Maybe so, but we all love Romeu now, so let's keep him rather than make a couple of million but lose 150 million if we go down because if it. Balance the books by getting rid of players we don't need, not ones we do. We know we have to sell players when silly money comes in, I accept that but the difference here is simple, they want to make a couple of million, but risk losing 150 million. When we sell a top player for 50 million, fair enough, because we would have shed loads of money to get a replacement. Lavia is far too young for us to know if he can be his replacement. Who cares if we lose out on a few million but we get another 5 years of him and he helps keep us up? The club care, they want every last penny.
I don't think anyone would ever say "stealing a wage" in regards to Romeu. He has been a great player for the team for many years and is respected for what he has given us like Le Tiss, Benali, Long even. He would be useful with 10 minutes to go to bring on, to help us hold onto a 1 nil lead, at 35 years old in my view.
Really depends on what the price is Nick. I'm thinking Romeu wouldn't go for much more than a few million. I think he is a massive part of our team, in terms of Saints holding on to any rare wins we get, with his aggression and physicality. Get rid of him, to make a few million, and it may be the difference between staying up and going down. Now, that wouldn't be a good business decision at all. If we get 20 million for him, yeah sell him, not a few million, which is what I suspect it will be. Redmond can go, Stephens can go, but in my opinion Romeu is a key player we need.
My point is, they would rather risk going down, to make just a few million, than keep a good player we need.
It's a business move, if it happens, not for the benefit.of the team or entertainment of the fans. It's as you say, he will very soon be worth nothing, so they want to get some money in rather than none at all.
That's a shame, he is an aggressive, experienced player and the closest we have to a leader. But ofcourse he is an older player, we can get a fee for him, that we won't be able to get if he sees out his contract. It's about bringing in some money before he is too old.
City will win this league by March. They look far superior to anyone. Oh well, a little rest from seeing all the attention seeking glory hunters wearing their shirts around the south, as "their" team didn't win. What a shame.
I like having City around, just to stop Liverpool winning anything.
I really wanted go Nick, love the cups, and love seeing lower league grounds. I really enjoyed Newport last season, obviously the result but visiting a new ground. Proper football grounds and down to earth fans, with old fashioned burger vans etc. But unfortunately, have family commitment.
Should be good for the fans who go, new ground, new set of fans.
Again, it's all about trying to force the fans into buying a new shirt. If they had red and white again (which is what it should be, that's what we are), the fans could just wear last year's shirt. They know this, so change it completely. It will probably go back to red and white next season, so people have to change their shirt again.They don't care that we look like Leeds. A few more pounds have come in. Keep it red and white like last year, and then most people just wear last year's shirt, it's about money for them as is everything.
But they are ignoring the cash flow, because Pep has said Broja is going on loan despite reported bids incoming. As I thought, they will let him develop this season at another club and then sell him next season for a larger fee, once he has scored a few goals. Not sure how the FFP works, because they must be paying De Bruyne, Haaland, Grealish huge amounts of money but it doesn't seem to affect them. They are so rich, it doesn't matter if they get fined.