Latest Martin Samuel rant

  • 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!
CBK

CBK

Well-Known Member
Feb 25, 2011
5,648
1,030
113
Southampton
It's a typical one for him and in a way, he's being "nice" about Saints, in a round-a-about kinda way. However, not sure his facts are facts at all because isn't financial fair play restricted to clubs who only play in the Champions League (or maybe Europa league as well) ?

So we wouldn't need to sell players in the summer and could buy who we wanted & spend as much as we wanted (although clearly we will only do it within our means anyway).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/fo...Persie-John-Terry-instead-sell-sell-sell.html

So, is this either a back-handed compliment by Samuel?

or...

Just another way to do a piece about Shaw & Lallana & him thinking they are too good for us?
 
I like how they felt it necessary to photoshop benteke, van persie and terry into a southampton kit
 
He's not really saying that's his opinion of football, but how UEFA's fair play laws are going to make sure football stays.



This quote is pertinent and correct:

"Yet suppose Southampton wanted to take advantage of this ‘Class of 92’ windfall? Suppose owner Katharina Liebherr was minded, or persuaded, that her football club were on the cusp of something unique. That, by keeping the young players, keeping the good older players and adding a layer of expensively acquired talent on top, Southampton could have a proper tilt at muscling their way into the top four.

Then a man in a suit from UEFA would say no. Southampton would be spending beyond their given para-meters and that isn’t financially fair, apparently.
UEFA have no problem with Southampton being plundered by the elite. Yet if a very rich woman wanted to use her money to further her club, and make the most of their resources, that would not be allowed."
 
Well, it is the Mail. I'm surprised they didn't accuse the club of running an evil food bank.
 
Mostly it's an indication that he either didn't read the recent accounts, or isn't terribly familiar with the threshold for UEFA's FFP restrictions. We could not buy everything in sight, it's true. But we could easily continue adding players without selling and stay under the loss limitations...we know this because we have already spent quite a bit and, lo and behold, posted a loss of just £6.6m in '12/'13, and I believe that was without taking into account the spending of infrastructure, which can be offset under FFP. There are few teams in Europe who would have to worry less, really.

Edit: should say that I agree with most of his assessment of FFP, but it's a long way from that to "Saints need to sell".
 
As far as I can see, the FFP rules have yet to be enforced & tested by uefa on the clubs who currently are flouting the rules, or trying ways to get round them.

However, it would be typical of football authorities to clamp down on a smaller club (easy target) than a Chelsea, Man City or PSG etc.

And no way will Platini ever put a halt to PSG's spending.
 
He's using us as an example against FFP. He always argued against these financial regulations and in this I completely agree with him.

Tough he does hold a grudge against Southampton, a while back he slated MP for some innocuous comments about referees.
 
It's more of a point about UEFA FFP, using Saints as a convenient example. It's a good argument, I'm not sure if I totally agree. Maybe he is right. If anyone has a brilliant way of letting Katherina spend money we haven't "earned" through tickets/player sales, and stopping the Chanrais/Al Faraj/Antonovs (I forget the rest) from doing what they do, I'd like to know it.

Either way, FFP is happening, so we'll just have to wait and see how it all turns out from a safe distance.
 
Qwerty said:
It's more of a point about UEFA FFP, using Saints as a convenient example. It's a good argument, I'm not sure if I totally agree. Maybe he is right. If anyone has a brilliant way of letting Katherina spend money we haven't "earned" through tickets/player sales, and stopping the Chanrais/Al Faraj/Antonovs (I forget the rest) from doing what they do, I'd like to know it.

Either way, FFP is happening, so we'll just have to wait and see how it all turns out from a safe distance.
Click to expand...

UEFA will investigate if naming/shirt rights exceed 'fair market value', but they've taken a pretty liberal approach to what constitutes such. Our shirt sponsorship expires next season, and our stadium and academy are without sponsors...we could probably get some wonderfully dodgy sponsorships from entities within the Liebherr family if so desired.
 
Schad said:
UEFA will investigate if naming/shirt rights exceed 'fair market value', but they've taken a pretty liberal approach to what constitutes such. Our shirt sponsorship expires next season, and our stadium and academy are without sponsors...we could probably get some wonderfully dodgy sponsorships from entities within the Liebherr family if so desired.
Click to expand...

Like City with their stadium.
 
Qwerty said:
It's more of a point about UEFA FFP, using Saints as a convenient example. It's a good argument, I'm not sure if I totally agree. Maybe he is right. If anyone has a brilliant way of letting Katherina spend money we haven't "earned" through tickets/player sales, and stopping the Chanrais/Al Faraj/Antonovs (I forget the rest) from doing what they do, I'd like to know it.

Either way, FFP is happening, so we'll just have to wait and see how it all turns out from a safe distance.
Click to expand...

It's a side effect that I feared of FFP. Cortese immediately voted against it when he had the chance. Most of us couldn't understand why he did so, me included, but because of his action I haven't been completely trustful of FFP. Samuel paints a picture that perfectly fits those who wish to keep the status quo, and what a fantastic example Saints are to buck this trend. I hope we can prove him wrong, but since the football league clubs voted to keep all the gate receipts at home, the scales have been tilted in favour of traditionally bigger clubs. That's not traditionally bigger clubs from the year dot, but bigger clubs since the TV era, which is the mid-60's onward. Another huge step towards favouring bigger clubs took place with the introduction of the Premier League. Every time they vote to make competition fairer they make sure that it is fairer for some more than others. The ones who don't actually need the help.

