Sadio Mane: "I don't want to stay at Southampton

[Redslo]

The club sells the players to make money. Even if they wanted to stay here for the rest of their careers, the club would still sell them at the point at which it felt it could make the most money out of them. Even if Mane loved Southampton Football club more than life itself, they would still sell him. Of course, they don't want their paying customers to think about that too much. Hence all of the inside stories about greedy players demanding to leave. Every single one of them, just before he's sold. We'll be hearing the same stories about van Dijk and Bertrand and whoever else they decide to cash in on next year.

 

I am pretty sure that if Schneiderlin had been willing to sign a new long term contract at 70K/week, the club would have been happy to keep him and forgo the 25M.

[Window Cleaner]

I am pretty sure that if Schneiderlin had been willing to sign a new long term contract at 70K/week, the club would have been happy to keep him and forgo the 25M.

 

Depends on how we planned on funding the purchases of players other than Clasie and Romeu I suppose. Not getting Toby for the knock down price that we thought we were getting from Atletico must have come as a bit of a blow to us, what was it about 7 million compared to the 13 we're said to have paid for VvD ? However what really surprises me is the 5.3 million £ in agents fees. Way way above our usual amount.

[shurlock]

Well not having the entire accounts in my head I'd hazard a guess that we as a club have a pretty top heavy administration and that it costs a great deal of money. How much do the Hampshire police take off of us in a season? We know that we paid a record (for us) 5.3 million £ agents fees this year, as we only have about 30 million £ left when the salaries etc have been paid it's not particulary difficult to imagine how it's spent.

 

Wtf?

[Window Cleaner]

Wtf?

 

How so ? The accounts are about somewhere for all to see, don't really see what you mean.

[cambsaint]

The only way any club can keep players is to have mega-rich owners who are prepared to put massive amounts of money, have a 45K min stadium, fill it nearly every week, have a large fanbase,excellent primary and secondary sponsors, be in the CL, and pay ludicrous wages.

Any player who would stay at Saints for 60K when they could get 100+K elsewhere must have a screw loose.

Everyone's first duty is to themselves and their family and that normally means maximising one's income within moral boundaries.

If we are going to be realistic we should be happy with reasonably football, top half on the PL, occasional forays into Europe, occasional cup successes and freedom from relegation fear.

I would be ecstatic if we could reproduce seasons like the last one with reasonable regularity.

Regarding Mane the club must try to keep him until summer, keep him motivated and sell him for absolute top money.

[shurlock]

How so ? The accounts are about somewhere for all to see, don't really see what you mean.

 

We've posted roughly £45m in post-tax profits over the past two years. Am sure the next set of accounts will add to that.

[ericb]

Personally the issue for me isn't losing players, quite frankly we're mental if we think that won't happen it's the reality of football these days.

 

To me the change I've seen is that on the way up through the league we signed the best of the rest around us, captains of sides, promising young players etc. What's apparent now is instead of picking off the best players around us - from sides like Palace, Stoke, West Brom etc. last season - to improve us and weaken them, we're trying to be a bit clever and go abroad.

 

If you look at the success of Everton and Spurs one thing they did well was cherry pick the better players from teams around them, and although in the short term they cost more the impact tends to be more instant (for two fold reasons).

 

Now i'm not suggesting we sign up all the best players around us, we couldn't do that, but if we could cherry pick two or three of the best from the bottom five, then one off a team directly below us, we'd be in a far better position and arguably just as sustainable as we are now.

[Redslo]

I'm not convinced we do. People always seem to factor in wages, contracts etc., but then obviously we've reduced the wage bill anyway when we sell players off.

 

I've become cynical about it, so i'd like to see player exchanges. Plus, think about the media and fans. We sell another like Mane, and there's minor meltdown at best. But if you have an instant big signing to replace them, people won't mind as much. I don't think there's much different in potential between Januzaj and Mane, think Man Utd gave up on him very easily when he's young and was always going to have a dodgy spell. I mean I'd love to see us sign him AND keep Mane. One right one central would be a far more dynamic attack for us.

 

I think it's best for all parties Mane stay another 18 months. He hasn't had a great season, he might well go and sit on the bench at a big club now. Perform well next season, we get £40m and he gets to go to the champions league and actually play.

 

we won't get 40 million with just one year left on his contract.

[Redslo]

We've posted roughly £45m in post-tax profits over the past two years. Am sure the next set of accounts will add to that.

 

When we buy players, their transfer fees are amortized over the life of the contract no matter when the cash is actually paid. On the other hand, transfer fees for the players we sell are income immediately (except for contingent add ons, of course). Thus, the 45 million is inflated relative to our true cash flow situation. Even more so if you assume, as I do, that the club wants to make sure money to pay salaries is available in case of an emergency (such as relegation, for example).

 

Personally the issue for me isn't losing players, quite frankly we're mental if we think that won't happen it's the reality of football these days.

