We used to be known as Super Saints.....

  • 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!
St. Luigi Scrosoppi

St. Luigi Scrosoppi

Well-Known Member
Mar 26, 2011
11,979
8,176
113
Southampton
.... but I am beginning to think we are now known as Supermarket Saints. We have become every other teams one stop shop for managers, defenders, midfield players, strikers, backroom staff, and even crowd songs. Teams like Tottenham Hotspur who are devoid of a single original idea of their own come window shopping regularly and go away with a superb buy such as our last manager and our recruitment guy. Spurs are guilty of a bit of shoplifting too. They took our song and never paid a penny for it.

We may even occasionally hold an auction which is likely this summer with teams lining up to get their parasitic hands on Morgan and Nathaniel.

Then we unearth loan gems like Toby who may very well be pinched from under our noses.

To be honest it is taking the edge off my enjoyment of football.

I thought I supported a football club not a supermarket.

I used to get brassed off with the Tories selling off all the nation's assets. I didn't expect my favourite team to do the same.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: OddRiverOakWizards
And if we sell them we will have to pinch top players from other clubs.
 
I understand your frustration Godders. To the media Saints are a breath of fresh air, or so they say. They also say it would be wonderful for Saints to gatecrash the top6 or top4. Then they do just about everything they can to help destabilise the club, from making slightly disrespectful remarks during match commentaries to downright putting our players and staff into some virtual shop window, suggesting that everyone is for sale and beware of the crush from the exodus.

I know that players agents play their parts, but I also imagine that the bigger clubs occasionally chat to each other about the drawbridge, and how best to pull it up so as to keep all the big money to themselves. It's not beyond possibility. The richest clubs, like Chelsea, Man City, etc... can just buy players to deny other clubs from having them. They wave enough money at a player, lie to him about the time he's going to spend on the pitch, and with one swoop they've stopped a potential danger. If said player kicks up a stink they just loan him out to a club which isn't their rival. Dead simple really, providing a club can afford it. Where FFP comes in on this score, I haven't the foggiest, because it doesn't seem to make the slightest difference.
 
That was what Bertrand complained about. He had been loaned out again and again by Chelsea and when he questioned it, he was convinced to sign a contract when told he would play...then one year later he was loaned out again. He had enough and wanted a permanent club, so signed for us.
 
Yep, Bertrand is a very good example from a player's point of view. Did you know that Chelsea currently have 30 players out on loan..?

There are also those very good players who are potentially wanted by other clubs, but get snapped up from the shop window by the biggest clubs. Players like Loic Remy and Wilfried Bony, for example, are not really the very, very best players their respective clubs could have bought, yet they were snapped up from the PL pool because they could have been trouble if a rival side had had them, in my opinion. They'll barely see action at their respective clubs, but the best thing for Man City and Chelsea is that they won't be a thorn in their side helping challenging clubs either. It's cynical, but it works, providing a club has the money. It might even be cheaper and more effective than buying the very best from overseas and letting the challenging clubs have players like those two. And I'm sure there are other examples.
 
This is a sport which will soon be playing it's showcase international tournament in a totalitarian state awash with oil money, in stadia built by slave labourers.
At home ordinary working supporters were priced out of this monstrosity called the Premier League years ago, while players in their early twenties turn up for training in Bentleys and Lamborghinis.
The sport we love has been utterly corrupted by greed for decades. Did you think none of this affected Saints in any way?
 
  • Like
Reactions: pompeymeowth, OddRiverOakWizards and Number 1 Jasper
TheSecondStain said:
Not quite the same thing.
Click to expand...

Not sure why it isn't the same thing. This isn't some conspiracy against Saints...teams come in for our players and staff because we're good, but we lack the clout/resources of other good teams that allows them to fend off many advances. Swansea has encountered the same; Everton has in the past encountered the same; West Ham, during their Academy of Football days, encountered the same.

