| Good Transfer Business Done So Far 21:11 - Aug 2 with 4755 views | SaintNick |
Four good signings including Theo Walcott for around £16 million, already recouped most of that by the sale of Lemina, Hoedt, Gunn & Jankewitz, players who played little or no part in the last two years.
More to the point we have probably cut the wage bill in these deals by half. more when you consider the amount saved by Bertrand's departure
We just need to perhaps get rid of one player for a decent fee, perhaps Vestergaard and then invest that wisely and we can look forward to the season with some optimism that we have improved the squad |  |
| Satisfying The Bloodlust Of The Masses In Peacetime |
| |  |
| Good Transfer Business Done So Far on 14:38 - Aug 3 with 1683 views | SaintNick |
| Good Transfer Business Done So Far on 22:55 - Aug 2 by Saintsforeverj |
But it doesn't have a little more depth. More have left than have come in. |
Four of the players who have left, have played little part of the last two seasons, Hoedt and Lemina havent played at all, Gunn hasnt played in the League since October 2019 and Jamkewitz only two 1 minute appearances, so we cant really count them as depth | |
| Satisfying The Bloodlust Of The Masses In Peacetime |
| |
| Good Transfer Business Done So Far on 15:17 - Aug 3 with 1631 views | SaintNick |
| Good Transfer Business Done So Far on 13:04 - Aug 3 by DorsetIan |
Exactly this. Our financial constraints are such that we have to rely on gambles.
This is why Gao is not fit for purpose as a Premier League owner. |
The post by sonic boom suggested that back in the 80/90's we relied on tried and proven players at top flight level.
Actually that is not quite the case
1980 yes we signed Keegan but also Mike McCartney unproven in the top flight
1981 - Dave Armstrong but also Keith Cassells and Mark Wright, unproven and a youngster
After 1983 ish our transfer policy was focused very much on players who had not played in the top flight when they joined us, unless they were of the veteran age as in Frank Worthington Joe Jordan Jimmy Caseetc or flawed such as Mark Dennis.
Ken Armstrong, Andy Townsend, Glen Cockerill, Gerry Forest, Jon Gittens, Colin Clarke, Gordon Hobson, Kevin Moore, Neil Ruddock, Jason Dodd, Alan McGloughlin, Richard Hall, Paul Moody, Simon Charlton. , Neil Shipperley, Richard Dryden, Paul Jones, Lee Todd, Kevin Davies, James Beattie, Chris Marsden , Patrick Colleter, Dean Richards.
Then there were the unheard of foreigners, Claus Lundekvam, Marian Pahars, Eyal Berkovic, Egil Ostenstad Ronnie Eklund, Hassan Kachloul, Joe Tessem
In fact when we started to buy players with top flight experience in 92-93 things went wrong, Hurlock Steve Wood, Kerrie Dixon, David Speedie. Same a few years later, David Hirst, John Beresford, Boa Morte, Carlton Palmer.
There is a Southampton way and it has been there for nearly 60 years now when Ted Bates brought in players from the lower leagues such as Ron Davies and paired them with experience and youngsters.
So what if "fit for purpose" as a Premier League owner, it seems to me you are saying that it is anyone who can throw hundreds of millions at a club, it doesnt matter if they are successful ie Manchester City's Sheikhs or unsuccessful such as Moshiri at Everton who has fared no better than Gao in the last 3 or years
Truth is that you can spend what you like but as it stands no clubs have the spending power of Liverpool, United, City & Chelsea it is no longer a big six but a big four and then it is the rest.
Please explain to what fit for purpose is ?
I truly want to know, the reality for around 12 of the Premier League clubs it is finishing in between 17th & 8th, take out the aforementioned big 4, add Leicester, , Spurs and Arsenal and these are the only clubs that you could say with almost 100% surety they won't go down, the other 12 may have a couple that probably won't, but could still struggle, but truth is take out the three promoted clubs and that means 9 of us fighting for the centre ground, some years we may struggle and be in the bottom half of the middle ground and others we may contest the top half.
Gao is as good as we can get at the moment, this isnt the 1990's with Guy Askham, it is modern football, owners cant just be ousted these days as they own the club, you have to buy them out and there isn't a queue around the block at any Premier League club at present.
Yes Burnley got sold and went overnight from being a well run debt free club to having their new owners levereage the club for £200 million, now they have owners who could walk away and leave them in debt with not a chance of buying them, we may remember this cycle back in the early 00's when Michael Wilde bought the club.
A very long reply from me because I dont deal in sound bites.
