It can't have escaped anyone's notice that Nathaniel Clyne has transferred to Saints at the end of his contract with Crystal Palace. And along with his transfer we have the rather oft repeated line that Saints are a bit difficult to deal with. In this case, Palace have suggested that Saints are taking the mick with a derisory compensation fee. Now, I don't really know what Crystal Palace expect, but if it was the other way around, would we expect an over the top offer of payment, from them, for one of our youngsters at the end of a contract..? No, we wouldn't. And this is where a compensation board steps in, as surely CP always knew it would. http://www.goal.com/en/news/9/engla...he-mick-with-clyne-offer-says-crystal-palace- But why make the song and dance about it..? I think there's a little whisper out there that Cortese deals hard, and maybe he's a little harder than everyone expects. Fact is, he's a banker, and a rather good one at that, it appears, and he knows that the chief idea to spending money is to get as much quantity and/or quality as you can whilst spending the least amount of money. Besides, he wouldn't need to offer compensation at all, but to just let it go to an independent board for consideration, as Clyne is younger than 24. Where CP are making the mistake is they are comparing what Cortese thinks Clyne is worth with another of their young less experienced players, who was bought by a less frugal buyer. When it comes to Cortese, they are assuming way too much. It's said, and I know that, the best deal is the one which suits all parties, but this is a buyer's market at the moment, and Cortese is the man. When it becomes a seller's market, he'll also be the best one to have in our corner. And you won't hear him squealing.
Who says we're difficult to deal with? Burnley, Rangers and Vitesse have all complimented the club on the way we conduct transfers. Palace are just putting on a show for their fans so they can save face when they only get half a million.
All it is some fans that feel anal probed, because their top player has gone. They all need to carm down, football is about getting the best for your club. They were the ones that let his contract run out, so they only have themselfs to blame.
This is my favourite one, off a different forum: As if Arsenal were nice enough to help out little old Southampton by giving them some pocket money for a player was actually under contract?
Palace didn't tie an important player to a contract and so it's their own stupid fault. Few other clubs would be silly enough to offer what palace want for him because tribunal results indicate that they only cover training costs which are pretty minimal for one player.
Yeah, it's rather absurd. I'm not terribly fond of the leverage that larger clubs have over smaller ones (even when we're the larger club), but the game is the game. Some clubs may pay over the odds to get a player before someone else does, or because they value the speedy resolution of transfer business more than the money itself, but none do it out of a sense of charity. Arsenal paid because Cortese's heels were dug in, and because they knew that Man U could trump them at any time. But they didn't do it before making a series of considerably less-generous offers over a period of many months.
It does really smack of sour grapes......The player has a right to negotiate with whoever as his contract is up. He has been able to do that since January. If they had offered the player a good enough deal last year or when ever, he would have excepted it and they would have got the kind of fee they think they deserve. Their own planning is what has landed them in the mire not Cortese. Palace fans are not fools they will see through this nonesense (you of course will get exceptions as you always do!) Why on earth they think there should be an exception as to his value.....I cannot imagine. Look at the decent youngsters we have had and lost to tribunal fees, others too. It make a change for us to possibly benefit for a change.
Palace fans are obviously disappointed at the loss of Clyne and for what will no doubt be a relatively small amount of money by comparison to what they could have received had they managed the player's contract properly. In the end it boils down to the fact that we have a very good Chief Executive and they don't.
It comes down to the fact that the player didn't want to sign a new contract. He is the one they should be unhappy with.
I want our Chairman and our Club to be honest and trustworthy in negotiations, but beyond that I want them to get the best possible deal for SFC, and if that leaves the other party feeling aggrieved, that's their problem, not ours.
Steve Browett (CP co-owner), he sounds like another Eddie Mitchell to me. Bet he doesn't pay his bar bills as well.
Yes, this was my point. Although not so much recently, but in the past, other clubs have voiced their opinion that Saints have been very hard in negotiation, on occasion. I just think they are coming up against a person who knows how to negotiate properly and not someone who just plays a game. I also feel that Nicola takes an extremely dim view of people who move the goalposts [sorry, couldn't resist], once things have been agreed.
