Gavin Bazunu

[Mystic Force]

Then what were all those ex goalkeepers doing if they were not there to make the goalkeepers better. We were really being run by people not paying attention!

[Matthew Le God]

9 minutes ago, Mystic Force said:

Then what were all those ex goalkeepers doing if they were not there to make the goalkeepers better. We were really being run by people not paying attention!

Sparkes - 1st team keeper coach

Watson - set piece coach

Davis - put out the cones and dressing room moral

Edited 15 June, 2022 by Matthew Le God

[The Kraken]

3 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Watson - set piece coach

Decent gig that.

Free kick in the opposition half? Give it Prowsey.

Corner? Give it Prowsey.

Throw in in the opposition half? Give it Sali.

As Meat Loaf said, two out of three ain’t bad.

(And yes, I know there’s a bit more to it than that, I’m being facetious *insert appropriate smiley or gif here*

[Chez]

24 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

A circa £25m profit would hardly be a disastrous situation. 

did I say it was?

[The Cat]

2 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Honest opinion on McCarthy?

His confidence is shot. 

Go back a couple of seasons and he was fine. Had the ability to pull off some very good saves and was decent on crosses.

Kicking has always been average to poor but clearly not comfortable with how he was asked to change that aspect of his game.

I don't think he commands the defence that well.

Not a bad back up, but should definitely not be a regular starter. Hopefully Bazunu will show his skills and McCarthy can be taken out of the firing line and get some confidence for when he's needed.

[The Cat]

1 hour ago, CampionSaint said:

He's definitely good at shot stopping and his distribution is excellent, and at 20 has room for improvement and is rated about the best in Europe for his age.  His weakness is apparently on crosses and may need to do a bit of work at commanding the box but overall a good buy I think.  I suspect the deal will be structured in such a way that we'll only pay the full amount with add-ons if he proves a success.  

That's probably the main concern. Look at how De Gea struggled in his first season for Man Utd on crosses and balls played into a crowded area. 

He sorted that out to become one of the best. 

 

[Saint_clark]

I've seen a £16million fee mentioned in relation to this signing. He may well develop into a great keeper, but that's only £6million less than Chelsea paid for Mendy and is more than David Raya, Jose Sa and Ilan Meslier cost combined. 

£16million is in the upper limit of what we have spent in the past. Now hopefully this is a sign that this is changing and this will now me lower to middling transfer fees for us moving forward, but I still can't help but think this is a hell of a gamble. For that fee for example, I would not be happy about their being a buy back clause included for City unless that clause was over £50million.

[Matthew Le God]

3 hours ago, Saint_clark said:

I've seen a £16million fee mentioned in relation to this signing. He may well develop into a great keeper, but that's only £6million less than Chelsea paid for Mendy and is more than David Raya, Jose Sa and Ilan Meslier cost combined. 

£16million is in the upper limit of what we have spent in the past. Now hopefully this is a sign that this is changing and this will now me lower to middling transfer fees for us moving forward, but I still can't help but think this is a hell of a gamble. For that fee for example, I would not be happy about their being a buy back clause included for City unless that clause was over £50million.

It is a fee 'rising to £16m', so it will only be that if for example he plays X number of games etc.

[Billy the Kidd]

16 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

It is a fee 'rising to £16m', so it will only be that if for example he plays X number of games etc.

So, 10 games then? As X isnt a number, therefore maybe you are using Roman numerals. If not using this method, is it that you dont know the number of games, as it wasnt clear in your original message detailed above.

I mean, if the fee is say £12m, does the additional £4m go up by increments, say if he plays 1 game, that is ok for the £12m, but games 2-5 we may owe them another £2m. And gamers 6-9, we own them another £1m. And game 10, bingo, it’s up to £16m total fee, as we pay them another £1m for game 10.

I appreciate you said ‘for example’ but this perhaps has only added to the confusion.

[Sunglasses Ron]

2 hours ago, Billy the Kidd said:

I mean, if the fee is say £XIIm, does the additional £IVm go up by increments, say if he plays I game, that is ok for the £XIIm, but games II-V we may owe them another £IIm. And gamers VI-IX, we own them another £Im. And game X, bingo, it’s up to £XVIm total fee, as we pay them another £Im for game X.

I appreciate you said ‘for example’ but this perhaps has only added to the confusion.

Have edited your post for consistency as things are really starting to get confusing 🙃

[igsey]

7 hours ago, Saint_clark said:

I've seen a £16million fee mentioned in relation to this signing. He may well develop into a great keeper, but that's only £6million less than Chelsea paid for Mendy and is more than David Raya, Jose Sa and Ilan Meslier cost combined. 