"We have to rely on gambles" sounds good for the Gao out brigade, but it is no different than at any other time, our worst season was when the gambles we were relying on were so called Champions league finalists like Lemina and club record signings like Vestergaard and Carrillo
"Gao not fit for purpose" is another nothing statement when we dont know what is actually fit for purpose | |
| Satisfying The Bloodlust Of The Masses In Peacetime |
| |
| Good Transfer Business Done So Far on 15:38 - Aug 3 with 1608 views | saints__fan__73 |
There are fewer and fewer PL clubs every season competing under the same 'just survive' long-term plans as we are. We've seen Wolves, Leeds and Villa come up and pass us so it's now just us, Burnley, Newcastle, Palace and Brighton competing in a mini league with the 3 promoted clubs to see who can avoid finishing in the bottom 3.
How can anyone be excited about being a part of that? |  |
| |
| Good Transfer Business Done So Far on 16:05 - Aug 3 with 1589 views | Saintsforeverj |
| Good Transfer Business Done So Far on 14:38 - Aug 3 by SaintNick |
Four of the players who have left, have played little part of the last two seasons, Hoedt and Lemina havent played at all, Gunn hasnt played in the League since October 2019 and Jamkewitz only two 1 minute appearances, so we cant really count them as depth |
So what did Ralph mean then when he said he wanted more strength in depth? No cover left back at all? Is that what he meant, I don't think so! Nobody extra in midfield (Jankewitz has left and he had to be used at Utd away because we had nobody else). We don't even have him now. Minamino has left so that's another one down in midfield. Elyanoussi wasn't good enough to play for us before. If Ves goes, we will be another one down and ward Prowse. When Romeu was injured, we had one recognised defensive midfielder who then also became unavailable. We still only have 2 defensive midfielders in the club. Ok, you call one recognised left back and the same 2 defensive midfielders we had last year (which wasn't enough last year), strength in depth. An 18 year old as cover for right back, who may or may not be good enough. I disagree that's strength in depth. You think that's strength in depth for a PL club, that lost 9 nil (because of injuries) and the squad is smaller, ok. [Post edited 3 Aug 2021 16:11]
|  |
| |
| Good Transfer Business Done So Far on 16:21 - Aug 3 with 1577 views | saints__fan__73 |
| Good Transfer Business Done So Far on 16:05 - Aug 3 by Saintsforeverj |
So what did Ralph mean then when he said he wanted more strength in depth? No cover left back at all? Is that what he meant, I don't think so! Nobody extra in midfield (Jankewitz has left and he had to be used at Utd away because we had nobody else). We don't even have him now. Minamino has left so that's another one down in midfield. Elyanoussi wasn't good enough to play for us before. If Ves goes, we will be another one down and ward Prowse. When Romeu was injured, we had one recognised defensive midfielder who then also became unavailable. We still only have 2 defensive midfielders in the club. Ok, you call one recognised left back and the same 2 defensive midfielders we had last year (which wasn't enough last year), strength in depth. An 18 year old as cover for right back, who may or may not be good enough. I disagree that's strength in depth. You think that's strength in depth for a PL club, that lost 9 nil (because of injuries) and the squad is smaller, ok. [Post edited 3 Aug 2021 16:11]
|
It's pointless trying to argue rationally with him, since the day Cortese departed the club can do no wrong in Nick's eyes.
They could literally close down the club, bulldoze SMS and put in an Aldi and Nick's editorial here the next day would read 'Good Bargains to be had for fans in the Bakery section'. | |
| |
| Good Transfer Business Done So Far on 18:45 - Aug 3 with 1490 views | DorsetIan |
| Good Transfer Business Done So Far on 15:17 - Aug 3 by SaintNick |
The post by sonic boom suggested that back in the 80/90's we relied on tried and proven players at top flight level.
Actually that is not quite the case
1980 yes we signed Keegan but also Mike McCartney unproven in the top flight
1981 - Dave Armstrong but also Keith Cassells and Mark Wright, unproven and a youngster
After 1983 ish our transfer policy was focused very much on players who had not played in the top flight when they joined us, unless they were of the veteran age as in Frank Worthington Joe Jordan Jimmy Caseetc or flawed such as Mark Dennis.
Ken Armstrong, Andy Townsend, Glen Cockerill, Gerry Forest, Jon Gittens, Colin Clarke, Gordon Hobson, Kevin Moore, Neil Ruddock, Jason Dodd, Alan McGloughlin, Richard Hall, Paul Moody, Simon Charlton. , Neil Shipperley, Richard Dryden, Paul Jones, Lee Todd, Kevin Davies, James Beattie, Chris Marsden , Patrick Colleter, Dean Richards.
