The Guardian: Interview with Ralph Krueger

[The Kraken]

Shut down the forum until MP signs a new contract IMO

Probably wouldn't re-open again.

 

Try it with your account, if you like?

[benali-shorts]

What on earth does this bit of the interview mean exactly? Is it just media babble?

 

>>It is put to Krueger that he must believe the club is in the position to convince Pochettino to stay. "Philosophically, if you look at my leadership style and you make the statement you did, then you can draw a line under what you think is happening," he says. "We have an open culture here."

[sotonjoe]

You are so p**s poor at trolling.

 

I find him boring and uninspiring. What's trolling about that?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[hypochondriac]

I find him boring and uninspiring. What's trolling about that?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Based on what? This one interview and the one he did when he joined?

[Viking Warrior]

Bs at least at Saint Mary's we know what success is unlike your team down the road . It's been a very bad season for you yet again.

[sydneysaint17]

Makes the right noises but a lot of management speak. Ill be making an initial judgement on him at the end of this summer.

[TheCholulaKid]

Might have been posted elsewhere but...more from today's Guardian:

 

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/apr/16/luke-shaw-future-southampton-manchester-united-city-chelsea

 

30 million? That has to be tempting.

[Dan83]

I'm getting pretty annoyed at the negative spin in the press about our supposed "big debts"... As I explained in a previous thread on our latest financial reports, these "debts" will easily be cleared by our elevated position in the league this season (along with the greater payments being dished out this year, compared to last). We really should still be in a position to invest just as well as we did last year.

 

It is pretty worrying that the club continues to allow this sort of nonsense to be peddled by the press. It's beginning to sound a little like paving the way for some sales this summer. I, for one, hope it ends with Luke Shaw.... I honestly would not begrudge him a big move elsewhere for £30m+, and I think he will end up at Man Utd/City/Chelsea (highest bidder).

 

It is beginning to sound like the club are allowing our financial position to be spun into something that is worse than it actually is.... strange.

[Fowllyd]

Makes the right noises but a lot of management speak. Ill be making an initial judgement on him at the end of this summer.

 

He'll be quaking in his shoes already at the thought, I'm sure.

[St Chalet]

Interesting that the media seem to not get the principle of Capital Expenditure. Our Training Ground is an asset and as such we won't pay it off (via a depreciation charge) in respect of our accounts for a number of years.

[St_Tel49]

I think we are obviously going to sell a player or two reading that.

Eh!?

[CB Fry]

Interesting that the media seem to not get the principle of Capital Expenditure. Our Training Ground is an asset and as such we won't pay it off (via a depreciation charge) in respect of our accounts for a number of years.

 

Still twice the original budget though. And we pay for players in installments too.

 

And, err, every govt/business/sporting/whatever announcement is handled by the media (and the bodies spending the money in their press releases in exactly the same way).

 

"Asda investing £300m in 100 new stores"

 

"HS2 bill now at £200bn"

 

"Saints unveil £15m training ground plan"

 

So either the media don't get the concept of depreciation, or you don't get the fact that figures are reported like that for everything, all the time, since forever.

[shurlock]

Still twice the original budget though. And we pay for players in installments too.

 

And, err, every govt/business/sporting/whatever announcement is handled by the media (and the bodies spending the money in their press releases in exactly the same way).

 

"Asda investing £300m in 100 new stores"

 

"HS2 bill now at £200bn"

 

"Saints unveil £15m training ground plan"

 

So either the media don't get the concept of depreciation, or you don't get the fact that figures are reported like that for everything, all the time, since forever.

 

Or been to the same school of finance as you Small Fry.

 

When have the media ever had problems with numbers...

 

http://www.badscience.net

[CB Fry]

Or been to the same school of finance as you Small Fry.

 

When have the media ever had problems with numbers...

 

http://www.badscience.net

 

What's your point, apart from telling us you've just discovered Ben Goldacre. Welcome to 2004.

