If we still had Danny Fox and Nathan (playing on the wrong side) as our choices for left back, would we consider buying Luke for any of the amounts we're hearing bandied about (£20M-£30M)? If not, why not, given that the consensus seems to be that we mustn't sell him for that much? Finally, is that a valid economic argument? Genuine question and my mind's open. Vin
I wouldn't advocate Saints spending that much money on any single player, but if I was a Chelsea fan I would happily see them spend £25m on Shaw. Why? Because the figure itself isn't as important as what it is as a proportion of your overall budget. For us it would be a case of spending 90% of our annual budget on one player, but for Chelsea it's probably under 50%.
I seem to recall that 30m would be the most ever paid for a LB (currently sitting at 29.5m for Danni Alves) which is a ludicrous amount and economically speaking can't really be argued against. The concern is being able to replace him so therein lies the problem. Personally, while i don't want to see Luke go if the club gets 30m that it SPENDS ON OTHER PLAYERS its worth it for the club. I understand there are administration and up-keeping costs so wouldn't expect every penny spent but i would expect some quality new players rolling in to St Mary's in return for losing on of our brightest talents. Although, just to throw so more extraneous details into this debate Karl-Heinz Rummenigge (Bayerns chairman) Believes that not selling your best or highest value player is key to becoming a powerhouse club as it establishes a mindset and philosophy amongst the ranks that allow a team to grow.
We wouldn't buy him for that much because buying any player is taking a punt, and £30mill is too much of a punt for us to take on a left back (maybe on a proven world-class goalscorer). We shouldn't sell him for any less, because we won't be able to replace him. Edit: forget £30mill. If forced to sell him - ie if he really wants to leave - we should hold out for a lot more than that.
We would never pay that much for a LB. Luke's purported price of 20-30 million is high because (a) he's a very talented player full of potential (b) we don't have to sell him (c) he's English and (d) sends out a message to the buying club's fans. We would either promote one of our youngsters or pay 5-10 million for a pacey Spaniard (or Spaniard-type). For us, paying 20-30 million even for a player like Luke would be a waste of money we need elsewhere. Luckily, we already have him.
Almost a mute question really. We are Southampton, not City or Chelsea. If we raised a lot of money, signed a very capable left back (or Target is ready) and could bring in 4 or 5 good players that would be an improvement or right up here with what we have in other positions, I'd accept it. The ideal of course is that he stays and we progress nicely. I am a realist though and one day soon, he might want to earn 70-100k a week and then he'll be moving on.
The price everyone quotes is for his potential (i.e. unproven future)...way over the top for him now, but then we wouldn't part with him for peanuts.
I am guessing that there are 71 English Clubs that would want him in their Team, about 3 that could afford him and about 5 that would buy him even if they couldn't afford him, he is ours for the moment, let's hope we can hang on to him and that he keeps injury free.
If Luke wants to earn £70 - £100k a week all he has to do is help get us to the Champions League and his contract will be upgraded to reflect it.
I would hate for us to sell any one of our first teamers. But, if Chelsea offered Lukaku and 10 million for Luke, it would be hard to say "no".
For le God's sake, please don't talk about the numbers. I'll go off football again. We write 50K to shorten it from £50,000 per week gross income. OK, he'd see probably around 55% of that, so he'd get a paltry £27,500 per week. Not per year, PER F****** WEEK..! He's not a brain surgeon, he doesn't save lives. He doesn't put grow food to feed millions, he doesn't tear essential ores from the ground, yet he's paid a monumental amount of money per week for kicking a bot of sophisticated round leather on a cultivated bit of grass with 21 other people doing the same. And he'd be one of the footballers on so-so money. It's a topsy-turvy world that we live in.
Don't hate the player, hate the game. And by "player" I mean citizen, not footballer; and by "game" I mean capitalism, not football. The free market has determined the earnings of footballers. I'm all for socialist/communist pipe dreams, but that's all they are.
