To keep hold of the youngsters, it's still necessary to pay em. Like a few others on this thread, you're confusing transfer fees with wages. It's the wage bill that tends to cripple clubs that overeach themselves.
We have done well in a very short space of time...we need to show patience now. Slowly, slowly catchee monkey. Nothing wrong with consolidating in the top ten for a couple of seasons...as long as we still play entertaining football. Imagine how good some of our youngsters could be with a couple of years of PL experience.
Everton are coming from a much higher base than Southampton, having played in the top division almost every season in their history as well as winning numerous cups and league titles over the years. They were part of the "Big Five" who led the way in the creation of the Premier League. So I don't see Everton as an example of how a smaller club can break into the top 4 (apart from anything else they've only finished in the top 4 once in the last 15 years that I recall), I see them as an example of a big club fallen on (relatively) hard times. Top 4 isn't impossible but it will be very hard without splashing the cash - in the last 25 years or so the only 2 clubs who've consistently broken into that elite group of clubs are Chelsea and Man City who have both done so by spending vast sums of money.
Just because spending money is the usual way to get into the top 4, doesn't mean it is the only way. Why not the Southampton way? A combination of spending on players and investing in a top academy. The Leihberrs haven't spent peanuts to get this far, but have not (and are very unlikely to) pour vast sums in. Surely prolonged success is better than a flash in the pan....Blackburn were a decent side and got a title...where are they now?
The arguments you make about Everton are irrelevant. They are not "coming from a much higher base" at all. They don't have the history and prestige of Man Utd or Liverpool. Do you really think that when trying to sign a player from the Congo or Chile, they will really give a toss that Everton have had an okay-ish history in English football? Of course they won't. The only things that matter these days, is whether you can offer European football, and whether you can pay big wages. Regarding both of these, Everton have been unable to offer either, pretty much since the beginning of the Premier League. Exactly the same as Saints. However, should they break into the top 4, and get through the qualifying rounds of the Champs League, then suddenly they will be a lot more appealing. Exactly the same goes for Saints, or anyone else for that matter. If we spend 40 million - wisely(!!) - this summer, we could be very much in with a shout next season.
I think there might have been a song in the 60s called 'Are you going to SADLY FRAN CISCO' I'll get my coat..
Comparing Everton to Liverpool or Man Utd is irrelevant. The relevant comparison is with Southampton and Everton are a bigger, more appealing club than Southampton in pretty much every way. Oh and Everton's history in English football is much better than "okay-ish". I don't accept that the only things that matter these days are whether a club offers European football and whether they pay big wages (if you think that's true then presumably you expect Lallana, Shaw, Lovren, Rodriguez etc to leave this summer?) but even if I did then Everton are still better placed to offer those things than Southampton. They are NOT exactly the same as us. They pay bigger wages than Southampton, get higher attendances than Southampton, make more money than Southampton, qualify for Europe more often than Southampton and have won more trophies than Southampton. Qualifying for the Champions League would help but doing it once doesn't miraculously make a club THAT attractive a prospect, especially if you're not paying big wages. Players and their agents aren't stupid and even if Saints qualified for the Champions League next year some would be wary of coming here because we pay fairly low wages and don't have a history of doing well in the Premier League. I said it would be very difficult to make the top 4 without spending a lot. Spending £40m in one summer is spending a lot. I'm not convinced it would get us into the top 4 either. The clubs above us will be spending as well and making up 25 points (or whatever the gap between us and 4th ends up as) will not be easy.
