Hmm, skimmed most of that, but the argument about FFP eludes me. FFP or no, I don't want us to pile on the debt to keep players who don't even want to be here. If you want to blame something, blame CL for players wanting to move to big club. Truest thing he writes, "I haven't learned".
Saints fans have clearly touched a nerve. It is a offensive and contemptuous article. It is an article to basically put down anyone who has the audacity to tell Martin Samuel he is wrong make it obvious that his opinions are based on assumption. I would normally comment on his articles because they are not very good but the vanity shown by even putting such an article out beggars belief. Martin Samuel clearly has no respect for his readers. I would of of thought getting a reaction would have been the greatest compliment from the original article but he really wants praise for poor journalism.
It's very interesting, and I'm not sure I entirely understand why he's written this. He seems to be very defensive and arguing with the (many of them valid) points that have taken issue with his writing. If he doesn't care what we think why is he taking so much trouble to respond? But mostly what I don't underserstand, is this: - he says that FFP rules mean that we cannot increase our spending on wages beyond a limited point - he says that many our players were "tapped up" and offered higher wages at "bigger" clubs - this means that we couldn't afford to keep all of our players and compete on wages, whilst keeping our academy (and the wages that go there, presumably?) - but selling the players illustrates the board's lack of ambition and we should NOT repeat it So (a) what other options did we have this summer? (b) How can we avoid repeating it (as he suggests) iif this is the case? If he is right, then if Spider and Tadic and Clyne continue in this form they will surely want to earn more. If FFP limits our wage spend to our income then we can't offer it (even if we did get top 4), so why would they not then move to Man U, Man C, Chelsea or Arsenal (even Spurs) if (and probably when) the offers come...? How can we stop it from happening even if we want to?
One point I do agree with. I don't think the media have it in for smaller clubs...they like an upset as much as anyone...it gives good copy. We certainly had positive coverage last season, but the theme changed when we sold 5 senior players and lost Pochettino. A couple more wins and there will positive articles appearing again. We know we are wonderful already, but the media just wants to make sure...still early days.
Really? Because it seems to me that if we beat Arsenal at the Emirates it's because Arsenal were poor and not because we were good. Maybe the press overall likes an upset, but commentators and pundits seem to be obsessed with the bigger clubs.
If he thinks the real villain is FFP, then why didn't he write an article about how FFP is preventing Southampton from keeping their players? He wrote an article about Saints selling as if it were a club policy.
What the papers want is story. And we're only a story when we are either beating a big club or being ripped apart by one. Either way, we're just the minor character, but I'm happy enough with that. I feel far happier when we're being underestimated or ignored. Too much press attention just puts our players in the shop window.
So basically FFP means we cant pay more than our income. Therefore, all first team squad contracts have to be calibrated offering bonuses for trophies/Wembley appearances, premier league position and qualification for Europa/champions league (next season), with the bonuses tapering depending on the achievement. Thus bonuses for European qualification should not be paid until next season and again would be calibrated against achievement. There will always be gold diggers, but it should not be impossible to construct a wage structure that provides substantial bonuses if European qualification is achieved. I agree that FFP is a problem that will divide the have and the have nots, but we might still be 'bankrolled' if the wage structure is creative..
The sad thing is that players have the incentive of trying for Europe but also the backup plan of moving if they fail. Fine for players, **** for clubs.
is it fifa's fault or uefa? or our dear old fa? I want to know who to liine up against the wall first when the revolution comes (after Martin Samuel that is)
I don't know why I should bother to defend him here, but tbf, he did. Not specifically about SFC, but about FFP and the way it'll shackle smaller clubs. Personally, I first began to doubt the good intentions of FFP when, against all notions and opinions then being bandied around about the smaller clubs having a more level playing field [sorry], Cortese voted against its introduction. That got me thinking. Why the hell would he, of all people, vote against something that might help SFC..? After a minimum of research into FFP I realised that it doesn't help smaller clubs in the slightest. In fact, it maintains the status quo. Unless smaller football clubs can generate more regular income from merchandising and sponsorship [in which bigger clubs have an automatic leg-up] then they have to stay as they are - smaller. Recently, Man City also ran wide of one or several of the FFP rules [I can't remember which particular rules] and these were duly re-written to accommodate Man City. Financial Fair Play, eh..?
I get the impression that he thinks we should not have a different opinion. Or the very least not express it, to me he is a very lazy journalist. Who sprouts rubbish to try to be sensational. If he is genuinely not worried what we think I too do not understand why he feels the need to justify himself.
