The Squad

[Bucks Saint]

The likes of JWP, Reed, Hesketh, Targett etc will be in the U21 list.

 

Doh. Too many beers. Ta

[View From The Top]

15th most expensive squad in Europe's big 5.

 

https://twitter.com/mrjakehumphrey/status/639752249909055488/photo/1

[fanimal]

When you see statistics like that, it makes even more galling we didn't beat FC Midgets

[The9]

When you see statistics like that, it makes even more galling we didn't beat FC Midgets

 

I watched it back yesterday (mainly to see if I was on the telly). We were so uninspired and uncreative it was incredible - though I can at least understand the long balls now, as it worked in the first leg. Having also rewatched the Norwich match, it was like night and day. Just shows the fine margins when players might not be totally committed to getting themselves into an extra 6 or more matches.

[CB Fry]

15th most expensive squad in Europe's big 5.

 

https://twitter.com/mrjakehumphrey/status/639752249909055488/photo/1

Yes, yes, yes but our net spend is much worse than Sunderland and Norwich so they have far more desire to improve than we do or something. I wish we were them.

[Whitey Grandad]

I watched it back yesterday (mainly to see if I was on the telly). We were so uninspired and uncreative it was incredible - though I can at least understand the long balls now, as it worked in the first leg. Having also rewatched the Norwich match, it was like night and day. Just shows the fine margins when players might not be totally committed to getting themselves into an extra 6 or more matches.

 

I watched it too as soon as I got home. Why do we put ourselves through this?

[View From The Top]

Yes, yes, yes but our net spend is much worse than Sunderland and Norwich so they have far more desire to improve than we do or something. I wish we were them.

 

When I 1st read it I did think of the utter muppets who consider net spend as a reflection of ambition. Let's see who they try to defend their position with little 'ole Saints having the 15th most expensive squad in the Big 5.

[Saint86]

I personally think this is the strongest and more importantly most balanced side we could use. More than good enough for another top 8 finish in my opinion.

 

 

#England's Academy

 

 

In all seriousness. Claise will take one of the 2 cdm spots and why the hell are people so quick to drop davis.

[shurlock]

Yes, yes, yes but our net spend is much worse than Sunderland and Norwich so they have far more desire to improve than we do or something. I wish we were them.

 

You still don't understand, kiddo- that one window's net spend -just as one window's gross spend- reveals very little. Your Norwich and Sunderland examples are by extension meaningless.

 

But heigh ho, you're a f**kwit -and no number of windows explaining the simplest of concepts to you will change that.

Edited 4 September, 2015 by shurlock

[CB Fry]

You still don't understand, kiddo- that one window's net spend -just as one window's gross spend- reveals very little. Your Norwich and Sunderland examples are by extension meaningless.

 

But heigh ho, you're a f**kwit -and no number of windows explaining the simplest of concepts to you will change that.

 

Err, what youre saying now is precisely my point when I say net spend is not a particularly important metric.

 

Understand?

[Whitey Grandad]

You still don't understand, kiddo- that one window's net spend -just as one window's gross spend- reveals very little. Your Norwich and Sunderland examples are by extension meaningless.

 

But heigh ho, you're a f**kwit -and no number of windows explaining the simplest of concepts to you will change that.

 

I rather suspect that our friend Fry is being ironic in his offering. This may not always come across as such in an Internet posting.

[Lets B Avenue]

I rather suspect that our friend Fry is being ironic in his offering. This may not always come across as such in an Internet posting.

 

Too ironic for a certain poster.

[shurlock]

Err, what youre saying now is precisely my point when I say net spend is not a particularly important metric.

 

Understand?

 

Dear oh dear, no it isn't. You're confusing the metric (net spend) with the time or evaluation period (3 months). Two completely and breathtakingly different things. Just as you wouldn't judge Costa or Aguero's goal record on whether or not they scored last week, so I wouldn't use any metric over a short time period. And I've never attempted to do so. None of which changes the fact that net spend is vastly superior to gross spend over longer time periods. HTH.

Edited 4 September, 2015 by shurlock

[The Kraken]

Right, I've missed this argument. But it sounds juicy. Can someone sum it up in short size lumps that a fool like me would understand? Or, better still, point me to the actual original. This sounds fun.

[CB Fry]

Right, I've missed this argument. But it sounds juicy. Can someone sum it up in short size lumps that a fool like me would understand? Or, better still, point me to the actual original. This sounds fun.

Bit of a non argument really.

 

I don't think net spend is a particularly useful metric when assessing clubs transfer business, especially round about now each year when the transfer window comparison stats come out.

 

Our friend Strawlock agrees with me, but for some reason is trying to engineer some kind of argument with me about it anyway. I can't really fathom why but he's always been slightly odd. He has the opportunity to concede I am right at any point.

[Saint IQ]

15th most expensive squad in the top 5 European leagues...Never thought I'd see the day...