The spending is only relevant when you look at the reason to spend. WTF do I mean by that? What I mean is that for us to achieve top 4, or even top 6, we need a squad with more depth and quality which means either having the necessary number of good youngsters genuinely good enough for first team football, or signing more players. We could get lucky and have another set of Shaw/Chambers/Gallagher come through next season and then sign 4 or 5 low cost of free players (Michu cost Swansea £2.5m?). The key is too improve on what we have at as low a cost as possible. This is very tough to achieve but can be done. There will still be wages that will increase the 'spend' but it can be achieved. You just see to be lucky to get all the signings to click together and have good enough depth to cope with injury and suspension. Lets just imagine that Dani and Ramirez had settled with no problems and performed to their level of talent and that Yoshida had turned out to be a level or two up from where he is.... all of a sudden, we're not far away from it being in a position to challenge. The difficult bit is getting all those ducks in a row. You can spend loads and it not work - see Spurs. You can spend not so much and it not work - see Arsenal of recent years (albeit their challenge was the title and not top 4) In summary, it's not how much money you spend but how much luck you get with the money you spend.
Unless of course we'd all be comfortable with mr Cortese and his alleged Chinese friends coming in with billions and we do a City...
No, thank you. I'm not sure that I believe a word of the Cortese story, but, if it is true, we might have to sit back and watch him repeat the same as he did here or crash and burn because no two situations are the same. If we keep MP and continue to make progress, I would rather not risk that.
Firstly the qualifier: I know how hard it would be to break into the top 4. However, a lot of people (within and without the club) still see us as the old Southampton. That team has never challenged for the top in recent memory. But we are a phoenix club....time to rewrite the books. We are now viewed more favourably and have the added bonus as having a decent number of players being considered for England. Krueger wants to promote that...he sees this as a selling point for getting sponsorship and overseas fans (thereby increasing sponsorship again). If he is right, we could get the increased revenue we need. We live in interesting times.
I should not have mentioned NC. What I really meant was a mega billionaire owner who would spend hundreds of millions in the City/Chelsea style. Would we really like that?
Don't forget Osvaldo. We won't get our money back, but he won't be leaving for peanuts. Add a years worth of Sky income and I can see us spending £30-£40m again if necessary.
Obviously it's not quite as simple as "spending = success" but spending is relevant because the fact is that in the last 25 years the only clubs to achieve Southampton's stated aim of consistently breaking into the elite group of clubs (Chelsea and Man City) have done so by spending large sums of money. The likes of Villa and Newcastle have done well for a season or two here and there but not consistently and the top 7 clubs today are the Big Five from 1990 plus the two big spenders. Yes, Arsenal have maintained their position while not spending much on transfers but it's worth noting that, while they haven't spent loads on transfers (until last summer), their wage bill is one of the highest in the league - the top earners haven't been on huge money but paying relatively high wages to average players is part of the reason why they can't get rid of guys like Bendtner. I think Spurs actually have a decent transfer record. They've stayed up around the top 4 for a long time despite having to sell the likes of Bale, Berbatov and Modric, and they've made a decent profit on a few guys. They brought in a lot of players from abroad last summer and it hasn't really worked this year. We'll have to wait and see how things go for them next season. Yes, if Osvaldo and Ramirez had settled better we'd be a better team and yes, if Yoshida was a better player our squad would have more depth. But they didn't and he isn't. I don't think that's just down to luck either, the club made judgements on all those players and luck doesn't really come into it (maybe it does a little in the case of Ramirez and his injuries). Is it impossible to break into the top 4? No, but I think people who expect us to do it in the next year or two are in for a nasty shock. I think the on-pitch results have perhaps got a bit ahead of the club off the pitch. Krueger has actually identified the main area where we need to strengthen - revenue generation basically. At the moment the club doesn't even sell out St Mary's for every game and we seem to be a long way behind in terms of sponsors etc. You can talk about the new Southampton being different to the old Southampton but that's still to be proved. The fantastic new Southampton still hasn't done anything the old Southampton didn't do. I wouldn't have any problem with a mega-rich owner funding us. Hell, we already have an owner who's done that in the lower leagues. In League One especially we were able to pay transfer fees and wages that our competitors couldn't compete with and that the club's income wouldn't have supported. Without Liebherr money we wouldn't be where we are but I didn't hear too many people complaining when we became the first League One club for about 10 years to pay £1m for a player and then followed it up by spending even more on someone else.
