Oh come on archers....the southampton way has always been to try and play decent football win or lose. The club mainly has always had the reputation of being able to hold its head up high and with pride say, we tried, but sadly not recently. We have come in for a lot of criticism from all over and not just Saints fans! Over the last few games it is my opinion the way we are playing is missing something, even with our wins, yes of course we are delighted, but even then there was criticism by a few. We, that are not football managers, will always look for what we think is a problem. We're not always right but usually we are pointing in the right direction. So even if we win our next few games, yes, some will criticise even then. If that is how they see it, then they have a right to express it.
Mate, someone on another thread just said how much he enjoyed having Gordon Strachan as our manager. I agree with him, but the football under WGS was hardly inspiring; effective, yes, cultured, not a bit of it. The most entertaining Saints side I can remember watching was Chris Nichol's first season in charge, and he got the sack a year later. We've had some pretty dour stuff served up over the decades. For most of the nineties we had arguably the best player in the league playing for us, but the rest of the team were usually somewhere between average and piss poor.
Going back to the OP, I think that it's conjecture. Are we for sale? That seems to be the consensus but I have no inside track. Can I see any change in behaviour from the board to back up this belief? Not really. The end of last season, everything clicked into place. Players form, results, manager's tactics. Everything. And how amazing was that given the poor winter form and the upheaval of the previous seasons? And this tied in with the top teams losing form themselves so some notable scalps were taken. This season, we started again with a new manager and players. Have they done as well as those they replaced? Not yet, but remember when Mané went through a lean spell and had disciplinary issues. Remember when Victor was only playing a couple of games before he was suspended again by his next red card. Yes, fortunately it all came together. So let's have a look at the Southampton Way. Club run sustainably? Check. Attractive style of football? Well much less so than previously, it is clear for all to see. Promoting Academy players to an aspirational 50% of the squad? Much better progress here after going backwards last season. A disaster? Not for me. Not yet. We are only half way through the season. The Private Frasiers may be overly pessimistic. I never expected my club to make constant progress on all fronts, all of the time. I remember where we were and I am patient. The performances need to improve and like others, I would be concerned if everyone associated with the club wasn't angry and upset at the moment. But I see no evidence that the owner/management have simply lost interest?
Well we agree on one thing there has been some pretty dour stuff dished out over the years. Not withstanding some of the rubbish we've seen this year. We had our ups and downs during our last stay in the top division usually involving a relegation flight for most of the time. Mostly that was down to the quality of the players we had. Matt Le tiss on many an occasion pretty well kept us up on his own as we all know. But we did have some excellent players too, Mickey Channon, Alan shearer, Martin Chivers just to name a few. Our reputation was gathered during their era and certainly while we had the manager whose statue is outside our stadium. Laurie Mac took us to the next level but the board then rather tried to do what the board today is trying to do. By trying to do things on the cheap. They were offered a golden opportunity to continue at a higher level by Charlie Knott who owned the speedway track just up from the Dell. He offered them the land so they could build up to a 45000/50000 capacity stadium in exchange for a share in Saints but was turned down. A lot of us supporters made it known that we thought it was a wrong decision even if they combined the two sports until we were in a better situation financially, as a temporary measure. Then the premier league started to make stadia all seaters we suffered badly losing more that 60% of our total capacity. How they regretted that decision. That is what put us back years and years because we could not sustain what we had achieved and started to lose our best players and managers as a consequence. To my mind that seems to be the way we are going at the moment too...............
and I said much the same thing two days ago when they didn't grab the chance to build a new stadium on the old power station site in the late 70s.
Sorry Archers but I really don't buy this, people can say it's all about the money but it's bollocks imo. It's s factor for sure, but it's not the main reason at all that players would choose Man United over Southampton. If I played for a midtable club in Spain and Real Madrid came calling it wouldn't be the money that's the main factor. I'd probably still go if they offered less.
You and I should spend an evening boring the pants of people by watching loads of old classic 0-0s and then explaining the tactical enjoyment to them Ps. I'd rather win 4-3 than 1-0, but the big point for me is I absolutely hate it when my team loses. Bollocks to the red arrows at Man City on our first game back, or destroying United for an hour and being 4 minutes from beating them at home that season before Fergie cheated, by bringing on Harry Reed's Uncle. Give me 1-0 v Middlesbrough over those any day please. Much better car journey home!
