Transfer Deadline Day - a different perspective

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
tiggermaster said:
I can't help but agree with the sentiment of developing and keeping our players. With the original argument of this thread making the case for the Man Utd team of the 50s so dreadfully decimated in Munich, I was moved to examine Saints teams/players since my SFC addiction that started in 1957 as to how many came through our youth systems and went on to play 150 first team games.. There may be the odd mistake but going by debut dates and split into decades it runs like this....

57-59.... 2... Paine and Sydenham
60-69.... 2... Chivers and Channon
70-79.... 5... Holmes, Williams, Moran, Waldron and Baker G.
80-89.... 6... Le Tissier, Benali, Wallace D. Maddison, Shearer and Wallace R.
90-99.... 2... Oakley and Bridge
00-09.... 1... Lallana

18 players in 57 years you could argue paid backed what was invested in them. Or one every 3 years, on average.

Might it be that we look back with tinted glasses? There were certainly eras.. when it seemed the core of the teams were home grown. It also seems we have just had a season when a vision of a core of home grown promised a full bloom. The sentiment behind this idea is perhaps what we are grieving, The squashing of a maturing promise. But only Channon played in a trophy winning team.
Click to expand...

Not sure the relevance of this, but because you set 150 as the games target, it missed out the likes of Shaw, Walcott, Bale and Chamberlain who certainly paid back more than what was invested in them.
 
The original poster has a point........Back in the 60's and 70's and probably the 80's as well most top teams bought a maximum of one or two players over a season. Even then it was only because they had sold a player and needed to replace him. Prior to the 60's transfers were very rare. The hubbub you see today was brought about by footballs insistence on having two transfer periods over a season. Nowadays it seems that teams in the top flight at least, dam near buy a whole new team during the summer period!!! I know I exaggerate, but 9 players as some have brought in, that is nearly a full team.
How many players did we get rid of and bring in? It beggars belief as to what is happening on the transfer front today and yes we are lucky we have a good academy and have done for years. Without it we would have been rubbing shoulders with our near neighbours in the lower echelons of the football league.
 
I can understand in some ways why lower division teams have such a high turnover because they cannot offer long contracts, however in higher divisions especially the Premier League the issue is with risk taking. That is why so few young defenders or goalkeepers get a chance as people will not risk observing how a youth player will react as there is too much money at risk, hence Man U's spending spree.
 
Lff said:
How about this for a fact, I read it somewhere so it must be true, Manchester United didn't buy any players between 1953 and 1957 and only bought 3 players between 1964 and 1972. Incredible. This is what all clubs should be aiming at. For most Premier League clubs, the under 21 teams and the academies are a complete waste of time. All they do is breed players for loaning out to 'lesser' clubs. They might as well abandon ALL pretence of coaching so that these players can get a proper start at a league club.
Click to expand...

And no-one spent anything at all in the SPL all through the window (unless a last minute one crept in.) The PL should follow that model IMO. Much better.
 
ImpsSaint said:
And no-one spent anything at all in the SPL all through the window (unless a last minute one crept in.) The PL should follow that model IMO. Much better.
Click to expand...

Surely you can see that was a sarcastic post.
 
There was a surprisingly interesting(at times) debate on 5 live sport this evening from three fleet street hacks in relation to the transfer window and England team. It was between Sean Custus of the Sun, Neil Ashton of the Mail and Henry Winter of the telegraph.

It was Sean Custus which made the good point that clubs should be stopped from Farming talent in response to Chelsea loaning out 26 players this window. Sadly the radio debate got sabotaged by the notion that they could be influencing other results and not the real issue of players getting lost in the system and not becoming part of a team and a club that values them as people.
Chelsea treat their players as commodities and it's little wonder that they act as commodities or mercenaries. Sadly teams like Chelsea are becoming more common
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back