This multi club model has absolutely **** all benefit to Saints, and I'm not 100% that this ****wittery with transfers to Goetzpe won't come back to bite us on the arse with some obscure rules at some point.
The benefit is we buy him if he looks good in Turkey and it means that the Charly deal is just profit for PSR purposes, rather than buying him now and eliminating a large chunk of profit from the PSR calculations. He isn't going to get minutes here yet, that's for sure. So if he can have a strong season in the Turkish Super Lig then we buy him, he moves over to us next summer and doesn't affect this year's PSR books and Göztepe get the benefit of his performance in the meantime *if he's good, if not then he just goes back to Brazil and SR haven't committed money on him
I don’t generally get involved in the conversation about players going to Goztepe, but if we don’t think they are ready for the Premier League, I see no harm in them getting genuine first team experience in the top league in Turkey. Not sure how the quality compares to the Championship, for example, but maybe we have some level of control on how much game time they get, something we might not get if loaning them to an EFL club. If it improves them, maybe to the level where we can bring them into our squad, then it’s good practice. If they don’t improve to our requirements, then maybe they will improve enough for us to sell them for a profit.
Well said, for some reason the Göztepe thing is the new SR boogeyman. Probably because Rasmus is over there and hands-on with them
The only negative to this theory is that Onuachu did well over there and it didn’t prove anything about his ability to play for us…
Yeah - posts like Lincoln’s above are a bit wild. A steadfast refusal to see any positive side whilst straight up inventing a potential negative scenario that has thus far not happened to a single club with multi club structures. Structures that Man United, Chelsea and City have had for years. It takes a unique kind of doom-mongering to not only see only negatives but to have to invent things for that to even be the case I appreciate we haven’t seen a benefit yet but I imagine our relegation impacted that. And weren’t they relegated as well? Or were they already a second division club. But now they look to have several players that aren’t ready for us (or will do). And this might be beneficial. The Japanese and Brazilian ones. I have a problem with the assumption that some people bizarrely seem to have that we prepared to screw over the flagship club of the group (and the one best placed to generate revenue and interest) for some Turkish outfit that is never going to win anything over there. It takes cognitive dissonance. On Alcaraz - by all accounts Flamengo are offering more than Lazio and offering it now. And then this other player seemingly on loan as well. And those are the only two offers. And the third option is keep him. What would other people do?
I will only become suspicious of the model if we loan him to them rather than sell him. That said - if we keep getting insulting offers that might not be the worst idea. Although I expect they can’t cover enough of his wages
Everyone likes to say about how good Brighton's recruitment has been but a key part of that has been sending players to Union SG in Belgium and checking out if they're good enough / waiting for them to become work permit eligible before bringing them over. Exactly what they did with Kaoru Mitoma, who everyone seems to agree is an example of great, sneaky recruitment. Loaned him to Belgium so he could play all the time because they just wouldn't have spent money on signing a player like him to sit in the squad and not make the teamsheet on matchday, and then moved him over once he developed/showed he was ready for the next step with Brighton
Those positives have been positives experienced by other clubs at the “top” of multi club models already. There is precedent for it. So they aren’t invented. You are being incredibly disingenuous (as well as about as pessimistic as it is possible for someone to be) The negatives have not happened to any such clubs. So it’s : - Hoping to benefit from similar positives = just fine. - Completely inventing negatives = bad and unnecessarily gloomy It’s not that complicated really.
If, as many suspect on here, we're sailing close to the line on PSR, how does taking a cut on the Alcaraz fee (to benefit Goetzpe) help us? There hasn't been a single benefit to Southampton FC of this multi club model, but we get to subsidise players for some noddy Turkish club. If we were an established top half PL club then I could reluctantly and grudgingly accept it, as it is we're almost nailed on to go down again. Anything which remotely hampers our club on some potential whimsical future promise is not a good thing in my opinion. SR have been all about risk since they've got here. I don't like it.
Any of these other clubs relegated in their first season of muti club ownership? Any of them favourites to go down again? Multi club ownership is all well and good when you're a big established club like Utd, City or Chelsea and have billions to play with. We aren't. It's once again SR trying to be too clever for their own good and trying to emulate clubs we're nowhere near.
On the earlier loan discussion wasn't it established the 2/4 player limit only applies to domestic loans? Here are the Premier League rules: https://www.premierleague.com/news/464747 "With the exception of Welsh clubs competing in the competitions listed under Rule V.6.2, loans from a club in membership of another National Association do not count towards the above quotas."
What about Brighton and Union Saint Gilloise? Or Brentford and Midtjylland? Or Wolves and Grasshopper Zurich? etc.... They are mid-size or smaller clubs than us that have also worked this system At the end of the day, the whole thing comes down to how good the talent identification is. You can be a loaded multi-club group with loads of clubs but if the recruitment is **** (cough, Chelsea and Strasbourg) then it won't be fruitful. Plenty of examples of doing more with less, as given above The point about early relegations (Saints, Goztepe, Valenciennes all relegated) in the ownership tenure is fair, but this model will be more use and more fruitful if the other teams can maintain themselves at the top level (and if Saints can remain in the top two tiers in England)
