Desirable destinations

[Pelletron]

Out of interest (not because of any meltdown or anything), where would everyone have Saints in a league of desirable clubs to sign for? Made up of the PL teams only, where would we be? All things being equal to what they are currently - manager, wages etc. It would seem to me we're bottom half, but is hard to say, because we aim high or low (young, potential) only. We couldn't have got Shaquiri imo, as one example. Seems a lack of any real competition for Van Dijk - though reckon Koeman is the advantage there. To me, it shows the stupidity of the modern footballer.

Think five of the top six is undoubtedly in the order below, but I actually don't know where Arsenal would slot. Some players make it their dream in life to go there (Morgan I reckon would have gone there above Man U), but others prefer the high wages at Chelsea and City; and of course Arsenal are the sole club in the top four who are a relative selling club. I'd say at the moment they're probably between Man U and Liverpool. Difficult, though, as in some ways Man U and Liverpool are the most desirable because of their legacy, and so despite the majority of players being, in my view, 100% money-driven, at the point of making a choice between Man U and Liverpool, there is then a footballing decision to be made, re: Champions League.

Given Spuds are in the best position of any of the rest of the clubs, in that they can get a serious calibre of player (and players who don't have the pressure that any players at the clubs above them have, at that) they are guilty of really badly making a mess of their advantage. Somehow they finished 5th last year, but can you imagine what we would have done on their resources? We were within a few points of them - imagine we had the depth they had in the GK position, and, midfield cover, plus a striker who scored 30+! They basically ****ed up royally. No one can ruin a player like Spurs Should stick that in Latin and wrap it round their badge!

Chelsea
Man City
Man U
Liverpool
Spurs

 

[Velcro Roy]

Out of interest (not because of any meltdown or anything), where would everyone have Saints in a league of desirable clubs to sign for? Made up of the PL teams only, where would we be? All things being equal to what they are currently - manager, wages etc. It would seem to me we're bottom half, but is hard to say, because we aim high or low (young, potential) only. We couldn't have got Shaquiri imo, as one example. Seems a lack of any real competition for Van Dijk - though reckon Koeman is the advantage there. To me, it shows the stupidity of the modern footballer.

Think five of the top six is undoubtedly in the order below, but I actually don't know where Arsenal would slot. Some players make it their dream in life to go there (Morgan I reckon would have gone there above Man U), but others prefer the high wages at Chelsea and City; and of course Arsenal are the sole club in the top four who are a relative selling club. I'd say at the moment they're probably between Man U and Liverpool. Difficult, though, as in some ways Man U and Liverpool are the most desirable because of their legacy, and so despite the majority of players being, in my view, 100% money-driven, at the point of making a choice between Man U and Liverpool, there is then a footballing decision to be made, re: Champions League.

Given Spuds are in the best position of any of the rest of the clubs, in that they can get a serious calibre of player (and players who don't have the pressure that any players at the clubs above them have, at that) they are guilty of really badly making a mess of their advantage. Somehow they finished 5th last year, but can you imagine what we would have done on their resources? We were within a few points of them - imagine we had the depth they had in the GK position, and, midfield cover, plus a striker who scored 30+! They basically ****ed up royally. No one can ruin a player like Spurs Should stick that in Latin and wrap it round their badge!

Chelsea
Man City
Man U
Liverpool
Spurs

Are you saying Stoke are more desirable ? Cos I don't, think Shaquiri might end up Stokes Osvaldo. (not literally)

 

[Pelletron]

Are you saying Stoke are more desirable ? Cos I don't, think Shaquiri might end up Stokes Osvaldo. (not literally)

Not really saying anything. but just don't think Shaquiri would come here, so trying to make sense of that, and wonder where we might place in a table of transfer desirability. I of course think we should be in the top ten - and that our stock should never have been so high. We've proven what we can do for young and established players. But I am slightly puzzled at the amount of rebuffs we get, and head-to-heads we might lose out on. I don't know the half of it, of course; and none of us know what goes on behind the scenes in that murky world. Just wondering if we're as desirable as I think we should be, or whether we're in an upside-down world.

