Our half-witted fans don't know how lucky they are

[Noodles34]

I spend a lot of time on Saints Web during the transfer window in the hope of getting a sniff of what's going on behind the scenes at the club. This season, more that usual, I have a sense that no-one on here has a clue. The forum is a painful read.

 

One thing that is very clear though (and this is probably true of all football clubs) is that a lot of our fans aren't the brightest. Honestly, some of the rubbish you read on here:

 

- I'd take a punt on [hugely expensive mediocre high salary player past his market value peak]

- The club don't reinvest the funds from player sales [despite the published financial accounts in the public domain clearly showing that we do - http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/15155581.Saints_invest___94m_in_squad/]

- [high salary 1st team player] should be made to train with the kids, as if that makes a grain of sense either financially or for morale around the club

- The black box isn't working [while simultaneously moaning about much-loved recent signings being tapped up or signed by bigger clubs]

- The most laughable of all, which I saw today, is that the club isn't being run in a sustainable way! This despite the (relative) financial prudence of the club, and also the very obvious indications from our performance and growth since league 1, which has been the epitome of sustainable growth.

 

Yes, expensive signings are 'exciting', but they often don't make good business sense. We've had our fair share of flops (Gaston, Osvaldo etc), but our policy of buying younger players at least gives some chance for improvement and resale value. Would fans really like us to carry on like West Ham, Pompey of a few years back, or QPR? Maybe we should get 'arry back to attract some near-retirement big names to drain our bank balance and send us back into the Championship?

 

Personally I love the way that the club operate. I understand that if a player is proven in the Prem, is in his late 20's or early 30's, is a fringe player for a 'big' club and/or is on a high salary then it's highly unlikely that we will sign him and I'm grateful for that. I also fully expect that when it becomes clear that we *are* about to sign a player it will be someone that I know almost nothing about and I'll have to frantically Google. I accept that there is a risk that these players will not develop in the way that the club hope that they will, but for every flop there is a Virgil, Victor or Mane. The 'buy low sell high' model generates revenue or at least reduces losses and, along with a policy of developing our own talent, makes sound business sense.

 

Is it too much to ask that our fans would 'get this' and would be grateful that our club is - in my opinion- one of the best run clubs in the Premier League?

 

Its a muppet forum FFS

get a grip

[mrfahaji]

Just keeping the developing players along with the established ones *is* progress.

 

Yes it probably is, but it's also a slightly different way of looking at it. You could look at the fact we keep some of our better players and say "that's progress, we haven't done that before", or you could look at obvious weaknesses in the team and say "we should be looking to upgrade that position". Just because the first one is true doesn't mean the second one shouldn't happen.

 

There is always criticism that we will never compete further up the table because of the perpetual player sales, so if we do manage to keep hold of everyone, surely now is the time to bring one or two others in, partly to really have a go this year without having to go overboard, and partly so that next year when those players probably do leave, we are only having to replace them rather than half the team. It does feel a little like we're resting on our laurels.

[doddisalegend]

Yes it probably is, but it's also a slightly different way of looking at it. You could look at the fact we keep some of our better players and say "that's progress, we haven't done that before", or you could look at obvious weaknesses in the team and say "we should be looking to upgrade that position". Just because the first one is true doesn't mean the second one shouldn't happen.

 

There is always criticism that we will never compete further up the table because of the perpetual player sales, so if we do manage to keep hold of everyone, surely now is the time to bring one or two others in, partly to really have a go this year without having to go overboard, and partly so that next year when those players probably do leave, we are only having to replace them rather than half the team. It does feel a little like we're resting on our laurels.

 

 

Pretty much this.

[shurlock]

Yes it probably is, but it's also a slightly different way of looking at it. You could look at the fact we keep some of our better players and say "that's progress, we haven't done that before", or you could look at obvious weaknesses in the team and say "we should be looking to upgrade that position". Just because the first one is true doesn't mean the second one shouldn't happen.

 

There is always criticism that we will never compete further up the table because of the perpetual player sales, so if we do manage to keep hold of everyone, surely now is the time to bring one or two others in, partly to really have a go this year without having to go overboard, and partly so that next year when those players probably do leave, we are only having to replace them rather than half the team. It does feel a little like we're resting on our laurels.

 

Agree - if we've gone to lengths of keeping everyone together, why not build on that? As you say, it doesn't mean having to go overboard, though as befits simplistic, strawmen threads like this, it invariably invites the accusation of doing a Pompey or spend, spend, spend. Many sides with smaller turnovers than us have been able to selectively strengthen their squads beyond simply reinvesting transfer proceeds or replacing players who have been sold. Last time I checked, they remained financially healthy and sustainable.

 

There are plenty of areas where we could show a bit of disciplined ambition. If we're keeping both Cedric and Bertrand, two Crown Jewels according to Les, why can't we bring in another DM to maximise their effectiveness and let them get further up the pitch? If we know VVD is off next summer for big money and will need to be replaced, why can't we bring in his successor now who can be gently eased into the position while giving us a top quality CB partnership for a season?

Edited 19 July, 2017 by shurlock

[James]

Agree - if we've gone to lengths of keeping everyone together, why not build on that? As you say, it doesn't mean having to go overboard, though as befits simplistic, strawmen threads like this, it invariably invites the accusation of doing a Pompey or spend, spend, spend. Many sides with smaller turnovers than us have been able to selectively strengthen their squads beyond simply reinvesting transfer proceeds or replacing players who have been sold. Last time I checked, they remained financially healthy and sustainable.

 

There are plenty of areas where we could show a bit of disciplined ambition. If we're keeping both Cedric and Bertrand, two Crown Jewels according to Les, why can't we bring in another DM to maximise their effectiveness and let them get further up the pitch? If we know VVD is off next summer for big money and will need to be replaced, why can't we bring in his successor now who can be gently eased into the position while giving us a top quality CB partnership for a season?