 

My point is wailing about "why don't the media factor in depreciation" is a pretty futile ask, especially when the point in hand is not depreciation but the fact the budget doubled.

 

And it isn't just media as big business, government all do the same sleight of hand stuff with their own announcements.

[niceandfriendly]

I think we are obviously going to sell a player or two reading that.

 

Yes. Clearly he is a good man and good leader but that interview makes it quite clear to expect at least one or two to go, and we won't go out of our way to ensure Poch stays either.

[Wade Garrett]

There really are some mad bast@rds on this forum.

[Stud mark of doom]

What on earth does this bit of the interview mean exactly? Is it just media babble?

 

>>It is put to Krueger that he must believe the club is in the position to convince Pochettino to stay. "Philosophically, if you look at my leadership style and you make the statement you did, then you can draw a line under what you think is happening," he says. "We have an open culture here."

 

This is the best bit in the interview - the clear statement that mo po's a no go.

[hutch]

What's your point, apart from telling us you've just discovered Ben Goldacre. Welcome to 2004.

 

My point is wailing about "why don't the media factor in depreciation" is a pretty futile ask, especially when the point in hand is not depreciation but the fact the budget doubled.

And it isn't just media as big business, government all do the same sleight of hand stuff with their own announcements.

No it isn't. The underlying theme is that we have suddenly discovered that we are carrying a surprisingly large level of debt, and that it is causing problems at the company.

 

In my very humble opinion, we aren't and it isn't.

 

I think pretty much every football club in the land would be more than happy to swap their debt and income with ours.

 

I am also very pleased that we decided to spend more on the training facilities. With our reputation, I'm astonished that anybody could think otherwise.

[Saint in Paradise]

 

 

One thing I can guarantee. In 20 years time none of the players, staff or owners will be still here, but us fans will be whatever

 

 

Source ?

[whelk]

Interesting so many see so much in what looked to me like a pretty sensible chap with some decent perspective on club. Of course some will want a Risdale type dreamer but sound like we are in safe hands and not sure what others want him to say? A smart man is never going to make comments he can't back up like we will keep MP/Shaw at all costs.

[Saint in Paradise]

I'm getting pretty annoyed at the negative spin in the press about our supposed "big debts"... As I explained in a previous thread on our latest financial reports, these "debts" will easily be cleared by our elevated position in the league this season (along with the greater payments being dished out this year, compared to last). We really should still be in a position to invest just as well as we did last year.

 

It is pretty worrying that the club continues to allow this sort of nonsense to be peddled by the press. It's beginning to sound a little like paving the way for some sales this summer. I, for one, hope it ends with Luke Shaw.... I honestly would not begrudge him a big move elsewhere for £30m+, and I think he will end up at Man Utd/City/Chelsea (highest bidder).

 

It is beginning to sound like the club are allowing our financial position to be spun into something that is worse than it actually is.... strange.

 

Maybe to stop other clubs knowing we have lots of money so they raise the asking price of a player Saints want.?

[whelk]

Maybe to stop other clubs knowing we have lots of money so they raise the asking price of a player Saints want.?

 

Yeah all offers will be based on a newspaper article. When in proper negotiations they produce the Guardian article and say ha we know you have money so cough up.

[CB Fry]

No it isn't. The underlying theme is that we have suddenly discovered that we are carrying a surprisingly large level of debt, and that it is causing problems at the company.

 

In my very humble opinion, we aren't and it isn't.

 

I think pretty much every football club in the land would be more than happy to swap their debt and income with ours.

 

I am also very pleased that we decided to spend more on the training facilities. With our reputation, I'm astonished that anybody could think otherwise.

 

Maybe we should have spent fifty million or one hundred million on the training ground instead then. Who cares about budgets? I mean, look at Stoke or Sunderland and stuff. Them being in worse debt than us means we can spend loads more and not worry or something. Fantastic logic.

 

Get real.

[trousers]

Maybe to stop other clubs knowing we have lots of money so they raise the asking price of a player Saints want.?