 

[fatletiss]

Not really saying anything. but just don't think Shaquiri would come here, so trying to make sense of that, and wonder where we might place in a table of transfer desirability. I of course think we should be in the top ten - and that our stock should never have been so high. We've proven what we can do for young and established players. But I am slightly puzzled at the amount of rebuffs we get, and head-to-heads we might lose out on. I don't know the half of it, of course; and none of us know what goes on behind the scenes in that murky world. Just wondering if we're as desirable as I think we should be, or whether we're in an upside-down world.

Do you really know who has re-buffed us and who we have lost out to in a head to head? Recently I could only say Toby and Coutunho (even that's allegedly) and they went to Spuds and Scousehampton and that's easy to understand why. More money, bigger clubs.

Ok it's your opinion that we couldn't have got Shaquiri, I respect that it's your opinion, however you haven't given any reason or indication as to why you think that. It helps a discussion of you give the reason rather than just state the opinion and would help understand where you're coming from. Personally, I think we could have got him if we'd wanted him. Here's why that's my opinion:

• Club profile: Saints have had a higher media profile in the last couple of years
• 
  
• Progression: Players have clearly been able to leave Saints for a 'bigger' club. This could show a player there's a route out upwards.
• 
  
• Manager: Koeman v Hughes - fairly even as both have big European contacts/influence. Maybe Ron edges that one.
• 
  
• European football - we offer it this season, Stoke don't
• 
  
• League position: we finished higher than Stoke in last two seasons
• 
  
• Club Size - similar size, similar crowds
• 
  
• Wages - I'd guess similar, but I'm not sure on what Stoke pay.

Have I missed any examples if players we've lost out on in a head to head? I can't see that if we had wanted Shaquiri, why we couldn't have competed for him. There maybe players I've not thought of.

 

[Saintjoey]

Largely agree with FLT, although I'd summarise by saying Nzonzi has 3 good years playing the Stoke way and gets his big move to Sevilla. Morgan does it playing our way and gets a huge move to Utd.

Also, think Koeman has a far bigger European influence due to his affection in both Holland and Spain where he's considered a legend in both

 

[Archers Road]

These are the 3 factors players consider when deciding who to sign for;

£
€
$

 

[Libby]

My opinion is if you're talking about players coming from abroad (which I assume you are) Then outside the top 6, and maybe the newly promoted clubs, I think a lot of players would join near enough any club if the money is right, foreign players don't care about the clubs so much (unless it is a top 6 club) they just want to play in the PL so I don't think there's much difference between us, Swansea, Leicester, Stoke etc. They will go where the money is right, West Ham could maybe have a slight advantage with being in London.

 

[Le Tissier's Laces]

Arsenal would be above Tottenham and Liverpool as a desirable destination because of Champions League.

Underneath those lot, it's much of a muchness. I'd say we're pretty high up that list (on a par with someone like Everton), money dependent. The main thing is, we've been climbing that list!

 

[Puck]

I think it also depends on who the player is, their position, age etc. I think we're an attractive option for younger players. For example, Clyne supposedly turned Man Utd down to come here. Presumably because he was more confident he'd play.

For older players I think we're further down the list (and, equally, they're further down our list of desirable signings) because we don't pay big wages. I don't know their wage structure but I wouldnt be at all surprised if Stoke are prepared to pay higher wages than we are.

 

[......loading......]

Stoke is a dump. Therefore, we are more desirable.

 

[Saintmagic]

Would have Arsenal on a par with Utd in terms of desirability. Being in London is a huge draw to the young and wealthy, and it's not like they pay a pittance to their stars.

As for Saints, they probably are in a group with a few others and the main factor will be money as to who the player signs for. Which is why, imo, we never get/attempt to get the players like Shaqiri as we know another mid table PL club will be in for him and blow us out of the water wage wise

 

[Pelletron]

Do you really know who has re-buffed us and who we have lost out to in a head to head? Recently I could only say Toby and Coutunho (even that's allegedly) and they went to Spuds and Scousehampton and that's easy to understand why. More money, bigger clubs.