£16million is in the upper limit of what we have spent in the past. Now hopefully this is a sign that this is changing and this will now me lower to middling transfer fees for us moving forward, but I still can't help but think this is a hell of a gamble. For that fee for example, I would not be happy about their being a buy back clause included for City unless that clause was over £50million.

Eh, I think it makes it clear that he's a player we really wanted and we don't mind spending a little more to ensure we get him. It's not like we're smashing our record signing, we're aiming to invest in a problem position for us for the long term.

[Saint_lambden]

He appears to be able to kick a ball off the ground, so he's already an upgrade on McCarthy. 

[Saint_clark]

45 minutes ago, igsey said:

Eh, I think it makes it clear that he's a player we really wanted and we don't mind spending a little more to ensure we get him. It's not like we're smashing our record signing, we're aiming to invest in a problem position for us for the long term.

If there's a buy back clause we're not investing for the long term though.

[Ivan Katalinic's 'tache]

35 minutes ago, Saint_lambden said:

He appears to be able to kick a ball off the ground, so he's already an upgrade on McCarthy. 

To my mind, the first bits of your post were unnecessary... 😁

[egg]

23 minutes ago, Saint_clark said:

If there's a buy back clause we're not investing for the long term though.

We kind of are though in that we buy for £16m or whatever, sell back for say double or more, then have that money to use towards other players. Regardless, this is better than owning a player outright and his contract running down.

Good business imo.

 

[Ex Lion Tamer]

I'm interested in how these buy back clauses will work. Can the transfer back be easily triggered and the player sold on immediately for a profit? Or is is more an agreed price subject to the player agreeing terms / wanting to go back?

If the latter then it puts us in a pretty strong position, because City will have to want him back and promise first team football if they are to tempt the player

[SuperSAINT]

3 minutes ago, Ex Lion Tamer said:

I'm interested in how these buy back clauses will work. Can the transfer back be easily triggered and the player sold on immediately for a profit? Or is is more an agreed price subject to the player agreeing terms / wanting to go back?

If the latter then it puts us in a pretty strong position, because City will have to want him back and promise first team football if they are to tempt the player

I view them in a really simple way:  They need to be VERY good for these buy-back's to be triggered.  (Which means they've done a very good job for us).

[MarkSFC]

4 minutes ago, SuperSAINT said:

I view them in a really simple way:  They need to be VERY good for these buy-back's to be triggered.  (Which means they've done a very good job for us).

Yeah. I see them as first options in reality, although I know they are technically different, IF City in this case wanted to get him back the price is probably lower than we might get on the open market. Subtle differences and may seem like we lose out but when you're getting from the (or one of) best clubs in the world, the 2 to 3 years or whatever he is here will be very good indeed. Win win in my eyes. 

[SuperSAINT]

6 minutes ago, MarkSFC said:

Yeah. I see them as first options in reality, although I know they are technically different, IF City in this case wanted to get him back the price is probably lower than we might get on the open market. Subtle differences and may seem like we lose out but when you're getting from the (or one of) best clubs in the world, the 2 to 3 years or whatever he is here will be very good indeed. Win win in my eyes. 

Yeah.  They also, most likely, help to get the deal done.

I'm pretty sure I remember reading that Brighton did NOT want it included in their prospective move for Tino.

[igsey]

 

[Turkish]

1 hour ago, SuperSAINT said:

I view them in a really simple way:  They need to be VERY good for these buy-back's to be triggered.  (Which means they've done a very good job for us).

If they sign him back he would have to be one of the best keepers in the world, which would make our £16m money very well spent. I'd just take a compentent premier league keeper these days.

Edited 16 June, 2022 by Turkish

[The Kraken]

40 minutes ago, Turkish said:

If they sign him back he would have to be one of the best keepers in the world, which would make our £16m money very well spent. I'd just take a compentent premier league keeper these days.

How the benchmark has fallen. From the days of Shilton, Flowers and Niemi to keeping your fingers crossed we get somewhere better than Alex flipping McCarthy.

[Matthew Le God]

7 hours ago, Billy the Kidd said:

So, 10 games then? As X isnt a number, therefore maybe you are using Roman numerals. If not using this method, is it that you dont know the number of games, as it wasnt clear in your original message detailed above.

I mean, if the fee is say £12m, does the additional £4m go up by increments, say if he plays 1 game, that is ok for the £12m, but games 2-5 we may owe them another £2m. And gamers 6-9, we own them another £1m. And game 10, bingo, it’s up to £16m total fee, as we pay them another £1m for game 10.

I appreciate you said ‘for example’ but this perhaps has only added to the confusion.

'X number of games'... means an unknown number of games. It isn't a phrase I made up.

