Shane Long

[Saint Charlie]

Wonder if we might be looking behind the scenes to offload Long if that gives us some room to bring in someone the Manager actually rates and who suits the team better?

 

Long probably wants regular football (in his preferred position) ahead of the Euros and he won't get that here. He is also the most dispensable player who is still worth something, although his value will start to drop substantially the older he gets and less he plays so makes sense to cash in now.

 

If we could get something like £6m from either a lower half PL side (Sunderland?) or a Championship promotion hopeful then we could reinvest.

 

Long still a strange signing for me. Hasn't done any worse than at his other clubs but just doesnt seem to suit our style and his lack of a first touch almost renders him useless out wide which is why he is rarely used there now. For the price I think its one that the Club probably regrets as could have found someone better at those figures.

 

Considering the above and also his sizeable wages (which could make him hard to shift) I wouldn't be bothered if we sorted something out that gave us room to try something different.

 

Football is ruthless and sometimes you have to make tough decisions to look to improve. He isn't good enough.

[shurlock]

#moneyball

[Whitey Grandad]

We would get very little for £6m and then any new players would need to adapt to our systems. I don't think January signings ever really hit the ground running.

[once_bitterne]

Would someone really be happy to pay £6m for Long?

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

Long is very likeable and I would imagine a great positive in the dressing room, particularly if there is a sing along.

 

As a footballer I certainly am always pleased when he comes on. He gives us something else.

[Saint Charlie]

Would someone really be happy to pay £6m for Long?

Well we paid someone £12m only just over a year ago? High profile goal versus Germany may help, plus he knows the English leagues.

 

If we can't get £6m then it shows how poor a signing he was!

[Saint Charlie]

Long is very likeable and I would imagine a great positive in the dressing room, particularly if there is a sing along.

 

As a footballer I certainly am always pleased when he comes on. He gives us something else.

So is Kelvin, but that doesn't win points.

 

Fans like him because he runs around a lot (although is poor at tracking opposing full backs).

 

Is that enough?

[The9]

If we can't get £6m then it shows how poor a signing he was!

 

It shows how player values are affected by contract terms and buyer's needs.

 

There's absolutely no reason to sell him, he's doing exactly the job he was signed to do.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

If we sold him we'd get more than £6m. We won't be selling him though.

[scotty]

I'd be amazed if shane long was sold in january, or the summer for that matter. Seriously, who could we buy for the money we'd get that would be a significant improvement? In any case, I don't get the criticism he seems to have been getting on here lately. He's a particular type of player who was brought in to do a specific type of job, he was never likely to start every game.

[doddisalegend]

He is a decent last 20 minute sub to bring on when the other team is tiring. He is one of the few players on our bench you feel might nick a goal or change a game late on at the moment. I rather we bought another striker to push Pelle and kept long as well HTBH.

[Saint Charlie]

It shows how player values are affected by contract terms and buyer's needs.

 

There's absolutely no reason to sell him, he's doing exactly the job he was signed to do.

So we were panic buyers paying over the odds? He still has 2.5 years of contract left so that will have no bearing on the price you get.

 

If we have to sell to buy then why not sell him? His contribution is disproportionate to his fee/salary. The Manager doesn't trust him and only picks him when he has no other option.

[Saint Charlie]

Would you all just keep him for the four years of his contract then?

 

12m plus probably £7m in wages over that time.

 

For a very mediocre player who will never be a regular starter.

 

Surely those are the ones you let go to move forward? Or should we let him stay because he seems like a good lad and might nick the odd goal (his PL average return is about 7 a season)?

 

All the teams we think we compete with would be looking to ship out and sign better.

[scotty]

Would you all just keep him for the four years of his contract then?

 

12m plus probably £7m in wages over that time.

 

For a very mediocre player who will never be a regular starter.

 

Surely those are the ones you let go to move forward? Or should we let him stay because he seems like a good lad and might nick the odd goal (his PL average return is about 7 a season)?