[hutch]

Top 7 most expensive squads in the PL finished in the top 7 spots in the league last season. That's odd.

[shurlock]

When I 1st read it I did think of the utter muppets who consider net spend as a reflection of ambition. Let's see who they try to defend their position with little 'ole Saints having the 15th most expensive squad in the Big 5.

 

Not sure what your point is.

 

In essence, the table shows that we've turned over £100m in profit (excluding development costs) by selling the cream of our Academy and have reinvested (most of) it in our squad. You might have a point if we could repeat this trick time and time again; but there is little evidence of a similar windfall on the horizon. Like it or not, the cupboard is now relatively bare.

 

Outside the la-la land and the ability to conjure up £30m players from the Academy, most 'growth' clubs will do what every business has done since time immemorial - they'll improve by turning the occasional profit on a player and reinvesting it, mindful that many signings will be busts -and even good ones may depreciate in value. More reliably, they'll grow over time through net investments (transfer fees and wages), strengthening what they already have (N.B. its what we did for our first two years in the premiership before we cashed in on the Academy windfall).

 

There is nothing mysterious or complicated about this that requires a 'defense'. And I don't have to belabour the blindingly obvious point that whatever the value of the squad, with a higher net spend, it would have been higher still. Alas the only muppets are the ones grizzling and generalising from a very unique set of circumstances. But then again the 'illiteracy' on this place never ceases to amaze.

Edited 5 September, 2015 by shurlock

[CB Fry]

Not sure what your point is.

 

In essence, the table shows that we've turned over £100m in profit (excluding development costs) by selling the cream of our Academy and have reinvested (most of) it in our squad. You might have a point if we could repeat this trick time and time again; but there is little evidence of a similar windfall on the horizon. Like it or not, the cupboard is now relatively bare.

 

Outside the la-la land and the ability to conjure up £30m players from the Academy, most 'growth' clubs will do what every business has done since time immemorial - they'll improve by turning the occasional profit on a player and reinvesting it, mindful that many signings will be busts -and even good ones may depreciate in value. More reliably, they'll grow over time through net investments (transfer fees and wages), strengthening what they already have (N.B. its what we did for our first two years in the premiership before we cashed in on the Academy windfall).

 

There is nothing mysterious or complicated about this that requires a 'defense'. And I don't have to belabour the blindingly obvious point that whatever the value of the squad, with a higher net spend, it would have been higher still. Alas the only muppets are the ones grizzling and generalising from a very unique set of circumstances. But then again the 'illiteracy' on this place never ceases to amaze.

You seem to be hanging your entire argument on the idea that if we didn't sell any of those players but still spent all the money we did, we'd be much stronger. We'd have Lallana and Tadic and Theo and Oxo and Mane and Shaw and Betrand and Cedric and Chambers and Clyne and Lovren and Van Dyke and Morgan and Clasie and Lambert and Pelle and Long and Jay Rod and Boruc and Forster and and and. Presumably headed up by the modern day Steve Gritt/Alan Curbishley co-managerial combination of Pochettino and Koeman with Adkins as first team coach. Oh, think of that net spend. We'd be like, so strong.

[krissyboy31]

Not sure what your point is.

 

In essence, the table shows that we've turned over £100m in profit (excluding development costs) by selling the cream of our Academy and have reinvested (most of) it in our squad. You might have a point if we could repeat this trick time and time again; but there is little evidence of a similar windfall on the horizon. Like it or not, the cupboard is now relatively bare.

 

Outside the la-la land and the ability to conjure up £30m players from the Academy, most 'growth' clubs will do what every business has done since time immemorial - they'll improve by turning the occasional profit on a player and reinvesting it, mindful that many signings will be busts -and even good ones may depreciate in value. More reliably, they'll grow over time through net investments (transfer fees and wages), strengthening what they already have (N.B. its what we did for our first two years in the premiership before we cashed in on the Academy windfall).

 

There is nothing mysterious or complicated about this that requires a 'defense'. And I don't have to belabour the blindingly obvious point that whatever the value of the squad, with a higher net spend, it would have been higher still. Alas the only muppets are the ones grizzling and generalising from a very unique set of circumstances. But then again the 'illiteracy' on this place never ceases to amaze.

 

I don't understand the problem you and some others have with our business model. We buy players for the position we are (or produce our own) at a relatively small cost and once they are at a level, when they feel they need to be playing CL football, we sell them on for a phenomenal amount of money, which is in turn reinvested in our playing squad and facilities. We are not a top 6 team and with FFP, we are never going to be one. Our success is to try and be the best of the rest and to be fair, we are doing a pretty good job at that and there is no reason to think we can't continue, even with our p!55 poor net spend.

[eelpie]

They certainly are.

 

I've been happy with the club's dealings throughout the summer, we all knew Clyne and Schneiderlin were off, and we got £40 million for the pair which was pretty much as good as we could have hoped. Not sure of the exact maths but basically we've now spent all of that on the new faces?

