I trust our present club management. I can do nothing else and they haven't disappointed me yet. However I have noticed a genetic flaw with Sotonians - they are a load of pessimists.
Club Direction
- Thread starter Le Tissier's Laces
- Start date
-
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
-
This, this so much this.
We're never going to match Utd, Chelsea, Liverpool etc. in terms of spending power on "big names", so we need to suplement our spending with good young players from across Europe, if not the world. To do that, we need a top tier academy to attract them and for them to develop at - we're not aiming to only develop local English talent there! That's not new, either - Morgan came through the academy.
Barca do this model best, but as far as I can tell, many continental clubs use a similar model because of the silly money from top teams & the PL that means top talent is snached away from them year after year. Remind you of any other club?
We're never going to be able to match the top, top clubs but we may be able to match the likes of Sevilla, Schalke, and the like some day. Well known teams, regularly in the Europa, with the occasional foray into the CL. Despite us having a smaller stadium & being less well known abroad, our spending power probably matches or exceeds those clubs due to PL TV money. The currently equivalent clubs here (in terms of league position) are the far more cash rich Spurs & Liverpool but us & West ham have closed that gap in the last two seasons it's time to consolidate ourselves in that mini-league.
Saints are at a huge disadvantage doing that in the PL due to our relative lack of spending power against those teams - even the Hammers now, with the Olympic Stadium - so we have to find other ways to compete. Looking to our continental cousins in similar situations is no bad thing; indeed long term it'll probably pay off - look how poorly Liverpool & Spurs do in the Europa compared to other European teams due to being so reliant on cash buying in "names" (a.k.a egos) rather than a team of lesser known players & academy products that play as more than the sum of it's parts.
Seriously, the English teams aren't the only model to run football clubs, looking across Europe certainly not the best way, either and for a club the size of ours, we shouldn't even try to emulate the idiotic structure of some around us who'll end up in L1 on -10pts if the TV money dries up. Other clubs across Europe have proven you don't need to spend mega money to have success. Better to copy them than to copy the likes of Leeds who tried to copy the set-up of the top English clubs.
Agree with club comment but oldstocktonians are prone to the gloomier side of life. Life's a bitch and then you die.
Overall the club have made good or decent signings, with the obvious two major goofs at big money. We are in the top six of the Premier League, in Europe. For a 'small' club that is doing well. We are unlikely to win the league, Leicester was a fluke. I don't want the club to have one season of glory then fade away. We are doing OK in my book. How is that for optimism from a life long pessimist?
For what it's worth: before Koeman left, I was told that I was being negative for suggesting that we were going to focus on the Academy. What constitutes negative/positive has a tendency to flip, heh.
That depends on how that's put across on here schad. Some have used a time that suggests "oh no, we're not signing anyone, we're focusing on the academy"
That sounds negative.
"The club have realised that they need to focus some time improving the talent in the academy" sounds positive.
Here's one such:
http://www.not606.com/threads/ex-manager-thread.326097/page-5#post-9218399
Go forward a couple pages and it was deemed a 'really stupid idea', but that was a couple months ago, when the oft-expressed concern with the Academy was that we'd outgrown it.
I saw the post, but reading it I think it's referring to the "drop in spending on senior players" rather than the developing of youth players.
Last edited:
Except that the current rumblings seem to be that we may do exactly that: acquire players, certainly, but slim the squad in certain areas (like not replacing Pelle) in order to ensure that the pathway isn't blocked.
I think we're beginning to cross wires here. I was saying that the post referring to "stupid" was aimed at one part of your post back then at that time.
Any how, as you say above, the current situation is "rumblings" and "we may"... Plenty of time yet for that plan to unfold further.
Sure. But if it turns out that is what we are doing, it will no longer be considered a stupid idea. Just as Koeman was right not to play the kids, who weren't good enough (and few would be in the future at our level), until he left and his failure to play the kids was a major strike against him.
What amused me is what constitutes the 'negative' and 'positive' opinions keep shifting 180 degrees depending on the presumed intentions of the club.
I would suggest that things are fluid rather than set in stone...the idea is to have a progression of players coming through the Academy and to have a manager willing to give them a chance if they are good enough. The intention is to always have a competitive first team squad without so many that youngsters don't have a chance (as Schad said). It will vary from year to year as it depends on quality coming through and the position the best young players occupy. The youngsters have to be involved in first team training in order to learn from the more experienced players. We don't want to do a Chelsea where you have so many people out on loan that they become out of sight, out of mind.
It means the manager has to be fully on board, but it also means that the club (management and fans) have to be less results orientated. We want to do well of course, but we will also have to accept that the plan is longer term and may require patience. I think the board are quite good at this old patience malarkey, but fans less so because we are not involved in decision making.
It means the manager has to be fully on board, but it also means that the club (management and fans) have to be less results orientated. We want to do well of course, but we will also have to accept that the plan is longer term and may require patience. I think the board are quite good at this old patience malarkey, but fans less so because we are not involved in decision making.
It may still be considered stupid (or shall we change Pie's word to something like "big gamble" or "reckless") to not invest in the first team. Several things to consider here too: what constitutes "invest" (signing this chap this week for 12m maybe like signing a 25m player, or signing a 5m player who turns out great maybe like signing a 20m player) ? While I posted at the time that Koeman maybe thought the youngsters weren't good enough (I believe I defended him on that during the season), maybe the club have realised or think he was correct and now adjusted their view.
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.
.
On the Koeman thing at the end, I'm reading most views mentioning that as people reiterating that his failure to play the kids was a strike against him from the club. You can't take that as black/white either as it may be that he and Les sat down at the end of the season and Les told him we were going to invest partly in the first team and partly in plugging that youth talent gap. Koeman may have sneered at that. We don't know.
Thanks Fran, your first line said what I wanted to say. Things are fluid.
Defense is thus far unchanged
Midfield is one in one out
Attack is three down and one in
I would be surprised and disappointed if we didn't sign at least one attacking player
This squad size proved ok for a premier league season, but it doesn't seem like we are going to expand for the extra European commitments.
It may only be six extra games, but the reduced recovery time will probably mean more squad rotation.
Spurs have used Europa to blood youngsters and that's probably been to their benefit. The down side is that they've not really come close to winning it.
Koeman may have been right saying the quality wasn't that great in the Academy....after all you can't have stars every year...and we have progressed as a club. However, a real gripe was his lack of involvement....he didn't seem to want the youngsters anywhere near the first team. Poch always had some youngsters involved, whereas RK wasn't prepared to spend the time. It would have benefitted the youngsters by giving them hope and the chance to learn from the senior players. It was common under Nigel and MP to see the first team at U21 and U18 matches....does that happen now? If not, the club is fragmenting a bit. Imagine how important it is for the kids to see the first team manager watching....encourages them to give their best. And whatever he thinks, it's best if the manager doesn't comment in public about lack of quality!
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.
No reason why a few youngsters cannot be given a chance for first team training....perhaps on a rotation basis if they are deserving of such a reward. Hardly matters if an extra few players are running around. Not suggesting they are involved in the specific training for a match, but they can be around and watch. There are plenty of coaches around so they'd hardly get in the way.
I expect that did happen, even with Koeman, just that the story was shaped to make out he was an ogre to the youngsters.
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.