This has been said so many times over the years. Well done for bringing it up again. People say a team like Saints will never challenge the top clubs. Well, if you don't keep the players that are capable of giving you the chance of challenging then you truly never will. A club like Southampton produces quality players and should be protected in allowing to keep them. I have spoken to several people on this subject, and everyone has said that clubs don't have any incentive to produce players because if they are special they are pinched at an earlier age than desirable for the producing club. I know £30M odd isn't exactly pinching, but I know Saints would rather have the player because now they have to go out and replace him, or put pressure on Targett to come through sooner than he might. Clubs that are doing things the right way, ie producing quality players, should be protected from the poachers. It will aid competition and smaller clubs may eventually have the chance to become one of the bigger clubs, with success, which further aids competition. For the long term there also needs to be a salary cap, so that there is no incentive to chase the biggest coin. Mind you, I don't see that happening unless it ends up benefiting the bigger clubs as much as the smaller ones.
To really prove Chilco's point of how things change, here is the one from 64 years ago 1 Portsmouth 42 22 9 11 74 38 12 7 2 44 15 10 2 9 30 23 1.95 53 2 Wolverhampton 42 20 13 9 76 49 11 8 2 47 21 9 5 7 29 28 1.55 53 3 Sunderland 42 21 10 11 83 62 14 6 1 50 23 7 4 10 33 39 1.34 52 4 Manchester Und 42 18 14 10 69 44 11 5 5 42 20 7 9 5 27 24 1.57 50 5 Newcastle United 42 19 12 11 77 55 14 4 3 49 23 5 8 8 28 32 1.40 50 6 Arsenal 42 19 11 12 79 55 12 4 5 48 24 7 7 7 31 31 1.44 49 7 Blackpool 42 17 15 10 46 35 10 8 3 29 14 7 7 7 17 21 1.31 49 8 Liverpool 42 17 14 11 64 54 10 7 4 37 23 7 7 7 27 31 1.19 48 9 Middlesbrough 42 20 7 15 59 48 14 2 5 37 18 6 5 10 22 30 1.23 47 10 Burnley 42 16 13 13 40 40 9 7 5 23 17 7 6 8 17 23 1.00 45 11 Derby County 42 17 10 15 69 61 11 5 5 46 26 6 5 10 23 35 1.13 44 12 Aston Villa 42 15 12 15 61 61 10 7 4 31 19 5 5 11 30 42 1.00 42 13 Chelsea 42 12 16 14 58 65 7 7 7 31 30 5 9 7 27 35 0.89 40 14 West Bromwich 42 14 12 16 47 53 9 7 5 28 16 5 5 11 19 37 0.89 40 15 Huddersfield 42 14 9 19 52 73 11 4 6 34 22 3 5 13 18 51 0.71 37 16 Bolton 42 10 14 18 45 59 10 5 6 34 22 0 9 12 11 37 0.76 34 17 Fulham 42 10 14 18 41 54 8 6 7 24 19 2 8 11 17 35 0.76 34 18 Everton 42 10 14 18 42 66 6 8 7 24 20 4 6 11 18 46 0.64 34 19 Stoke City 42 11 12 19 45 75 10 4 7 27 28 1 8 12 18 47 0.60 34 20 Charlton Athletic 42 13 6 23 53 65 7 5 9 33 35 6 1 14 20 30 0.81 32 21 Manchester City 42 8 13 21 36 68 7 8 6 27 24 1 5 15 9 44 0.53 29 22 Birmingham City 42 7 14 21 31 67 6 8 7 19 24 1 6 14 12 43 0.46 28
Would you be against Saints from buying players from clubs that are deemed to be smaller than us then? Funny how when we buy players its "an obvious step up & career progression" for them. But when our players leave... And who exactly is going to implement rules on which clubs can and can't buy players? FA? Prem League? Turkeys voting for Christmas. Want Sky to run a campaign? When they make most of their revenue from selling the games of the biggest clubs? Dream on.
Needless to say, Swindon could still be miffed they "sold" Walcott to us for £30,000. Similarly with Lallana (although Bournemouth may get their cut) Or how about Oxlade-Chamberlain, perhaps out of the "spirit of the game" we should have given Portsmouth FC a couple of million after he spent much of his youth playing for their kids sides? Bale was nicked off Cardiff. In fact, I think Luke Shaw is about the only player we can trace back to being 100% with Saints all his footballing development life.
Find me any evidence that he has ever played for Cardiff City, at any level, and then you can patronise me as much as you like.
Apparently saints were willing to give a sell on clause to swindon when making an offer for Walcott but the then manager Andy King said he wouldn't amount to much so wanted as much money as possible at the time.
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I'll try to make every point instead of assuming that a reader won't look first to pick holes, but try to understand the point I'm making. Whem I say protected, I mean that the producing club should be allowed to keep the player, if they want to, upto a designated age, (say 21, 22 or 23, for want of actual figures). That means that the producing club could cash-in their investment or not. There would be a proper incentive to produce players still and the producing club would get a playing benefit should they really desire it. Most lower league clubs would probably cash-in, but players would leave on their terms rather than being pinched for relative peanuts. Perhaps you can now see how it might work. The overall incentive for broadcasters like SKY is that the competition improves.
I did make a suggestion on a thread a couple of years back that was similar to this. Something along the lines of a club being able to "enforce" a 3 year deal from 18 .... ok that will have employment legality issues and restricted earnings and holding back player development, etc, etc, but the theory is ok. It won't happen though.
Will never happen. It could also harm the developement of the player. If we say Luton unearthed a amazing 17 year old and the law was he couldn't be sold until he was 21. That is 4 yrs playing low league football, instead of pushing on to a higher better league in a year or two he is stuck for another 2yrs of playing the same low level players. Also what's to say the same 17yr old sets the league on fire until he is 21 but then gets a injury and isn't as good any more. Now because of the rule the club have lost out on a million or two which could help them survive.
I don't require evidence to do that. Some bloke told me a while ago that he often trained with Cardiff when he couldn't make it down to Southampton or Bath as a nipper. The same bloke also said he had an offer on the table from Cardiff when his future at Saints was in the balance. Bloke was called Gareth... something. Now what was his last name?
That might work, but it's against a host of UK & European employment & discrimination laws. Could get round it by then signing a contract when 16 or 18 saying they will stay until they are 21 or 23... but with agents around, that ain't going to happen either. Plus we all know what contracts are worth in reality.
Sky Sports News reporting that Luke Shaw has signed for Manchester United for a fee in excess of £30m.