 

And apparently (I can't remember which newspaper I read it in) we are the only Premier club to have made a profit during the transfer season.

£ 0.3 million) Can this be verified?

0.3 million.

[Whitey Grandad]

And apparently (I can't remember which newspaper I read it in) we are the only Premier club to have made a profit during the transfer season.

£ 0.3 million) Can this be verified?

0.3 million.

 

I think I read £3m somewhere but you wouldn't know the true figures until the accountants have worked on them. Let's call it break-even but don't forget that if we've sold assets above their book values then there may be a Corporation Tax liability.

[Saint IQ]

Obviously we are smaller size club to Atletico Madrid but we are very similar to them in that we sell players for huge fees most summers then reinvest in players for far less and now we have nearly exactly the same priced squad. Although they spent over 25m on a striker this summer.

[verlaine1979]

#England's Academy

 

 

why the hell are people so quick to drop davis.

 

It"s because he's been rubbish for about a year now and we need better, hth.

[VectisSaint]

It"s because he's been rubbish for about a year now and we need better, hth.

LOL, as usual, obsessed with your personal hatred of Davis.

[Dig Dig]

I don't understand the problem you and some others have with our business model. We buy players for the position we are (or produce our own) at a relatively small cost and once they are at a level, when they feel they need to be playing CL football, we sell them on for a phenomenal amount of money, which is in turn reinvested in our playing squad and facilities. We are not a top 6 team and with FFP, we are never going to be one. Our success is to try and be the best of the rest and to be fair, we are doing a pretty good job at that and there is no reason to think we can't continue, even with our p!55 poor net spend.

 

There is no problem with that model but the reality is that it's far too early to suggest that this is sustainable for Saints on the assumption that a) the vast majority of our big sales have been academy products and the pipeline is not looking great as it gets harder for players to get into the first team. The others have been young, high potential English players, the likes of which he haven't signed since Clyne and Rodriguez and b) how many players do we have in the squad at the moment who would attract the fee's needed for this model to work? We'll be lucky to recoup what we paid for Wanyama now and Mane is the only other realistic one.

 

If we're doing what we're doing now in 5 years time then brilliant but I think too many on here are pretty naive to call this out as sustainable model based on what is essentially one season. Except for Mane, none of the signings we made last year meet the profile of a player we'll be selling on for big bucks any time soon.

[CB Fry]

There is no problem with that model but the reality is that it's far too early to suggest that this is sustainable for Saints on the assumption that a) the vast majority of our big sales have been academy products and the pipeline is not looking great as it gets harder for players to get into the first team. The others have been young, high potential English players, the likes of which he haven't signed since Clyne and Rodriguez and b) how many players do we have in the squad at the moment who would attract the fee's needed for this model to work? We'll be lucky to recoup what we paid for Wanyama now and Mane is the only other realistic one.

 

If we're doing what we're doing now in 5 years time then brilliant but I think too many on here are pretty naive to call this out as sustainable model based on what is essentially one season. Except for Mane, none of the signings we made last year meet the profile of a player we'll be selling on for big bucks any time soon.

That's not really a problem either is it?

 

If our academy players are only good enough for us (like, at present, JWP, let's lump Targett in too) then that's fine because that saves us buying a CM and a LB. Perfect.

 

If we get three seasons from Victor and flog next season for £15m ish, that's okay, we wouldn't spend more than that replacing him anyway. No worries.

 

Mane having a 15 goal season this year will make him a £30m player, we won't be able to keep him. Fine.

 

If we don't sell for big bucks we have a stable team (the thing that people have been moaning about while referencing Everton etc etc) if we do sell for big bucks then we have some big bucks to spend some on replacements.

 

There's a misunderstanding of our model. It isn't about having to sell players on. It's not about selling high to buy cheap. We don't have to sell anyone.

 

It's about building the best team we can afford to finish as high as we can.

 

Part of building the best team we can afford is we will end up with brilliant players that other clubs will pay more than we can afford, so we can't keep them all because we are building the best team we can afford and we cannot and will not afford to keep them.

 

If we don't have enough brilliant players we don't end up finishing as high as we can afford but we don't sell as many. But we can still afford the team.

 

Either end of the scale we will not a) over invest so we have a team we can't afford or b) under invest, flog everything, keep the money etc.

 

We are run brilliantly, but it's pretty tedious to see how the club is run being perpetually picked over for faults and our successes dismissed as the club "getting lucky".

 

Spoiler alert. In the next five years Saints might finish fifteenth in the Premier League. It's far more likely than finishing fourth. Brace yourself for it. But finishing fourth or fifteenth I hope we do it in a cost neutral, sustainable way.

