
RobM Posted 12 January, 2014 Posted 12 January, 2014 100% Yes Easily replaced with enough to spend elsewhere. Easily replaced by who? Which LB will easily replace him with equal quality, ability and longevity and want to come to us? That's the main question for me. If it were that easy to replace Shaw, he would be worth less (supply vs demand) and teams like City would be in for them too (since they're as good as Shaw). As it seems to stand, the only two LB's that are attracting interest from top, top clubs are Shaw and Baines. So again, who would we easily replace him with?
RobM Posted 12 January, 2014 Posted 12 January, 2014 clyne is just as good and cost??? We already own Clyne, so would need to buy a replacement LB still. Who would you suggest who is also at least 'just as good'?
View From The Top Posted 12 January, 2014 Posted 12 January, 2014 He's a full back. £30m for a full back is utter insanity. Take it.
Saint Charlie Posted 12 January, 2014 Posted 12 January, 2014 Clyne was a steal but the idea Shaw could easily be replaced is quite funny. Full backs are so key to our game and luckily we have three all worth a lot of money. Reality is there arent many bargains to be had and once Shaw goes 99% his replacement will be of lesser quality. Can't understand why any fan would want that. Im sure we will spend money next summer without have budgeted to sell Shaw so much better to keep our best players and add. Money in the bank doesnt win you any points.
Batman Posted 12 January, 2014 Posted 12 January, 2014 We already own Clyne, so would need to buy a replacement LB still. Who would you suggest who is also at least 'just as good'? who ever i mention would get dismissed. people would dismiss leighton baines fss
Dig Dig Posted 12 January, 2014 Posted 12 January, 2014 If top clubs want to pay silly money they obviously think he is the best left back around. Why would we want to see our best players going for any price. Why should supporters settle for second best in any positions! Apparently so we can buy a replacement and someone else. As if we can't sign players otherwise As a fan and not a club accountant or an economist, I'd rather we kept our best players.
Wiggles31 Posted 12 January, 2014 Posted 12 January, 2014 30m is crazy money for LS. Chambers will be worth that next season then.
Batman Posted 12 January, 2014 Posted 12 January, 2014 If top clubs want to pay silly money they obviously think he is the best left back around. Why would we want to see our best players going for any price. Why should supporters settle for second best in any positions! I dont think anyone wants to sell him. Why would they we will sell him if insane money talks. Which is the point Sooner or later, he will go. depends on if you think we would ever get more than £30m for him?
View From The Top Posted 12 January, 2014 Posted 12 January, 2014 So there are no LBs in world football, as good or not better than can be had for a damn sight less than £30m? Some of you lot are so detached from reality it's unreal. NO full back is worth £30m.
Wade Garrett Posted 12 January, 2014 Posted 12 January, 2014 We need to forget the Lowe mentality of shipping our best players out for the best prices. We're trying to use our Academy to build our side, not Man City's. If they bid £30m for him, I hope Cortese tells them to f*ck off.
Batman Posted 12 January, 2014 Posted 12 January, 2014 We need to forget the Lowe mentality of shipping our best players out for the best prices. We're trying to use our Academy to build our side, not Man City's. If they bid £30m for him, I hope Cortese tells them to f*ck off. if that is the case, why is Ox playing for arsenal?
Matthew Le Tissier Posted 12 January, 2014 Posted 12 January, 2014 100% Yes Easily replaced with enough to spend elsewhere. Clyne is as good at left back I would stick chambers on right Clyne left Zero cost Chambers to good to be on the bench Its proven Clyne can play left back We have great talent coming through in that position so there's the cover. Looking at Nathan's crossing with his right foot yesterday maybe he should use his left lol
Matthew Le God Posted 12 January, 2014 Posted 12 January, 2014 if that is the case, why is Ox playing for arsenal? We were a newly promoted team in the Championship when Oxlade-Chamberlain was sold (he didn't even play a Championship game for us, only in League One!), we are now a top half Premier League side and our players are getting England call-ups.
Glasgow_Saint Posted 12 January, 2014 Posted 12 January, 2014 Neil Taylor or Ben Davies from Swansea or Álex Grimaldo (Barcelona B), Samuel Umtiti (Lyon) to name just 4
The Kraken Posted 12 January, 2014 Posted 12 January, 2014 I'm reasonably confident that Saints wouldn't look to reinvest £30M in a replacement full back, so I'd always be a little worried as to what we'd get in place of Shaw. But Clyne for £2.5M shows the type of player that is available. Sadly £30M isn't as obscene a sum of money as it was even just 5 years ago; it essentially gets you Gaston Ramirez and Dani Osvaldo. So I'd be careful of what I wished for just assuming we should take the money, and I hope we hold off for as long as possible.