Ok it's your opinion that we couldn't have got Shaquiri, I respect that it's your opinion, however you haven't given any reason or indication as to why you think that. It helps a discussion of you give the reason rather than just state the opinion and would help understand where you're coming from. Personally, I think we could have got him if we'd wanted him. Here's why that's my opinion:

• Club profile: Saints have had a higher media profile in the last couple of years
• 
  
• Progression: Players have clearly been able to leave Saints for a 'bigger' club. This could show a player there's a route out upwards.
• 
  
• Manager: Koeman v Hughes - fairly even as both have big European contacts/influence. Maybe Ron edges that one.
• 
  
• European football - we offer it this season, Stoke don't
• 
  
• League position: we finished higher than Stoke in last two seasons
• 
  
• Club Size - similar size, similar crowds
• 
  
• Wages - I'd guess similar, but I'm not sure on what Stoke pay.

Have I missed any examples if players we've lost out on in a head to head? I can't see that if we had wanted Shaquiri, why we couldn't have competed for him. There maybe players I've not thought of.

Well no, I don't know who has rebuffed us or who we lose out to - of course, that's why I said clearly in my post 'I don't know the half of it, of course; and none of us know what goes on behind the scenes in that murky world.' Of course, that’s just to illustrate that I am working with what I know from media rumours and relatively ITK posts on here; and to cut down on the amount of posters who may indirectly expect that I might have jacked in my job, conducted a few year’s detailed research amongst my deep network of players, ex-players, agents, managers, and modelled the resulting highly confidential, financial data I have gathered for each and every club in Europe to come up with an officially-verified list of who each club has lost out on and been rejected by. So basically to save a bit of space and time in the resultant posts to enjoy some silly conjecture with a fantasy list of where we may be in a list of 20 clubs based on what we think we know and have heard through rumours and Twitter posts by club owners’ kids etc.

So you know, players like, as you say, Coutinho, Toby, plus Lucas Silva, and then possibly Danny Ings and Kieran Trippier (based on Beefy's claims of the past). Possibly Cabaye?

Just to put it out there, I would not want us to have signed Shaquiri, as I think he doesn’t fit our profile (it’s good to have a club player profile imo – it works to me as an ideology to unify the fans around), plus I think he’d be angling for a big move (I’d imagine more aggressively than most other big players might, given the heights he’s fallen from), and I have not seen much consistency from him, despite the hype. But I think he wouldn’t come here because of the wages, basically; nor would we take him for that reason (and others). I’d imagine Stoke must pay way more than us, or have a very flexible wage structure, mainly down to that signing. Although, I saw last year an article listing clubs’ top earners, and ours was Shane Long on £50k pw, whereas Stokes’ was Peter Crouch on £50k pw, so maybe we were closer than I thought (that also had Gayle as Palace’s highest earner, on £18k pw, which will of course have been blown out of the water by Cabaye, so things change very quickly). We also had the fifth lowest wage bill (Burnley, Leicester, Hull, and Palace below us; but Stoke only a place above us) in 2013-14 .

I agree that we have in our favour the Koeman draw, the shop window and international leg-up aspect, as well as Europe. But I genuinely wouldn’t be confident that we would get a player if we were competing directly for him with any of the following (outside the obvious ones we can’t compete with at all): Stoke, West Ham, Aston Villa, Swansea, Everton, Sunderland (as 8th highest payers in the league), possibly Leciester. There is our appearance very low down the list (possibly even bottom) of the levels of agents’ fees paid (a fact of which I am proud). I imagine Shaquiri’s agent was in a very strong position to take a huge payment there.