[Fabrice Fernandes no.1 fan]

If he does sign for us (looking rather likely) I think he will be our first ever Gavin

[goodymatt]

Former Saint (and Skate) David Connolly talking about Bazunu, 15:09 onwards.

On a side note, he seems quite negative about Ralph, which half of our fanbase might agree with atm.

Interesting to get an opinion from the Irish on our new signing anyway.

[SNSUN]

1 hour ago, Fabrice Fernandes no.1 fan said:

If he does sign for us (looking rather likely) I think he will be our first ever Gavin

A quick search seems you may be right excluding youth players perhaps that didn't play for us. 

 

I did notice we had a Jimmy Carr play for us. Bet he was funnier than the modern day version.

[Turkish]

2 hours ago, Fabrice Fernandes no.1 fan said:

If he does sign for us (looking rather likely) I think he will be our first ever Gavin

First black goalkeeper too?
First Irish goalkeeper?

Lots of reasons to celebrate this signing.

[Saint86]

7 hours ago, Sunglasses Ron said:

Have edited your post for consistency as things are really starting to get confusing 🙃

This isn't consistent. "m" isn't million in roman numerals - I have no idea how you enter M "bar" on a phone however. 🤓🤗

Edited 16 June, 2022 by Saint86

[Bad Wolf]

1 hour ago, goodymatt said:

Former Saint (and Skate) David Connolly talking about Bazunu, 15:09 onwards.

On a side note, he seems quite negative about Ralph, which half of our fanbase might agree with atm.

Interesting to get an opinion from the Irish on our new signing anyway.

"It wouldn't surprise me if there were a managerial change there at some point in the future" Well...Yeah...

[Billy the Kidd]

4 hours ago, Matthew Le God said:

'X number of games'... means an unknown number of games. It isn't a phrase I made up.

[Uncle Albert]

2 hours ago, Turkish said:

First black goalkeeper too?
First Irish goalkeeper?

Lots of reasons to celebrate this signing.

Surely we’ve had a Irish keeper at some point down the years?

[Paul Chuckle]

9 minutes ago, Uncle Albert said:

Surely we’ve had a Irish keeper at some point down the years?

Alan Blayney...... 

 

And Maik Taylor played for Northern Ireland after he left us

Edited 16 June, 2022 by Paul Chuckle

[miserableoldgit]

3 hours ago, Turkish said:

First black goalkeeper too?
First Irish goalkeeper?

Lots of reasons to celebrate this signing.

My memory might be failing me (always possible) but I seem to remember having a black keeper on loan back in the 80's?

[st alex]

It's a big fee for a relatively unknown keeper. Didn't Man City buy him for 400k? That's the point we ideally should have signed him at. Do we still have scouts? In recent years we seem to have given up on signing young prospects from obscure clubs.

Anyway, hopefully he's worth it but absolutely great business by Man City. Huge profit now plus if he's any good they can buy him back on the cheap or he can go elsewhere and they get a decent cut.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

I think the argument was that, as there was a lack of emerging talent from the youth ranks, we had to buy in players just about to make a break through. There's more financial outlay, but less risk as they're further along their development.

That also works nicely with our pathway, which I think is going to get our new 'keeper the nod sooner rather than later. We can use that as a selling point to others, especially with Tino out.

The youth ranks are now looking more promising, so we could see smaller signings there in future, earlier on in their careers, to boost those ranks where needed.

This deal works for all parties. We'd still make a decent amount even with a buy back. If City don't want him back, then we could get more, and they'd get a healthy cut of it. In the meantime, we'll hopefully have an excellent keeper to watch.

[The Cat]

5 minutes ago, st alex said:

It's a big fee for a relatively unknown keeper. Didn't Man City buy him for 400k? That's the point we ideally should have signed him at. Do we still have scouts? In recent years we seem to have given up on signing young prospects from obscure clubs.

Anyway, hopefully he's worth it but absolutely great business by Man City. Huge profit now plus if he's any good they can buy him back on the cheap or he can go elsewhere and they get a decent cut.

Surely every half decent club could be saying they should have bought him at the time Man City did. How do you know we weren't in for him at the time but he chose Man City instead?

When was the last time we bought a young prospect from an obscure club? I can't remember any outside of players that are going into the youth team like Chauke.

[CB Fry]

15 minutes ago, st alex said:

It's a big fee for a relatively unknown keeper. Didn't Man City buy him for 400k? That's the point we ideally should have signed him at. Do we still have scouts? In recent years we seem to have given up on signing young prospects from obscure clubs.

 

400k for a 17 year old is quite a lot of money and not something we do often. It is the kind of thing Chelsea and City do often.

You're making out like City plucked from playing Tyro League at the Sports Centre from right under our noses.