 

All the teams we think we compete with would be looking to ship out and sign better.

 

That's just not the case. He pressurises defences, and creates space for the main attack. That's what he was bought for and that's what he does.

[Saint Charlie]

That's just not the case. He pressurises defences, and creates space for the main attack. That's what he was bought for and that's what he does.

Have you got many examples of him doing that to good effect leading to goals for others?

 

To me the others don't want to combine with him because they don't trust his technical ability.

 

We often play worse when he comes on as a sub.

 

Over four years, what he brings isn't worth £19m - and he won't improve.

[Webby]

Yes please, sell.

 

He's one of those players that does something just good enough and just frequently enough to keep a manager happy and keep earning his no doubt enormous wage, but, for me, it just aint good enough. He's only gets a game cos we've got no-one else.

 

 

Unbelievable signing.

 

I said enough too much.

[Batman]

like him as a player

 

way over priced at £12m

way too much

[Verbal Kint]

Like his attitude and think he has something to offer when played up front but 12 million was far too much and unfortunately the money he's on won't be matched elsewhere anytime soon. Very much doubt he would be interested in moving when he's on good money.

 

it seems madness to me that we paid so much money for a squad player and actually made him one of the bigger earners at the club

[The9]

So we were panic buyers paying over the odds? He still has 2.5 years of contract left so that will have no bearing on the price you get.

 

If we have to sell to buy then why not sell him? His contribution is disproportionate to his fee/salary. The Manager doesn't trust him and only picks him when he has no other option.

 

We paid what we were prepared to pay for a player we obviously wanted a lot, who is fulfilling the role he probably expected to.

 

Sold by Hull (3 years left on contract) cost £12m

Sold by West Brom (1 year left on contract) cost £7m

Sold by Reading (1 year left on contract) cost £6m

 

Having 2.5 years on his contract clearly has a huge bearing on his value compared to 1 year.

[The9]

Like his attitude and think he has something to offer when played up front but 12 million was far too much and unfortunately the money he's on won't be matched elsewhere anytime soon. Very much doubt he would be interested in moving when he's on good money.

 

it seems madness to me that we paid so much money for a squad player and actually made him one of the bigger earners at the club

 

He's a striker, strikers always get the most money.

[ART]

Long expressed that he wants to play down south as his family were unsettled up north, so that leaves few clubs whom we could sell him too. Perhaps the Cherries would take him on loan. Can't see us getting decent money for him seeing his lack of goals.

[Saint Charlie]

We paid what we were prepared to pay for a player we obviously wanted a lot, who is fulfilling the role he probably expected to.

 

Sold by Hull (3 years left on contract) cost £12m

Sold by West Brom (1 year left on contract) cost £7m

Sold by Reading (1 year left on contract) cost £6m

 

Having 2.5 years on his contract clearly has a huge bearing on his value compared to 1 year.

Yeah, that what I meant. He has 2.5 years left now, so no reason not to get at least £6m unless:

 

a.) nobody wants him enough

b.) he is ****e,

c.) he is on top much money

d.) all the above

 

Move him on and reinvest in a better player to improve the team.

Edited 7 December, 2015 by Saint Charlie

[Verbal Kint]

He's a striker, strikers always get the most money.

 

He's on close to 50k a week. That's an insane amount of money to be paying someone to sit on the bench most weeks

[Wade Garrett]

Why do we need to sell anyone to buy new players?

 

We haven't spent a penny on transfers in the past couple of seasons when you look at our net transfer business.

[Donatello]

Would you all just keep him for the four years of his contract then?

 

12m plus probably £7m in wages over that time.

 

For a very mediocre player who will never be a regular starter.

 

Surely those are the ones you let go to move forward? Or should we let him stay because he seems like a good lad and might nick the odd goal (his PL average return is about 7 a season)?

 

All the teams we think we compete with would be looking to ship out and sign better.

 

His Premier League goal return ratio (i.e. mins per goal) isn't far off of Pele's. Ergo, his goal return, in a wide position, should probably be considered decent enough.