I guess what I’m getting at is trying to get an idea of whether we manage to reverse any trends in most desirable destination being defined by wages. If, say, West Brom offered an extra £10k per week than us to a player, do our inherent benefits bridge that gap, so that we are still more desirable? Obviously, £30k per week would swing things in their favour. But it’s an unanswerable question I guess. A player going to West Brom is likely to have reached their limit, and any move will be downwards (on average), but this is down to the profile of player they sign; with us, we sign players with potential who are young, will take a lower wage, but are mostly destined for greater things. I personally think we sell too early in a lot of cases, but that’s based on me wanting us to achieve bigger and better on the pitch rather than maximise profit on player sales. I suppose one answer is that we’re definitely in the top ten for younger players with high levels of potential (but definitely not in the top six there). And probably bottom five for players with one signing left in them.

 

[Pelletron]

Largely agree with FLT, although I'd summarise by saying Nzonzi has 3 good years playing the Stoke way and gets his big move to Sevilla. Morgan does it playing our way and gets a huge move to Utd.

Also, think Koeman has a far bigger European influence due to his affection in both Holland and Spain where he's considered a legend in both

Yes, good point. I wonder if Nzonzi would have chosen Saints over Sevilla in a head-to-head?
(Again, not a player I wanted here, but just wondering.)

 

[Pelletron]

My opinion is if you're talking about players coming from abroad (which I assume you are) Then outside the top 6, and maybe the newly promoted clubs, I think a lot of players would join near enough any club if the money is right, foreign players don't care about the clubs so much (unless it is a top 6 club) they just want to play in the PL so I don't think there's much difference between us, Swansea, Leicester, Stoke etc. They will go where the money is right, West Ham could maybe have a slight advantage with being in London.

Not just limited to those from abroad, no.
Probably as close as we could get to a correct answer the the unanswerable question, though.

 

[Libby]

Well no, I don't know who has rebuffed us or who we lose out to - of course, that's why I said clearly in my post 'I don't know the half of it, of course; and none of us know what goes on behind the scenes in that murky world.' Of course, that’s just to illustrate that I am working with what I know from media rumours and relatively ITK posts on here; and to cut down on the amount of posters who may indirectly expect that I might have jacked in my job, conducted a few year’s detailed research amongst my deep network of players, ex-players, agents, managers, and modelled the resulting highly confidential, financial data I have gathered for each and every club in Europe to come up with an officially-verified list of who each club has lost out on and been rejected by. So basically to save a bit of space and time in the resultant posts to enjoy some silly conjecture with a fantasy list of where we may be in a list of 20 clubs based on what we think we know and have heard through rumours and Twitter posts by club owners’ kids etc.

So you know, players like, as you say, Coutinho, Toby, plus Lucas Silva, and then possibly Danny Ings and Kieran Trippier (based on Beefy's claims of the past). Possibly Cabaye?

Just to put it out there, I would not want us to have signed Shaquiri, as I think he doesn’t fit our profile (it’s good to have a club player profile imo – it works to me as an ideology to unify the fans around), plus I think he’d be angling for a big move (I’d imagine more aggressively than most other big players might, given the heights he’s fallen from), and I have not seen much consistency from him, despite the hype. But I think he wouldn’t come here because of the wages, basically; nor would we take him for that reason (and others). I’d imagine Stoke must pay way more than us, or have a very flexible wage structure, mainly down to that signing. Although, I saw last year an article listing clubs’ top earners, and ours was Shane Long on £50k pw, whereas Stokes’ was Peter Crouch on £50k pw, so maybe we were closer than I thought (that also had Gayle as Palace’s highest earner, on £18k pw, which will of course have been blown out of the water by Cabaye, so things change very quickly). We also had the fifth lowest wage bill (Burnley, Leicester, Hull, and Palace below us; but Stoke only a place above us) in 2013-14 .

I agree that we have in our favour the Koeman draw, the shop window and international leg-up aspect, as well as Europe. But I genuinely wouldn’t be confident that we would get a player if we were competing directly for him with any of the following (outside the obvious ones we can’t compete with at all): Stoke, West Ham, Aston Villa, Swansea, Everton, Sunderland (as 8th highest payers in the league), possibly Leciester. There is our appearance very low down the list (possibly even bottom) of the levels of agents’ fees paid (a fact of which I am proud). I imagine Shaquiri’s agent was in a very strong position to take a huge payment there.

