| That defeat is down to Martin 16:57 - Aug 24 with 9362 views | grumpy |
Clueless. |  | | |  |
| That defeat is down to Martin on 18:51 - Aug 25 with 1549 views | grumpy |
I would love to see what Thomas Tuchel could do at Saints. | | | |
| That defeat is down to Martin on 19:41 - Aug 25 with 1473 views | darthvader |
We actually missed Che Adams . Yesterday . He would have made a difference .. we need someone like him who can hold up the ball and at least a goal threat |  |
| |
| That defeat is down to Martin on 06:35 - Aug 26 with 1294 views | saintwizzler |
| That defeat is down to Martin on 19:41 - Aug 25 by darthvader |
We actually missed Che Adams . Yesterday . He would have made a difference .. we need someone like him who can hold up the ball and at least a goal threat |
We missed a CF.
Playing with 2 wingers and relying on Smallbone and Aribo to make the runs into the box just didn’t work.
Archer should of come on for Stephens and Taylor on for Sugawara at HT.
Taylor at LB, KWP at RB.
Archer CF.
4-3-3.
All very odd Russell Martin. |  |
| We thought that we had the answers,
It was the questions we had wrong. |
| |
| That defeat is down to Martin on 10:16 - Aug 26 with 1182 views | saintmark1976 |
| That defeat is down to Martin on 16:45 - Aug 25 by Southamptonfan |
I understand your points, but it still ultimately comes down to the owners. They want possession based football and appointed RM because thats what they want. In relation to point 3, which I think is the key point, under these owners who just want to make a profit with 20 year olds for the future, a Bournemouth, Fulham style requires spending more money on 2 or 3 quality players rather than less money on 10 very average players. This would only happen if we changed our owners, not the manager. We spend a total of what 80 million on 10.players and if just 2 get good, our owners make a profit, when they are sold for say 50 million each. If we buy one player for 40 million, that will only depreciate in value, our owners don't make any profit. Those clubs have owners who love the club, not the profit.
Fulham spent 30 million on Emile Smith Rowe, a proven, established experienced player. He scored the winner yesterday. His value will just go down from here on in as he gets older. They spend 30 million plus on Anderson, again an established PL player, proven and experienced. Bournemouth replaced Solanke with a 40 million pound signing. They signed a midfielder for 25 million. Forest have spent hundreds of millions. Palace have Zaha, Guey etc, they are quality players. They spent 30 million on a striker from Celtic, again we wanted him but couldn't afford him. Wolves have just got beat 6 2. They will struggle this year. Everton will struggle as they havent invested in their team despite having a "good" manager. It's all to do with money, and very little to do.witj anything else. The Celtic guy RM wanted, will end up at Brighton for about 30 million, a player that RM wants but is told no. Then we will say how do Brighton do it? They sign quality players, not world class but very good players. Every manager that goes there does relatively well because they invest in proven quality players, with a supportive owner Bloom.who.supports the club.
My point is, whilst we have the same owners, who want possession football, who won't spend more than 15 million on one player, who want a possession based manager, who won't support the manager with the resources he needs, every other point about tactics and the rest of it is completely pointless. Whilst these owners are here, nothing will change. If RM went, Ankerson (who is still around) and Co would just appoint someone even worse amd buy another carillo in January to "help him".
We just don't have a match winner. Every team needs a Le Tissier, a Lambert, a Pelle, a Kane, a Salah, a Solanke, etc we just don't have anyone of any quality. That's why we will seriously struggle this year [Post edited 25 Aug 16:56]
|
Absolutely superb post Southamptonfan, thank you.
It sums up in four paragraphs exactly what is,and has been wrong with our club for years.
Will anything change with Sports Republic at the helm ? Not the slightest chance unfortunately. |  |
| |
| That defeat is down to Martin on 10:37 - Aug 26 with 1146 views | PatfromPoole |
| That defeat is down to Martin on 16:45 - Aug 25 by Southamptonfan |
I understand your points, but it still ultimately comes down to the owners. They want possession based football and appointed RM because thats what they want. In relation to point 3, which I think is the key point, under these owners who just want to make a profit with 20 year olds for the future, a Bournemouth, Fulham style requires spending more money on 2 or 3 quality players rather than less money on 10 very average players. This would only happen if we changed our owners, not the manager. We spend a total of what 80 million on 10.players and if just 2 get good, our owners make a profit, when they are sold for say 50 million each. If we buy one player for 40 million, that will only depreciate in value, our owners don't make any profit. Those clubs have owners who love the club, not the profit.