Edited 7 December, 2015 by Donatello

[Whitey Grandad]

Who would you replace him with, another Shane Long?

[stevegrant]

Why do we need to sell anyone to buy new players?

 

We haven't spent a penny on transfers in the past couple of seasons when you look at our net transfer business.

Yes, because transfer fees are the only cost associated with signing a player.

 

Our wage bill has increased from £47m to £72m in the last three seasons, which has just about been covered by a combination of incoming fees and an increase in the TV deal. Next season, when the new TV deal kicks in, with an increase of around 70%, is when we will have a LOT more freedom with wages - the obvious issue is that everyone else will have the same freedom.

[stevegrant]

Long would get 6-7m and be a good signing for a Bournemouth, Villa, Sunderland, Norwich. He could play each week as a striker for these teams and they won't have much choice in January.

 

But we won't cut our losses like that will we.

And why would we? Our problem is supposedly a lack of depth and people are advocating selling one of the few players who provides a potential game-changing option.

[Wade Garrett]

Yes, because transfer fees are the only cost associated with signing a player.

 

Our wage bill has increased from £47m to £72m in the last three seasons, which has just about been covered by a combination of incoming fees and an increase in the TV deal. Next season, when the new TV deal kicks in, with an increase of around 70%, is when we will have a LOT more freedom with wages - the obvious issue is that everyone else will have the same freedom.

 

Makes you wonder how all the other clubs, who spend money in the windows, manage.

[david in sweden]

unless you are choosing between him and Pelle .. and have the guarantee that Pelle will find his form again, and won't get injured for the rest of the season,.....

....... and that JayRod will return sooner than expected - and hit the top level form he had two years ago. ........then I 'd forget it.

 

He has (arugueably) the best record for a "super sub." - as the majority of his goals have been as an oncoming substitute.

[Verbal Kint]

Long would get 6-7m and be a good signing for a Bournemouth, Villa, Sunderland, Norwich. He could play each week as a striker for these teams and they won't have much choice in January.

 

But we won't cut our losses like that will we.

 

Why would Long want to join them when he's on wages here he'll never get offered elsewhere?

[stevegrant]

Makes you wonder how all the other clubs, who spend money in the windows, manage.

Most of them have bigger incomes than we do.

[Hodgey]

It was a panic buy, and a bad one in retrospect. But at the time we had no recognised strikers (Pelle unproven in Prem) so no doubt the board were thinking it was a £12m safety net against relegation - which I don't have a problem with. His £50k a week I do and all things being equal I would be tempted to get rid, however as pointed out come the summer every average PL player is likely to be demanding £50k a week so it's pointless spending another £12m and £50k a week on a potentially worse player (given higher demand). What this does of course do is shine a light as to the difficulty our sell high buy cheaper policy may have in the future - may be a prudent time to change that to sell high / buy high to attract the right standard of player. I've said before that the £36m wasted on Osvaldo/Long/Ramirez + £7.8m a year wages is actually what has cost us in our squad depth issue. Made me laugh when Fonte pointed out that Liverpool had a £20m player on the bench, we've had plenty of £12m players on the bench over the last few years !!

[Whitey Grandad]

Long is a very useful player. I'm pleased to have him in our squad. At least he knows where the goal is.

[Whitey Grandad]

It was a panic buy, and a bad one in retrospect. But at the time we had no recognised strikers (Pelle unproven in Prem) so no doubt the board were thinking it was a £12m safety net against relegation - which I don't have a problem with. His £50k a week I do and all things being equal I would be tempted to get rid, however as pointed out come the summer every average PL player is likely to be demanding £50k a week so it's pointless spending another £12m and £50k a week on a potentially worse player (given higher demand). What this does of course do is shine a light as to the difficulty our sell high buy cheaper policy may have in the future - may be a prudent time to change that to sell high / buy high to attract the right standard of player. I've said before that the £36m wasted on Osvaldo/Long/Ramirez + £7.8m a year wages is actually what has cost us in our squad depth issue. Made me laugh when Fonte pointed out that Liverpool had a £20m player on the bench, we've had plenty of £12m players on the bench over the last few years !!