I guess what I’m getting at is trying to get an idea of whether we manage to reverse any trends in most desirable destination being defined by wages. If, say, West Brom offered an extra £10k per week than us to a player, do our inherent benefits bridge that gap, so that we are still more desirable? Obviously, £30k per week would swing things in their favour. But it’s an unanswerable question I guess. A player going to West Brom is likely to have reached their limit, and any move will be downwards (on average), but this is down to the profile of player they sign; with us, we sign players with potential who are young, will take a lower wage, but are mostly destined for greater things. I personally think we sell too early in a lot of cases, but that’s based on me wanting us to achieve bigger and better on the pitch rather than maximise profit on player sales. I suppose one answer is that we’re definitely in the top ten for younger players with high levels of potential (but definitely not in the top six there). And probably bottom five for players with one signing left in them.

Good post

EDIT: Quoted each other at same time

 

[Pelletron]

My opinion is if you're talking about players coming from abroad (which I assume you are) Then outside the top 6, and maybe the newly promoted clubs, I think a lot of players would join near enough any club if the money is right, foreign players don't care about the clubs so much (unless it is a top 6 club) they just want to play in the PL so I don't think there's much difference between us, Swansea, Leicester, Stoke etc. They will go where the money is right, West Ham could maybe have a slight advantage with being in London.

Thinking about it, West Ham are probably in a tier above us.
I wonder, though, where we'd sit if it was just about the football (ignoring the last few games!)

 

[Libby]

Thinking about it, West Ham are probably in a tier above us.
I wonder, though, where we'd sit if it was just about the football (ignoring the last few games!)

I think the London factor counts for a lot, and with them moving into OS next year it will be interesting to see how well they progress in terms of challenging the top 6

 

[Pelletron]

Good post

EDIT: Quoted each other at same time

Was thinking that quote came back quickly, given the length of my post!

I'll add to my last post the fact that we had one of the smallest squads in the PL, so the combined wage bill position isn't necessarily exactly reflective of where we sit as wage payers.

I also want to chuck Vilhena in there,as someone mentioned last night he was potentially off somewhere else. If that goes ahead, that to me would count as Saints losing a head-to-head, unless we have since signed a player we wanted for that position - I'd say we hadn't, personally, as Vilhena to me looked like being signed for big potential and to develop here, possibly slowly. And at his quote price , that would add the extra depth we still need.

 

[Pelletron]

Arsenal would be above Tottenham and Liverpool as a desirable destination because of Champions League.

Underneath those lot, it's much of a muchness. I'd say we're pretty high up that list (on a par with someone like Everton), money dependent. The main thing is, we've been climbing that list!

Would agree with Arsenal placing. Makes it that much more frustrating for their fans, I imagine. So many class players going to even clubs like Spurs that Arsenal could easily have grabbed. Toby, Lloris. Morgan would have gone there too, imo.

 

[Pelletron]

I think it also depends on who the player is, their position, age etc. I think we're an attractive option for younger players. For example, Clyne supposedly turned Man Utd down to come here. Presumably because he was more confident he'd play.

For older players I think we're further down the list (and, equally, they're further down our list of desirable signings) because we don't pay big wages. I don't know their wage structure but I wouldnt be at all surprised if Stoke are prepared to pay higher wages than we are.

Completely agree - hadn't read your post at that point, but I came to a similar conclusion in my second post. All comes down to player profile. Are actually various leagues we would be placed differently in - young players (would be very close to top - could even in some cases be top four, if younger players see us as a chance to play more, and then move to an CL team - as you pointed out with Clyne, and I'll point out for, ahem, Gaston, and, cough, Forren, who of course we swooped in for and tempted from his Liverpool trial with our promise of south coast glamour and working with a manager with a face it doesn't hurt to look at - imagine having to face Brendan Rodgers every day with a massive hangover!