 

To me the change I've seen is that on the way up through the league we signed the best of the rest around us, captains of sides, promising young players etc. What's apparent now is instead of picking off the best players around us - from sides like Palace, Stoke, West Brom etc. last season - to improve us and weaken them, we're trying to be a bit clever and go abroad.

 

If you look at the success of Everton and Spurs one thing they did well was cherry pick the better players from teams around them, and although in the short term they cost more the impact tends to be more instant (for two fold reasons).

 

Now i'm not suggesting we sign up all the best players around us, we couldn't do that, but if we could cherry pick two or three of the best from the bottom five, then one off a team directly below us, we'd be in a far better position and arguably just as sustainable as we are now.

 

I suspect we did not think that cherry picking other PL clubs would be the best use of money. Also, I really don't think we can expect to take players from Palace or other London clubs. And it is not clear to me which players from West Brom or Stoke we would have wanted this past summer. There might be some now, of course, but that is a different matter.

 

Really, all we are missing is getting lucky with a goal scorer like Leicester and Watford have done this year. I am relatively confident there is no way to ensure that you get lucky that way however.

[shurlock]

When we buy players, their transfer fees are amortized over the life of the contract no matter when the cash is actually paid. On the other hand, transfer fees for the players we sell are income immediately (except for contingent add ons, of course). Thus, the 45 million is inflated relative to our true cash flow situation. Even more so if you assume, as I do, that the club wants to make sure money to pay salaries is available in case of an emergency (such as relegation, for example

 

By the same token, those profits stand, notwithstanding they include the amortisation of players we bought well in the past i.e. the Ramirez of this world. On the other hand, haven't we brought forward the hit imposed by Osvaldo? And in the case of players like Shaw and Chambers in particular (but ultimately true of all the players we sold), contingent addons are likely to be pretty substantial.

Edited 7 January, 2016 by shurlock

[doddisalegend]

Personally the issue for me isn't losing players, quite frankly we're mental if we think that won't happen it's the reality of football these days.

 

To me the change I've seen is that on the way up through the league we signed the best of the rest around us, captains of sides, promising young players etc. What's apparent now is instead of picking off the best players around us - from sides like Palace, Stoke, West Brom etc. last season - to improve us and weaken them, we're trying to be a bit clever and go abroad.

 

If you look at the success of Everton and Spurs one thing they did well was cherry pick the better players from teams around them, and although in the short term they cost more the impact tends to be more instant (for two fold reasons).

 

Now i'm not suggesting we sign up all the best players around us, we couldn't do that, but if we could cherry pick two or three of the best from the bottom five, then one off a team directly below us, we'd be in a far better position and arguably just as sustainable as we are now.

 

Problem is any PL club will want a premium to sell their best players to a PL rival (lets face we absolutely gouged the big boys for some of our players). Buying 3 or 4 players from other PL teams would mostly likely be very expensive....Shane long comes to mind.

[The Cat]

How much do the Hampshire police take off of us in a season?

 

Not a lot. We only pay for any Officers in the ground and we rarely have a great deal of them.

[VectisSaint]

Not a lot. We only pay for any Officers in the ground and we rarely have a great deal of them.

We have a permanently (during matches) manned police station inside the ground, which we have to pay for, not just the Bobbies outside, which for many matches as you say are few and far between as you say. However for big grudge matches like Boscombe :-) there was a hefty police presence and those horses require a **** load of hay.

[Nordic Saint]

From a 2010 article:

 

Arsenal were the club paying most for policing last season.

 

They were charged almost £1.4million by the Metropolitan Police for their home games.

 

Greater Manchester Police refused to reveal figures for Manchester United, Manchester City, Wigan Athletic and Bolton Wanderers but sources said the force claimed £2.4million in total from the four clubs.

[Sour Mash]

Personally the issue for me isn't losing players, quite frankly we're mental if we think that won't happen it's the reality of football these days.

 

To me the change I've seen is that on the way up through the league we signed the best of the rest around us, captains of sides, promising young players etc. What's apparent now is instead of picking off the best players around us - from sides like Palace, Stoke, West Brom etc. last season - to improve us and weaken them, we're trying to be a bit clever and go abroad.

 

If you look at the success of Everton and Spurs one thing they did well was cherry pick the better players from teams around them, and although in the short term they cost more the impact tends to be more instant (for two fold reasons).

 

Now i'm not suggesting we sign up all the best players around us, we couldn't do that, but if we could cherry pick two or three of the best from the bottom five, then one off a team directly below us, we'd be in a far better position and arguably just as sustainable as we are now.

the best players from teams around us would cost £25m plus and we'd have to offer them big wages, never going to happen. Don't think we bought from too many competitors in the past either.

 

And apart from one or two exceptions I can't think of Spurs or Everton have done that.

 

But otherwise spot on.