My thoughts too. Ideally keep him at least till Jan and then review as necessary. He's got to know its in his own best interest, regardless of what he may now think of the club, to keep playing at his best. That way he'll still be in the first 11, more likely to be on the radar of the national team and more likely to attract offers that too big for Saints to refuse.
Trouble is, that's the way it is everywhere. Morgan is hardly the first to do this, and Southampton isn't the first club to have this happen. Shall we play the Liverpool gambit and give him a massive pay rise to shut him up?
Keep. Koeman will have him eating out of his hand by next week and he'll get a hat trick against Liverpool.
Many other clubs feature players who want to go elsewhere. They don't always sell. Let's say that you're Jay, and you're angling for a move away. In the summer, we tell Morgan to get back to work; he scarcely plays, the interest in him begins to wane, and he's forced to make a choice between playing his tail off and getting the move at a later date, or throwing away any chance he has of moving on to one of the elite. When it comes time press your own case, are you going to be mindful of that? I would. What if you're Wanyama, or Clyne, or any of the others who could do well enough this year to garner significant interest? If the only things we have to rely on to keep our best players are their kindly natures and the hope that no bigger club comes in from them, this sell-off will become an annual tradition. And if you're replacing your best players annually, it won't be long before you have a bad window and find yourself in the Championship.
if the club lets him go, after going on record that he will not be sold, they will lose all credibility, and be slagged off by the fans. No business can have their staff refusing to work their contract. This man gets paid millions per annum to chase a football for 90 minutes a week. If he refuses to play, he should be forced to train on his own, as you don't want his sour faced miseries infecting other players, and pay him nothing until he agrees to honour his contract. Once he realises the club will play hardball, he will then have to return to work. Then you jab him up the arse with a polonium tipped umbrella and watch him die a horrible death, and claim the insurance monies!
Keep, and I like way Koeman dealing with it. But 3 goals from Morgan..? Order me a bottle of your stuff, Chilco. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/28705474
Keep, but for the time being put him out front selling the £4-00 Programmes, add £1-00 for an autograph which can go to the Saints Foundation.
Its about time the club took a stand on principle (a non-footballing term, granted). Keep him on the bench until January, then let him go for stupid money to a team which is not performing as well as expected and needs a mid season shore-up (excluding Spurs). That will retain our credibility, send out a message to other players and clubs and will teach the ungrateful git a lesson. If he point blank refuses to play, he's in breach of contract so suspend him without pay, see what other clubs think of him then. There is an element of shooting ourselves in the foot, granted, but he wants out so is not going to be at his best for usin any event, and no matter what some may say, he's replaceable. "Not ready mentally and physically to play" Do me a favour, what a fairy.
The board will have let the club down if they do sell him, it would be short term gain but longer term will be harmful as other clubs will not believe them when they try to negotiate transfers in the future- back to the credibility issue.
Koeman was asked if it was unfair that others have been allowed to go and Morgan has not - this was his reply: "No, it's not unfair. What is unfair, is signing a new contract and wanting to go after one season."
