Because it is a growing market with lots of uncommitted fans and where we intend to operate training facilities. Fans in South America will probably be committed to teams in Spain and Portugal.
I am sure the club could get 55,000 for the Liverpool, Manchester United, Chelsea and Arsenal games as long as they remain in the PL. due to the support those 4 have in the area. As for other matches, we would be closer to the 30,000 mark in a 55,000 stadium simple because we do not have a fanbase to fill one. City do. They have probably managed to get a lot of increased support not only from the Greater Manchester but also from West and South Yorkshire as City is an attractive and exciting team to follow.
Saints are not a small club, but at the same time nor a giant. Apart from Arsenal, Tottenham, Manchester United, Manchester City, Chelsea, Liverpool, Everton, Newcastle, Aston Villa, West Ham and possibly Sunderland, our support is as big everyone else in the PL and the bigger clubs in the Championship and League 1 (Sheffield United) Are Derby County or Leicester small clubs? Definitely not. Are they big clubs? Certainly not. That is the size of the club.
Also, the differentiation between the first and second tier (and between the second tier and the remainder of the PL) in financial clout has shrunk and continues to shrink. In 2013-14, the difference between our revenues (which put up in the top 25 worldwide, though 11th in the PL) and Everton's was 17.2m...not at all insignificant in raw terms, but it means that they were making a mere 13.6% more than we were. Next year, it will be even closer...and even the minnows will be financial giants on the world stage, crazy though that might be.
Not quite sure about her lack of ambition.... Look how much she splashed out for Forster, Pelle, Tadic, mane.. Not exactly cheap. Fact is that we are not Liverpool or Man U, we don't have an illustrious history, we haven't won league titles or European competitions so the best players will go
Not for me....I will never lose my faith in the Saints and never have done. Have been supporting them far too long now to do that. I think as I have been supporting them for so long, you will surely forgive the fact that I can see so many similarities in todays rhetoric from the directors, going back to the days of Lawrie Mac and well before. Almost word for word. When we got back into the top flight the second time before our 27 year stint. The same rhetoric was repeated. Different words maybe, same meaning.....We didn't back our managers judgement then, just as we appear not to be doing now. (Although I will concede we did have some crap ones for a while.....us trying to do things on the cheap as usual) I agree we have spent a lot on transfers and reasonably good ones but we do have to find away to keep them. That is our directors job and over the last couple of seasons they have not succeeded. We have to be able to stand up to the likes of united, Liverpool and Spurs et al. Players coming to us have got to be made to understand we no longer are a stepping stone. That to me would be excellent progress. To do that though you will have to start paying more money I guess. Another chicken or Egg Situation perhaps. A good start would be to back our current manager to the hilt and get him to stay on and finish the job!!
Beddy, how are we not backing his words? He made a statement this week, yet it is not a transfer window yet so the Board can't back him yet. They backed him in the summer by signing players for him. They may not back him in the next two windows, but it's too early to say they are not yet. Don't point the finger at players leaving either, because the board can't stop that really. You may prove right come end of Jan or end of next summer though.
Katharina agreed that all monies received from sales were retained by the club to spend on players. The board have backed the purchase of players, but also have to pay the wages of those players. The number of general employees of the club has also dramatically increased in the last year. So a balance has to be achieved...perhaps they could spend more, perhaps not...but I am quite sure that the average Saints fan would bankrupt the club as we only want players and are unconcerned about the other costs of running the club. We are described as a well run club and that is great news when you consider our history before the Leihberrs arrived.
I know he didn't get the players or player he wanted (who they /he was I don't know) Having said that his recent statement about spending money only confirmed what I had been told. I don't know too many details again true, only that too much money was involved. I may well be adding two and two and making five, although it does confirm in my eyes at least, the way I am seeing things currently. As for the board not being able to stop players leaving........Well in my view that is their job....They are obliged to find a way. Maybe they need to tighten the contracts or something ....I don't know the answer. However as an ex director of a company, I do know that a directors job is to find a way around problems that are heeding the progress of the company. Hence why they are directors. I agree they are getting silly money at times for the players but if they need to rely on selling players to keep their heads above water. Something surely 'aint right. So yes, I agree they are backing RK to a point, but in my opinion not to the degree he expected. Just my view for what it is worth.......