Edited 5 September, 2015 by CB Fry

[SaintBobby]

There is no problem with that model but the reality is that it's far too early to suggest that this is sustainable for Saints on the assumption that a) the vast majority of our big sales have been academy products and the pipeline is not looking great as it gets harder for players to get into the first team. The others have been young, high potential English players, the likes of which he haven't signed since Clyne and Rodriguez and b) how many players do we have in the squad at the moment who would attract the fee's needed for this model to work? We'll be lucky to recoup what we paid for Wanyama now and Mane is the only other realistic one.

 

If we're doing what we're doing now in 5 years time then brilliant but I think too many on here are pretty naive to call this out as sustainable model based on what is essentially one season. Except for Mane, none of the signings we made last year meet the profile of a player we'll be selling on for big bucks any time soon.

 

Agree with this. I think we were probably right this year to sell two players for a total of £40m and then buy 8 players for about £5m each (ok, that's an oversimplification, but broadly right)

 

But next year, if we sell Wanyama and Mane for £40m, we really don't need 8 new £5m players - we need one or two superstars.

 

I'm also a bit worried that the academy production line seems to have dried up a little. Harry Reid hasn't burst into the first team. And the others seems to be way off to the fringes.

 

Ok, there's no way you can produce a Bale, Walcott or Shaw every single year. But for the first time in a long while, when I'm asked by fans of other clubs "So, who are the next 2 or 3 Saints academy players to keep an eye on?", I'm struggling for an answer.

[Sour Mash]

And apparently (I can't remember which newspaper I read it in) we are the only Premier club to have made a profit during the transfer season.

£ 0.3 million) Can this be verified?

0.3 million.

 

Always hard to know exactly, as you've got stuff like singing on fees, agents fees etc, but looks a small profit or breaking even, which is no bad thing, but does raise the question a bit on why we didn't sign better than Martina, a back up keeper or better creative input from midfield. Time will tell I guess, and it'll be interesting to review the accounts, the impact of training ground, Osvaldo, Ramirez, Mayuka etc.

[Dig Dig]

That's not really a problem either is it?

 

If our academy players are only good enough for us (like, at present, JWP, let's lump Targett in too) then that's fine because that saves us buying a CM and a LB. Perfect.

 

If we get three seasons from Victor and flog next season for £15m ish, that's okay, we wouldn't spend more than that replacing him anyway. No worries.

 

Mane having a 15 goal season this year will make him a £30m player, we won't be able to keep him. Fine.

 

If we don't sell for big bucks we have a stable team (the thing that people have been moaning about while referencing Everton etc etc) if we do sell for big bucks then we have some big bucks to spend some on replacements.

 

There's a misunderstanding of our model. It isn't about having to sell players on. It's not about selling high to buy cheap. We don't have to sell anyone.

 

It's about building the best team we can afford to finish as high as we can.

 

Part of building the best team we can afford is we will end up with brilliant players that other clubs will pay more than we can afford, so we can't keep them all because we are building the best team we can afford and we cannot and will not afford to keep them.

 

We are run brilliantly, but it's pretty tedious to see how the club is run being perpetually picked over for faults and our successes dismissed as the club "getting lucky".

 

Spoiler alert. In the next five years Saints might finish fifteenth in the Premier League. It's far more likely than finishing fourth. Brace yourself for it. But finishing fourth or fifteenth I hope we do it in a cost neutral, sustainable way.

 

The poster I replied to was saying exactly that, that we will buy cheap or use academy players to sell big.

 

If within 5 years we go from knocking on the door of the top 4 to 15th or whatever (which could be a handful of points away from the Championship) then I wouldn't say that it's an example of being brilliantly run although that could easily happen. I'm guessing you'll qualify this by claiming it will be great as long as we go on a cup run but seeing as we've horrible in the cups for some time now, I wouldn't hold your breathe.

[CB Fry]

The poster I replied to was saying exactly that, that we will buy cheap or use academy players to sell big.

 

If within 5 years we go from knocking on the door of the top 4 to 15th or whatever (which could be a handful of points away from the Championship) then I wouldn't say that it's an example of being brilliantly run although that could easily happen. I'm guessing you'll qualify this by claiming it will be great as long as we go on a cup run but seeing as we've horrible in the cups for some time now, I wouldn't hold your breathe.

The point is we can still finish fifteenth if we start over spending or taking a different path. Fifteenth won't be a successful season - with our budget it will be a failure - but it could happen.

 

Chances are we won't see loads of departures to big clubs if we do ever finish there, which judging by some of the mournful totting up of the last two years (eight players we let go etc etc) would be a dream come true right?

 

The club can only be run the as best as it can.To finish as high as we can within what we can afford. Sounds good to me. Like every method it's not guaranteed to work. The only thing we can try and guarantee is to not financially screw ourselves.

[Graffito]

That's not really a problem either is it?

 

If our academy players are only good enough for us (like, at present, JWP, let's lump Targett in too) then that's fine because that saves us buying a CM and a LB. Perfect.