 

Absolutely agree. I don't understand why it has to be a case of two extremes (i.e. signing nobody/only very raw players like Bednarek or doing a Pompey/Leeds). If we are standing firm and keeping our squad together then I'm all for that and it is a distinct change in approach for us. However, we had obvious deficiencies last year and I'm not sure that, even with the uptick in performance that I'd expect MP to bring, we are going to remedy those without bringing in a couple of new faces. All we need IMO is an upgrade on Davis (someone like Armstrong) and a DM to partner Romeu. There's no reason that a PL team like us can't source those two players without breaking the bank.

[tajjuk]

I'm perfectly fine with our transfer profile, but our lack of activity there is no real excuse and is worrying. I want to see the team improve and progress, last year was poor by the high standards the club sets and to improve on that we need more quality in the first team.

 

One random Polish centre-back is not going to do that and when you've sold a player for around £12 million, have record TV money coming in and have barely spent anything net over the last years I don't think asking for some quality signings is asking too much.

[leherb]

Completely agree with this. Feel the same way when sat in the ground amidst too many moaners who have a massive sense of entitlement. I would be happy with a few more trips to Milan in the coming years but, having waited a long time for this, do not expect it as a right. The club is well run and will hopefully provide more amazing experiences in the future.

[shurlock]

Absolutely agree. I don't understand why it has to be a case of two extremes (i.e. signing nobody/only very raw players like Bednarek or doing a Pompey/Leeds). If we are standing firm and keeping our squad together then I'm all for that and it is a distinct change in approach for us. However, we had obvious deficiencies last year and I'm not sure that, even with the uptick in performance that I'd expect MP to bring, we are going to remedy those without bringing in a couple of new faces. All we need IMO is an upgrade on Davis (someone like Armstrong) and a DM to partner Romeu. There's no reason that a PL team like us can't source those two players without breaking the bank.

 

Likewise, agree. Also worth remembering that sides come unstuck not only because they spend too much money but because they fritter it away on the wrong players. But if we're so well-run and recruitment is one of strengths (the typical refrain on here), surely that's an additional argument for spending a bit more at the margins as our investments are more likely to payoff, creating rather than destroying value?

[SNSUN]

I'm perfectly fine with our transfer profile, but our lack of activity there is no real excuse and is worrying. I want to see the team improve and progress, last year was poor by the high standards the club sets and to improve on that we need more quality in the first team.

 

One random Polish centre-back is not going to do that and when you've sold a player for around £12 million, have record TV money coming in and have barely spent anything net over the last years I don't think asking for some quality signings is asking too much.

 

We have 44 days left of the transfer window. Over 6 weeks, or an eighth of a whole year. I dont understand the impatience of some of our fan base, especially when we already have a good enough squad to start the season with and so far we've stated nobody is leaving. I'm sure the signings will come. If we've signed nobody or flogged VVD and whoever and not replaced them on September 1st, then we can be worried. The problem this summer is Everton blowing their wad all over the place early on which is attractive to fans of other clubs. Someone called it the Football Manager generation the other day which is true. With Everton though, for example, if someone comes on the market late that's better than Sandro Ramirez and Rooney, they end up top heavy with strikers. I'd rather we spent time bringing the right player in, not spending for the sake of it. And I love a transfer as much as the next fan!

[doddisalegend]

We have 44 days left of the transfer window. Over 6 weeks, or an eighth of a whole year. I dont understand the impatience of some of our fan base, especially when we already have a good enough squad to start the season with and so far we've stated nobody is leaving. I'm sure the signings will come. If we've signed nobody or flogged VVD and whoever and not replaced them on September 1st, then we can be worried. The problem this summer is Everton blowing their wad all over the place early on which is attractive to fans of other clubs. Someone called it the Football Manager generation the other day which is true. With Everton though, for example, if someone comes on the market late that's better than Sandro Ramirez and Rooney, they end up top heavy with strikers. I'd rather we spent time bringing the right player in, not spending for the sake of it. And I love a transfer as much as the next fan!

 

 

Quite simply it is better to get people in and training with the squad as early as possible in pre season. Bringing people in the last week of the transfer window after the season has started in is less than ideal in terms of getting new players up to speed.

 

The main argument for and against signings seems to come down to how good people think the squad is. Quite a few posters are of the opinion are squad is already good enough and all that was needed is a change of manger if that's the case then new signings aren't really an issue. On the other hand if , like I do, you think last seasons performances were bought about by serious deficiencies in parts of the squad then new signings seem like a must if we want to improve on last season.

[James]

Quite simply it is better to get people in and training with the squad as early as possible in pre season. Bringing people in the last week of the transfer window after the season has started in is less than ideal in terms of getting new players up to speed.

 

The main argument for and against signings seems to come down to how good people think the squad is. Quite a few posters are of the opinion are squad is already good enough and all that was needed is a change of manger if that's the case then new signings aren't really an issue. On the other hand if , like I do, you think last seasons performances were bought about by serious deficiencies in parts of the squad then new signings seem like a must if we want to improve on last season.

 

Exactly - see Boufal as a prime example. In late and injured means little to no impact last season. Whilst I agree we need to look for good value its always better to do your business early and get players settled in.

[Marsdinho]

I spend a lot of time on Saints Web during the transfer window in the hope of getting a sniff of what's going on behind the scenes at the club. This season, more that usual, I have a sense that no-one on here has a clue. The forum is a painful read.

