Which is fine, so long as they are players who do not figure in the coach's plan for the future. And one of them isn't our captain.
After reading the full transcript, I think I might see if I can obtain some next manager odds. The convoluted answer given regarding Puel's future is as good as a P45 if you ask me.
I largely agree with the points Ralph is making there. If you look at the squad, there aren't to many players who we will make a loss on, and those losses are easily offset by the increase in value of other players. Of players of equal worth, it only takes 1 to double in value to offset 2 players halving in value. I also don't think our attraction to players has gone down. We still show we are a good pathway to success. So I do think we are still in a strong position. And as I club I still think we are progressing even if our football didn't this year. We do have a squad of 10m players now, which means buying players at that level will just be treading water. While I think we have more players we will be 'clearing out' this year, I think it will take less sales to replace them. We don't need a big squad for Europe either. Therefore I will be more disappointed by selling players this summer. If we sell VvD, he should cover our summer spending alone. We will also get money and wages from the players we replace. I think this summer will be very telling of where we are headed. Also on Puel, I said in his thread that I think his future should be decided in a review meeting at the end of the season, so although I want him to stay, I'm not unhappy to hear that is happening.
I respect your Maya love. But I'd be more gutted if Stephens left The players I don't want to see leave (and who conceivably might) are; any of the youngsters who have debuted this season. VvD, Oriol, JWP, Tadic, or Long. (I realise some fans would sell Shane in a trice. But I'd happily sell about 25% of our fans tomorrow, so we're quits).
Ms Liebherr retaining 20% of the club's owernship if a takeover goes through, does not mean she retains any control whatsoever. 80% is bigger than 20%, I think we can all agree on that. She would have Zero input on anything Lander (or whoever) decide to do with the club. However, retaining 20% would allow her to receive a dividend on profits and also income from any future sale of the club. Don't be fooled by the "caring former owner in the background" picture being painted here. It's a purely business transaction where Ms Liebherr wins.
"We do not need to sell our players" Good, but we haven't NEEDED to sell players since Markus Liebherr bought the club. But we did. Kruger saying that, is just setting up the story that will be told if any player leaves. They will paint the player as unsettling the squad, with an aggressive agent, blah blah blah. Then say "regrettably, it was in the club's best interests to sell".
I've twice read Kruger's explanation of not having a CEO and still doesn't make much sense to me. It's not good corporate governance to give an individual more power at the top (Les Reed) and have a smaller board. From what I've been told, the only thing that confuses some staff inside the club, isn't the structure of the board, but what the hell they do all day? Especially the ones who are barely seen by staff. I believe Rodgers wasn't everyone's cup of tea, but he was at St Mary's every working day and approachable.
The board would obviously disagree about not having to sell players in the past. They may have preferred to hold onto one or two....and they did by holding out for an extra year from Mane, Morgan and Victor...but have used the money to get more players on long contracts. They couldn't control everything, but have demonstrated that we are a well run club....who can turn things to their advantage. Like Les Reed,s new role...more likely to stay.
Was probably the manager at the time who had more influence over those 3 staying an extra year than the board. Never understand they myth about long contracts being good. They are very good for the player as it gives them more money, more security, but they can still jump ship pretty much anytime they want. For the club, it's more about PR than building a squad. If having a player on a longer contract means you can command an extra £5m in a transfer fee... so what. You've still lost the player. Anyone still excited about Shane Long still having 3 years left on his contract?
Much happier than one year. Means we can just let Shane get on with finding a new club who will pay and not worry about getting nothing if he fails.
Not convinced we will get much for him, anyway. I sense another "contract cancelled by mutual consent" transfer in the offing.
Will everything go your way in business....no. Do Saints cope and adapt...yes. Am I happy with the owner and board....85% yes. Other 15% wants to win everything and rule the world.
I think you are being a tad blinkered if your ambition is solely terrestrial. There's the remainder of our Solar System, all of the other planets in our galaxy, then any and all other places throughout space and time. Or will this infringe the Financial Fair Play policy?
In keeping with Saints' history of introducing football to Spain, South America and so on, it would be entirely appropriate if we brought the beautiful game to Alpha Centauri and beyond.