 

If we get three seasons from Victor and flog next season for £15m ish, that's okay, we wouldn't spend more than that replacing him anyway. No worries.

 

Mane having a 15 goal season this year will make him a £30m player, we won't be able to keep him. Fine.

 

If we don't sell for big bucks we have a stable team (the thing that people have been moaning about while referencing Everton etc etc) if we do sell for big bucks then we have some big bucks to spend some on replacements.

 

There's a misunderstanding of our model. It isn't about having to sell players on. It's not about selling high to buy cheap. We don't have to sell anyone.

 

It's about building the best team we can afford to finish as high as we can.

 

Part of building the best team we can afford is we will end up with brilliant players that other clubs will pay more than we can afford, so we can't keep them all because we are building the best team we can afford and we cannot and will not afford to keep them.

 

If we don't have enough brilliant players we don't end up finishing as high as we can afford but we don't sell as many. But we can still afford the team.

 

Either end of the scale we will not a) over invest so we have a team we can't afford or b) under invest, flog everything, keep the money etc.

 

We are run brilliantly, but it's pretty tedious to see how the club is run being perpetually picked over for faults and our successes dismissed as the club "getting lucky".

 

Spoiler alert. In the next five years Saints might finish fifteenth in the Premier League. It's far more likely than finishing fourth. Brace yourself for it. But finishing fourth or fifteenth I hope we do it in a cost neutral, sustainable way.

 

Model's good. As ever, the uncertainty is in the execution. So far so very good and we'll see how we go over coming seasons.

[The Kraken]

That's not really a problem either is it?

 

If our academy players are only good enough for us (like, at present, JWP, let's lump Targett in too) then that's fine because that saves us buying a CM and a LB. Perfect.

 

If we get three seasons from Victor and flog next season for £15m ish, that's okay, we wouldn't spend more than that replacing him anyway. No worries.

 

Mane having a 15 goal season this year will make him a £30m player, we won't be able to keep him. Fine.

 

If we don't sell for big bucks we have a stable team (the thing that people have been moaning about while referencing Everton etc etc) if we do sell for big bucks then we have some big bucks to spend some on replacements.

 

There's a misunderstanding of our model. It isn't about having to sell players on. It's not about selling high to buy cheap. We don't have to sell anyone.

 

It's about building the best team we can afford to finish as high as we can.

 

Part of building the best team we can afford is we will end up with brilliant players that other clubs will pay more than we can afford, so we can't keep them all because we are building the best team we can afford and we cannot and will not afford to keep them.

 

If we don't have enough brilliant players we don't end up finishing as high as we can afford but we don't sell as many. But we can still afford the team.

 

Either end of the scale we will not a) over invest so we have a team we can't afford or b) under invest, flog everything, keep the money etc.

 

We are run brilliantly, but it's pretty tedious to see how the club is run being perpetually picked over for faults and our successes dismissed as the club "getting lucky".

 

Spoiler alert. In the next five years Saints might finish fifteenth in the Premier League. It's far more likely than finishing fourth. Brace yourself for it. But finishing fourth or fifteenth I hope we do it in a cost neutral, sustainable way.

Pretty much agree with all of that. There was a lot of anger at the loss of so many players over two summers; a sense of "why do no other clubs lose so many players?" Well no other clubs of our size had lit up the Premier League since we arrived with a free flowing style of football and then finished 8th and 7th. The players at clubs who finished lower than that were, quite simply, not as good as our players and therefore not as attractive to the bigger clubs. So they kept them. It's the downside of the relative success of finishing higher up the table, the better we do the more our players are in the shop window. And unless we start lashing around wages of £70k, £80k, £100K a week then more often than not, we're not going to be able to fend off those approaches. As CBF says, I'm perfectly alright with that. It will mean that some years will be less successful than others and we'll finish in the lower half. That gives a stable platform to rebuild and improve; again I have no problem with that approach.

 

It's when the club start devaluing the cups that I would have a problem. Koeman really doesn't do that, so we're in good hands for as long as we can keep him.

[verlaine1979]

LOL, as usual, obsessed with your personal hatred of Davis.

 

You're far too emotional... I'm sure he's a lovely bloke, it's just obvious to see why he's no longer in most people's best XI.

[shurlock]

There is no problem with that model but the reality is that it's far too early to suggest that this is sustainable for Saints on the assumption that a) the vast majority of our big sales have been academy products and the pipeline is not looking great as it gets harder for players to get into the first team. The others have been young, high potential English players, the likes of which he haven't signed since Clyne and Rodriguez and b) how many players do we have in the squad at the moment who would attract the fee's needed for this model to work? We'll be lucky to recoup what we paid for Wanyama now and Mane is the only other realistic one.

 

If we're doing what we're doing now in 5 years time then brilliant but I think too many on here are pretty naive to call this out as sustainable model based on what is essentially one season. Except for Mane, none of the signings we made last year meet the profile of a player we'll be selling on for big bucks any time soon.