 

One thing that is very clear though (and this is probably true of all football clubs) is that a lot of our fans aren't the brightest. Honestly, some of the rubbish you read on here:

 

- I'd take a punt on [hugely expensive mediocre high salary player past his market value peak]

- The club don't reinvest the funds from player sales [despite the published financial accounts in the public domain clearly showing that we do - http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/15155581.Saints_invest___94m_in_squad/]

- [high salary 1st team player] should be made to train with the kids, as if that makes a grain of sense either financially or for morale around the club

- The black box isn't working [while simultaneously moaning about much-loved recent signings being tapped up or signed by bigger clubs]

- The most laughable of all, which I saw today, is that the club isn't being run in a sustainable way! This despite the (relative) financial prudence of the club, and also the very obvious indications from our performance and growth since league 1, which has been the epitome of sustainable growth.

 

Yes, expensive signings are 'exciting', but they often don't make good business sense. We've had our fair share of flops (Gaston, Osvaldo etc), but our policy of buying younger players at least gives some chance for improvement and resale value. Would fans really like us to carry on like West Ham, Pompey of a few years back, or QPR? Maybe we should get 'arry back to attract some near-retirement big names to drain our bank balance and send us back into the Championship?

 

Personally I love the way that the club operate. I understand that if a player is proven in the Prem, is in his late 20's or early 30's, is a fringe player for a 'big' club and/or is on a high salary then it's highly unlikely that we will sign him and I'm grateful for that. I also fully expect that when it becomes clear that we *are* about to sign a player it will be someone that I know almost nothing about and I'll have to frantically Google. I accept that there is a risk that these players will not develop in the way that the club hope that they will, but for every flop there is a Virgil, Victor or Mane. The 'buy low sell high' model generates revenue or at least reduces losses and, along with a policy of developing our own talent, makes sound business sense.

 

Is it too much to ask that our fans would 'get this' and would be grateful that our club is - in my opinion- one of the best run clubs in the Premier League?

 

Do you get silverware for that?

[Heisenberg]

Do you get silverware for that?

 

No but a cracking balance sheet and thats priority no.1 right?

 

Make up the numbers and make money

 

**** trophies

[ALWAYS_SFC]

No but a cracking balance sheet and thats priority no.1 right?

 

Make up the numbers and make money

 

**** trophies

 

Lets think how much silver ware Man city, Liverpool, Spurs and Arsenal won with their big spend.............. no trophies there....Right?

[Lighthouse]

Exactly - see Boufal as a prime example. In late and injured means little to no impact last season. Whilst I agree we need to look for good value its always better to do your business early and get players settled in.

 

Agree 100%.

 

No more sh*tty, desperate, deadline day signings, like Mané, Alderweireld and Van Dijk.

[Marsdinho]

Lets think how much silver ware Man city, Liverpool, Spurs and Arsenal won with their big spend.............. no trophies there....Right?

 

Don't get the past few seasons confused with club ethos.

 

I would say that their approach to filling up a trophy cabinet is substantially better than ours.

[shurlock]

Agree 100%.

 

No more sh*tty, desperate, deadline day signings, like Mané, Alderweireld and Van Dijk.

 

He said in late and injured. From memory none of the players you mention were injured when they arrived. Other things being equal, it's better to get players in early - Uncle Les has said so himself.

Edited 19 July, 2017 by shurlock

[Lighthouse]

He said in late and injured. From memory none of the players you mention were injured when they arrived. Other things being equal, it's better to get players in early - Uncle Les has said so himself.

 

He was responding to a post about bring in players early and used Boufal as an example. His lack of impact has stemmed largely from his injury and attitude. If we'd signed him on 1st July, he'd have been no more effective last year.

 

Obviously we'd want all our signings done before the first game but that's not always practical. It also doesn't make late signings any less effective. Didn't Lambert come in after the season had started and score twice on his debut?

[Micky]

No but a cracking balance sheet and thats priority no.1 right?

 

Make up the numbers and make money

 

**** trophies

 

You're absolutely correct, it is. Not too many years ago the club neglected this which ended up in successive relegation's down the leagues.

 

So as the OP stated we need to be a well run club. That means working within our budget (or more specifically, the owners budget).

 

Fans are very good at spending other peoples money. I, for one, am very happy that we are a club that is currently making money, not so many years ago, that wasn't the case.

[James]

He was responding to a post about bring in players early and used Boufal as an example. His lack of impact has stemmed largely from his injury and attitude. If we'd signed him on 1st July, he'd have been no more effective last year.

 

Obviously we'd want all our signings done before the first game but that's not always practical. It also doesn't make late signings any less effective. Didn't Lambert come in after the season had started and score twice on his debut?

 

All good players for us and we were lucky they hit the ground running from signing on deadline day. However, it still would likely have been better had we signed those players earlier in the window. If you take VVD, the season he joined we finished three points from a CL place. Had he played for us in the games we missed then who knows whether we could have amassed the three points needed to bridge the gap? If we had it would likely have gained us more than the amount saved by way of transfer fee. Always better to have your business done and your best team out from the first day of the season IMO.

[Marsdinho]

You're absolutely correct, it is. Not too many years ago the club neglected this which ended up in successive relegation's down the leagues.

 

So as the OP stated we need to be a well run club. That means working within our budget (or more specifically, the owners budget).

 

Fans are very good at spending other peoples money. I, for one, am very happy that we are a club that is currently making money, not so many years ago, that wasn't the case.

 

You're absolutely correct. Id much rather have a massive bulging wallet and be in the Prem, than win a few things and spend a few seasons in other divisions.

[Micky]

You're absolutely correct. Id much rather have a massive bulging wallet and be in the Prem, than win a few things and spend a few seasons in other divisions.

 

Then buy the club and put your own budgets in place.

[Heisenberg]

You're absolutely correct. Id much rather have a massive bulging wallet and be in the Prem, than win a few things and spend a few seasons in other divisions.

 

me too money in the bank is better than trophies in the memory.