[Saint_clark]

7 hours ago, igsey said:

 

20% of future deal AND a buyback clause, we seem really desperate in this case.

[S-Clarke]

4 minutes ago, Saint_clark said:

20% of future deal AND a buyback clause, we seem really desperate in this case.

Or City rate him very highly and are structuring the deal in a way that won't leave them out of pocket when he goes onto bigger things, which they believe he will.

We're not going to be out of pocket either way ourselves, so I'm not sure why that makes us desperate.

Edited 16 June, 2022 by S-Clarke

[Lighthouse]

3 minutes ago, Saint_clark said:

20% of future deal AND a buyback clause, we seem really desperate in this case.

Seems reasonable enough to me. It's just Man City future-proofing themselves in case he comes a worldwide megastar. If we were in their shoes I'd be trying to insert similar clauses as there is essentially no need to sell and he'll have plenty of suitors.

[Saint_clark]

3 minutes ago, S-Clarke said:

Or City rate him very highly and are structuring the deal in a way that won't leave them out of pocket when he goes onto bigger things, which they believe he will.

We're not going to be out of pocket either way ourselves, so I'm not sure why that makes us desperate.

Because if he does go back to City then we will receive 20% less than whatever the agreed fee is. 

[S-Clarke]

6 minutes ago, Saint_clark said:

Because if he does go back to City then we will receive 20% less than whatever the agreed fee is. 

But if he goes back to City it will be for £40-50m as per any set fee (i think it's around that region), so we'd still be in profit and not out of pocket by any means.

Plus if he goes back to City he'd have done well, would have likely contributed to us doing well and earned us dollar in league positions as well.

[Convict Colony]

3 minutes ago, S-Clarke said:

But if he goes back to City it will be for £40-50m as per any set fee (i think it's around that region), so we'd still be in profit and not out of pocket by any means.

Plus if he goes back to City he'd have done well, would have likely contributed to us doing well and earned us dollar in league positions as well.

It's like the circle of life, Saint Clark poses the question and S-Clarke answers it, very soothing

[nta786]

16 minutes ago, S-Clarke said:

Or City rate him very highly and are structuring the deal in a way that won't leave them out of pocket when he goes onto bigger things, which they believe he will.

We're not going to be out of pocket either way ourselves, so I'm not sure why that makes us desperate.

What if he ends up really bad, or has a Karius moment and loses all confidence and becomes rubbish?

£12m could be a lot come end of the window, I've no idea what our budget / net spend is with the new owners.

In truth I hope City do take him for £40m+ after 2 years. at least that way I'll know he has been a success. 

[Holmes_and_Watson]

2 minutes ago, nta786 said:

What if he ends up really bad, or has a Karius moment and loses all confidence and becomes rubbish?

£12m could be a lot come end of the window, I've no idea what our budget / net spend is with the new owners.

In truth I hope City do take him for £40m+ after 2 years. at least that way I'll know he has been a success. 

Although, we've had a poor experience with a young City keeper before, it shouldn't make us Gunn shy, if the talent is there. 🙂

[derry]

Fred Kiernan, Irish international goalkeeper Southampton 1951 to 1956, 132 appearances. Born 1919 Dublin, Died in Southampton 1981 aged 62. I remember his speciality, he could catch balls one handed.

[S-Clarke]

17 minutes ago, nta786 said:

What if he ends up really bad, or has a Karius moment and loses all confidence and becomes rubbish?

£12m could be a lot come end of the window, I've no idea what our budget / net spend is with the new owners.

In truth I hope City do take him for £40m+ after 2 years. at least that way I'll know he has been a success. 

Always the risk though isn't it. But to us, if he isn't a hit, he's only going to cost us around £11-12m I reckon. So we wouldn't have to take too much of a hit, we took more of a hit with Carillo and Boufal..!

In the grand scheme of things though, in PL times, £11-15m is absolute peanuts for a PL player given all the income PL clubs get. So it should be a safe risk to take without worrying to much about losing money.

Edited 16 June, 2022 by S-Clarke

[The Kraken]

15 minutes ago, nta786 said:

In truth I hope City do take him for £40m+ after 2 years. at least that way I'll know he has been a success. 

Exactly this. If Man City take him back it will be because he’s done incredibly well for us, and then Saints will be up on transfer fee in/out by £25m+.  We will also have had a great performing player in the team for all that time. I don’t see a downside to the deal. If it encourages the big clubs to deal with us for the very best of their young talent then great, good move.

[Midfield_General]

Bazunu - ooowaaooh

Bazunu - ooowaaooh

He came from Man City

He f*ckin hates Pompey

There you go, you can have that for free. Do I win a prize? 

[The Kraken]

Oh god, you just know that will actually be sung