 

Exactly. People have been spoilt by the last few years - a once-in-a-generation-pipeline-of-talent, likened to Fergie's Fledgings- that they are confusing the exception for a rule, even for a well-run Academy like ours.

 

Alas, buy low, sell high has become the new simpleton's charter. If only it was that simple, everyone would be doing it, though of course, profit opportunities would also dry up. Perhaps we're especially skilled at unearthing talent but the reality is that everyone is investing heavily in scouting and recruitment. As you say, we've seen to have stopped buying English which is expensive but potentially the most lucrative. Instead, we're like looking to the likes of Juanmi, Cedric, Gardos, Clasie, Romeu to break through.

 

As you say, Mané should be the next one to turn a significant profit -and possibly JWP by the virtue of the fact that he's young and English. But beyond that? Wanyama -we'll be lucky to earn a small markup on what we paid for him. Bertrand is a £15m player (£5m), assuming a side like Liverpool want him.

 

All this is a reminder that to successfully sell high in today's market requires players who are ready for the big four. Being good or promising is not enough. After the biggest teams, the falloff is steep and significant -just look at Spurs or Everton's relatively frugal willingness to pay. If anything, the more pressing task is to ensure that our big outlays Long, Pelle, Tadic don't depreciate in value, a prospect that's as, if not more likely than a churlish faith in buy low, sell high.

 

There seems to be an acceptance we may slip down the table in some years; but little awareness of what that means for the sustainability of the business model. While there are exceptions, teams that struggle are less likely to command the highest fees for players. The halo effect of success cannot be underestimated. In large part, that's why Swansea or Stoke's players haven't got picked off.

 

Perhaps we'll buck the trend; but I doubt it. Either way, the next few summers will be an interesting test - it remains to be seen how much net investment is forthcoming if we can no longer rely on capital appreciation of players to fund our transfers. Of course, all this is perfectly consistent with sound, sustainable business, though you wouldn't always guess that from some of the drivel and scare-mongering on here.

[Dig Dig]

The point is we can still finish fifteenth if we start over spending or taking a different path. Fifteenth won't be a successful season - with our budget it will be a failure - but it could happen.

 

Chances are we won't see loads of departures to big clubs if we do ever finish there, which judging by some of the mournful totting up of the last two years (eight players we let go etc etc) would be a dream come true right?

 

The club can only be run the as best as it can.To finish as high as we can within what we can afford. Sounds good to me. Like every method it's not guaranteed to work. The only thing we can try and guarantee is to not financially screw ourselves.

 

The mournful part about the number of players sold has been their sheer quality and it begs to question whether we achieved enough with players who are now competing for silerware every single season.

 

Of course people wouldn't be happy to see us 15th but have players not wanted by others. As you say, there are no guarantees in any approach but there is a lot of waffle on here from some posters suggesting that we'll just keep doing what we have been doing over the last couple of seasons. We won't and can't. IMO.

[CB Fry]

Exactly. People have been spoilt by the last few years - a once-in-a-generation-pipeline-of-talent, likened to Fergie's Fledgings- that they are confusing the exception for a rule, even for a well-run Academy like ours.

 

Alas, buy low, sell high has become the new simpleton's charter. If only it was that simple, everyone would be doing it, though of course, profit opportunities would also dry up. Perhaps we're especially skilled at unearthing talent but the reality is that everyone is investing heavily in scouting and recruitment. As you say, we've seen to have stopped buying English which is expensive but potentially the most lucrative. Instead, we're like looking to the likes of Juanmi, Cedric, Gardos, Clasie, Romeu to break through.

 

As you say, Mané should be the next one to turn a significant profit -and possibly JWP by the virtue of the fact that he's young and English. But beyond that? Wanyama -we'll be lucky to earn a small markup on what we paid for him. Bertrand is a £15m player (£5m), assuming a side like Liverpool want him.

 

All this is a reminder that to successfully sell high in today's market requires players who are ready for the big four. Being good or promising is not enough. After the biggest teams, the falloff is steep and significant -just look at Spurs or Everton's relatively frugal willingness to pay. If anything, the more pressing task is to ensure that our big outlays Long, Pelle, Tadic don't depreciate in value, a prospect that's as, if not more likely than a churlish faith in buy low, sell high.

 

There seems to be an acceptance we may slip down the table in some years; but little awareness of what that means for the sustainability of the business model. While there are exceptions, teams that struggle are less likely to command the highest fees for players. The halo effect of success cannot be underestimated. In large part, that's why Swansea or Stoke's players haven't got picked off.

 

Perhaps we'll buck the trend; but I doubt it. Either way, the next few summers will be an interesting test - it remains to be seen how much net investment is forthcoming if we can no longer rely on capital appreciation of players to fund our transfers. Of course, all this is perfectly consistent with sound, sustainable business, though you wouldn't always guess that from some of the drivel and scare-mongering on here.

