Club Direction

  • 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!

Club Direction

  • The board have been great, and we've progressed for the last 7 years. I trust them.

    Votes: 84 70.6%

  • PL money has gone up exponentially. We should be recruiting far more aggressively.

    Votes: 12 10.1%

  • I'm a random on a forum, in reality I have no idea. Let's see what happens.

    Votes: 23 19.3%
  • Total voters
    119
The proof is in the pudding. Saints obviously wanted to keep a manager who had brought success to the club, despite him being off plan in some areas. However, for whatever reason he left....which may turn out to be a good thing IF Puel brings success whilst being closer to the Southampton system. Have to wait and see, but I am hopeful and interested to see what unfolds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ......loading......
fatletiss said:
This may be where Les has been too stubborn. He and someone like Martin Hunter (or someone else high up in academy) may think players were better than Koeman thought and so they said "Sod it" and signed them anyway. If that is correct, then Les may be getting that bit wrong, or the manager was getting it wrong in not seeing the potential. Again, we won't know unless some of those players suddenly break through in a year or two. I could easily imagine a situation where Les/Academy management became a little pig-headed and they did their own thing, particularly if Koeman just shrugged his shoulder and said it wasn't his problem, he was winning games! Nothing is ever smooth.
Click to expand...
Although publicly slagging the kids off as not good enough was a little unprofessional on Koeman's part too IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Archers Road and fatletiss
fatletiss said:
Agreed. I think that was a not too subtle message back to Les! Shouldn't have been done though.
Click to expand...
In hindsight it seems as if there were obvious conflicts about the academy - something that was heavily rumoured at the time as well; but coming to light more clearly now with some analysis. All the noises coming out of the club about it right now are the right ones, however; hopefully problems didn't run too deep and Puel & his team can heal them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fatletiss
CBK said:
Why keep players around the first team that the manager doesn't think is good enough for the first team? Surely that's a waste of resources? There was a definite pattern last season, Koeman assesses a youngster, doesn't think he can add to the first team. Then Les Reed offers that player a new contract. Go figure.
Click to expand...

I think this is part of the business model. We develop players who whilst may not be good enough for our first team still have sale value to teams lower down the order.

Currently we just release these with no benefit having spent time and money getting to this point.

Sign a number up each year and sell them at a point for £2-£5m each year.

This can then fund one major player each year or invested back into the system...
 
  • Like
Reactions: KillerCephalopod and saintlyhero
fatletiss said:
I'm not sure what your underlying message here is. Is it to say your were right back then? Is it to say some people change their views to suit the clubs latest view/activities? Is it something else? I am genuinely not sure.

If you take Pie's comment back then, to not invest in the first team would seem stupid, it's not that bad a comment.

There is nothing wrong with views and opinions changing with time.
Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with views and opinions changing. The problem arises in that it is difficult to have any kind of discussion about the club's direction and options if people insist on trying to frame everything (including their own views) to suit some kind of positive/negative battleground, and it becomes more absurd when the club's direction (or at least our perception thereof) shifts, and suddenly so do opinions and battle lines.

There are a bunch of potentially interesting discussions that could arise concerning the club's policies here, as raised by LTL in the first post, none of which need to be viewed as either indictment of or paean to the board. Instead, most of it is getting framed around "do you trust them?" as per usual.
 
Schad said:
There's nothing wrong with views and opinions changing. The problem arises in that it is difficult to have any kind of discussion about the club's direction and options if people insist on trying to frame everything (including their own views) to suit some kind of positive/negative battleground, and it becomes more absurd when the club's direction (or at least our perception thereof) shifts, and suddenly so do opinions and battle lines.

There are a bunch of potentially interesting discussions that could arise concerning the club's policies here, as raised by LTL in the first post, none of which need to be viewed as either indictment of or paean to the board. Instead, most of it is getting framed around "do you trust them?" as per usual.
Click to expand...

I think that's unfair for this thread Schad. Seems to me that some points have been raised for discussion and discussed quite well in her (this thread). Interestingly enough though one of the people (spacedsaint) who felt that discussions couldn't be had on another thread (and why Laces started this one) bowed out saying it was the end of the discussion. This was after putting some words into my mouth too by the way, but I let that go.

I am someone who says "trust the board" yet on this thread on page one I posted about the academy being a big part of the Board's new direction. Nobody repied or took it up. Should I moan that I am being dismissed as a truster?

