January Transfer Window 2025

[Fabrice29]

46 minutes ago, Chez said:

SFC is a football business. The club no longer exists to make fans happy. Is there a good business argument for spending several million on a loan?

 

Better results are better for business. Money, atmosphere, reputation and whatever else you can think of would be improved by better results. It makes no sense to spend the next 17 games in the PL preparing for a season to get us back into the PL. We are here now and whatever the outcome attempting to be competitive in it would be good.

[Fabrice29]

57 minutes ago, Saint86 said:

Sports republic have basically got rid of all the ones that were really something. They'd far rather have spent millions (fees/agents/wages) on players to block their development pathways, than just pay the best u21 / u18 players a serious wage relative to their ability. Given we've got a squad full of dead wood and will be playing the champ next season, it's shown itself to be an incredibly poor bit of strategy. Not to mention the loss of gomes and the fact SR went out of their way to piss of dibling when he rejoined 😂🤣

Who are all the good ones SR got rid of out of interest and how they getting on now?

[Harry_SFC]

29 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Perhaps another loan next season or possibly could be a useful player for our first team in the Championship. 

 

You'd like to think the latter. If a 22 year old can't make an impact on a championship side then I really can't see why we've signed him. 

Edited Sunday at 12:26 by Harry_SFC

[Fabrice29]

54 minutes ago, Chez said:

Can you expand on this. I don't know that story.

Assume he means this 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/32156019/tyler-dibling-quit-southampton-academy-chelsea/amp/

[Convict Colony]

39 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Perhaps another loan next season or possibly could be a useful player for our first team in the Championship. 

 

i assume he will have enough points after a season there to qualify to play here ?

[Saint_clark]

27 minutes ago, Harry_SFC said:

You'd like to think the latter. If a 22 year old can't make an impact on a championship side then I really can't see why we've signed him. 

For one of our parent clubs. Obviously. 

[Chez]

25 minutes ago, Fabrice29 said:

Better results are better for business. Money, atmosphere, reputation and whatever else you can think of would be improved by better results. It makes no sense to spend the next 17 games in the PL preparing for a season to get us back into the PL. We are here now and whatever the outcome attempting to be competitive in it would be good.

In general yes, good results equates to better business. No argument on that. However that is a big picture argument, what about the specifics of the next 17 games. You spend say £3m on loaning Ferguson until the end of the season. Tell me how SFC make that money back?  You ain't doing it in ticket sales, sponsorship or any other commercial aspect. We'd have to get the prize money for coming 19th rather than 20th to get close to getting that money back. Tell me how you are monetising the improved atmosphere Ferguson delivers over the next 17 games?

It's all very well as a fan wanting owners to spend money so you have a better team to watch, but they are businessmen in it for the money and the long term business aims are best served by not spending good money after bad now, and use those funds, which go a lot further in the championship, to get us promoted. Promotion and the £120m+ income that promotion is what matters from a business sense.

Just to add, that I don't like the fact we are shit, winning no points and potentially stealing Derby's horrific record, but I am trying see the situation through the eyes of the owner. This is why I'd be surprised if we loaned players in unless they were trasferring in permanently in the summer.

 

[tdmickey3]

45 minutes ago, Fabrice29 said:

Better results are better for business. Money, atmosphere, reputation and whatever else you can think of would be improved by better results. It makes no sense to spend the next 17 games in the PL preparing for a season to get us back into the PL. We are here now and whatever the outcome attempting to be competitive in it would be good.

lol, You were happy to do just that with the previous incompetent incumbent.

[Chez]

39 minutes ago, Fabrice29 said:

Assume he means this 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/32156019/tyler-dibling-quit-southampton-academy-chelsea/amp/

That's hardly going out of their way to piss him off.  They didn't want him to leave and they were very happy to have him back. There were no issues at all.  He simply had to play for the u18s first before going into the u21s. Seems logical.

I bet they explained to him up front that's what they would do and I imagine he was perfectly fine with it. He may even have been greatful for that. He wouldn't have wanted to come across as some billy big bollocks anyway. He was a shy lad, part of the reason it didn't work out at Chelsea. He'd want to come back as much under the radar as possible, play well for the u18s and then get promoted on merit to the u21s. I'd of thought every club would do that put in the same situation.