 

Why are you so completely obsessed with what fees we might receive?

 

Strange you are calling other people simpletons when you have no grasp whatsoever of what our business model is.

[CB Fry]

The mournful part about the number of players sold has been their sheer quality and it begs to question whether we achieved enough with players who are now competing for silerware every single season.

 

Of course people wouldn't be happy to see us 15th but have players not wanted by others. As you say, there are no guarantees in any approach but there is a lot of waffle on here from some posters suggesting that we'll just keep doing what we have been doing over the last couple of seasons. We won't and can't. IMO.

 

The only things we will keep doing is a) not over spend on fees or wages b) invest in the academy in the hope we keep seeing one come through per season c) try and sign semi - ready gems like Mané/Tadic for decent sums d) strive to finish as high as possible.

 

That's what we'll keep doing.

 

Why "won't" we or "can't" we do that?

[shurlock]

Why are you so completely obsessed with what fees we might receive?

 

Strange you are calling other people simpletons when you have no grasp whatsoever of what our business model is.

 

F**k me, you're a slow one. Because those fees (and profits) have enabled us to invest in the squad in the absence of substantial net spend. The table you happily lapped up, showing we have the seventh most valuable squad is only possible because of the huge fees we've generated for players. Let me spell it out again for you, our ability to build the squad is driven almost entirely by the fees we've received for the likes of Shaw, Schneiderlin, Chambers, Lallana, Oxo, Clyne and in the future, no doubt, Mané. I assume they ring a bell?

 

Strangely, the majority of posters on this thread see fees, whether from Academy prospects or talent we've bought in and sold on, as central to our business model. The obsession is not mine.

 

A word of advice: stick to your lawro, jack cork or box of frogs routine. Theres a good lad.

Edited 5 September, 2015 by shurlock

[Dig Dig]

The only things we will keep doing is a) not over spend on fees or wages b) invest in the academy in the hope we keep seeing one come through per season c) try and sign semi - ready gems like Mané/Tadic for decent sums d) strive to finish as high as possible.

 

That's what we'll keep doing.

 

 

Why "won't" we or "can't" we do that?

 

Lets just see how we get on without a massive windwall of £150M through player sales to invest in the squad from a set of players who collectively cost next to nothing to bring into the side. If we're acting relatively conservatively in those circumstances and with fhe huge riches which the PL brings, I wonder what what we'll be looking like in a couple of years time on all fronts.

[Whitey Grandad]

Lets just see how we get on without a massive windwall of £150M through player sales to invest in the squad from a set of players who collectively cost next to nothing to bring into the side. If we're acting relatively conservatively in those circumstances and with fhe huge riches which the PL brings, I wonder what what we'll be looking like in a couple of years time on all fronts.

 

Don't forget that we have gone up two divisions so you would expect a team in our position to have cost £150m more than the original. Now that we have established this new team 'all' we need to do is fund replacements and running costs.

[CB Fry]

F**k me, you're a slow one. Because those fees (and profits) have enabled us to invest in the squad in the absence of substantial net spend. The table you happily lapped up, showing we have the seventh most valuable squad is only possible because of the huge fees we've generated for players. Let me spell it out again for you, our ability to build the squad is driven almost entirely by the fees we've received for the likes of Shaw, Schneiderlin, Chambers, Lallana, Oxo, Clyne and in the future, no doubt, Mané. I assume they ring a bell?

 

Strangely, the majority of posters on this thread see fees, whether from Academy prospects or talent we've bought in and sold on, as central to our business model. The obsession is not mine.

 

A word of advice: stick to your lawro, jack cork or box of frogs routine. Theres a good lad.

That's funny because as far as I can see all you see when you look at those fees is how it negatively impacts our net spend and makes us look all unambitious and weak compared to the driven determined footballing powerhouses like Sunderland. I mean look at their net spend. Life is, like, so unfair ain't it Strawlock?

 

Our business model is not to to sell players high, it's just an output of the fact we have had brilliant players that the very biggest clubs want.

 

Understand yet? Nah, didn't think so.

 

Listen, I know you're upset that our club isn't going to be run like the little computer games you play, or like a casino run by a sink estate lottery winner on smack.

 

If I were you I'd leave things in the hands of the adults running the club. Unlike you, they have a fu cking clue.

[shurlock]

That's funny because as far as I can see all you see when you look at those fees is how it negatively impacts our net spend and makes us look all unambitious and weak compared to the driven determined footballing powerhouses like Sunderland. I mean look at their net spend. Life is, like, so unfair ain't it Strawlock?

 

Our business model is not to to sell players high, it's just an output of the fact we have had brilliant players that the very biggest clubs want.

 

Understand yet? Nah, didn't think so.