 

What makes you say that? He's certainly not bad buy in the sense that Osvaldo was.

[stevegrant]

I genuinely find it incredible that people are lumping Long in with Dani ****ing Osvaldo in the "waste of money" stakes. They are not even remotely in the same ballpark.

[Ivan Katalinic's 'tache]

Sometimes, at home, I wish we'd stick Tadic wide left, Mane wide right, two defensive centre mids & Pellè with Long (or Juanmi) up front & just have a f**king go. It's working for Leicester at the moment but I guess it doesn't fit in with the current 4-3-3 philosophy of the club. Me, as a pragmatist, I'd just do whatever best gets us a result.

[eddie]

strange post. I feel the OP has already made up his mind....but here goes a counter argument for what it's worth

 

what do you mean by reinvest? in who? either we go for

 

- player from the prem; and people will complain because it'll require a lot of cash (his resale value + some more, if we're honest) to get someone who is an upgrade on long, in today's market, and already proven in PL - even if long isn't setting the world alight

- foreign player; and people will complain they need time to adapt and they are unknown

 

the club won't sell shane because we don't have any other pacey centre forwards/number 9's to stretch defenses. shifting around mane and rodriguez or bringing on juanmi just creates a problem somewhere else on the pitch. Juanmi can't play the position he played in spain here. so long is really the only guy we have for that and who else would you get? I think he's an alright bench option. Just, if we play him, we can't play the kind of football we play with pelle. I think RK overestimates his ability to play in tight nit gaps where he's closed down easily and needs to have a kind of first touch he'll never have.

 

summary: useful player, and replacing better-for-like is going to be costly; which realistically isn't our priority position (more CM..RB...?) for spending cash

 

see how long performs this season. last season - 7 assists 7 goals is fine for me.

 

I'd love to have options in our squad like watmore (thought he was outstanding against us earlier in season), even people like (hate me, but) Kane/Wilson type players. in other words fowards who are actually capable of challenging for first team places. I'm willing to give targeet a game every so often, and very alright with reed to start - but other than the ever mythical gallagher/seager - is there anyone you'd actually trust to start for our front line who is young and hungry?

[Saint Charlie]

I've considered other arguments, absolutely.

 

But for the purpose of the thread I am saying I would try and move him on and find someone else.

 

Thats not too outrageous.

 

He is an ok player and handy bench option, although for a team of our size I would expect more for that outlay.

 

I think by letting him go the scouting guys can find a better player. The likes of Jay Rod, Mane, Tadic, Pelle all cost less than Long and are (far) superior so I would admit when it isn't working, try & recoup as much as possible then try again.

 

Shane Long isn't providing competition for Pelle because he isn't trusted by the Manager. He will never be a regular starter for us and will cost close to £20m across the 4 years of his contract.

 

So sell him and try and bring in someone who will provide value and will impact the team more.

[doddisalegend]

Wonder if we might be looking behind the scenes to offload Long if that gives us some room to bring in someone the Manager actually rates and who suits the team better?

Long probably wants regular football (in his preferred position) ahead of the Euros and he won't get that here. He is also the most dispensable player who is still worth something, although his value will start to drop substantially the older he gets and less he plays so makes sense to cash in now.

 

If we could get something like £6m from either a lower half PL side (Sunderland?) or a Championship promotion hopeful then we could reinvest.

 

Long still a strange signing for me. Hasn't done any worse than at his other clubs but just doesnt seem to suit our style and his lack of a first touch almost renders him useless out wide which is why he is rarely used there now. For the price I think its one that the Club probably regrets as could have found someone better at those figures.

 

Considering the above and also his sizeable wages (which could make him hard to shift) I wouldn't be bothered if we sorted something out that gave us room to try something different.

 

Football is ruthless and sometimes you have to make tough decisions to look to improve. He isn't good enough.