[Lighthouse]

All good players for us and we were lucky they hit the ground running from signing on deadline day. However, it still would likely have been better had we signed those players earlier in the window. If you take VVD, the season he joined we finished three points from a CL place. Had he played for us in the games we missed then who knows whether we could have amassed the three points needed to bridge the gap? If we had it would likely have gained us more than the amount saved by way of transfer fee. Always better to have your business done and your best team out from the first day of the season IMO.

 

In a Utopian world we'd have all our business done a month before the season started but transfers aren't like that. Never have, never will be. I'd compare it to the housing market if anything, you can't just buy a house and move in tomorrow, there's a chain of other deals which will likely have to be agreed before a sale can go through. Other clubs will be holding out on other bidders, we might be holding out until later because we know a club wants to sell and we want to drive the price down.

 

I'm sure it has occurred to Les and others that VVD would have been useful in that 2-2 draw at Newcastle or the 3-0 defeat at home to Everton. However, it is better to wait for the right player at the end of the window, rather than the wrong player earlier on.

 

Boufal is evidence of nothing other than a player struggling to adapt to the English game. People said the same about Gaston, he missed pre-season etc. We've now been waiting 5 years and counting for him to perform.

[mrfahaji]

Lets think how much silver ware Man city, Liverpool, Spurs and Arsenal won with their big spend.............. no trophies there....Right?

 

Do you have Heisenberg posts on a notification setting or something?!

[sadoldgit]

I spend a lot of time on Saints Web during the transfer window in the hope of getting a sniff of what's going on behind the scenes at the club. This season, more that usual, I have a sense that no-one on here has a clue. The forum is a painful read.

 

One thing that is very clear though (and this is probably true of all football clubs) is that a lot of our fans aren't the brightest. Honestly, some of the rubbish you read on here:

 

- I'd take a punt on [hugely expensive mediocre high salary player past his market value peak]

- The club don't reinvest the funds from player sales [despite the published financial accounts in the public domain clearly showing that we do - http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/15155581.Saints_invest___94m_in_squad/]

- [high salary 1st team player] should be made to train with the kids, as if that makes a grain of sense either financially or for morale around the club

- The black box isn't working [while simultaneously moaning about much-loved recent signings being tapped up or signed by bigger clubs]

- The most laughable of all, which I saw today, is that the club isn't being run in a sustainable way! This despite the (relative) financial prudence of the club, and also the very obvious indications from our performance and growth since league 1, which has been the epitome of sustainable growth.

 

Yes, expensive signings are 'exciting', but they often don't make good business sense. We've had our fair share of flops (Gaston, Osvaldo etc), but our policy of buying younger players at least gives some chance for improvement and resale value. Would fans really like us to carry on like West Ham, Pompey of a few years back, or QPR? Maybe we should get 'arry back to attract some near-retirement big names to drain our bank balance and send us back into the Championship?

 

Personally I love the way that the club operate. I understand that if a player is proven in the Prem, is in his late 20's or early 30's, is a fringe player for a 'big' club and/or is on a high salary then it's highly unlikely that we will sign him and I'm grateful for that. I also fully expect that when it becomes clear that we *are* about to sign a player it will be someone that I know almost nothing about and I'll have to frantically Google. I accept that there is a risk that these players will not develop in the way that the club hope that they will, but for every flop there is a Virgil, Victor or Mane. The 'buy low sell high' model generates revenue or at least reduces losses and, along with a policy of developing our own talent, makes sound business sense.

 

Is it too much to ask that our fans would 'get this' and would be grateful that our club is - in my opinion- one of the best run clubs in the Premier League?

 

Excellent post. Spot on. I would say though if you come on here to get a whiff of anything it is more likely to be bullsh*t.

[OttawaSaint]

Do you have Heisenberg posts on a notification setting or something?!

 

Doesn't need to the **** spams the board so much with the same **** that it's hard to miss.

[shurlock]

Doesn't need to the **** spams the board so much with the same **** that it's hard to miss.

 

Who Glasgow or ALWAYS_SFC?

[Dan Johnson]

Quite simply it is better to get people in and training with the squad as early as possible in pre season. Bringing people in the last week of the transfer window after the season has started in is less than ideal in terms of getting new players up to speed.

 

That all depends on availbility of the players, though.

 

If our 1st, 2nd, 3rd choice players arent released for transfer until the selling club has replaced them, should we just go and buy for the sake of it, a lesser player?

 

I'd rather we got our #1 choices for each posistion in on the last day of the window, than sign the 5th choice early July.

[SNSUN]

Quite simply it is better to get people in and training with the squad as early as possible in pre season. Bringing people in the last week of the transfer window after the season has started in is less than ideal in terms of getting new players up to speed.

 

The main argument for and against signings seems to come down to how good people think the squad is. Quite a few posters are of the opinion are squad is already good enough and all that was needed is a change of manger if that's the case then new signings aren't really an issue. On the other hand if , like I do, you think last seasons performances were bought about by serious deficiencies in parts of the squad then new signings seem like a must if we want to improve on last season.

 

If the starting XI on the first day of the season is Forster, Cedric, Stephens/Yoshida, VVD, Bertrand, Romeu, Davis, JWP/Boufal, Tadic, Redmond, Gabbiadini, I'd be happy to start the season with that team. If that's still the best starting XI on the 1st September then I'd agree we've missed the chance to strengthen, especially defensive midfield (and centre back depending on whether you think Stephens has what it takes long term.) We've had some quality players that we signed late in the window, Mane, Alderweired, Gabbiadini, VVD. One negative thing I will say about signing players late in the window is that there is not a lot of time to switch targets if something happens - as we saw with Boufal when he got injured before we signed him. I figure we signed him anyway in the hope that when he got fit he'd be an asset. I still hope he can be an asset to us this season now he's fully fit. I understand about the lack of team bonding-side of players that sign late but as long as they're not injured (as Boufal was, but that won't always be the case unless the club drops a b'llock) they should be fully fit from doing pre-season with their previous club.