Fulham spent 30 million on Emile Smith Rowe, a proven, established experienced player. He scored the winner yesterday. His value will just go down from here on in as he gets older. They spend 30 million plus on Anderson, again an established PL player, proven and experienced. Bournemouth replaced Solanke with a 40 million pound signing. They signed a midfielder for 25 million. Forest have spent hundreds of millions. Palace have Zaha, Guey etc, they are quality players. They spent 30 million on a striker from Celtic, again we wanted him but couldn't afford him. Wolves have just got beat 6 2. They will struggle this year. Everton will struggle as they havent invested in their team despite having a "good" manager. It's all to do with money, and very little to do.witj anything else. The Celtic guy RM wanted, will end up at Brighton for about 30 million, a player that RM wants but is told no. Then we will say how do Brighton do it? They sign quality players, not world class but very good players. Every manager that goes there does relatively well because they invest in proven quality players, with a supportive owner Bloom.who.supports the club.
My point is, whilst we have the same owners, who want possession football, who won't spend more than 15 million on one player, who want a possession based manager, who won't support the manager with the resources he needs, every other point about tactics and the rest of it is completely pointless. Whilst these owners are here, nothing will change. If RM went, Ankerson (who is still around) and Co would just appoint someone even worse amd buy another carillo in January to "help him".
We just don't have a match winner. Every team needs a Le Tissier, a Lambert, a Pelle, a Kane, a Salah, a Solanke, etc we just don't have anyone of any quality. That's why we will seriously struggle this year [Post edited 25 Aug 16:56]
|
Agree with a lot of this.
However the PSR rules pretty much force us to sell before we can buy at the moment, mainly because of the disaster 2 seasons ago when we bought crap players for a fortune as if we were drunken sailors.
Brighton are largely spending the money they got for selling Caicedo and Cucurella to Chelsea over the last couple of years. They are pretty astute.
We could do a lot worse than try and get a loan for their young Irish striker Ferguson. He looks very good. |  |
| |
| That defeat is down to Martin on 10:51 - Aug 26 with 1115 views | grumpy |
| That defeat is down to Martin on 16:45 - Aug 25 by Southamptonfan |
I understand your points, but it still ultimately comes down to the owners. They want possession based football and appointed RM because thats what they want. In relation to point 3, which I think is the key point, under these owners who just want to make a profit with 20 year olds for the future, a Bournemouth, Fulham style requires spending more money on 2 or 3 quality players rather than less money on 10 very average players. This would only happen if we changed our owners, not the manager. We spend a total of what 80 million on 10.players and if just 2 get good, our owners make a profit, when they are sold for say 50 million each. If we buy one player for 40 million, that will only depreciate in value, our owners don't make any profit. Those clubs have owners who love the club, not the profit.
Fulham spent 30 million on Emile Smith Rowe, a proven, established experienced player. He scored the winner yesterday. His value will just go down from here on in as he gets older. They spend 30 million plus on Anderson, again an established PL player, proven and experienced. Bournemouth replaced Solanke with a 40 million pound signing. They signed a midfielder for 25 million. Forest have spent hundreds of millions. Palace have Zaha, Guey etc, they are quality players. They spent 30 million on a striker from Celtic, again we wanted him but couldn't afford him. Wolves have just got beat 6 2. They will struggle this year. Everton will struggle as they havent invested in their team despite having a "good" manager. It's all to do with money, and very little to do.witj anything else. The Celtic guy RM wanted, will end up at Brighton for about 30 million, a player that RM wants but is told no. Then we will say how do Brighton do it? They sign quality players, not world class but very good players. Every manager that goes there does relatively well because they invest in proven quality players, with a supportive owner Bloom.who.supports the club.
My point is, whilst we have the same owners, who want possession football, who won't spend more than 15 million on one player, who want a possession based manager, who won't support the manager with the resources he needs, every other point about tactics and the rest of it is completely pointless. Whilst these owners are here, nothing will change. If RM went, Ankerson (who is still around) and Co would just appoint someone even worse amd buy another carillo in January to "help him".
We just don't have a match winner. Every team needs a Le Tissier, a Lambert, a Pelle, a Kane, a Salah, a Solanke, etc we just don't have anyone of any quality. That's why we will seriously struggle this year [Post edited 25 Aug 16:56]
|
I can only agree with the last paragraph.