It's amazing the rod's some will use to beat SR. There is no need - just use the unarguable ones like employing a no mark like Jones. Inexcusable.

[Saint Fan CaM]

3 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

If we had anyone who was anywhere near good enough, they'd be in the team. What you're describing is basically what happened in the 9-0 at OT, except we were forced into that through injury. I don't really care if a loanee is 'invested' in the club at all, so long as he's better that what we already have and can improve us on the pitch.

Yeah and that’s worked well in the recent past right?

[CB Fry]

11 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

lol, You were happy to do just that with the previous incompetent incumbent.

The flip in attitude we've seen with that poster is pretty amazing.

Suddenly playing dreadfully and losing are bad now. His standards have got remarkably so much higher since his fucking hero was binned off.

 

[Fabrice29]

4 minutes ago, Chez said:

In general yes, good results equates to better business. No argument on that. However that is a big picture argument, what about the specifics of the next 17 games. You spend say £3m on loaning Ferguson until the end of the season. Tell me how SFC make that money back?  You ain't doing it in ticket sales, sponsorship or any other commercial aspect. We'd have to get the prize money for coming 19th rather than 20th to get close to getting that money back. Tell me how you are monetising the improved atmosphere Ferguson delivers over the next 17 games?

It's all very well as a fan wanting owners to spend money so you have a better team to watch, but they are businessmen in it for the money and the long term business aims are best served by not spending good money after bad now, and use those funds, which go a lot further in the championship, to get us promoted. Promotion and the £120m+ income that promotion is what matters from a business sense.

Just to add, that I don't like the fact we are shit, winning no points and potentially stealing Derby's horrific record, but I am trying see the situation through the eyes of the owner. This is why I'd be surprised if we loaned players in unless they were trasferring in permanently in the summer.

 

In terms of money on a balance sheet I'm not qualified to say where it'll be made back, I'm not entirely sure any money on a transfer is specifically squared off on a balance sheet but you are probably right, a few quid on a loan isn't going to necessary be paid off by the end of the season. But, I think it's about more than that, even from an ownership point of you.

I've argued this previously in this thread so probably saying similar things but 17 games is a long time, if the owners show apathy to the rest of the season then so does everyone else. Manager, players, fans. It all translate to a toxic atmosphere in the ground. Both times thats appeared to have happened previously the owners have sacked managers which is even worse business. I doubt they'd want to sack Juric again before the end of the season, but I don't think it's completely off the table if we lose another 10 games on the trot for example. Obviously I'm talking extremes, I don't think we'll lose 10 games in a row and think we can probably plod along until the end of the season now but how about our reputation. Apart from the obvious of going down without a fight, we're a club who prides itself on being a place you can come to and be given a chance if you're not elsewhere, I dont think dismissing opportunities to do that in any window is particularly good business. A good loan move for someone now can present further chances down the line.

So yeah, maybe in a terms of strictly looking at the balance sheet then I suspect very rarely do loan moves mean good business and I'm sure there's plenty of reasons why it's a bad idea and maybe the ownership fall on that side of the arguement and we don't do anything, but I do feel there are benefits to at least trying to improve over the next few months as well and putting up some sort of fight. You never know, we might win a few games and find ourselves within touching distance too...I'm talking in extremes again

Just now, tdmickey3 said:

lol, You were happy to do just that with the previous incompetent incumbent.

Eh?

[Fabrice29]

3 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

The flip in attitude we've seen with that poster is pretty amazing.

Suddenly playing dreadfully and losing are bad now. His standards have got remarkably so much higher since his fucking hero was binned off.

 

What are you on about?  My thoughts on the previous manager and this one are exactly the same, hampered by the quality of the players and neither at sole fault for the season. 

Edited Sunday at 13:25 by Fabrice29

[Chez]

1 hour ago, Fabrice29 said:

Who are all the good ones SR got rid of out of interest and how they getting on now?

Meghoma is at a Prem side and will be at a Prem side next season too. He's playing about as often as he did for us.

Jimmy Jay Morgan is playing for the u21s of Chelsea, who will be a Prem team next season too.

Gomes Rodriguez is playing for Lyon u19s. Lyon first team are currently 6th, 3 points from a CL place.