 

However I still believe it is too early to be worrying about not signing anyone (bar Bednarek). Still 3 and a half weeks until the start of the season. I'd love a signing this week as a fan, but even if that happened I'm pretty sure a day after we signed x, y or z, people would be requesting another. It's quality over quantity we need - Gabbiadini-type-quality players, and sometimes that takes time, especially with a new manager still settling in. Let's hope we can pull a couple of quality rabbits out the hat though by September 1st.

 

On on the subject of winning trophies, the current squad got us to the League Cup final where we were robbed. As for making numbers in the League - yes we are sadly. We don't have the investment (yet) to do an Everton and try and break the 'glass ceiling' of the top 6 - Leicester was a freak occurance, the top 6 wth their finances won't be allowing that to happen again in a hurry. I'd rather be fighting it out at the top, but that's not what this club is about currently. I suspect that's why we've been looking at investment with the Lander people.

[ALWAYS_SFC]

Who Glasgow or ALWAYS_SFC?

 

Nose sticking in again... lonely ?

[mrfahaji]

Doesn't need to the **** spams the board so much with the same **** that it's hard to miss.

 

I guess you're right on that. Just seems funny that I don't really see you contributing to many discussions and then he posts something (sometimes a wind up post, but not always) and BAM! There you are with literally the very next post, like clockwork.

[OttawaSaint]

I guess you're right on that. Just seems funny that I don't really see you contributing to many discussions and then he posts something (sometimes a wind up post, but not always) and BAM! There you are with literally the very next post, like clockwork.

 

ME? I doubt it. I'm barely on here. Nothing's happening at the moment.

[Donatello]

Who Glasgow or ALWAYS_SFC?

 

This

[mcbendy]

Some of the posts above boiled down to 'yes we are well run, but we should build on this summer's stability by signing a few 1st-teamers'. I agree, and I think that we will. I think it's likely that we will sign a 1st team/starter DM, an attacking midfielder and possibly another centre-back. If it gets to the end of the transfer window and we haven't strengthened in at least some of these areas then I'll be disappointed.

[salisbury saints1]

I agree mainly with the original post except we haven't had our fair share of flops - IMO our recruitment has been much better than that with relatively few failures - and no recruitment system is perfect as we know in our own work environments!

[mrfahaji]

ME? I doubt it. I'm barely on here. Nothing's happening at the moment.

 

Ha, I was confused for a minute there, thought I'd replied to the wrong post. Apologies, assumed it was a reply from ALWAYS! You should be a little bit worried that I thought your post could have been one of his though...

[Minsk]

All good players for us and we were lucky they hit the ground running from signing on deadline day. However, it still would likely have been better had we signed those players earlier in the window. If you take VVD, the season he joined we finished three points from a CL place. Had he played for us in the games we missed then who knows whether we could have amassed the three points needed to bridge the gap? If we had it would likely have gained us more than the amount saved by way of transfer fee. Always better to have your business done and your best team out from the first day of the season IMO.

 

I think you will find that Celtic wouldn't sell us VvD any sooner as they were competing in the CL. I am sure we would have bought him sooner had we had the opportunity to do so.

 

You're absolutely correct. Id much rather have a massive bulging wallet and be in the Prem, than win a few things and spend a few seasons in other divisions.

 

If you want a team that spends way and beyond its means to guarantee winning something and then go into administration with subsequent relegation I suggest you look a little way to the east.

 

Additionally, do you really think Saints have a huge amount of money sat in the bank doing nothing and that they don't spend anything on players? If so, go look at the facts in regard to the balance sheet.

 

me too money in the bank is better than trophies in the memory.

 

For you and your friend above, can either of you please name two players whom we can realistically sign and whom would guarantee us to win silverware this season. You both seem to think it so easy, so you must have answers.

 

I would always like us to sign better players than we have. I would like them to be signed at the beginning of every transfer window, and not at the end. (I am absolutely certain we could have brought Gabbiadini in before the last day of January.) I also want our club to be well run, with no possibility of ever again going into admin. Moreover, I will also give those running the club a chance to improve the playing staff without bleating about us not having signed any star players (yet) this window every five minutes. I don't think there is a single Saints who would say we shouldn't sign anyone. Just because it isn't splattered all over the press doesn't mean discussions are not happening somewhere (he says, hopefully....)

[eurosaint]

In the last 4 years, only Leicester (once) have been above us other than teams from London, Manchester and Liverpool which, given their resources you would have to expect !

Strikes me that we are punching above our weight as a result of being 'well run' and that any change of business direction could jeopardise this !

Without the Liebherr family we could have been toast and frankly we have been blessed with top class ownership, directors, management etc..

The grass is always greener......

[Heisenberg]

In the last 4 years, only Leicester (once) have been above us other than teams from London, Manchester and Liverpool

 

Lol doesn't teams from London, Liverpool and Manchester account for 50% of the league?

 

Plus if you extend your 4 year limit to 6 you have Wigan, Swansea and Birmingham winning trophies.

 

Complacency is a killer

[baggytrousers]

Lol doesn't teams from London, Liverpool and Manchester account for 50% of the league?

 

Plus if you extend your 4 year limit to 6 you have Wigan, Swansea and Birmingham winning trophies.

 

Complacency is a killer

 

Alternatively "Our half-witted fans don't know how lucky they are".

 

Wonder which fans in particular the thread is referring to ?

[mrfahaji]

In the last 4 years, only Leicester (once) have been above us other than teams from London, Manchester and Liverpool which, given their resources you would have to expect !

Strikes me that we are punching above our weight as a result of being 'well run' and that any change of business direction could jeopardise this !