Never mind. They've been pulling the drawbridge up and trying to leave Saints on the other side for donkey's years. They haven't done it yet, and they're further away from doing it even now.
 
FFP is designed to prevent clubs going overboard chasing a dream, but, Samuel is right, that it also prevents some well run clubs taking a calculated risk. This is why Nicola was against it. It is a compliment that he uses us as an example. However, I don't follow how this makes us a selling club. We have to buy within certain rules, but we can keep the players we have. In fact, keeping players that we have raised makes economic sense as they are effectively cheap...we couldn't afford Lallana or Shaw if they were on the open market. A curate's egg...bit compliment, bit correct, then a false extrapolation.
 
I think its a pretty good article. With the way we have played and the way we have brought through good English players in a time when the country was supposed to be struggling has meant that Saints are a lot of peoples 2nd team (a thing Ralph wants to cash in on). So it stands to reason that we would be the example in a broader argument on FFP.

If we were able to add 3 of the players that were mentioned in the article then we would be pushing top 4. As good as Liverpool have been this season, I can't help but wonder how much higher we would be if we swapped Suarez for SRL and how much lower they would be. Put his conversion rate in our team and we would be top 4 at least.

We certainly have a better base from which to get to the top than Man City had when they had all of their investment put in, so it would arguably cost less for us to make that jump if we were allowed. That the problem with FFP, we couldn't add 3 £30 million players to the team in one go to make that jump, so it would have to be done one player a year, so it is then three years before this side are competitive at the top end of the league then another year before we would be in the CL. With our initial 5 year plan, we would be asking players like Adam to devote their entire career, for one tilt at the CL.
 
It's not just the purchase price of players...we couldn't afford the huge wages that would make a top player agree to come to us. Not even sure I would want such a player as a couple of over paid stars could disturb the team harmony. I'm hoping for a couple of up and coming players who fancy being here, like our style and are willing to work. We need to find some gems....not easy as we have found with earlier purchases...but they are out there...look at Cork, Schneiderlin, Clyne. It may take us more time than buying a squad, but more satisfactory. I want people to admire us for building a great team, rather than see us as another Chelsea or Man City.
 
fran-MLs little camera said:
FFP is designed to prevent clubs going overboard chasing a dream, but, Samuel is right, that it also prevents some well run clubs taking a calculated risk. This is why Nicola was against it. It is a compliment that he uses us as an example. However, I don't follow how this makes us a selling club. We have to buy within certain rules, but we can keep the players we have. In fact, keeping players that we have raised makes economic sense as they are effectively cheap...we couldn't afford Lallana or Shaw if they were on the open market. A curate's egg...bit compliment, bit correct, then a false extrapolation.
Click to expand...

I do hate a false extrapolation, especially at this time of the morning. However, having now read the article I'm inclined to agree with Fran on this point. Having said that, I found the spirit of the article largely in line with what we must all surely fear. I don't (just) mean the fear that Lallana will come back from Brazil and sign for Real Madrid. But the very real concern is that, yet again, the big boys in the playground have made sure that their positions in the pecking order are maintained. Cortese obviously saw through this so called "Fair Play" sham. If it is true that we will never again see a Jack Walker at Blackburn situation then it is a sad day for all of us. Let's re-site the Manchester teams in London, and leave them, Chelsea and Arsenal (perhaps?) to play out a mini league. They might invite Liverpool and Everton to join them, while the rest of us scrap to win a devalued league.

The author may be a prat, I really can't comment (anyone who puts his name to the Daily Mail is under suspicion in my book). However, he is right to say that this is the moment for SFC. We have a nucleus of very good young players. This is our opportunity to demonstrate to Shaw et al that they are playing for a club with real ambition. Whether our owner wants to invest in a world class striker is a moot point. If she chooses to keep the piggy bank intact is for her to decide, and if she does she'll have to accept that players will go in search of honours elsewhere. But if the author's suggestion that she may be restricted by the rules is correct, then this is absurd.
 
I think KL will spend, but the sum available will be well within FFP rules. Even if the rules did not exist, SFC would always be limited by the wages we could offer. High earners produce dissent in the ranks...Lallana could well say that he should remain one of the top earners, then there would be a knock on increase all round.
 
Anyone who thinks we can or will spend anywhere near enough to be penalised by FFP is deluded, including Samuels, who probably doesn't even believe that and is just using people's ignorance as an excuse to write another article about how we must sell our stars and descend back to the mediocrity in which we belong.

In order to make a loss of more than £105m over three seasons we'd have to spend probably upwards of £60m a year. Does anyone really believe that is going to happen? And what onerous penalty are we afraid of exactly?
 
TSS highlighted the start of the problem; the home gate receipts staying with the home club. That was the start of the big clubs protecting themselves.

As for the article, I found myself swinging one way and then another while reading it. I'm still not sure if it was a dig or a compliment.

Anyone know which club Samuel supports?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back