Then there were the unheard of foreigners, Claus Lundekvam, Marian Pahars, Eyal Berkovic, Egil Ostenstad Ronnie Eklund, Hassan Kachloul, Joe Tessem
In fact when we started to buy players with top flight experience in 92-93 things went wrong, Hurlock Steve Wood, Kerrie Dixon, David Speedie. Same a few years later, David Hirst, John Beresford, Boa Morte, Carlton Palmer.
There is a Southampton way and it has been there for nearly 60 years now when Ted Bates brought in players from the lower leagues such as Ron Davies and paired them with experience and youngsters.
So what if "fit for purpose" as a Premier League owner, it seems to me you are saying that it is anyone who can throw hundreds of millions at a club, it doesnt matter if they are successful ie Manchester City's Sheikhs or unsuccessful such as Moshiri at Everton who has fared no better than Gao in the last 3 or years
Truth is that you can spend what you like but as it stands no clubs have the spending power of Liverpool, United, City & Chelsea it is no longer a big six but a big four and then it is the rest.
Please explain to what fit for purpose is ?
I truly want to know, the reality for around 12 of the Premier League clubs it is finishing in between 17th & 8th, take out the aforementioned big 4, add Leicester, , Spurs and Arsenal and these are the only clubs that you could say with almost 100% surety they won't go down, the other 12 may have a couple that probably won't, but could still struggle, but truth is take out the three promoted clubs and that means 9 of us fighting for the centre ground, some years we may struggle and be in the bottom half of the middle ground and others we may contest the top half.
Gao is as good as we can get at the moment, this isnt the 1990's with Guy Askham, it is modern football, owners cant just be ousted these days as they own the club, you have to buy them out and there isn't a queue around the block at any Premier League club at present.
Yes Burnley got sold and went overnight from being a well run debt free club to having their new owners levereage the club for £200 million, now they have owners who could walk away and leave them in debt with not a chance of buying them, we may remember this cycle back in the early 00's when Michael Wilde bought the club.
A very long reply from me because I dont deal in sound bites.
"We have to rely on gambles" sounds good for the Gao out brigade, but it is no different than at any other time, our worst season was when the gambles we were relying on were so called Champions league finalists like Lemina and club record signings like Vestergaard and Carrillo
"Gao not fit for purpose" is another nothing statement when we dont know what is actually fit for purpose |
My Premier League Owner, 'fit for purpose' test is:
"Do you have the ability to ensure that the club is financed - either from money that you yourself lend to it, or from borrowing that you can facilitate/guarantee, or by your ability to make the club so profitable as to generate its own cash - to ensure that the club can attract sufficient player of sufficient quality for the club to be able to compete with the other teams in the league for a full season?"
I don't think Gao passes this test.
Perhaps you think he does? Or perhaps you think the test is too onerous? | |
| |
| Good Transfer Business Done So Far on 21:08 - Aug 3 with 1422 views | Sadoldgit |
| Good Transfer Business Done So Far on 12:17 - Aug 3 by barry_sanchez |
Walcott is now gash and ineffectual and the other signings are gambles, that is all there is to it, hope, we're left with hope before a ball is kicked.
Lack of aspiration, like the City I suppose. |
All signings are gambles. How did Pogba work out for United? How did Werner turn out for Chelsea? Some of our most expensive transfers have been duds. |  | | |
| Good Transfer Business Done So Far on 08:13 - Aug 4 with 1298 views | Berber |
| Good Transfer Business Done So Far on 15:38 - Aug 3 by saints__fan__73 |
There are fewer and fewer PL clubs every season competing under the same 'just survive' long-term plans as we are. We've seen Wolves, Leeds and Villa come up and pass us so it's now just us, Burnley, Newcastle, Palace and Brighton competing in a mini league with the 3 promoted clubs to see who can avoid finishing in the bottom 3.
How can anyone be excited about being a part of that? |
Newcastle are just as likely to sink back, especially under Bruce, in his 3rd season with them and about time for his cyclical routine of blaming everyone except himself for clueless tactics and no motivation. Without St Maximin they are usually dross, despite Wilson and Willock (still not signed for them, as the player is not convinced). Palace were in an appalling state squad wise after the end of the season. Villa were less than ordinary when Grealish was out of the team. Let's not overstate how teams have progressed.