 

Listen, I know you're upset that our club isn't going to be run like the little computer games you play, or like a casino run by a sink estate lottery winner on smack.

 

If I were you I'd leave things in the hands of the adults running the club. Unlike you, they have a fu cking clue.

 

Again with the Sunderland reference which you alone conjured up for your own amusement. Guess it's your teeny, weeny crux in the absence of a convincing argument or anything else you may have. Smacks of desperation, so you can have it pal.

 

Talking of smack, glad to see the lottery-winner reference making a coming back, though again, the vacuuous, knee-jerk clichés give the impression of a child lashing out and don't really help you. Just need a reference to Stoke (RIP Pap) for a complete set, though I must admit my professional dealings with the Coates family have always been more than cordial. You can have that too

Edited 5 September, 2015 by shurlock

[CB Fry]

Again with the Sunderland reference which you alone conjured up for your own amusement. Guess it's your teeny, weeny crux in the absence of a convincing argument or anything else you may have. Smacks of desperation, so you can have it pal.

 

Talking of smack, glad to see the lottery-winner reference making a coming back, though again, the vacuuous, knee-jerk clichés give the impression of a child lashing out and don't really help you. Just need a reference to Stoke (RIP Pap) for a complete set, though I must admit my professional dealings with the Coates family have always been more than cordial

I think you can look further up the thread for my analysis of how the club has been run, is run now and will be run going forward.

 

You don't like it, that's your problem.

 

I fu cking love it.

[shurlock]

I think you can look further up the thread for my analysis of how the club has been run, is run now and will be run going forward.

 

You don't like it, that's your problem.

 

I fu cking love it.

 

Nah, I'll leave you to think through your muddled, private thoughts. Nobody gives a flying ****. Far more interesting is to consider the possibilities and limits of being a 'showcase club' in Les Reed's own words- which, of course suggests that spotting 'hidden' talent and selling it for huge fees is a far more deliberate strategy than you intimate. But hey, what does Les Reed know.

 

http://readsouthampton.com/2015/07/14/les-reed-talks-schneiderlin-signings-and-snooping/

[Batman]

Nah, I'll leave you to think through your muddled, private thoughts. Nobody gives a flying ****. Far more interesting is to consider the possibilities and limits of being a 'showcase club' in Les Reed's own words- which, of course suggests that spotting 'hidden' talent and selling it for huge fees is a far more deliberate strategy than you intimate. But hey, what does Les Reed know.

 

http://readsouthampton.com/2015/07/14/les-reed-talks-schneiderlin-signings-and-snooping/

still not sure where Martina fits in with developing our own talent or signing players others may have thought twice on?

[CB Fry]

Nah, I'll leave you to think through your muddled, private thoughts. Nobody gives a flying ****. Far more interesting is to consider the possibilities and limits of being a 'showcase club' in Les Reed's own words- which, of course suggests that spotting 'hidden' talent and selling it for huge fees is a far more deliberate strategy than you intimate. But hey, what does Les Reed know.

 

http://readsouthampton.com/2015/07/14/les-reed-talks-schneiderlin-signings-and-snooping/

Jesus Christ.

 

He used showcase to distinguish the club from the accusations of 'selling' club which is what you are blubbering about.

 

If we uncover someone who turns out to be brilliant they will end up at a Champions League club for a big fee. Of course they will. It's an output of our scouting, recruitment and development. The other output is us finishing top eight or thereabouts.

 

Really, really not difficult.

[Whitey Grandad]

still not sure where Martina fits in with developing our own talent or signing players others may have thought twice on?

 

Maybe the club thinks they can develop his talent. Personally I don't think he's the worst player in the league but there obviously some room for improvement.

[doddisalegend]

still not sure where Martina fits in with developing our own talent or signing players others may have thought twice on?

 

erm I think Martina fits that category pretty well bet none of the big clubs (or any PL club) thought about signing him.

 

TBF though I doubt any strategy the club has is set in stone sometimes you just need a player to fit a gap in the squad (Long would fit that profile to). In Martina's case I'd guess there isn't a RB in the academy felt to be good enough and we needed a cheap back up for Cedric that fact Martina can (allegedly) play CB and LB makes him a useful squad utility player.

[shurlock]

Jesus Christ.

 

He used showcase to distinguish the club from the accusations of 'selling' club which is what you are blubbering about.

 

If we uncover someone who turns out to be brilliant they will end up at a Champions League club for a big fee. Of course they will. It's an output of our scouting, recruitment and development. The other output is us finishing top eight or thereabouts.

 

Really, really not difficult.

 

For you, it appears to be. Ultimately our ability to grow and thrive will depend on our ability to generate fees for players to offset the current meagre net spend. It's not the be all and end all given the risks and trade-offs but it will shape the decisions we make and the players we target. It has succeeded so far; let's see how successful it is going forward. It isn't that difficult. Enjoy the rest of the evening.

Edited 5 September, 2015 by shurlock