 

Given Koeman's comments the other week it seems unlikely

 

However, Saints boss Koeman says there is no chance that the Senegal winger, or anyone else, will be leaving when the transfer window re-opens.

 

'No, no, not in January,' he said. 'Already we spoke about that situation and we sell nobody in January.

 

'Nobody, even when they pay £100million.'

 

of course if someone offers us £100million for Shane Long Koeman might be tempted to back track.....

[Red]

Wonder if we might be looking behind the scenes to offload Long if that gives us some room to bring in someone the Manager actually rates and who suits the team better?

 

Long probably wants regular football (in his preferred position) ahead of the Euros and he won't get that here. He is also the most dispensable player who is still worth something, although his value will start to drop substantially the older he gets and less he plays so makes sense to cash in now.

 

If we could get something like £6m from either a lower half PL side (Sunderland?) or a Championship promotion hopeful then we could reinvest.

 

Long still a strange signing for me. Hasn't done any worse than at his other clubs but just doesnt seem to suit our style and his lack of a first touch almost renders him useless out wide which is why he is rarely used there now. For the price I think its one that the Club probably regrets as could have found someone better at those figures.

 

Considering the above and also his sizeable wages (which could make him hard to shift) I wouldn't be bothered if we sorted something out that gave us room to try something different.

 

Football is ruthless and sometimes you have to make tough decisions to look to improve. He isn't good enough.

 

I am guessing, you did not hear about RK saying we will not sell anyone in January - even if we are offered a £100M?

[Batman]

I am guessing, you did not hear about RK saying we will not sell anyone in January - even if we are offered a £100M?

 

clearly, if united or Madrid offered £100m, he would be driven to where ever the offer came from

 

but i get his meaning

[Window Cleaner]

clearly, if united or Madrid offered £100m, he would be driven to where ever the offer came from

 

but i get his meaning

 

It was just idiotic football manager speak anyway. He just needed to say he didn't foresee us selling any first team regular in January and leave it at that. The 100 million £ rider was totally unecessary.

[Window Cleaner]

Because they don't think he does. I have no interest in keeping substitutes who offer that little.

 

Who'd want to buy him anyway really? Some club or other needs to be motivated enough to pay the initial price and then pay him 40K a week or whatever...just because we were stupid enough to pay 12 million £ for him it doesn't mean anyone else will be to pay even half of that.

 

Anyway we're not selling anyone...honest guv.

[Verbal Kint]

Because they don't think he does. I have no interest in keeping substitutes who offer that little.

 

I think he's done pretty well when starting as a striker. it's a shame we spent so much money on him and have failed to play him regularly in his position

[Batman]

I think he's done pretty well when starting as a striker. it's a shame we spent so much money on him and have failed to play him regularly in his position

 

he will never ever have a chance here as a central striker. not unless pelle has a long term injury or punches a referee

[stevegrant]

Because they don't think he does. I have no interest in keeping substitutes who offer that little.

In your world we'd only have a squad of 11 players then. Bravo.

 

And you advocate just using Jay Rodriguez. Who will be out injured (again) for a period of time and will need to get back to fitness before being a) available, and b) of any tangible use. Wonderful.

[Village Saint]

And why would we? Our problem is supposedly a lack of depth and people are advocating selling one of the few players who provides a potential game-changing option.

 

Absolutely and why Long? You can criticise other players for not fitting the bill but Long has done exactly what was expected. The price is irrelevant. We wanted him and paid what we needed to for him. The very definition of a good signing.

[Verbal Kint]

he will never ever have a chance here as a central striker. not unless pelle has a long term injury or punches a referee

 

Which is clearly a fault of the manager

[stevegrant]

Which is clearly a fault of the manager

Not necessarily. Long is a decent player, but isn't better than our first-choice striker. Unless we're going to play regularly with two out-and-out strikers - which I sincerely doubt, considering our success has been built upon winning games in midfield - he's not going to be ahead of Pellè in the team when he's available.