Claude Puel has reiterated in his press conference that should the right player become available then the club will make a move to replace Jose Fonte.

Speaking at the press conference ahead of the League Cup Semi Final on Wednesday Claude Puel revealed that the club is actively looking to replace Jose Fonte this transfer window.

“We will study possibilities to replace him,” Puel told reporters at a press conference ahead of the EFL Cup semi-final with Liverpool. "That’s normal. There is a possibility until the end of the market.

"For the moment at centre back we have Maya Yoshida, van Dijk, Gardos and Jack Stephens, and we will see if we have an opportunity, or if we will stay with our confidence in these players. We will see at the end of the market.

“For me, I am happy with all the squad and I respect my players. I am happy with these players and if one or two come into the squad then I think it will be important they can bring something more than the players for the moment in the squad.”

There are some supporters who will use the fact that Puel has said that he is quite happy to stick with the current options at centre back if he has to as a sign that the club isn't looking to replace Fonte.

That is clearly not the case, Puel has clearly stated that the club is still looking at options, however if for whatever reason they cannot land a target that they are happy with, then the manager has to plan for that fact and it would be folly to write off those players that he might have to work with.

Of course Puel like an manager would like to see quality signings come i, but they don't grow on trees and the January transfer window is traditionally overpriced.

Saints of course remain linked with Mamdou Sakho who is set to leave Liverpool, it is pertinent that the rumour mill on his transfer has gone quiet of late, suggesting that perhaps a deal has been struck for the player between Liverpool and a club.

If that is the case then the question is why has the transfer not gone through yet, that would suggest that Saints could be about to land Sakho, but Liverpool will not sell until Wednesday's semi final is concluded.

Photo: Action Images

pintsizedsaint added 23:47 - Jan 23 On a slightly different angle, Saints worst kept secret is that we're negotiating for Manolo Gabbiandini from Napoli. €16m bid but they want €20m. Sounds like a deal could be reached though. Interesting one this. Not a classic black box purchase as he's being tracked by the likes of Everton, West Ham and West Brom. He's not had much luck at Napoli but from what I've seen, he looks half decent. Very good on the ball and good in the air as well. Able to strike some wonderful goals from distance and also likes to run into the box and get on the end of crosses. Hardly ever celebrates goals though! Fans seem to suggest he would do well in the Premier league. This rumour looks like it might have some legs. Italians not able to keep things quiet!

1

patred added 00:19 - Jan 24 to me...“We will study possibilities to replace him,” Puel told reporters...does not mean actively seeking another player from another club. And, seeking a replacement could easily mean that Stephens and Guardos will be used instead. It's double talk. Where is this 'replacement before we sell Fonte' promised by Reed.? That could well be Stephens or Guardos knowing his views on academy players flooding the 1st team squad. Hints about Wimmer...but no bid..now it's too late Spurs wont leave themselves short of defenders. Paper talk of loaning Shako...as if Liverpool will make his wage up. Only action thus far is to sell Fonte, and sign Sims..

5

highfield49 added 07:42 - Jan 24 Some of us, me included, believe that the performance against Leicester was lifted by the removal of uncertainty about the future of Jose within the player group. Whilst I agree that a replacement for Fonte was expected I think we should at least wait and see what transpires this month before jumping to conclusions that it wont happen. There are reports that Gabbiadini's agent has advised Napoli that if they want him to leave then they need to be realistic about his valuation. Of course I have no idea if that is true but if Les Reed is comfortable playing a waiting game and subsequently signing a decent player for a lot less than his club's inflated valuation that makes sense. None of us know what is going on negotiation wise but should we end up next week with Sakho and Gabbiadini in Saints shirts for a combined £25m rather than £40m shouldn't we give credit to the club management as well as breathing a huge sigh of relief that they pulled it off? And if neither player is signed does that show lack of ambition or belief that the players we currently have will form the platform for rebuilding in the summer?

6

schatfield added 08:38 - Jan 24 I read this as Puel really saying that he has 4 defenders currently and he would look to purchase only if the club found someone better than what he currently has available....sounds very much like we are sticking with what we have.
1

SaintNick added 09:09 - Jan 24 Schatfield, Why would we want to purchase someone who is NOT better than we have available, he has clearly said if we can find better then we will buy. Pat- I think you are twisting his poor english a little, he has said we are studying the possibilitities, we know we have tried to get Sakho to by studying he means a little more than just considering and should read trying, also yes he said we will buy before we sell fonte, however the situation had detiorated to such a level that fonte was never going to play again and his presence was disruptive, we had towo choices, leave him to rot or cash in we did the latter. Its not the best option but we have to lookat the longer term picture as well

