Yearly Exodus...

Suarez is without question one of the best players in the world so realistically he should be playing at one of the best clubs in world football- which he is. We made a 52mil profit on that

Not quite sure why you included Gerrard

Sterling is simply motivated by money, shame really. He'll probably sit on the bench once they realise how inconsistent he is. He'll be collecting 200k though, so I guess he'll be happy enough

In my opinion Liverpool handled the Sterling and Suarez deals very well. Held out and got top dollar for them, the minute they wanted to leave they were done at Liverpool - you simply can't keep players that don't want to play. So all in all, I'm happy how they both turned out. Granted Suarez is irreplaceable, but Sterling certainly isn't. 49mil is daylight robbery, lets be honest.

 

Not quite sure why you included Gerrard
-----------------------------------
The club wanted him to stay, he wanted out, that's surely relevant.

 

I'd agree with that for sure. He had his head turned but luckily wasn't daft enough to go to City. To be honest it could be a good signing for you guys - very good player and would slot nicely into your team with Wanyama (sp?). Lets face it he's better off playing for you guys than he is Villa. I wouldn't know what wages he's on though and whether you could match them? But he's a player that would slot in nicely at St Mary's.

 

He stayed for so many years, I'm certain he didn't leave for the money - otherwise he would have gone to Chelsea or Real Madrid years ago. He was aging and knew he couldn't keep going in the PL so decided a move to the MLS would be best.

No way did he move because of the money

 

otherwise he would have gone to Chelsea

______________________

Were it not for the death threats he would have....................or do you remember that different as well?

 

I take it this History Repeating guy is your board idiot?

Perhaps read the thread before acting like a jumped up prick.

 

Reading your first post was like reading Martin Samuels again.

I'm always concerned when people admit to being lurkers.

 

I thought 1984 was very trendy, especially that day at Fratton park.....

 

True that. I get the impression that Corteses plan was to just pump money into the club until it was standing tall near the summit of the BPL. He didnt seem to care were the money came from and probably figured the extra income once at the top would allow us to back-pay on debts and even the books.

The new regime are obviously going for a more sustainable gradual approach, taking some hits along the way but ending up healthier for it. They are now working on a plan to grow the 'brand' on all fronts rather than Cortese who undoubtedly thought that would just follow with success/big names.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who's noticed all the extra work put in by the media department to make their work funny/eye catching. We've had media all over the world write up stories about 'Dr Barry Gale' and that kid trying to get a date last season. Thats the kind of thing that wouldn't have happened under Cortese but is getting us substantially more recognition and a growing interest from the UK and overseas.

 

It's a risk/reward balance. It's almost like a government deciding whether to spend their way to the top or take an approach of more austerity.

 

I wouldn't discount the extra media work and positive coverage, and the club definitely has more of an idea how it wants to portray itself now but one thing I'd say about the different approaches is that the "Cortese method" is reasonably proven. Chelsea and Man City (plus PSG to a lesser extent) have shown that building/buying success on the pitch leads to commercial success off the pitch so it's something of a tried and tested method, although not foolproof by any means. On the other hand nobody (as far as I know) has ever done what it appears Southampton FC want to do now and I'm not sure it's even possible. Mind you, as hotbovril said earlier, FFP possibly/probably means it's now not possible to do what Chelsea and Man City did.

 

Just wrote a piece that addresses this topic, and a bit more, for a column I'm doing for Shoot! magazine. It goes live tomorrow, so I'll share it then and see what you guys make of it. I hope you find it agreeable!

 

You'll be my hero if you're in shoot! That was my football upbringing of the 70s!!

I still have a scrap book with articles about Saints with shoot! Clippings.

 

Ha!

I was approached a couple of months ago to write a fortnightly Saints column for them, so that's something new I'll be doing for the new season. Looking forward to seeing the first one go out, although I know it may well unsettle some of the fanbase, somewhat!

 

I'm less concerned about losing players to Man U and Chelsea etc. Losing player's to Tottenham hurts because I think we were as good as they were for the last two seasons and that they are only a "big club" because they say they are a big club. They haven't displayed any recent evidence to convince me that they are any more likely to get CL football than we are next season.

 

Here we are. My debut for Shoot! magazine - why Saints should delight, not deflate, at the club's status as a 'showcase club'.

http://www.shoot.co.uk/category/news/southampton-show-they-are-one-step-ahead-again/

 

Wait a cotton picking minute....Chelsea haven't tried to sign any of our players. Think you're too good for us, do you?

 

Good article, well written. I also feel that we gain by being seen as a club for career development....means that we may not keep players for long, but we attract talented ambitious players to keep our dreams alive. Has to better than our journeyman and ageing stars period that came before the Leihberr takeover.