Without the Liebherr family we could have been toast and frankly we have been blessed with top class ownership, directors, management etc..

The grass is always greener......

 

It's a good point but a strange way of presenting it. As Heisenberg as so helpfully pointed out, "London" could also include West Ham, Fulham & Palace. And if we had finished behind them as well it wouldn't be so impressive. Maybe just "Big 6 & Everton", everyone knows who you mean. Perhaps a better way of looking at it, is that over the last four seasons Saints have the 7th best average finishing position. So, basically the best of the rest.

 

Things can change quickly though!

[Bearsy]

Complacency is a killer

 

Sacking a manger for only finishing 8th evidences non-complacency prob i would hope.

[Window Cleaner]

Sacking a manger for only finishing 8th evidences non-complacency prob i would hope.

 

Wasn't he sacked because his kind of football didn't please the fans. If so it just goes to show that the club is run by idiots.

Only finishing 8th, well that's at least a reason, not pleasing the fans isn't.

[larry12]

Thanks Les, but can you get on with your day job please and get 3 attacking midfielders in who can shoot straight?

[Redslo]

Accumulate money ? We seem to spend roughly what we receive and our owner doesn't have enough to give us any more.

The fans always want us to keep our top players and yet spend the kind of sum we would in theory receive for them. As I said yesterday we are what we are, 8th in the PL. We made 6th because we had a pretty good season and Chelsea and Liverpool screwed up completely. In today's football to make the very top your owner needs a lot of money and the will to spend it on the club. When we get that we'll be top 6 candidates, until then............ We could have made Europe by winning the League Cup but we came up against a top, top side in the final and didn't quite make it.

 

Given financial fair play rules, even a rich owner willing to spend lots of money doesn't do the job because there are real limits on what can be spent. Admittedly, we are not pushing up against those limits so an owner willing to spend some more of her money every year could still help, but only if there was something specific (like an expensive player) we wanted to spend the money on, but could not afford to without the additional cash. I am not certain that is the case.

 

 

Good question. If the choice was to build the club up gradually so we are steady in ~6th place versus 'taking a punt' and risking boom and bust then I know what I'd prefer. If we can remain stable in 6-8th then there is always the chance of a few factors combining with a bit of luck and resulting in a top 4 finish. I still think that's pretty unlikely though. Is it realistic that we will break into the top 4 consistently? I would say no - all sorts of factors combine to make this unlikely. Not least history, population size of cities, the fact that we are based on the coast which limits our catchment area etc. Indeed I think the fact that we are as high as 6-8th shows exceptional management of the club, capitalising (not wasting) the Liebherr investment.

 

I actually think that being a stable top-half Prem club with a good philosophy and structure, with a tilt at a cup from time to time, is a pretty good place to be. Compare that to the League 1 days!

 

But in the league 1 days we were always a title threat, except for that pesky 10 point deduction.

 

More seriously, the Premier League is already in a dangerously (from the point of view of club management) unstable state. There are six clubs who will view anything less that a top 4 finish as a complete failure. Everton expects to progress from last years seventh place finish. We expect progress. West Ham thinks they belong ahead of us (and probably Everton) and competing with their London rivals. Newcastle views their return to the Premier League as part of a reset--no doubt big progress is not necessary this year, but they undoubtedly view themselves as a long term top half club. Leicester will not expect another title, but they will expect a much improved season since they don't have a European campaign to distract them. Few of the other nine clubs will be happy just hanging out in the bottom half hoping to avoid relegation and none of them want relegation. Sure all of this is obvious, but at least two clubs with big name managers and big budgets are going to fail to live up to expectations.

 

These problems don't exist for clubs in the other major European Leagues. It will be interesting.

 

In comparison to the Echo and the UI this place is a bastion of sense and wisdom.

 

High praise?

 

Seems there are three types of people on here.

 

The smart ones: who are largely content to make up the numbers, float between 8-17

 

The dinlows: that want to see there favourite club actually win something and keep better players.

 

The wannabe mods no opinions either way, just here to post and moan about other posters.

 

At least you are honest enough to admit you are not one of the smart ones.

 

Agree with most of what you say but I think calling it the 'buy low, sell high' model doesn't fully do it justice as I think we are trying to move beyond that. We have used the funds generated from this strategy to upgrade Staplewood, strengthen our squad and offer longer term improved contracts to our key players. I believe we have entered a new phase where we are trying not to sell at all unless it's on our terms (e.g. JayRod who left with our blessing).

 

So I believe the new model is better described as "buy young and low, improve, make a key part of the squad, only sell if we have to" with a view to having a critical mass of good young talent establishing themselves at the same time to put us in a good enough position to mount a serious challenge to the mega rich clubs in a season where it all comes together.

 

I think this is exactly what has happened and that it is a good thing. The problem, from a fans perspective, is that there is nothing about this strategy that ever guarantees a better season that 2015-2016. I am ok with that but many are not.

[Redslo]

God forbid anyone should have an opinion that is different to the OP and want the club to achieve a little more than simply being recognised as 'well run'. I quite enjoy the diversity of views, no matter how extreme or mis-guided some might seem - makes life interesting.

 

I would like the club to achieve that "little more than" that as well. I would just like the people making that argument to explain a plausible strategy for attaining that "little more." I don't see one under financial fair play. Well actually do. Have a net negative spend each year of 35m pounds--which probably means having an owner take a 40m pound cash loss each year. Avoid the European Financial Fair play rules by turning down invitations to European competitions and, in effect, hope this strategy gets us a title. I doubt this strategy will ever be adopted by any club, however.

 

If we go down this year...are we still the best run club?