The result is to suppress teams that are a potential threat to the established order, sure, but the cause is more banal: top teams want players who are really good, who have demonstrated the ability to compete in the PL, and who are available in transfer either because the selling club is a willing participant, or because they cannot make the promises necessary to keep the players happy. Until such time as we can say no (and not "no, not this summer, but next...") they'll keep coming back, because why wouldn't they?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Che’s Godlike Thighs
Archers Road said:
This is a sport which will soon be playing it's showcase international tournament in a totalitarian state awash with oil money, in stadia built by slave labourers.
At home ordinary working supporters were priced out of this monstrosity called the Premier League years ago, while players in their early twenties turn up for training in Bentleys and Lamborghinis.
The sport we love has been utterly corrupted by greed for decades. Did you think none of this affected Saints in any way?
Click to expand...

I agree with the analysis and conclusion 100%, BUT I still get excited on match days, I see friends, some I've known for more than 50 years, and it's the best team we've had in 30 years.. Saints are part of the tapestry that provides the background to my life. That football mirrors capitalist bullshit in all it's most unedifying guise provides a major contradiction in my life. However, emotional attachment is like a drug and I wouldn't be without it..
 
  • Like
Reactions: OddRiverOakWizards
Schad said:
Not sure why it isn't the same thing. This isn't some conspiracy against Saints...teams come in for our players and staff because we're good, but we lack the clout/resources of other good teams that allows them to fend off many advances. Swansea has encountered the same; Everton has in the past encountered the same; West Ham, during their Academy of Football days, encountered the same.

The result is to suppress teams that are a potential threat to the established order, sure, but the cause is more banal: top teams want players who are really good, who have demonstrated the ability to compete in the PL, and who are available in transfer either because the selling club is a willing participant, or because they cannot make the promises necessary to keep the players happy. Until such time as we can say no (and not "no, not this summer, but next...") they'll keep coming back, because why wouldn't they?
Click to expand...

You're making too little of my point, as if it is an after thought. My main point is that glamour clubs can suck up some very good players the non-glamour clubs can only just about afford. And here's the difference - they don't do it because they need to get better themselves, they do it to stop the challenge. It's not an incidental consequence, but an expressed aim. It's actually a fairly cheap way to nullify a threat.

It doesn't matter whether we're talking about Saints, Everton, Swansea or any other club that dares to knock on the door to challenge to rich clubs. We happen to support Saints, so that's the perspective from where we write.
 
TheSecondStain said:
You're making too little of my point, as if it is an after thought. My main point is that glamour clubs can suck up some very good players the non-glamour clubs can only just about afford. And here's the difference - they don't do it because they need to get better themselves, they do it to stop the challenge. It's not an incidental consequence, but an expressed aim. It's actually a fairly cheap way to nullify a threat.

It doesn't matter whether we're talking about Saints, Everton, Swansea or any other club that dares to knock on the door to challenge to rich clubs. We happen to support Saints, so that's the perspective from where we write.
Click to expand...

Not quite sure about this idea TSS, as they could equally be doing it to compete with each other at the top of the tree, and buy players to prevent their direct rivals from doing so. Other teams being in the top 4 is only a problem to the team no longer there, hence the arms race to stay there.
 
Rorschach's Journal said:
Not quite sure about this idea TSS, as they could equally be doing it to compete with each other at the top of the tree, and buy players to prevent their direct rivals from doing so. Other teams being in the top 4 is only a problem to the team no longer there, hence the arms race to stay there.
Click to expand...

I'm suggesting one particular method of effectively pulling up the drawbridge by the glamour clubs, so that the competition is amongst them alone. I'm not saying it definitely goes on, but it's highly possible.

If you understand my premise you'll see that it is not to stop their direct rivals from acquiring the players.
 
TheSecondStain said:
I'm suggesting one particular method of effectively pulling up the drawbridge by the glamour clubs, so that the competition is amongst them alone. I'm not saying it definitely goes on, but it's highly possible.

If you understand my premise you'll see that it is not to stop their direct rivals from acquiring the players.
Click to expand...

I understand your premise, I just don't think that kind of collusion between the top sides is likely so doubt your premise is any more than a guess based on transfer activity, hence the equally plausible one that I offered.
 
The big teams want the best players. We aren't a big team, so have to accept that some players will want to move on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Toela65
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back