[Fabrice29]

4 minutes ago, Chez said:

Meghoma is at a Prem side and will be at a Prem side next season too. He's playing about as often as he did for us.

Jimmy Jay Morgan is playing for the u21s of Chelsea, who will be a Prem team next season too.

Gomes Rodriguez is playing for Lyon u19s. Lyon first team are currently 6th, 3 points from a CL place.

Meghoma just moved to Preston on loan because he wasn't given minutes at Brentford. Neither of the next two are playing in anyones first team any time soon, the idea that they've been blocked just doesn't really stand up and also I would argue that both the strikers seeked a higher quality academy experience and moved onto better things rather than being got rid of by Sports Republic or blocked.

Edited Sunday at 13:32 by Fabrice29

[Lighthouse]

13 minutes ago, Saint Fan CaM said:

Yeah and that’s worked well in the recent past right?

I'm not sure I follow your point. I'd rather have a player who can contribute to our first team now, even if he has no long term interest in the club. That would be preferable to having more Alex Jankewitzs and Alan Tchaptchets on the pitch.

[Lighthouse]

7 minutes ago, Chez said:

Meghoma is at a Prem side and will be at a Prem side next season too. He's playing about as often as he did for us.

Jimmy Jay Morgan is playing for the u21s of Chelsea, who will be a Prem team next season too.

Gomes Rodriguez is playing for Lyon u19s. Lyon first team are currently 6th, 3 points from a CL place.

I can't remember all the details but didn't those three all want to leave? I know we sold Meghoma but he only had one year left on his deal anyway, IIRC.

[Saint Fan CaM]

Just now, Lighthouse said:

I'm not sure I follow your point. I'd rather have a player who can contribute to our first team now, even if he has no long term interest in the club. That would be preferable to having more Alex Jankewitzs and Alan Tchaptchets on the pitch.

So you’ve rather have someone like Cornet in the squad, than Sam A-A or Ballard or a couple of the other very promising youngsters on the books? Not for me.

[Saint Fan CaM]

1 minute ago, Lighthouse said:

I can't remember all the details but didn't those three all want to leave? I know we sold Meghoma but he only had one year left on his deal anyway, IIRC.

Ask yourself why they wanted to leave?! Maybe it was something to do with blocked pathways or something?

[Chez]

8 minutes ago, Fabrice29 said:

In terms of money on a balance sheet I'm not qualified to say where it'll be made back, I'm not entirely sure any money on a transfer is specifically squared off on a balance sheet but you are probably right, a few quid on a loan isn't going to necessary be paid off by the end of the season. But, I think it's about more than that, even from an ownership point of you.

I've argued this previously in this thread so probably saying similar things but 17 games is a long time, if the owners show apathy to the rest of the season then so does everyone else. Manager, players, fans. It all translate to a toxic atmosphere in the ground. Both times thats appeared to have happened previously the owners have sacked managers which is even worse business. I doubt they'd want to sack Juric again before the end of the season, but I don't think it's completely off the table if we lose another 10 games on the trot for example. Obviously I'm talking extremes, I don't think we'll lose 10 games in a row and think we can probably plod along until the end of the season now but how about our reputation. Apart from the obvious of going down without a fight, we're a club who prides itself on being a place you can come to and be given a chance if you're not elsewhere, I dont think dismissing opportunities to do that in any window is particularly good business. A good loan move for someone now can present further chances down the line.

So yeah, maybe in a terms of strictly looking at the balance sheet then I suspect very rarely do loan moves mean good business and I'm sure there's plenty of reasons why it's a bad idea and maybe the ownership fall on that side of the arguement and we don't do anything, but I do feel there are benefits to at least trying to improve over the next few months as well and putting up some sort of fight. You never know, we might win a few games and find ourselves within touching distance too...I'm talking in extremes again

 

Fair point, but there are additional counter arguments to this. They have already invested £100m in players in the summer. They have a brought a new manager in (which has cost them more money) to get more out of the players that are here already.

The squad is already large. There are young (and inexperienced at this level) players too that can benefit from Prem games. Sulemana, Archer, Sugawara, Dibling, Fernandes, Charles, even Downes. Regular football is reqired to keep improving them. If we want these players to get us up next year, starting to shape them into a proper side playing Juric football now is perhaps no bad thing.