That doesn't change your statement on the "scrapping it out at the bottom" scenario, which remains true, but the pool remains pretty much every team in the bottom half when taken over 5-6 seasons. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Good Transfer Business Done So Far on 21:37 - Aug 6 with 1092 views | Butty101 |
Anyone else thinking this has been a great window so far? Getting 15million for Ings was a master stroke |  |
| |
| Good Transfer Business Done So Far on 22:16 - Aug 6 with 1054 views | cocklebreath |
| Good Transfer Business Done So Far on 21:37 - Aug 6 by Butty101 |
Anyone else thinking this has been a great window so far? Getting 15million for Ings was a master stroke |
Just soggy and Nick. I still have faith we’re gonna pull a rabbit out of the hat, maybe |  |
| |
| Good Transfer Business Done So Far on 22:27 - Aug 6 with 1031 views | Sadoldgit |
| Good Transfer Business Done So Far on 22:16 - Aug 6 by cocklebreath |
Just soggy and Nick. I still have faith we’re gonna pull a rabbit out of the hat, maybe |
I wouldn't say great but we have shipped out some more dead wood and the two Chelsea signings look promising. Gutted that Ings left but depending on how the money is spent it might work out as a good thing as he hasn’t been the same since his injury. Like you I am looking forward to a rabbit! | | | |
| Good Transfer Business Done So Far on 22:38 - Aug 6 with 1019 views | Kennington |
I’ve probably never been less excited for the start of the new season. This is our ninth season in the premier league and we still don’t have the money to buy premier league players. Not just we don’t have the money for established mid table level players, we also can’t offer a good enough deal to our local lad and by far best player not to go to Villa. I never get the logic of why we can’t retain players like Ings. Assuming the Ings deal is £25m, the way we account for transfers or have done in the past means with agent fees, tax etc, even if we reinvest it all we can probably only spend £18m. That in premier league terms is nothing, and we’d have been far better off just giving Ings what he’s getting at Villa. For some reason we have squandered nine years of premier league riches and opportunities and probably taking inflation into account have a similar transfer budget that we had pre Marcus Leibherr. | |
| |
| Good Transfer Business Done So Far on 23:25 - Aug 6 with 1000 views | MattFinish |
Nick, I know you think Gao is a decent owner and that's an opinion that you're entitled to but how can you say we've done good business so far?
Ralph ended last season by quite rightly saying he wanted signings to give him 2 decent players in each position. I think this was assuming we'd keep the majority of the squad. As it stands we've lost Ings and Bertrand so far and will most likely lose Vestergaard and JWP all on the cheap. We'll be lucky if we replace the players we sell so we're hardly going to improve last seasons squad which we clearly needed to. |  | | |
| Good Transfer Business Done So Far on 00:26 - Aug 7 with 963 views | Saintsforeverj |
| Good Transfer Business Done So Far on 23:25 - Aug 6 by MattFinish |
Nick, I know you think Gao is a decent owner and that's an opinion that you're entitled to but how can you say we've done good business so far?
Ralph ended last season by quite rightly saying he wanted signings to give him 2 decent players in each position. I think this was assuming we'd keep the majority of the squad. As it stands we've lost Ings and Bertrand so far and will most likely lose Vestergaard and JWP all on the cheap. We'll be lucky if we replace the players we sell so we're hardly going to improve last seasons squad which we clearly needed to. |
As you imply quite rightly, the strength in depth just isn't there. Ralph said it himself he wanted more strength in depth. We can't call two untried 18 year olds strength in depth. We still only have one recognised left back. An 18 year old as cover right back and right midfied. A striker down now, and he was our best striker! It's been a terrible transfer window so far.