 

It would depend on why we went down. If we have freak injuries to 15 players, then we could still be the best run club. If our new manager turns out to be grossly incompetent and VVD and Bertrand are sold on August 31 without any replacements being brought in, then the answer would be no. I don't think either possibility is very likely though. Also, I think we are a well run club--claiming to be the best run is too subject a claim to be reasonably evaluated. Certainly, we are not the best run club at generating commercial income, for example.

 

I'm perfectly fine with our transfer profile, but our lack of activity there is no real excuse and is worrying. I want to see the team improve and progress, last year was poor by the high standards the club sets and to improve on that we need more quality in the first team.

 

One random Polish centre-back is not going to do that and when you've sold a player for around £12 million, have record TV money coming in and have barely spent anything net over the last years I don't think asking for some quality signings is asking too much.

 

Right now there is no roster spot for incoming players. Sales (or loans) have to be made before the club will sign anyone new.

 

 

We have 44 days left of the transfer window. Over 6 weeks, or an eighth of a whole year. I dont understand the impatience of some of our fan base, especially when we already have a good enough squad to start the season with and so far we've stated nobody is leaving. I'm sure the signings will come. If we've signed nobody or flogged VVD and whoever and not replaced them on September 1st, then we can be worried. The problem this summer is Everton blowing their wad all over the place early on which is attractive to fans of other clubs. Someone called it the Football Manager generation the other day which is true. With Everton though, for example, if someone comes on the market late that's better than Sandro Ramirez and Rooney, they end up top heavy with strikers. I'd rather we spent time bringing the right player in, not spending for the sake of it. And I love a transfer as much as the next fan!

 

My best seasons in Football Manager came when I had a good club that was young and improving and I left it alone. Of course that was FM 2010 and Markus Liebherr was giving me 250m pounds a year. Nevertheless, it is not unreasonable to expect the current squad to do better than last year without any additions.

[Redslo]

Quite simply it is better to get people in and training with the squad as early as possible in pre season. Bringing people in the last week of the transfer window after the season has started in is less than ideal in terms of getting new players up to speed.

 

The main argument for and against signings seems to come down to how good people think the squad is. Quite a few posters are of the opinion are squad is already good enough and all that was needed is a change of manger if that's the case then new signings aren't really an issue. On the other hand if , like I do, you think last seasons performances were bought about by serious deficiencies in parts of the squad then new signings seem like a must if we want to improve on last season.

 

Accumulate money ? We seem to spend roughly what we receive and our owner doesn't have enough to give us any more.

The fans always want us to keep our top players and yet spend the kind of sum we would in theory receive for them. As I said yesterday we are what we are, 8th in the PL. We made 6th because we had a pretty good season and Chelsea and Liverpool screwed up completely. In today's football to make the very top your owner needs a lot of money and the will to spend it on the club. When we get that we'll be top 6 candidates, until then............ We could have made Europe by winning the League Cup but we came up against a top, top side in the final and didn't quite make it.

 

Given financial fair play rules, even a rich owner willing to spend lots of money doesn't do the job because there are real limits on what can be spent. Admittedly, we are not pushing up against those limits so an owner willing to spend some more of her money every year could still help, but only if there was something specific (like an expensive player) we wanted to spend the money on, but could not afford to without the additional cash. I am not certain that is the case.

 

 

Good question. If the choice was to build the club up gradually so we are steady in ~6th place versus 'taking a punt' and risking boom and bust then I know what I'd prefer. If we can remain stable in 6-8th then there is always the chance of a few factors combining with a bit of luck and resulting in a top 4 finish. I still think that's pretty unlikely though. Is it realistic that we will break into the top 4 consistently? I would say no - all sorts of factors combine to make this unlikely. Not least history, population size of cities, the fact that we are based on the coast which limits our catchment area etc. Indeed I think the fact that we are as high as 6-8th shows exceptional management of the club, capitalising (not wasting) the Liebherr investment.

 

I actually think that being a stable top-half Prem club with a good philosophy and structure, with a tilt at a cup from time to time, is a pretty good place to be. Compare that to the League 1 days!

 

But in the league 1 days we were always a title threat, except for that pesky 10 point deduction.

 

More seriously, the Premier League is already in a dangerously (from the point of view of club management) unstable state. There are six clubs who will view anything less that a top 4 finish as a complete failure. Everton expects to progress from last years seventh place finish. We expect progress. West Ham thinks they belong ahead of us (and probably Everton) and competing with their London rivals. Newcastle views their return to the Premier League as part of a reset--no doubt big progress is not necessary this year, but they undoubtedly view themselves as a long term top half club. Leicester will not expect another title, but they will expect a much improved season since they don't have a European campaign to distract them. Few of the other nine clubs will be happy just hanging out in the bottom half hoping to avoid relegation and none of them want relegation. Sure all of this is obvious, but at least two clubs with big name managers and big budgets are going to fail to live up to expectations.

 

These problems don't exist for clubs in the other major European Leagues. It will be interesting.

 

In comparison to the Echo and the UI this place is a bastion of sense and wisdom.

 

High praise?

 

Seems there are three types of people on here.

 

The smart ones: who are largely content to make up the numbers, float between 8-17

 

The dinlows: that want to see there favourite club actually win something and keep better players.

 

The wannabe mods no opinions either way, just here to post and moan about other posters.

 

At least you are honest enough to admit you are not one of the smart ones.

 

Agree with most of what you say but I think calling it the 'buy low, sell high' model doesn't fully do it justice as I think we are trying to move beyond that. We have used the funds generated from this strategy to upgrade Staplewood, strengthen our squad and offer longer term improved contracts to our key players. I believe we have entered a new phase where we are trying not to sell at all unless it's on our terms (e.g. JayRod who left with our blessing).

 

So I believe the new model is better described as "buy young and low, improve, make a key part of the squad, only sell if we have to" with a view to having a critical mass of good young talent establishing themselves at the same time to put us in a good enough position to mount a serious challenge to the mega rich clubs in a season where it all comes together.