Why would the owners want possession football?
Didn’t Martin have a reputation for possession football before he arrived here?
Did the owners tell Martin to play his forwards on the wing on Saturday, no Martin did.
We need a Manager to stand up to the owners.
I think we are lucky to have SR. | | | |
| That defeat is down to Martin on 11:17 - Aug 26 with 1091 views | Chesham_Saint |
| That defeat is down to Martin on 10:51 - Aug 26 by grumpy |
I can only agree with the last paragraph.
Why would the owners want possession football?
Didn’t Martin have a reputation for possession football before he arrived here?
Did the owners tell Martin to play his forwards on the wing on Saturday, no Martin did.
We need a Manager to stand up to the owners.
I think we are lucky to have SR. |
My take on this - and I've though so from the very start with the current owners, is they just don't have the financial muscle to be serious club owners at this level. |  |
| |
| That defeat is down to Martin on 11:22 - Aug 26 with 1085 views | PatfromPoole |
| That defeat is down to Martin on 11:17 - Aug 26 by Chesham_Saint |
My take on this - and I've though so from the very start with the current owners, is they just don't have the financial muscle to be serious club owners at this level. |
PSR rules make financial muscle much less relevant though.
Unless you do some pretty creative accounting…… | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| That defeat is down to Martin on 11:27 - Aug 26 with 1074 views | Chesham_Saint |
| That defeat is down to Martin on 11:22 - Aug 26 by PatfromPoole |
PSR rules make financial muscle much less relevant though.
Unless you do some pretty creative accounting…… |
I take your point Pat and creative accounting aside, a multi-billionaire is going to far be less risk averse when considering an investment of say, £40m on one player. How do Brighton and Boscombe do it?
Also, with regard to creative accounting, isn't that what the Turkish link-up should be used for...? | |
| |
| That defeat is down to Martin on 11:28 - Aug 26 with 1072 views | Ifonly |
| That defeat is down to Martin on 11:17 - Aug 26 by Chesham_Saint |
My take on this - and I've though so from the very start with the current owners, is they just don't have the financial muscle to be serious club owners at this level. |
I don't think that's true because of the limits that PSR puts on how much they can put into the club anyway. Basically they have put too much in already so we are up against our limit of £85m losses over 3 years. If we go over that we get points deductions.
If there is a criticism to be made of SR, it is about the decisions they have made, not the money. The decisions have been crap and a lot of them have been based on trying to copy Man City. That's why we bought many useless teenagers, try and copy their possession playing style, start up a group of clubs overseas etc. Even the decisions that haven't been about being Man City Lite have been useless e.g. Nathan Jones, recruitment in the last January we were in the Prem and so on.
So, they have mis-managed the club, that's for sure, but even if they were Saudis, they couldn't have put more money in (unless we copied another Man City ploy and cheated the financial rules). [Post edited 26 Aug 11:33]
| | | |
| That defeat is down to Martin on 11:39 - Aug 26 with 1020 views | Chesham_Saint |
| That defeat is down to Martin on 11:28 - Aug 26 by Ifonly |
I don't think that's true because of the limits that PSR puts on how much they can put into the club anyway. Basically they have put too much in already so we are up against our limit of £85m losses over 3 years. If we go over that we get points deductions.
If there is a criticism to be made of SR, it is about the decisions they have made, not the money. The decisions have been crap and a lot of them have been based on trying to copy Man City. That's why we bought many useless teenagers, try and copy their possession playing style, start up a group of clubs overseas etc. Even the decisions that haven't been about being Man City Lite have been useless e.g. Nathan Jones, recruitment in the last January we were in the Prem and so on.
So, they have mis-managed the club, that's for sure, but even if they were Saudis, they couldn't have put more money in (unless we copied another Man City ploy and cheated the financial rules). [Post edited 26 Aug 11:33]
|
See my comment above about them being risk averse, Ifonly...
If we'd had an owner with that financial capability from the start, the approach may have been less scattergun and reliant on youth? | |
| |
| That defeat is down to Martin on 11:41 - Aug 26 with 1000 views | PatfromPoole |
| That defeat is down to Martin on 11:27 - Aug 26 by Chesham_Saint |
I take your point Pat and creative accounting aside, a multi-billionaire is going to far be less risk averse when considering an investment of say, £40m on one player. How do Brighton and Boscombe do it?
