It's not bait, it's just what I think. You're free to disagree but the personal attacks are unwarranted.
Personal attacks? Stop being so melodramatic. I just find it frustrating that you won't seemingly accept any shade of grey. I strongly suspect that the author of this piece actually said "stripping of assets" precisely because people previously had been getting their knickers in a twist because of fears of "asset stripping". It's quite clever really as he plays on a fear whilst actually referring to something different. The fact you won't even accept that as a minuscule possibility is what grates.
He used the words "assets" and "stripping", which annoyed me. That's all I said. I didn't say anything about its meaning or my interpretation of it. Don't make up **** I'm meant to have said and then use it as a stick to beat me with. Thanks.
I think you're being a little over sensitive on this one, PTF. Whilst I can be as annoyed as the next person as to people's perceptions, ie, something gets mentioned in a host of newspapers and suddenly it's true, the sudden use of a phrase is merely to give people a common perspective. We could suggest that Saints are being pursued by bigger clubs to release many of their key players and manager. In this case, asset stripped is merely shorthand for that. I'm sure all those who adopt the asset stripped phrase, do so in the fervent hope that Saints don't succumb to pressure from the bigger clubs. As Cortese said in a recent interview, you sell your best players, you give away your ambition. Note he didn't say sell your ambition, but give. In this case, asset stripped becomes even more appropriate because anything of real value within Saints is stripped away. Ambition is so valuable that it is practically the biggest asset Southampton FC have. Sell the players who have led that ambition and it's over. You have to rebuild again completely, which is an enormous shame because, as the article [getting back to it eventually] says, we are so bloody close. In fact, we're so bloody close the bigger clubs are actually concerned enough to overvalue our players as much as we have to, to fend them off.
So far we've lost the manager (unavoidably) and one player (understandably). To call that "asset-stripping", implying that everything is sold off with no regard for the future of the club, is really laughably exaggerated, it's pejorative, and I really find its continued use objectionable. And (because sadly I fear I have to make this completely explicit) I'm not saying that's what the author of this article intends to say.
Well, I think you've explained yourself and so have I. The other important point is that there are no personal attacks on your character as far as I can see here, just a disagreement of perception. Perhaps DTLW can finally have his thread back.
You could use that example for Chelsea. They were a run of the mill nothing club dwarfed by the 'big 4 to 6'. Then Roman came and they were like the 'independents'. Now they are one of the starbucks It happens with any product, any brand. If we suddenly managed to keep the 'fashionable' tag. If players truly (<----I don't think they do) bought into the project as in felt emotionally attached, thought the project was more important than earning (even) more money, we kept said players and made it into the Top6. We would have gone from that privateer that a niche liked to the big fat dog that everyone hates Business is business, FA, PL, Government will talk us up but privately they want the big boys to remain the big boys because that earns them more money. If we (or someone else) sneaks into one of their positions, then the brand loses a part of it's attraction in terms of mass appeal. This is no different to google buying up the next big things or Logitech buying up Harmony. Big companies buy up and coming brands all the time.
Very true. I have often used pre-Roman Chelsea as an example of a club whose big claim to fame was one title, a couple of cups and a notorious swamp for a playing surface. And Peter Osgood. Nowadays, they are a completely different proposition. Even the playing surface has improved. It has taken time though and they haven't been especially clever about it.
If we are truly to give this thread back to the OP, perhaps we ought to delete all the posts arguing about the semantics yet again?
"That's some pretty twisted logic there. He used the words "assets" and "stripped" in the same sentence. By any definition he mentions asset stripping." Your levels of delusion on this are really quite funny. Do you even read what you say, or just make stuff up to suit the moment!?
Please do, but leave that last one. It makes my point about the absurdity of the discussion without me even needing to say anything at all.
I'm really trying to let this go but you keep bringing it back... I said he mentions asset stripping. I didn't say what he meant by it. There is no contradiction in what I have said (only in what you imagine me to have said). That's my final word on the matter. Please stop trying to misrepresent me.
Right. Okay. By the way, you're haven't been trying to let this go, I've merely responded to when you've brought it up again. And again. But no, you won't be even remotely wrong about that either. The pattern is firmly established. But yes, enough.
A very good read, well articulated until the use of the F-word. I would add that; I too (and much older) so wanted to believe the dream that we had a squad that grew and, in some cases, grew up together, would go so much further. The articles earlier in the season by Shaw, Morgan and others - all talking about the spirit and belief that existed in the team. Other fans may have scoffed at our players saying they believed we had champions league potential and to challenge for the EPL, but the important point is not what they said - it was the genuine belief (it seemed) that they had all bought-into the dream; i.e. not the act itself, but the cause that let they say what they thought was possible. In reality - mine too now - was that although the sky was there; I did not see the glass ceiling...
I get what you are saying, though it is depressingly fatalistic, and we'll end up living in a homogeneous society (in the commerse sense at least) and I'm going to say it......it's not fair
For Southampton, read Stoke / Sunderland / Barnet / Exeter... in fact, pretty much any club that isn't one of the Premiership Establishment. We had the temerity to challenge the orthodoxy, and - yes, whilst we had financial impetus from Liebherr - it was largely off our own backs. We didn't buy the league like Man City and Chelsea, and we didn't have history to call on like Liverpool and Man U. We've earnt the right to dream... and with us go the dreams and eighty-five other clubs who would love to see someone new break into the top table at the Premiership. For if we can rise from the depths of the lower leagues to challenge the "Big Clubs", perhaps one day, others can too... So, frankly, stuff you Liverpool, Man U, Chelsea, Arsenal and Man City! You don't have a God-given right to all the best talent in the land.
It isn't fair but that is the modern world. Even under Thatcher that many people hated small enterprise could grow into beasts. These days they are snapped up before they can do much at all and many are then dumped if they can't quickly create a return. It is a very similar scenario to how football has now moved with the new young kids guidelines. Big clubs can now afford to hoover up all the potential and not care what percentage makes the grade. Then they'll just spit out what they do. There are also many many people who make money from other's talents whether they do it for a business (Mr Cowell, Football Agents etc) or just people who want see the $$ on individual opportunities Sad but true, I'm afraid.