Spending money on players might not improve us. We saw that last time with Onuachu, Sulemana, Orsic etc. Maybe the calibre of player we could realistically bring in now won't even be better than what we have. Ferguson might make us better, but is he really going to join us. Doubt it.

 

[Lighthouse]

1 minute ago, Saint Fan CaM said:

So you’ve rather have someone like Cornet in the squad, than Sam A-A or Ballard or a couple of the other very promising youngsters on the books? Not for me.

Why does it have to be someone like Cornet, where has that criteria come from? SAA and Ballard can't seem to get into the squad ahead of Ryan Fraser or Adam Armstrong, which isn't exactly a high bar. To me that would suggest they aren't ready, as would SAA's performances last year and Ballard's one goal in twenty two for Blackpool.

[Fabrice29]

Just now, Chez said:

Fair point, but there are additional counter arguments to this. They have already invested £100m in players in the summer. They have a brought a new manager in (which has cost them more money) to get more out of the players that are here already.

The squad is already large. There are young (and inexperienced at this level) players too that can benefit from Prem games. Sulemana, Archer, Sugawara, Dibling, Fernandes, Charles, even Downes. Regular football is reqired to keep improving them. If we want these players to get us up next year, starting to shape them into a proper side playing Juric football now is perhaps no bad thing.

Spending money on players might not improve us. We saw that last time with Onuachu, Sulemana, Orsic etc. Maybe the calibre of player we could realistically bring in now won't even be better than what we have. Ferguson might make us better, but is he really going to join us. Doubt it.

 

Oh yeah don't get me wrong, there's a massive difference between wanting us to improve the squad and actually going out to do it, and yes Ferguson is unrealistic. If we are to get anyone from a PL team it'll be a late deal and someone who the 19 other clubs and have turned down tbh.

[Fabrice29]

3 minutes ago, Saint Fan CaM said:

Ask yourself why they wanted to leave?! Maybe it was something to do with blocked pathways or something?

You think Morgan and Gomes sought assurances that Chelsea and Lyons pathway would be more accessible and are now sitting in their youth teams reeling from being lied to? Or do you think Meghoma is at Preston now telling everyone there how Brentfords pathway to first team is better than Southamptons all because of Sport Republic?

Kids this age all move for development reasons and there's valid arguements all those clubs are better for their development but it's not because of a pathway issue. None of them were being left out our first team undeservedly and none of them have done anything since to prove that is the case.

[Saint Fan CaM]

3 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Why does it have to be someone like Cornet, where has that criteria come from? SAA and Ballard can't seem to get into the squad ahead of Ryan Fraser or Adam Armstrong, which isn't exactly a high bar. To me that would suggest they aren't ready, as would SAA's performances last year and Ballard's one goal in twenty two for Blackpool.

You - the conversation was geared to this window and my point was I would prefer giving worthy U-21’s a chance rather than loanees, to which you suggested loanees were the preference previously and I countered that loanees like Cornet didn’t exactly improve anything. Keep up. 😉

[Chez]

8 minutes ago, Saint Fan CaM said:

Ask yourself why they wanted to leave?! Maybe it was something to do with blocked pathways or something?

Morgan and Rodriguez didn't leave because of blocked pathways. 

[Saint86]

2 hours ago, Chez said:

Can you expand on this. I don't know that story.

They very nearly refused to take him back, then they significantly cut the already relatively modest salary they had previously offered him, and then they made him train with the youth teams 😄. 

Edited Sunday at 13:50 by Saint86

[Saint Fan CaM]

3 minutes ago, Chez said:

Morgan and Rodriguez didn't leave because of blocked pathways. 

Maybe not, maybe that played a part, but that doesn’t alter the fact that at this stage of our already dire season, I’d rather see our own worthy U-21’s blooded than waste time & space on a loanee.

[Chez]

7 minutes ago, Fabrice29 said:

Oh yeah don't get me wrong, there's a massive difference between wanting us to improve the squad and actually going out to do it, and yes Ferguson is unrealistic. If we are to get anyone from a PL team it'll be a late deal and someone who the 19 other clubs and have turned down tbh.