Not just me, others too.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: davecg69
fatletiss said:
I am someone who says "trust the board" yet on this thread on page one I posted about the academy being a big part of the Board's new direction. Nobody repied or took it up. Should I moan that I am being dismissed as a truster?
Click to expand...
I'll take it up - I don't think that is an entirely new direction - going all the way back to the Cortese days, we've stressed the importance of the academy & the path to the first team. Koeman's tenure was a diversion from that, but we're just reverting to the path that the board always wanted us on, IMO. Did we have a bit of a talent hole? Sure, but it looks like we're trying to fix that too: http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/news/arti...gn-scholarships-with-southampton-3164673.aspx - they don't have to have been with us since the age of 5 to be counted as our academy products later on.
 
Funnily enough I've just been conversing over e-mail with chap who I do design work for who is a Swindon Town supporter and he asked about the new signing. I wrote a few lines and then cut and paste the '5 things article' from the Saints site and he said he believed it was a typical Southampton signing where they get a good young player in, get him playing well and confident and sell him on at a big profit in a few years time.

From his perspective he thought this was a great model and saw nothing wrong with it. He admires Saints.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Le Tissier’s Laces and KillerCephalopod
KillerCephalopod said:
I'll take it up - I don't think that is an entirely new direction - going all the way back to the Cortese days, we've stressed the importance of the academy & the path to the first team. Koeman's tenure was a diversion from that, but we're just reverting to the path that the board always wanted us on, IMO. Did we have a bit of a talent hole? Sure, but it looks like we're trying to fix that too: http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/news/arti...gn-scholarships-with-southampton-3164673.aspx - they don't have to have been with us since the age of 5 to be counted as our academy products later on.
Click to expand...

Well that's not taking it up. I agree. End of discussion <laugh>
 
  • Like
Reactions: KillerCephalopod
billyvegas said:
I think this is part of the business model. We develop players who whilst may not be good enough for our first team still have sale value to teams lower down the order.

Currently we just release these with no benefit having spent time and money getting to this point.

Sign a number up each year and sell them at a point for £2-£5m each year.

This can then fund one major player each year or invested back into the system...
Click to expand...

Not sure many business models exist where you help rival businesses.

Who have we sold for £2m to £5m? All our recent youngsters just go on loan, or released from their (long) contracts because no team will pay money for them.
 
CBK said:
Not sure many business models exist where you help rival businesses.

Who have we sold for £2m to £5m? All our recent youngsters just go on loan, or released from their (long) contracts because no team will pay money for them.
Click to expand...

Thats why I'm saying it's part of the model, maybe I could have said it maybe part of the model. Academy players won't be on Gaston or Osvaldo sized wages as you well know.

We could be selling others that won't make it with us to others, as I said those that are below our current level.

You're way off point re selling to our rivals, one they won't be sold to rivals as such but moreover the whole football business is selling to rivals.

Take a look at recent success here to help you :emoticon-0126-nerd:
 
It probably isn't worth it to sign up a young player just to sell him to a lower division side for a couple of mil.

But I don't think that's really our plan. I think we believe these players have potential and you never know for sure. Even if there is only a 10% chance they become contributors to the first team, the benefit is so massive that more than covers the cost of the 9 failed players.

As for buying up players to sell to our rivals, I don't think that is our intent either. We buy them up at cheap prices and get 2 or 3 excellent years from them. If we can hang on to them at wages we deem reasonable, we will. If we can't then we sell.

As for what teams have become successful by helping their rivals... all of them. La Liga is filled with ex-Barcelona players. Nothing wrong with helping your rivals if by doing so you also help yourself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KillerCephalopod
I Sorry I Ruined The Party said:
It probably isn't worth it to sign up a young player just to sell him to a lower division side for a couple of mil.

But I don't think that's really our plan. I think we believe these players have potential and you never know for sure. Even if there is only a 10% chance they become contributors to the first team, the benefit is so massive that more than covers the cost of the 9 failed players.

As for buying up players to sell to our rivals, I don't think that is our intent either. We buy them up at cheap prices and get 2 or 3 excellent years from them. If we can hang on to them at wages we deem reasonable, we will. If we can't then we sell.

As for what teams have become successful by helping their rivals... all of them. La Liga is filled with ex-Barcelona players. Nothing wrong with helping your rivals if by doing so you also help yourself.
Click to expand...

There is definitely a market and a business model for "failed" academy players.
Chelsea hoard players for example and their academy has been more successful at selling players than creating first teamers.

If we maintain/improve our current league standing then it's acknowledged that it will be harder for an academy player to make the grade, but the flip side is that they'll probably interest a higher calibre club. Championship clubs could afford to pay a bit of money
 
  • Like
Reactions: KillerCephalopod
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back