Fair enough in the player he didn't get; I didn't know that (unless Toby). On the Directors stopping players leaving, that's harsh. Were you a Director of a football club where players have a fixed term Contract? Are you suggesting the Board should have paid players like Morgan 100-150k a year to stop them leaving? If a player gets wind (or is tapped up) that two, three or even four times their salary is available, you are not going to get them to sign a new contract. This leaves the Board with a valuable asset that will be lost for nothing if not sold. As a Director of a company, would you have given one of your most valued assets away to somebody for nothing?
I'll also add Beddy, that I don't think they are selling players to keep heads above water; not sure where you get that from. I said before we don't have a buy to sell policy. We only sell if the player won't stay.
I'm interested, genuinely interested, in what people think we can do in the following specific situation. Don't worry about the exact numbers, it's an exercise. Sadio Mané is being paid (say) 50K per week, £2.5M per annum. At the end of this season we can sell him for £30M. At the end of next season we can sell him for £20M and the end of the following season he's a free agent and we get nothing (I think. Is there any compensation for a free agent leaving?) At the end of this season, Man U offers him £150K per week, £7.5M per annum and they offer us £30M. Mané's agent tells us he wants to go. What do we do? What do you want the board to do in this situation? Be specific. I can't see a solution apart from selling him but that doesn't mean there isn't one. Vin
The board wouldn't sell him in the summer because he was too important...I'd like him to stay another season (we can just say no), but Les Reed may be willing to let him go after having more time for a replacement. Just by the by, the players value doesn't necessarily go down that dramatically as his contract winds down. If a rich club really really want a player, we could get nearly the same money a year later....yes, he'd be free another season on, but the buying club may not want to wait. And even if his value goes down, it may be worth it to have him for another season. All a question of balance.
We're going round in circles a bit with this discussion. First, there is little to stop a player who is determined to leave from leaving, other than matching their pay demands. We aren't in a position to make a vital player such as Mané train with the U21's as some clubs could. In order to match their pay expectations the ONLY way is to increase the revenue of the club, which is happening.
No I most certainly was not a director of a football club. I certainly do understand the economics side of the argument. The company I worked with was a high profile company and we too had staff on extremely high salaries at the time. Albeit peanuts in comparison with footballers. However they were just as important to our company and were indeed tied to contracts. Obviously we did not have a transfer market to deal with but we did have similar competition in a way to keep our better staff. In our field we were not the highest payers. The benefits however were good and possibly better than most. We had difficult decisions to make at times to overcome problems, although none that I want to go into. So yes I do under stand about limits and the economics of situations. However I do know you have just got to find solutions to problems as they present themselves. I also know you just cannot hope a situation will cure itself because it rarely does!! Thankfully these decisions, what ever they are, are made by people that should have the knowledge and wherewithal to deal with them. As for giving the assets away for nothing there is probably ways of overcoming players leaving just a year or two into their contracts. Maybe new legislation needs to be brought in to protect clubs like us. I acknowledge that I do not have the answers and like most of us on here only have fleeting information of what they are doing within the confines of the board room
I'm sure plans are well and truly in place for the January window. I also doubt that Koeman makes that statement if he has been told to expect reinforcements then.
When I read the title I thought it was implying having a honeymoon after returning to the Prem before starting to slide a bit. Can't believe the first post's contents. Sitting on a tidy pile and not investing? Selling the players for a profit? We are a pretty small club and had players that want to achieve things. We made very good money on them but it wasn't about buying and selling, that is just how football is. We will go through this every season. Top clubs want top players and that means they will always look at other clubs as well as their comptetitors. Our chairwoman and former chairman have put much more in than Newcastle's both in financial terms, in structural terms, in terms of community and lots lots more. Newcastle's chairman purely is the owner of the club, clearly wants out but only at his price and is determined to take the profits of sales while he waits for his price. Add to that Newcastle is a massive club and if you use us as a baseline and use a ratio of say 1:1.5 are they spending half as much again as we are? on the team the structure of the club? I would rather be a Saints fan than a Newcastle fan at the moment although I would love their fanbase and stadium. In answer to the question I though you were going to pose by your title? Are we just another Newcastle? No they are a much bigger club that have teetered towards relegation with poor management and short term visions. Sounds the same as someone we used to know. Maybe we should say Are Newcastle the new Rupert Lowe's Southampton??