Also, with regard to creative accounting, isn't that what the Turkish link-up should be used for...? |
Brighton sold two players for big money to Chelsea.
Boscombe sold Solanke to Spurs for £65 million.
They are just smarter at buying players than we are.
Or at least smarter than we were two seasons ago. We are still paying the price of that lunacy. | |
| |
| That defeat is down to Martin on 11:50 - Aug 26 with 959 views | Chesham_Saint |
| That defeat is down to Martin on 11:41 - Aug 26 by PatfromPoole |
Brighton sold two players for big money to Chelsea.
Boscombe sold Solanke to Spurs for £65 million.
They are just smarter at buying players than we are.
Or at least smarter than we were two seasons ago. We are still paying the price of that lunacy. |
Again, fair point, but what did we get for Mara and JWP? We used to be great at buying Players, witness Pelle, VVD, Tadic, Alderweireld etc... | |
| |
| That defeat is down to Martin on 11:51 - Aug 26 with 957 views | Ifonly |
| That defeat is down to Martin on 11:39 - Aug 26 by Chesham_Saint |
See my comment above about them being risk averse, Ifonly...
If we'd had an owner with that financial capability from the start, the approach may have been less scattergun and reliant on youth? |
As I understand you, you're saying that they've been too risk averse? Just my opinion, but I don't see how that can be the case. They have literally put in all the money they are allowed to, they just spent it badly and arguably they spent it in too risky a fashion. They would have been better by being MORE risk averse and buying some dependable 25 year olds with PL experience rather than the likes of ABK, Edozie, Tall Paul etc.
They gambled on being able to make big profits by developing teenagers. They lost. | | | |
| That defeat is down to Martin on 12:57 - Aug 26 with 879 views | grumpy |
Maybe owners saw how much we made from the sale of Lavia. | | | |
| That defeat is down to Martin on 13:13 - Aug 26 with 838 views | Chesham_Saint |
| That defeat is down to Martin on 11:51 - Aug 26 by Ifonly |
As I understand you, you're saying that they've been too risk averse? Just my opinion, but I don't see how that can be the case. They have literally put in all the money they are allowed to, they just spent it badly and arguably they spent it in too risky a fashion. They would have been better by being MORE risk averse and buying some dependable 25 year olds with PL experience rather than the likes of ABK, Edozie, Tall Paul etc.
They gambled on being able to make big profits by developing teenagers. They lost. |
My point was that they are too timid to take a punt on one proven quality player and instead spread funds too thinly on players who might be good. This only really works if you have a top notch recruitment team - which it seems we no longer do. | |
| |
| That defeat is down to Martin on 13:24 - Aug 26 with 802 views | InTimeAddedOn |
| That defeat is down to Martin on 16:55 - Aug 25 by cocklebreath |
If the owner’s are desperate for possession based football could you please explain why we went for Nathan Jones? |
Very good point, IMO it was mainly Wilcox’s influence that set the club off on the possession football trajectory. I also seem to remember almost immediately post relegation season the owners did some soul searching that lead to the apology / statement put in the Echo where they said they were changing direction to embrace a possession football based philosophy so I think NJ was pre current thinking. Think they might need another meeting! 😊 |  | | |
| That defeat is down to Martin on 15:40 - Aug 26 with 653 views | saintpaz |
| That defeat is down to Martin on 19:41 - Aug 25 by darthvader |
We actually missed Che Adams . Yesterday . He would have made a difference .. we need someone like him who can hold up the ball and at least a goal threat |
that should be diaz but he's been wasted out on the wing whilst no one is filling in the centre forward role |  | | |
| That defeat is down to Martin on 15:44 - Aug 26 with 649 views | PatfromPoole |
Forget my suggestion of signing Ferguson from Brighton.
He is now being linked with Man. City and Arsenal 😂 | |
| |
| That defeat is down to Martin on 16:05 - Aug 26 with 603 views | Ifonly |
| That defeat is down to Martin on 15:44 - Aug 26 by PatfromPoole |
Forget my suggestion of signing Ferguson from Brighton.
He is now being linked with Man. City and Arsenal 😂 |
Can't understand why Brighton would sell him. He's a gem. Have they really got that much cover at CF? They currently have Welbeck leading the line and he is no spring chicken.
I would snap up anyone who was anything like Ferguson, but I doubt we'll sign a proper CF (it would take too long for RM to train him to play on the wing). | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
