People have said this before ("that Kat wanted out"), but I'm not sure is strictly this simple... she's a business women, if she wanted maximum money out in double quick time and wanted to asset strip, she could've done quite easily. I think it's more likely that she recognised she needed considerable investment bearing in mind the lunacy that's existing in the world of football financing. So she decided to cast the net far and wide to try and get a good deal for everyone. Not having ago at you at all.... I just think it's doing her a dis service to assume she's just got bored of a project started by her father. It's his legacy and still with 20%, she still has some say over her late dads pride and joy.
My Mum was christened Dorothy. When I was a kid my Mum was referred to as Dall by her twin sister, Dot by her Husband's [and coincidentally, my Father] relatives, Mush [no kidding] by my Dad, and Mum by me. These days the care workers call her Dorothy and occasionally, after they've left, she asks who they are talking about. Which is both humorous and sad at the same time.
Hey, I'm thinking about buying a rattlesnake mug just because I've watched too many snippets of the U.S. The Late, Late Show with its last host with talent. Now that's not getting out much.
So almost everyone is either excited or at least hoping for the best. That seems different to what people were saying before being presented with a fait accompli....I guess we are pragmatists.
I have two. They're quite difficult to actually drink from and I'm paranoid I'll drop one so they don't get much use.
That was a strange reply to my post. I just said she's wanted out for a while, which must have been true (for whatever reason & yes I can appreciate, complicated) & that it couldn't have been helpful (to SFC business discussions). Anyway, she's effectively gone (20% doesn't give a say) & I personally thank her for her support post Markus. The girl did well.
Wasn't meant to have a go, apologies if it cane out like that. Unfortunately I'd looked around on a few different sites and a few people were starting to say that we were best off without her, she was jumping ship, etc. Then I came on here are reacted to your comment; you're right though.... she's done her old man proud..
Neutral. The only thing I've read is we are now debt free (good) and there won't be any big changes at all regardless of ownership which is a bit boring but as I genuinely have lost a huge amount of enthusiasm for football this season I'm never going to get excited or angry over anything.
Well we can't invest less money than we have been over the past few years, surely? Huge transfer profits every summer, buy low sell high. I assume there must be some kind of cash injection, even if modest. Perhaps it will start with us holding on to key players? Then next season maybe a big signing, without selling our 2 best players etc
The main difficulty for me with this takeover is that the Liebherrs have been excellent custodians of the football club. Notwithstanding the fact that they saved the club from possible extinction, they have controlled Southampton in a fashion that has always been done by keeping the supporters on side. They have been model owners and, other than the error of appointing Claude Puel, you have got to say they have made some extremely well judged decisions. It do not see this as a crisis but it certainly sees the club no longer being in the control of people of extremely sound and balanced judgement. The Chinese takeover needs to be taken as a relative assessment. I do not feel that the investment will take us to a level with Man Utd or even to a point where we match a team like Spurs. As Leicester showed a few seasons ago, it is possible to upset the apple cart yet this summer's transfer window has seen transfer fees sky-rocket to ridiculous levels. This investment will serve to keep up in a position of pushing for a Europa League place but no better. The problem will be that there will be teams like Brighton, Huddersfield, Stoke, Burnley, Watford, etc who are going to struggle to compete even with new owners at the helm. The difficulty for me is seeing what happened to Portsmouth who, in many respects, were the team that defined the 00's. The Russian ownership looked to take them to a new level and there was a point when they he a fabulous team. Come the credit crunch, and the investments of the owners were found to be laid on sand and the team crumbled. I cannot see this happening to Saints but I much prefer the idea of unspectacular and conservative Swiss owning the club as opposed to Chinese investors who may prove to be more volatile. With regarding to the signing of new players, there was a good debate on Radio 5 on Saturday lunchtime which mentioned that Chelsea are no longer being quoted realistic fees for their target and the players they are signing are not good value for money. I hope that this doesn't happen to Saints and whilst Alan Shearer's opinions are not always the ones I would concur with, he is right in his comments about Chelsea that this is a rotten way to run a club. I think we will continue to invest in our academy more than purchases and would prefer to see us field players we have developed rather than exploit the financial vulnerability of other clubs.
I'm pretty neutral and willing to see how it goes. Can't see loads changing in the short term if they are keeping all the same staff on in senior positions (Reed and Krueger specifically. Key thing which will come out in time is if they are more Abramovich when it comes to sacking people
"I do not see this as a crisis but it certainly sees the club no longer being in the control of people of extremely sound and balanced judgement." That's an absurd comment. How on earth would you know that yet?