 

That thought crossed my mind too

[rooney]

" I am a man of simple tastes---I always expect the best".....Oscar Wilde

[SO16_Saint]

Interestingly, ive just had notification from a cresit agency that sfc has a new credit limit available.

 

Spend spend spend

 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

[simo]

I'm getting pretty annoyed at the negative spin in the press about our supposed "big debts"... As I explained in a previous thread on our latest financial reports, these "debts" will easily be cleared by our elevated position in the league this season (along with the greater payments being dished out this year, compared to last). We really should still be in a position to invest just as well as we did last year.

 

It is pretty worrying that the club continues to allow this sort of nonsense to be peddled by the press. It's beginning to sound a little like paving the way for some sales this summer. I, for one, hope it ends with Luke Shaw.... I honestly would not begrudge him a big move elsewhere for £30m+, and I think he will end up at Man Utd/City/Chelsea (highest bidder).

 

It is beginning to sound like the club are allowing our financial position to be spun into something that is worse than it actually is.... strange.

 

It's all a ruse to trick people into thinking we haven't got money loads of money to spend when bidding for players in the summer ;-)

[Beckenham Saint]

While I understand a lot of fears about losing best players and staff, I'm not concerned that we will lose anyone that we want to keep, barring any crazy money bids.

 

http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11700/9268598/southampton-will-fight-to-keep-their-manager-and-top-players-says-chairman-ralph-krueger

 

"Right now, the only thing I can say, whether we speak about Mauricio or the players, is that what we have here is very good and we are doing everything in our power to keep this group together."

 

Remember a few weeks back the "we don't need to sell" article? Maybe, and this is just a thought, the board might just mean it.

[Wes Tender]

Might have been posted elsewhere but...more from today's Guardian:

 

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/apr/16/luke-shaw-future-southampton-manchester-united-city-chelsea

 

30 million? That has to be tempting.

 

 

They say that Shaw's future should be decided before the World Cup. Really? Why? From our perspective, surely it if preferable to wait until it is over when a storming performance from him will only increase his value. They also say that we would want £35 million, but might have to settle for £30. If Shaw wishes to leave, then yes, we would settle for as much as we can for him, but as of now, there is no evidence that he wishes to leave, neither is there any evidence that we will have to sell him if we don't want to. If he stays with us another year, his value will only increase.

 

The media are reduced to a frenzy of speculation on the basis of wrongful assumptions made about our financial position and flimsy conclusions based on his Twitter postings, which he then changed. One could understand this sort of dross from the red-top rags, but the broadsheets really ought to be a bit more circumspect about the tone of their articles, which comes across as shrill, rather than balanced.

[Mowgli]

Never had any doubts really. Shaw is the only one where the pressure could eventually become to great but the optimistic side of me thinks it is still a year or so too early for him to move. He is learning so much here and season by season, he finds the standard of players around him rising.

 

No departures (other than maybe fringer players seeking regular first team football). Maybe two quality signings and it's another good season ahead I think.

[eurosaint]

I'm pretty sure that the 'barring crazy offers' comment implies that Shaw could go for circa £30mil !

TBF, left backs are not totally irreplacable and that sort of dosh can fill a number of gaps elsewhere in the squad !

Can't say the same for Lallana and Schneiderlin mind !

[CB Fry]

They say that Shaw's future should be decided before the World Cup. Really? Why? From our perspective, surely it if preferable to wait until it is over when a storming performance from him will only increase his value. They also say that we would want £35 million, but might have to settle for £30. If Shaw wishes to leave, then yes, we would settle for as much as we can for him, but as of now, there is no evidence that he wishes to leave, neither is there any evidence that we will have to sell him if we don't want to. If he stays with us another year, his value will only increase.

 

The media are reduced to a frenzy of speculation on the basis of wrongful assumptions made about our financial position and flimsy conclusions based on his Twitter postings, which he then changed. One could understand this sort of dross from the red-top rags, but the broadsheets really ought to be a bit more circumspect about the tone of their articles, which comes across as shrill, rather than balanced.