2

SaintBrock added 10:21 - Jan 24 I cannot believe the extent of your naivety Nick in believing everything that the club tells you. They must love you for doing their PR job for them free of charge. There is another less attractive scenario, Nick in that there are plenty of available players out there better than what we have already but they just don't want to come here to a lower mid table PL side with little ambition and very few world class players for them to gel with and play alongside. The elephant in the room is that Kat wants out and is liquidising assets to maximise her gains before selling up at an asking price that won't change whether she spends some money or not. Cash for her right now is King. No room in their for good old fashioned sentiments about replacing missing players. Puel will do as he is told to do and say what he is instructed to say, patently he is not a boat rocker. If he doesn't like it then at the end of his contract he can just walk away and say nowt.

2

SaintBrock added 10:22 - Jan 24 there !
0

LordDZLucan added 10:29 - Jan 24 I think that whether anybody comes in or not depends upon how many cups we're still in come 19.30 on Saturday. If we're still in both cups then I wouldn't be surprised to see one or two players come in. If we're out of both cups then I bet you we sign nobody as Les Reed will take the view that we can avoid relegation with what we've got which will be the only goal left for the season.

3

SaintNick added 10:38 - Jan 24 SaintBrock, you are either very well connected to Kat and the club to know so much about her intentions or you are naive enough to believe gossip on social media. I dont go on what the club tells me, I speak to various people some close to the club and some not and I listen to what they say If there are plenty of available players better than what we have where are they ? this is a January transfer window little is done in January and what is is overpriced. I keep saying till im blue in the face that if Kat is liquidising her assets she is not making a good job of it, prior to the Fonte transfer we spent only £11 million less than we received last summer and a chunk of that would have been on signing on fees etc. So if Kat is liquidising the assets as you seem to accept as gospel, why did she spend all this money last summer ? we could of managed without signing Hojbjerg and Boufal for instance and she could have put £33 million in her bank account. She could then have sold off Fonte in August and accepted a cheap deal from the Chinese who wouldnt include player values in their offer and walked away with a lot of money, This is the big flaw in the argument that Kat is liquidising the assets, the stats dont actually back it up. Im interested in hearing why spending £50 million means cash is king for her ? tell me why we didnt just sell Fonte in August so she could pocket the money and why we spent so much of what we brought in. Surely if she was asset stripping she would have pocketed the bulk of the transfer fees ? Im not naive enough to believe everything the club tells me, but I also actually look at the figures before joining in with those screaming that the club is going downhill fast.

4

LordDZLucan added 12:30 - Jan 24 I would draw your attention to the following website - http://www.transferleague.co.uk. On there you can find the following summary: # Net Transfer Spend last 5 Years 1 Manchester City £402,550,000 2 Manchester United £368,650,000 4 Arsenal £205,890,000 3 Chelsea £192,309,000 5 West Ham £125,300,000 6 Liverpool £121,520,000 7 Leicester £88,400,000 8 Sunderland £73,430,000 9 Stoke City £62,300,000 10 Watford £59,600,000 11 West Bromwich Albion £59,141,000 12 Crystal Palace £56,635,000 13 AFC Bournemouth £52,100,000 14 Everton £74,984,000 15 Hull City £46,925,000 16 Middlesbrough £36,050,000 17 Southampton £33,250,000 18 Burnley £23,450,000 19 Tottenham £5,500,000 20 Swansea -£9,685,000 This doesn't include the Fonte money or the money we've made on managers. Also, Tottenham's position is articificial because of the Bale windfall. Make up your own minds on what Kat's intentions are.

-1

bstokesaint added 12:46 - Jan 24 I'm not sure you can categorically draw any conclusions from any of Kat's actions or the above, other than perhaps the opposite of the point that you are making Lucan in that the higher your position relative to your net spends the higher the club is effectively over-performing. On that basis Swansea fans should be more miffed because they've spent virtually nothing and they are three points off the bottom. Oh yeah and Leicester have spent big and are also cr@p. Huge wages in the Championship won't be hard to swallow. I'm not naïve enough to believe everything the club state, or that there isn't cash somewhere to spend if we want to (we've clearly not spent any television money so far), but I don't accept we are looking to flog the club, as has been rumoured since Markus passed away, without amounting to anything. I also believe that there is something going on behind the scenes, but for all we know that could be Kat looking for additional investment as opposed to selling. Whilst the club is without doubt in it's healthiest financial situation, possibly ever, it probably makes more sense to err on the side of optimism than the perennial negativity of seasons past.