Great to have the two players from Chelsea. I'm sure they have massive potential for the future. But they shouldn't be the cover. Look what happened at Man U last season when we unfairly threw in all the young players (players that we can't use thus year, as even they have gone!). It probably put them off football for life! Ralph wanted 2 players for each position. He hasn't got his wish, so how can it be a good transfer window, as Nick says, when Ralph hasn't got what he said he needs? [Post edited 7 Aug 2021 0:40]
| |
| |
| Good Transfer Business Done So Far on 06:54 - Aug 7 with 909 views | Soton |
I’m starting to think that if the club changes the name to Heavens Gate, Nick would be first in-line to cast off his earthy body and hop on that imaginary spaceship to a better footballing world |  | | |
| Good Transfer Business Done So Far on 09:22 - Aug 7 with 811 views | Sadoldgit |
| Good Transfer Business Done So Far on 22:38 - Aug 6 by Kennington |
I’ve probably never been less excited for the start of the new season. This is our ninth season in the premier league and we still don’t have the money to buy premier league players. Not just we don’t have the money for established mid table level players, we also can’t offer a good enough deal to our local lad and by far best player not to go to Villa. I never get the logic of why we can’t retain players like Ings. Assuming the Ings deal is £25m, the way we account for transfers or have done in the past means with agent fees, tax etc, even if we reinvest it all we can probably only spend £18m. That in premier league terms is nothing, and we’d have been far better off just giving Ings what he’s getting at Villa. For some reason we have squandered nine years of premier league riches and opportunities and probably taking inflation into account have a similar transfer budget that we had pre Marcus Leibherr. |
If the rumours are true, Ings wanted out so what is the point of keeping an unhappy player? I am as gutted as everyone to lose him but surely better to have someone who wants to be here? It is hardly a dream move for him is it so he must have been desperate to leave. What’s done is done. The recruitment has improved and Semmens seems to be taking his time over the replacement so I hope that means they are just intent on getting it right rather than throwing money at the problem, which as we know from past experience, doesn’t always work! There are still a few weeks left. Hopefully when the window slams shut we will have the squad Ralph wants and all committed to the cause. | | | |
| Good Transfer Business Done So Far on 12:59 - Aug 7 with 719 views | UlsterBaz |
| Good Transfer Business Done So Far on 15:38 - Aug 3 by saints__fan__73 |
There are fewer and fewer PL clubs every season competing under the same 'just survive' long-term plans as we are. We've seen Wolves, Leeds and Villa come up and pass us so it's now just us, Burnley, Newcastle, Palace and Brighton competing in a mini league with the 3 promoted clubs to see who can avoid finishing in the bottom 3.
How can anyone be excited about being a part of that? |
Spot on. |  | | |
| Good Transfer Business Done So Far on 15:21 - Aug 9 with 610 views | saints__fan__73 |
If we get Armstrong then we would have sold Ings and got a worse striker.
It's unlikely, at least in the 1st season, that the new LB is going to be as good as Bertrand.
And we signed 3 kids from the Chelsea academy - one who is going straight to the B team.
So we've taken the squad that was statistically the worst in the PL from Christmas on and further weakened it for the new season.
I guess it's only good business if you are doing nothing than more than looking at the Ings transfer money in the bank account. | |
| |
| Good Transfer Business Done So Far on 15:29 - Aug 9 with 599 views | DorsetIan |
The one think you can say is that it is, at least, some business. It seems that the club does have the freedom to spend the money it's got, it just that overall there's a year on year marginal decline as the club is forever selling its best players and replacing them with ones that are not quite as good.
I'd say that this slow but steady decline has been what's characterised Gao's reign.
Hopefully one or two of this season's new purchases will prove to be really really good and we might buck that trend. | |
| |
| Good Transfer Business Done So Far on 15:34 - Aug 9 with 597 views | pjt50 |
I've suddenly become strangely optimistic about this season.
If we can ship out Vestergaard & Obafemi it will leave us with a decent transfer kitty to bring in a new CB/DM & hopefully Broja on loan. We'll also have replaced a number of players entering their final season with ones who want to be here & have got something to prove. Admittedly Armstrong is an unknown quantity at this level but alongside an improving Salisu, Diallo & Tella it's not a bad squad.
Saturday's lineup will be interesting. | |
| |
| Good Transfer Business Done So Far on 15:44 - Aug 9 with 590 views | SaintNick |
| Good Transfer Business Done So Far on 15:21 - Aug 9 by saints__fan__73 |
If we get Armstrong then we would have sold Ings and got a worse striker.
It's unlikely, at least in the 1st season, that the new LB is going to be as good as Bertrand.
And we signed 3 kids from the Chelsea academy - one who is going straight to the B team.
So we've taken the squad that was statistically the worst in the PL from Christmas on and further weakened it for the new season.
I guess it's only good business if you are doing nothing than more than looking at the Ings transfer money in the bank account. |
Remember when we sold a club legend and replaced his with some italian we had never heard of and replaced the best young fullback in England with a 25 year old from Chelsea who had barely played a Premier League game | |
| Satisfying The Bloodlust Of The Masses In Peacetime |
| |
| Good Transfer Business Done So Far on 16:04 - Aug 9 with 575 views | saints__fan__73 |
| Good Transfer Business Done So Far on 15:44 - Aug 9 by SaintNick |
Remember when we sold a club legend and replaced his with some italian we had never heard of and replaced the best young fullback in England with a 25 year old from Chelsea who had barely played a Premier League game |
Incorrect comparison.