Batman Posted 12 January, 2014 Posted 12 January, 2014 We were a newly promoted team in the Championship when Oxlade-Chamberlain was sold (he didn't even play a Championship game for us, only in League One!), we are now a top half Premier League side and our players are getting England call-ups. top half prem, yet a million miles away from man city. remind me how many times roy has called up Shaw? you can bet your life that he will have been a shoe-in had he played for united/city
Saint Charlie Posted 12 January, 2014 Posted 12 January, 2014 Clyne can play LB but is much better at RB. Taylor, Davies etc are some way off Shaw's level. If Shaw wasnt top class he wouldnt have the whole top 4 wanting him. Can never replace with the same quality otherwise Chelsea, Citt and United would go and get Neil Taylor or Chelsea would play Bertrand. They want Shaw because he is miles better than those players and will be one of the very best left backs in the world in a couple of years.
mulletsaint Posted 12 January, 2014 Posted 12 January, 2014 £30 million is a lot for an 18 year old full back but I'd like to see him stay another season or two to be honest. I'm not sure that Cortese is too fussed about bringing in many more players seeing as he wants to focus on bringing in academy prospects. He's strengthened through the spine and while most of us would like at another, CB, FB, creative midfielder and possibly GK, I'm not sure how many of those positions we're truly trying to strengthen.
Matthew Le God Posted 12 January, 2014 Posted 12 January, 2014 100% Yes Easily replaced with enough to spend elsewhere. If we are going to spend large amounts elsewhere in the summer regardless of player sales, why sell a player you don't need to if spending would continue regardless? We've had one of the largest net spends in England since our return to the Premier League.
Dr Who? Posted 12 January, 2014 Posted 12 January, 2014 We do not need to, so I think we should keep all our first team players. Unless he thinks he could win trophies and wants to play in the champions league. I think he will see how the rest of the season goes and see how we are shaping up for next season. I think if he does leave it will be at the end of the 2014/15 season.
Batman Posted 12 January, 2014 Posted 12 January, 2014 (edited) £30 million is a lot for an 18 year old full back but I'd like to see him stay another season or two to be honest. I'm not sure that Cortese is too fussed about bringing in many more players seeing as he wants to focus on bringing in academy prospects. He's strengthened through the spine and while most of us would like at another, CB, FB, creative midfielder and possibly GK, I'm not sure how many of those positions we're truly trying to strengthen. it kinda is. how many other teenage full backs have moved for anything near that? Edited 12 January, 2014 by Batman
Cabrone Posted 12 January, 2014 Posted 12 January, 2014 It's a big fee but not a club transforming amount and could easily be spent on two dud signings so why risk it? Swapping him for Lukaku would be the only move I'd even consider. Me too, Lukaku is the only player I'd entertain in some kind of swap deal. Failing that I want him to stay, he's so good it's easy to forget he's only 18 and he's going to get better as he gets older. Can see Luke pushing into the England setup within the next 12-24 months and then the price goes up even more.
Dig Dig Posted 12 January, 2014 Posted 12 January, 2014 I'm reasonably confident that Saints wouldn't look to reinvest £30M in a replacement full back, so I'd always be a little worried as to what we'd get in place of Shaw. But Clyne for £2.5M shows the type of player that is available. Sadly £30M isn't as obscene a sum of money as it was even just 5 years ago; it essentially gets you Gaston Ramirez and Dani Osvaldo. So I'd be careful of what I wished for just assuming we should take the money, and I hope we hold off for as long as possible. Yep
View From The Top Posted 12 January, 2014 Posted 12 January, 2014 If he didn't play for Saints and you lot read than City were interested in paying £30m for a 18yo full back you'd be saying it's obscene money and he'd be going as it's such a good deal. Because he plays for Saints you consider £30m and insult and there is no way he should go. Perhaps Turkish's views on you lot are correct after all.
Saint Charlie Posted 12 January, 2014 Posted 12 January, 2014 If he didn't play for Saints and you lot read than City were interested in paying £30m for a 18yo full back you'd be saying it's obscene money and he'd be going as it's such a good deal. Because he plays for Saints you consider £30m and insult and there is no way he should go. Perhaps Turkish's views on you lot are correct after all. For Man City it could be a left back for 2-3m per season over a long career. Sounds like a bargain when you consider the money in football these days. Why should the decision to sell be based on it seeming like a lot of money. Spurs would sooner have Bale than 90m and Saints will rather Shaw than 30.
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