 

I remember you ranting like this about how newspapers all make stuff up out of thin air about an hour before Atkins sacking was confirmed.

 

You might want to change the record. Whatever they do or don't know, it's more than you.

[Wes Tender]

The statements made by the board and the owner that we have no intention to sell players we wish to keep ought to be recognised by the media as being straight from the horse's mouth as it were. Instead, they prefer to rely on unreliable information from outside sources, believing that if Man Ure, Citeh, Chelski or whoever express an interest in buying our players, that is the more reliable source. Well, it isn't. The players or their clubs are the most reliable source and the media only fail to recognise that because they can fill many column inches with speculation and rumour that will titivate their readership, which largely comprises a multitude of plastic fans who support the teams who are bidding for our players.

[View From The Top]

Corky said a few months ago that Utd now had the 1st option to buy Shaw for £30m after the Chelsea option ran out after the Jan' window.

 

Now Corky's contacts at both Utd & City are rock solid and always have been. That's not to say Shaw will go but let's not pretend that this isn't a very real possibility and to suggest that newspapers are simply making it up is just plain daft.

[St_Tel49]

Interesting so many see so much in what looked to me like a pretty sensible chap with some decent perspective on club. Of course some will want a Risdale type dreamer but sound like we are in safe hands and not sure what others want him to say? A smart man is never going to make comments he can't back up like we will keep MP/Shaw at all costs.

This. There is a lot of 2+2 = 5 on this thread.

[CB Fry]

The statements made by the board and the owner that we have no intention to sell players we wish to keep ought to be recognised by the media as being straight from the horse's mouth as it were. Instead, they prefer to rely on unreliable information from outside sources, believing that if Man Ure, Citeh, Chelski or whoever express an interest in buying our players, that is the more reliable source. Well, it isn't. The players or their clubs are the most reliable source and the media only fail to recognise that because they can fill many column inches with speculation and rumour that will titivate their readership, which largely comprises a multitude of plastic fans who support the teams who are bidding for our players.

 

So a club saying players won't be sold means players definitely won't be sold? All right then.

 

And how is the Southampton chairman a "more reliable source" on what Chelsea are doing than someone that works at Chelsea? How the eff does that work?

Edited 17 April, 2014 by CB Fry

[LostBoys]

Good PR type of interview but nothing solid can be gleaned from it. The cynic in me would say it was timed to coincide with the season tickets renewals but as before we have always had to renew without knowing who the players will be and this season whether we will have the same manager - if you believe the papers etc.

[Graffito]

Corky said a few months ago that Utd now had the 1st option to buy Shaw for £30m after the Chelsea option ran out after the Jan' window.

 

Now Corky's contacts at both Utd & City are rock solid and always have been. That's not to say Shaw will go but let's not pretend that this isn't a very real possibility and to suggest that newspapers are simply making it up is just plain daft.

 

How do these options work in practice then? Are they legally binding?

[Window Cleaner]

How do these options work in practice then? Are they legally binding?

 

 

Does it matter, no-one is going to give us 30 million for Shaw because he's not worth it. There are better players available for less. Moyes is looking at Mangala and Siqueira (Benfica LB) and he can probably get the 2 of them for less than 30 million and pay them less as well..

[Bearsy]

Does it matter, no-one is going to give us 30 million for Shaw because he's not worth it.

 

What model are you using here Windows? I have checked the official premier league transfer valuation rules and it states that a top-10 prem full back valuation is £7.5m, then you have to double it if they're young+potential, then you have to double it again if they're English.

[Window Cleaner]

What model are you using here Windows? I have checked the official premier league transfer valuation rules and it states that a top-10 prem full back valuation is £7.5m, then you have to double it if they're young+potential, then you have to double it again if they're English.

 

 

I don't have a model, just a pair of eyes.