Sounds like players not good enough for the Prem at this moment, that championship sides might look at. We have a squad of those already...which is why it is up to Juric to make us more competitive over the next 17 games.  

[Lighthouse]

2 minutes ago, Saint86 said:

They very nearly refused to take him back, then they significantly cut the already relatively modest salary they had previously offered him, and then they made him train with the youth teams 😄. 

Seems like a pretty sensible way of reminding a 16 year old who left for more money that he's not bigger than the club and that he'd have to fight his way into the team to earn a bigger contract. If we'd given in to this kind of thing and given him a nice juicy pay deal, every 14 year old, their parents and agents would be pulling the same stunt.

SR do a lot wrong but fair play to them for putting their foot down on this.

[ErwinK1961]

2 minutes ago, Saint Fan CaM said:

Maybe not, maybe that played a part, but that doesn’t alter the fact that at this stage of our already dire season, I’d rather see our own worthy U-21’s blooded than waste time & space on a loanee.

I’d rather not expose u21’s that aren’t ready for this level, getting destroyed over the next 16 games and ruining their confidence. This league is brutal.

Would like to see SAA get a meaningful loan.

[Chez]

21 minutes ago, Saint86 said:

They very nearly refused to take him back, then they significantly cut the already relatively modest salary they had previously offered him, and then they made him train with the youth teams 😄. 

They had a discussion internally and then decided to take him back. When you make decisions, the outcome that doesn't happen isn't always "nearly".

You seem to know a lot about his personal contract. How so?

He was 17 and put in the under 18s - the same age group he was plying at Chelsea. Or are you saying he was made to train with even younger age group?

Edited Sunday at 14:11 by Chez

[Weston Super Saint]

45 minutes ago, Fabrice29 said:

17 games is a long time,

That's what we were saying whilst you were defending your hero.

No need to tell the rest of us that 17 games of shite football is a long time.

[Chez]

15 minutes ago, Saint Fan CaM said:

Maybe not, maybe that played a part, but that doesn’t alter the fact that at this stage of our already dire season, I’d rather see our own worthy U-21’s blooded than waste time & space on a loanee.

Bringing Charles back suggests that's exactly what we are doing.

[Saint86]

1 hour ago, Lighthouse said:

Seems like a pretty sensible way of reminding a 16 year old who left for more money that he's not bigger than the club and that he'd have to fight his way into the team to earn a bigger contract. If we'd given in to this kind of thing and given him a nice juicy pay deal, every 14 year old, their parents and agents would be pulling the same stunt.

SR do a lot wrong but fair play to them for putting their foot down on this.

We've lost basically every single proper talent from that youth team because SR refuse to pay the going rate. Let alone Gomes (who is potentially a generational talent) for free to Lyon. It shocking, not something to praise.

They'll sit there and sign (utter shit) like Mara for £12M, and the likes of Larios and Edozie, but our own youth players (who have all moved to more successful clubs than saints), who were more committed to the club and on lower wages are gone. And now, when we get relegated, and look to the academy for squad players and potential breakthrough players and future sales - we've already let them all go for peanuts. You and fabrice praising this strategy is utterly mad to me. We're going down with a bloated squad on large wages, and nearly all of those that stay have shown they're way off premier league level and are not players with the potential to develop... The ones that might tick that box will leave - and despite having the 2nd best u18 side in the country a couple of years ago, none of them will still be here to step up.

And for context - Dibling's rumoured original £3k per week is £156k a year. If you consider we now apparently are paying him half of that, its £1.5k per week.

We signed Mara (£12M), Edozie (£8M), larios (£6M), stewart (£9M) etc. In fees alone, that is Dibling's 3k/w salary (or insert other youth player we didn't bother keeping) for 224years. Its a good job those 4 players are contributing so much more than Dibling to justify their cost... And that ignores the wages for these signings, all of which will be higher than our youth contracts. We also won't be selling the above players for a profit - but the academy players certainly would have done. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Dibling alone raised more than those 4 combined. The entire approach is a car crash from Sports republic.

Edited Sunday at 15:30 by Saint86

[Saint86]

Santos scored the winner for Goztepe today at least... So i guess at least we've done some good for our sister club.

[Fabrice29]

1 hour ago, Saint86 said:

We've lost basically every single proper talent from that youth team because SR refuse to pay the going rate. Let alone Gomes (who is potentially a generational talent) for free to Lyon. It shocking, not something to praise.