1

highfield49 added 13:02 - Jan 24 Accountancy was never one of my strong points, and never will be, so I'll admit that I haven't a clue what the actual meaning of the net transfer spend over the last five years actually shows. That said it does indicate to me just how wide the gulf is between the haves and have nots in football. Do these figures include money spent on the best training facilities, running one of the best academies in the country, long term contracts etc, etc? Also, I'm a bit concerned that Bournemouth might just be overspending on gates around the 12,000 mark or have I missed something?

0

bstokesaint added 13:10 - Jan 24 I think you're right Highfield. The gulf in the big clubs is highlighted here and until we are able to start bridging this gap somehow off the pitch, then our personnel turnover will probably continue as it is. The obvious exception is if we are bought out or have significant investment from another party who are willing to incur huge losses for the prestige of having a title challenging PL team.

0

pintsizedsaint added 13:12 - Jan 24 SaintBrock – The elephant you refer to is your own elephant that sits in your own room. Perhaps you share that elephant and room with the other conspiracy theorists that lurk on the internet. We’ve been hearing this type of conspiracy story for years now and there is no evidence yet that it actually exists. As said before, SFC have been very clear about their strategy regarding transfers: they identify up and coming talent and aim to buy low in accordance with market value. They develop these players to improve our league position and, if they can’t keep them, sell for considerable profit. To me, that’s not asset stripping or preparing for a sale: that’s trying to survive in a competitive league where lots of clubs have more money and better infrastructure than you. LordDZLucan: I struggle to see what this table would ever imply other than the obvious: Southampton sit near the bottom in terms of how much money they’ve spent on transfers in net terms. As above, that aligns with their strategy of identifying affordable talent that improves the squad, enabling it to perform at higher levels - and selling it on for a profit if they won’t stay. What you don’t compare is the year-on-year performance of those teams. So, for example, West Ham have spent an eye watering £125.3m on transfers but this has not translated into expected improvement (given the cash flow) over the five years until last year (promoted to EPL in 2011-12, 10th in 2012-13, 13th in 2013-14, 12th in 2014-15 and 7th last year). Whereas Saints have spent just over £92m less than West Ham but have had clear performance improvement – cumulating into breaking our highest ever EPL finishes in the last two years (promoted to EPL in 2011-12, 14th in 2012-13, 8th in 2013-14, 7th in 2014-15 and 6th in 2015-16.) I chose West Ham because they came up in the same year as us. When you compare performance terms, you can say that, whilst West Ham have spent more, they have not spent (and sold) wisely – and have not seen the expected return via performance. Saints are the complete opposite.

2

Big_T added 14:04 - Jan 24 "Net spend" is the key point here ! We have spent £221m ! 1/ Man C £565,650,000 2/Man U. £528,800,000 3/Chelsea. £507,459,000 4/liverpoo £355,600,000 5/Spuds. £315,450,000 6/Ars. £298,100,000 7/Saints. £221,100,000 Not so gloomy looking when you put it in true context, but it is such a shame that the club has made money on our resent transfer policy, it would be much better for the fans if we just throw millions away on transfer that bankrupt the club !

2

LordDZLucan added 14:18 - Jan 24 Big T, if you're selling at the same time as you're spending then overall you're not spending unless you get a windfall like Spurs did. Let me clarify one thing. I am not saying that the club’s strategy is wrong in any sense with one big exception which is that, if we’re going bring all these talented youngsters on and turn them into top drawer premier league players they need experienced quality players to guide them in their formative years. I’m not saying we should throw money at a load of average players a la West Ham and Sunderland. I’m saying we should invest carefully in a couple of stand out players. The transfer table illustrates that we should have the money to be able to do this. If not, where has it gone?

1

Big_T added 20:18 - Jan 24 LordDZlucan I do understand what you are saying , and I totally understand peoples frustration I am a fan who wishes we as a club could spend £500m and buy messi and aguerro, if you read our annual statements you will see that we have spent all the money we have . It has mostly gone on wages then new players and a considerable amount on our staplwood facilities. As a club the most important thing is to keep growing and improving unfortunately this annoyingly takes time, when our revenues get to the levels of the top seven clubs then the can buy stars and keep them. This is of cause a double edged sword, how do you get success and raise revenue without keeping your best players? How do you keep your star players if they want wages and success that you can't offer yet ? Getting it right is what we all want ! Get it wrong and you end up like Leeds, Bolton or our league 2 neighbour.

1

darthvader added 12:14 - Feb 4 Wow that replacement for Fonte worked out well... Oh hang on we are still letting our good defenders leave . In a couple more windows we won't have any defenders permanently at the club. Just loaners
0

Blogs 31 bloggers

Southampton Polls