[Graffito]

Does it matter, no-one is going to give us 30 million for Shaw because he's not worth it. There are better players available for less. Moyes is looking at Mangala and Siqueira (Benfica LB) and he can probably get the 2 of them for less than 30 million and pay them less as well..

 

It might matter if Utd do think he's worth £30m because if options granted in the sale and purchase of footballers operate in the same way as options tend to work in the sale and purchase of land, for instance, it could be legally binding. Alternatively, what is being presented as an option may be more of a pre-emption right which would mean Utd being first in line for any sale/purchase. A pre-emption right would not be legally binding. Whatever Shaw's value, which in practice is what anyone is willing to pay for him, it will likely go up after the World Cup.

[Bearsy]

I don't have a model, just a pair of eyes.

 

so does the lowest lizard, windows, that does not make him qualified to assess how much david moyes is likely to spunk off over luke shaw.

[Saint86]

I think we are obviously going to sell a player or two reading that.

 

Not sure if trolling?

 

I'll just leave it with my favourite quote from the article:

 

"We feel very comfortable that we have a plan that can deal with the situation and we are definitely not factoring in a big player sale"

[Wes Tender]

I remember you ranting like this about how newspapers all make stuff up out of thin air about an hour before Atkins sacking was confirmed.

 

You might want to change the record. Whatever they do or don't know, it's more than you.

 

And it's more than you know too. The point that you've managed to miss, is that had the club stated that they had no intention of letting Adkins go, then that would be a more credible source than the media stating that he was on the way to XYZ clubs. It is also worth pointing out that under Cortese, he kept his cards very close to his chest and hardly any rumours had surfaced about the possibility of Adkins leaving, thus causing a huge shock when it happened.

 

The people here now are much more open about things and have stated that they have no intention of selling players that Pochettino wishes to keep. If you prefer to believe the media's rumours over the club's statements, then go ahead.

 

So a club saying players won't be sold means players definitely won't be sold? All right then.

 

And how is the Southampton chairman a "more reliable source" on what Chelsea are doing than someone that works at Chelsea? How the eff does that work?

 

Of course the club is effectively forced to sell a player if the player wishes to leave, as it is not good to have somebody playing for you who doesn't want to be here. It is then up to the Club's board to screw the buyer for as much money as possible.

 

As for the other part about Chelsea, please do explain to me how a source at Chelsea has more say about Shaw than Shaw himself or his Club do. Any club can say whatever they like about how much they want a particular player and what they are prepared to pay for him. They can do it until they go blue in the face or go apoplectic with rage, but it is all so much hot air if the player's club or the player himself do not wish to move to that club. Do you not see that?

[jam]

Not sure if trolling?

 

I'll just leave it with my favourite quote from the article:

 

"We feel very comfortable that we have a plan that can deal with the situation and we are definitely not factoring in a big player sale"

 

I guess you need to define 'big' - there's plenty of wiggle-room in that statement.

 

If the club said 'we refused offers from most of our players but had to let Morgan and Shaw move on' would you still be happy? After all, that wouldn't be a big player sale.

[Saint86]

I guess you need to define 'big' - there's plenty of wiggle-room in that statement.

 

If the club said 'we refused offers from most of our players but had to let Morgan and Shaw move on' would you still be happy? After all, that wouldn't be a big player sale.

 

Ah, I see what your saying. I read that quote as.... "We are not looking to sell a big name player." Although obviously, a large sum of money for either player should be taken if it can be reinvested in players like wanyama, lovren etc to strengthen the squad.

 

E.g. we could sell shaw for £30m, and buy ourselves Lovren, Wanyama, jayrod, davis and clyne... A repeat of that for similar standard players is very good business.

 

What I don't think his quote means, is "we will sell one or two players, but we won't be doing big business (e.g. selling large numbers of first team players" - I personally think that is looking to read into it, and assumes he is trying to con the fanbase by playing with words and saying "we won't sell", then selling...

 

I hope I'm right on that one.