 

I think this is exactly what has happened and that it is a good thing. The problem, from a fans perspective, is that there is nothing about this strategy that ever guarantees a better season that 2015-2016. I am ok with that but many are not.

 

God forbid anyone should have an opinion that is different to the OP and want the club to achieve a little more than simply being recognised as 'well run'. I quite enjoy the diversity of views, no matter how extreme or mis-guided some might seem - makes life interesting.

 

I would like the club to achieve that "little more than" that as well. I would just like the people making that argument to explain a plausible strategy for attaining that "little more." I don't see one under financial fair play. Well actually do. Have a net negative spend each year of 35m pounds--which probably means having an owner take a 40m pound cash loss each year. Avoid the European Financial Fair play rules by turning down invitations to European competitions and, in effect, hope this strategy gets us a title. I doubt this strategy will ever be adopted by any club, however.

 

If we go down this year...are we still the best run club?

 

It would depend on why we went down. If we have freak injuries to 15 players, then we could still be the best run club. If our new manager turns out to be grossly incompetent and VVD and Bertrand are sold on August 31 without any replacements being brought in, then the answer would be no. I don't think either possibility is very likely though. Also, I think we are a well run club--claiming to be the best run is too subject a claim to be reasonably evaluated. Certainly, we are not the best run club at generating commercial income, for example.

 

I'm perfectly fine with our transfer profile, but our lack of activity there is no real excuse and is worrying. I want to see the team improve and progress, last year was poor by the high standards the club sets and to improve on that we need more quality in the first team.

 

One random Polish centre-back is not going to do that and when you've sold a player for around £12 million, have record TV money coming in and have barely spent anything net over the last years I don't think asking for some quality signings is asking too much.

 

Right now there is no roster spot for incoming players. Sales (or loans) have to be made before the club will sign anyone new.

 

 

. If we've signed nobody or flogged VVD and whoever and not replaced them on September 1st, then we can be worried. The problem this summer is Everton blowing their wad all over the place early on which is attractive to fans of other clubs. Someone called it the Football Manager generation the other day which is true. With Everton though, for example, if someone comes on the market late that's better than Sandro Ramirez and Rooney, they end up top heavy with strikers. I'd rather we spent time bringing the right player in, not spending for the sake of it. And I love a transfer as much as the next fan!

 

My best seasons in Football Manager came when I had a good club that was young and improving and I left it alone. Of course that was FM 2010 and Markus Liebherr was giving me 250m pounds a year. Nevertheless, it is not unreasonable to expect the current squad to do better than last year without any additions.

 

Exactly - see Boufal as a prime example. In late and injured means little to no impact last season. Whilst I agree we need to look for good value its always better to do your business early and get players settled in.

 

Boufal is a poor example. Due to his injury he was always intended to be a future, not a present, signing and it wouldn't have mattered when in the transfer window he was signed, except that there was more information about his medical condition later in the window. I would point to VVD as a better example. Signing him late in the summer 2015 window certainly was crippling to his first year performance.

 

Sorry about the long posts. I was looking for a way to avoid starting my work day.

[larry12]

I spend a lot of time on Saints Web during the transfer window in the hope of getting a sniff of what's going on behind the scenes at the club. This season, more that usual, I have a sense that no-one on here has a clue. The forum is a painful read.

 

One thing that is very clear though (and this is probably true of all football clubs) is that a lot of our fans aren't the brightest. Honestly, some of the rubbish you read on here:

 

- I'd take a punt on [hugely expensive mediocre high salary player past his market value peak]

- The club don't reinvest the funds from player sales [despite the published financial accounts in the public domain clearly showing that we do - http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/15155581.Saints_invest___94m_in_squad/]

- [high salary 1st team player] should be made to train with the kids, as if that makes a grain of sense either financially or for morale around the club

- The black box isn't working [while simultaneously moaning about much-loved recent signings being tapped up or signed by bigger clubs]

- The most laughable of all, which I saw today, is that the club isn't being run in a sustainable way! This despite the (relative) financial prudence of the club, and also the very obvious indications from our performance and growth since league 1, which has been the epitome of sustainable growth.

 

Yes, expensive signings are 'exciting', but they often don't make good business sense. We've had our fair share of flops (Gaston, Osvaldo etc), but our policy of buying younger players at least gives some chance for improvement and resale value. Would fans really like us to carry on like West Ham, Pompey of a few years back, or QPR? Maybe we should get 'arry back to attract some near-retirement big names to drain our bank balance and send us back into the Championship?

 

Personally I love the way that the club operate. I understand that if a player is proven in the Prem, is in his late 20's or early 30's, is a fringe player for a 'big' club and/or is on a high salary then it's highly unlikely that we will sign him and I'm grateful for that. I also fully expect that when it becomes clear that we *are* about to sign a player it will be someone that I know almost nothing about and I'll have to frantically Google. I accept that there is a risk that these players will not develop in the way that the club hope that they will, but for every flop there is a Virgil, Victor or Mane. The 'buy low sell high' model generates revenue or at least reduces losses and, along with a policy of developing our own talent, makes sound business sense.

 

Is it too much to ask that our fans would 'get this' and would be grateful that our club is - in my opinion- one of the best run clubs in the Premier League?

 

 

Thanks Les. I would prefer that you spent a bit of time finding a replacement for Mr Plod aka Prowsey.

[Nordic Saint]

For the Reedites on here, the performance of the football team is irrelevant. As long as they can worship Les Reed and wonder at the size of Kat's bak balance, they'll always be content. The only time they ever got annoyed was when that Nasty Nic Cortese wanted poor Kat to invest some of her hard-earned dosh in our football club. How selfish of him. They'll never forgive him for that vicious threat to the size of poor Kat's bank balance.