They'll sit there and sign (utter shit) like Mara for £12M, and the likes of Larios and Edozie, but our own youth players (who have all moved to more successful clubs than saints), who were more committed to the club and on lower wages are gone. And now, when we get relegated, and look to the academy for squad players and potential breakthrough players and future sales - we've already let them all go for peanuts. You and fabrice praising this strategy is utterly mad to me. We're going down with a bloated squad on large wages, and nearly all of those that stay have shown they're way off premier league level and are not players with the potential to develop... The ones that might tick that box will leave - and despite having the 2nd best u18 side in the country a couple of years ago, none of them will still be here to step up.

And for context - Dibling's rumoured original £3k per week is £156k a year. If you consider we now apparently are paying him half of that, its £1.5k per week.

We signed Mara (£12M), Edozie (£8M), larios (£6M), stewart (£9M) etc. In fees alone, that is Dibling's 3k/w salary (or insert other youth player we didn't bother keeping) for 224years. Its a good job those 4 players are contributing so much more than Dibling to justify their cost... And that ignores the wages for these signings, all of which will be higher than our youth contracts. We also won't be selling the above players for a profit - but the academy players certainly would have done. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Dibling alone raised more than those 4 combined. The entire approach is a car crash from Sports republic.

You’re basically arguing bad signings are bad and good ones are good which is not the ground breaking review you think it is. I don’t think anyone is praising the current strategy just asking you which of the 16/17 years old who wanted to leave were blocked by signings that were supposed to help us more immediately. And there’s very little evidence to suggest either the guys you have mentioned or the ones we signed could have or did help. 

[Fabrice29]

2 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

That's what we were saying whilst you were defending your hero.

No need to tell the rest of us that 17 games of shite football is a long time.

And as I pointed out changing the manager wouldn’t really change much. 

[Wsaint]

I'll take a midfield of Charles and Les right now. Ready or not Charles surely will put up more than a fight than what we've got right now. 

[Matthew Le God]

Finally a link to a player!

 

[Weston Super Saint]

Nonsense.

[Harry_SFC]

[Master Bates]

6 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Finally a link to a player!

 

Loan deal, done apparently.

[Turkish]

3 hours ago, Convict Colony said:

i assume he will have enough points after a season there to qualify to play here ?

He’ll want to stay there and play in Europe rather than come us in the championship 

[Matthew Le God]

 

 

[trousers]

 

 

[Wade Garrett]

Best YouTube I’ve seen since Stevie De Ridder.

[Fabrice29]

3 hours ago, Saint86 said:

They very nearly refused to take him back, then they significantly cut the already relatively modest salary they had previously offered him, and then they made him train with the youth teams 😄. 

You’re acting like he didn’t leave 2 months prior ffs 😂

 

3 hours ago, Saint Fan CaM said:

Maybe not, maybe that played a part, but that doesn’t alter the fact that at this stage of our already dire season, I’d rather see our own worthy U-21’s blooded than waste time & space on a loanee.

‘Hi boys, I know you want to leave for better academies with access to youth European football etc but we’d like you to hang around here so that if we have a dire season we can throw you in a bit too early for you to please the fans a bit’

Edited Sunday at 17:02 by Fabrice29

[Matthew Le God]

 

 

[Convict Colony]

I guess he's left midfield behind Sully and Tall Paul, fernandes next to him and big les behind

 

Edited Sunday at 17:38 by Convict Colony

[Chez]

2 hours ago, Saint86 said:

We've lost basically every single proper talent from that youth team because SR refuse to pay the going rate. Let alone Gomes (who is potentially a generational talent) for free to Lyon. It shocking, not something to praise.

 

I feel your pain about losing talent. With Shields in place we paid massive sums, when he departed that chaged.

However, we haven't let Dibling go. So not "every single talent has gone". SAA is also still here.  And Ballard. Wish we still had Rodriguez. 

We didn't let JJM go for peanuts by the way. It's worth saying that the "going rate" that Chelsea pay far exceeds what almost everyone else pays. Thats why we couldn't keep him. Not to mention the fact they have the best youth system and players, so another draw for ambitious players.