 

I personally don't get the fuss we are getting in the media, smells a bit fishy.

 

Our players can't be that good (we are scrapping to get/keep 8th), and our manager has done what exactly?

[jam]

Ah, I see what your saying. I read that quote as.... "We are not looking to sell a big name player." Although obviously, a large sum of money for either player should be taken if it can be reinvested in players like wanyama, lovren etc to strengthen the squad.

 

E.g. we could sell shaw for £30m, and buy ourselves Lovren, Wanyama, jayrod, davis and clyne... A repeat of that for similar standard players is very good business.

 

What I don't think his quote means, is "we will sell one or two players, but we won't be doing big business (e.g. selling large numbers of first team players" - I personally think that is looking to read into it, and assumes he is trying to con the fanbase by playing with words and saying "we won't sell", then selling...

 

I hope I'm right on that one.

 

I personally don't get the fuss we are getting in the media, smells a bit fishy.

 

Our players can't be that good (we are scrapping to get/keep 8th), and our manager has done what exactly?

 

I think he's basically in a difficult position. He can't say we will not sell anybody - only Real Madrid and Barcelona can say that. If he says anything stronger than what he's said already then it will be interpreted as weakness, or an invite to offers. Personally I think he's got it right, but most certainly DON'T take it as a strong statement of intent to keep hold of everybody.

 

If the figures are as they say, and someone comes along and offers in excess of £30 million for Shaw, then it must become very hard for the owners not to look at that and say 'great, we can half the debt and use the rest to buy a replacement while developing another youth prospect'.

 

From the outside it seems likely that someone will go - possibly two. Personally I can see a bit of a bidding war for Shaw and after Arsenal's season Morgan looks a more likely target than ever. Obviously I hope not but if they rake in over £40 million between them then the accounts will start to look very friendly.

[CB Fry]

And it's more than you know too. The point that you've managed to miss, is that had the club stated that they had no intention of letting Adkins go, then that would be a more credible source than the media stating that he was on the way to XYZ clubs. It is also worth pointing out that under Cortese, he kept his cards very close to his chest and hardly any rumours had surfaced about the possibility of Adkins leaving, thus causing a huge shock when it happened.

 

The people here now are much more open about things and have stated that they have no intention of selling players that Pochettino wishes to keep. If you prefer to believe the media's rumours over the club's statements, then go ahead.

 

 

 

Of course the club is effectively forced to sell a player if the player wishes to leave, as it is not good to have somebody playing for you who doesn't want to be here. It is then up to the Club's board to screw the buyer for as much money as possible.

 

As for the other part about Chelsea, please do explain to me how a source at Chelsea has more say about Shaw than Shaw himself or his Club do. Any club can say whatever they like about how much they want a particular player and what they are prepared to pay for him. They can do it until they go blue in the face or go apoplectic with rage, but it is all so much hot air if the player's club or the player himself do not wish to move to that club. Do you not see that?

 

Adkins was a shock only to you because you'd spent the last several months (and that very morning) dismissing anything suggesting he was a dead man walking as lies made up by clueless journalists. Clearly not that clueless.

 

And well done you: you think formal statements and official press releases are the most reliable sources of information. You are a government's dream citizen.

[Wes Tender]

Adkins was a shock only to you because you'd spent the last several months (and that very morning) dismissing anything suggesting he was a dead man walking as lies made up by clueless journalists. Clearly not that clueless.

 

And well done you: you think formal statements and official press releases are the most reliable sources of information. You are a government's dream citizen.

 

I think that you'll find that Adkins leaving was a shock to most Sainsts fans and most fans of other teams too and the media . You of course, being the know it all that you think you are, knew that it was on the cards.

 

And of course, I never said that formal statements and official press releases are the most reliable sources of information. What I did mean, is that statements released by the club carry more weight regarding our players than wish lists from other clubs who desire to purchase them.

 

Either I don't explain myself very clearly, you're a bit thick, or deliberately obtuse. Probably the latter.