We sold a club legend who we all knew had only another season of PL football in him so it wasn't a huge loss. Lambert wasn't one of the PL's top 3 strikers when we sold him.
Bertrand was a player we took on loan for a year before signing. Prior to that he had spent a year playing in the PL for Villa and had a CL winner's medal from Chelsea. | |
| |
| Good Transfer Business Done So Far on 16:36 - Aug 9 with 553 views | Berber |
| Good Transfer Business Done So Far on 18:45 - Aug 3 by DorsetIan |
My Premier League Owner, 'fit for purpose' test is:
"Do you have the ability to ensure that the club is financed - either from money that you yourself lend to it, or from borrowing that you can facilitate/guarantee, or by your ability to make the club so profitable as to generate its own cash - to ensure that the club can attract sufficient player of sufficient quality for the club to be able to compete with the other teams in the league for a full season?"
I don't think Gao passes this test.
Perhaps you think he does? Or perhaps you think the test is too onerous? |
I think you missed out the bit about reasonable financial constraints. FFP still applies. Clubs can be constrained for years by failed acquisitions that are not possible to move on. High player wages means that they won't accept transfers if it means they will get less. We've seen a few of those. Some clubs are paying the wages of players that are no longer on their playing books for just this reason. "Paying up their contract" doesn't necessarily mean that they get their cash up front, so I wouldn't mind betting that we are still paying wages for Carillo and maybe others.
All of this has to be paid for out of self generated funds for any sensibly run club, whilst still meeting the FFP wage ceiling.
No business can survive long term on increasing loans, either from the owner of 3rd parties as nobody will lend on the basis of loss making operations with virtually no assets to cover the enormous debts being accumulated. So what you are saying is you expect Gao or any owner to keep plugging the gap. For the majority of clubs in the PL, that just isn't going to happen. Even for the super clubs, the need to find more income is still there, hence the recent failed attempt to set up a European Super league.
Harsh as it seems, and disappointing as the consequences are, Covid imacts aside, living within our means is the only option. | | | |
| Good Transfer Business Done So Far on 17:02 - Aug 9 with 521 views | DorsetIan |
| Good Transfer Business Done So Far on 16:36 - Aug 9 by Berber |
I think you missed out the bit about reasonable financial constraints. FFP still applies. Clubs can be constrained for years by failed acquisitions that are not possible to move on. High player wages means that they won't accept transfers if it means they will get less. We've seen a few of those. Some clubs are paying the wages of players that are no longer on their playing books for just this reason. "Paying up their contract" doesn't necessarily mean that they get their cash up front, so I wouldn't mind betting that we are still paying wages for Carillo and maybe others.
All of this has to be paid for out of self generated funds for any sensibly run club, whilst still meeting the FFP wage ceiling.
No business can survive long term on increasing loans, either from the owner of 3rd parties as nobody will lend on the basis of loss making operations with virtually no assets to cover the enormous debts being accumulated. So what you are saying is you expect Gao or any owner to keep plugging the gap. For the majority of clubs in the PL, that just isn't going to happen. Even for the super clubs, the need to find more income is still there, hence the recent failed attempt to set up a European Super league.
Harsh as it seems, and disappointing as the consequences are, Covid imacts aside, living within our means is the only option. |
You are right - noone can live on the never never for ever but...
The opposite of Gao is not constantly borrowing to plug the gap. The long term idea, as with any investment is to grow the business, which in the case of a football club means getting improved results, more fixture, prize money, Europe etc and increased revenues because a club doing well should increase its commercial income too. And sometimes investment is needed to 'stimulate the economy' as it were.
It's not just football. It's the same with any business, if you can't grow it, then it's going to decline.
Gao does not seem to be willing or able to grow Southampton - the promised 'taking it to the next level' has nowhere near materialised.
The fallacy in the line that Nick (and maybe you ?) support - that it is sufficient for an owner to simply let the club be 'self-sufficient' - is that any f*cker can do that.
Give me £200m to buy some shares and I can sit on my @rse and do nothing but own them too.
Few successful business have adopted such a passive strategy, and most of the ones that have had been overtaken by those with more ideas and ambition. It's what's happening to Saints. It's why Ings has gone to Villa. | |
| |
| Good Transfer Business Done So Far on 17:15 - Aug 9 with 499 views | DellHero_Would |
Broja on loan, deal done...Looking like a decent window is on the cards.
Up The Saints. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
