Exactly Fran, of the players who graduate from the Academy with flying colours, we couldn't keep all of them if we wanted to, so we get the best deal we can, for them and for the club. If they sign a professional contract and play a few games for the first team before they leave, we get a much higher fee (see Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain and Calum Chambers). One thing we know about how the new board operates though, is that we won't sell unless we know we either have a better alternative already (see Nathaniel Clyne), or can get a cheaper or better replacement (see Ryan Bertrand).
I think MP had a year left on his contract and couldn't just walk away from the club, he needed to bought himself from his contract, and Levy did just that.
He was obviously trying to be sneaky....do a Redknapp, get released then immediately join another club. There was a suggestion (unconfirmed) that Nicola tried to make Adkins do that before joining Saints, but he wouldn't.
Another thing that hasn't been mentioned is that the Club haven't touched any of the SKY TV money and last season's 8th place finish revenue. Les Reed deserves a massive contract and a job at Saints for life after his part in our resurrection this summer.
People are starting to say they were wrong about writing Pelle and Bertrand off before they even kicked a ball for us. People are starting to say that they were wrong about the club going into meltdown and some sort of fire sale. But I'm yet to see too much talk of people saying they were wrong about Reed. Hopefully that will soon change. In fact, what I hope more than anything is that people learn lessons from this summer. Don't jump to conclusions before giving things a chance. There's a lot to be said for being part of the "wait and see" camp.
Is that true? I'm interested where that has come from. Lest you think it's a snarky remark, it's a genuine question. VIn
Of course I can't be certain of that, but I thought it is a fairly safe assumption considering that the Club made a profit of £30m on transfers.
The article mentions long term targets. And includes Shane Long. So what is long term? 6 months? Otherwise wouldn't we have signed him in January? I am trying to think of reasons why this would not have happened: - Squad was settled in January and Poch didn't want more people in (seems unlikely due to Osvaldo departure) - Things were unsettled behind the scenes with Cortese and the board meaning inward signings were unlikely - Budget not in place in January (potentially true due to large summer outlay) - We have targets earmarked for all positions and move when a need is identified - in this case loss of Jay Rod, Lallana, Osvaldo and Lambert from the attacking roles in the squad that started last season I would guess it is elements of the last 3 (as most managers don't turn down squad reinforcements) The second one on budget is probably telling as we still went into the second half of the season with Jos when we apparently had defenders identified and he was fresh from a shambolic performance against Spurs (not all his fault as Gazza and Fox also played - perfect storm right there). Although that said I can certainly buy that Gardos and Toby weren't available in Jan (unlike Long) Future targets: I would be interested to know whether they have identified players for: 1. Positions they want to fill (maybe extra winger, reliable second choice competition for Forster and Pelle) 2. Players from Option 1 plus targets for players most at risk of leaving (Jay Rod, Morgan, CorkO 3. Targets all over the pitch - just because you never know
The rest is the fluff made up by those supposedly in the know. Just been reading a Nick Illingsworth UI appraisal of the article. It acknowledges a lot, but can't help twisting things around to suit his own long held opinion. Personally, I don't recognise his home-spun logic that leads him to arrive at such conclusions. Sometimes [in fact most of the time], the simple reason is the truth. Not the twisted, tortured stuff those with an agenda would have us believe.