Man Utd won't be offering anybody less money. Earlier I said it is money and the kudos of being at a massive club. I am not convinced anyone has ever joined a big club for less money though. The point is we are not a massive club and they can get more money Ps if money is a factor, the Archers wasn't talking bollocks really
Playing attractive football wasn't just an aesthetic decision, it was a strategic one. It meant that we were a desirable destination for top-quality up-and-coming attackers like Mane, who wanted to showcase their talents. It gave our Academy a higher profile because the kids were not only coming through, but were being trained to play excellent football and demonstrate that on the biggest stage, which aided our youth recruitment. And it helped our finances, because we filled the building and received more attention than most mid-table sides, which also increased our commercial revenue. So give me a team that finishes 12th while playing ambitious football over one that finishes 10th while killing games every day. One is a platform to build on, the other is a holding pattern.
Sorry Matey, I can't agree with you on that one. Define cheap? How much did the Academy campus cost and what further investment is planned? It's true that we have not chased the highly paid mercenaries that the richer clubs have done, but consider what we spent on Ramires and Osvaldo- those signing which apparently "showed our intentions and ambition" but which left us with little to show except a huge (for the time) wage bill.
On certain things they started to go down the right road..........when the original owner told us of how he wanted us to proceed. In those days there would have been a fair argument against how I'm feeling. Sadly though channon that is the only thing that was continued after he died. Gradually every thing he originally said he wanted to happen, despite the rhetoric from the club, seems to have been put onto the back burner. Blaming costs, paying Katrina back etc. When her Dad was the financier money did not seem to be the stumbling block or that was the impression I and others got. I understand that things can change, what I'm having trouble accepting is the rhetoric that they are still trying to maintain the status quo but without the financial input needed to do so. This despite the extra revenue coming their way from the league, the little bit of European money and not forgetting the sales of our best players. Something isn't adding up, not sure what it is but for me things sure ain't right!
We yeah of course they wouldn't that was purely hypothetical. And I wasn't saying Archers specifically was talking bollocks, more that the general idea that 'they only go for the money' is, and I stand by that. Maybe I misunderstood what he meant. Money is undoubtedly a factor, but it's almost certainly not the main/decisive one when talking about the players who have left us and the clubs they've gone to. How many would have stayed if we, again hypothetically, offered the same wages? I suspect none.
That's a bit harsh. During the early years we lavished £1m on Lambert and £300k on Puncheon. We are now looking at the top 6 and thinking we need to be in that club regularly- but throwing money at the problem would need very deep pockets indeed and might put the long term future of the club in doubt. We are building slowly. It was never going to be non-stop progress.
I gather from your reply then that you consider we are still building albeit slowly? We will have to agree to disagree then. Despite our good run towards the end of last season all I have seen over the last couple of seasons is a holding pattern. Mainly because we are buying to replace all the time rather than strengthen. This to me is not progress.
I've been able to seethe logic in buy low sell high until this point. What I've begun to realize is that it's a closed loop if done the way we have been. Each season we sign a couple of players to 5 year contracts. 3 seasons later they are playing brilliantly in a club challenging the top5. Top 5 buy them with 2 years left on contracts. We go back to square 1 with two of our best players. Meanwhile we get close but not close enough with results, so player success with saints comes to mean getting sold for lots of money. I don't like that at all even if I do see the economic advantages.
What I think some people forget is that players and agents create the moves. The club can hold off for a while, as ours have, but in the end they can't force a player to sign a new contract.
What I have yet to see is a convincing explanation of why agents and players associated with saints make a much more concerted effort than those around other clubs tho. Because they certainly seem to. There are forces at play beyond agents.
It is the model we've always said we do, so why everyone is surprised or complaining, I don't know. It is also because we have been successful and successful in our recruitment. It is actually a compliment to us.
Yes, when complaining that we sold the players for a profit, that's all you can do when they won't stay/sign a new deal. To those who say we lack ambition I presume that they mean that we should have spent all money from Mané on an attacking midfielder? But how many players with that price tag would want to sign for us? And what if they then flopped/stropped? We have to sell proven players or their value halves the next summer (Clyne, Mané,etc). A £30m player would come to Saints because...?
