Whilst of course Saints would prefer Morgan Schneiderlin and Nathaniel Clyne to sign new deals and remain at St Mary's, the reality is that the club know that our strategy going forward is reliant on the fact that some players will leave.

Some football supporters are still stuck in the old way of doing things, that says that if a club sells its best players then it is a "selling club" and has no ambition etc. The reality could not be further from that way of thinking, progressive football clubs know that keeping a squad successful relies on being able to sell players on when a bid in excess of their value is received and reivesting that money wisely, perhaps on two players.

This is the way that many of the top clubs in Europe have operated over the past decade, of course there are those such as Manchester City or Chelsea that have seemingly bottomless pockets, but even they are to an extent adopting this strategy, the trick is to know when to sell and to replace well.

An excellent example of this was last summer when we sold Luke Shaw, Shaw was a player worth £30 million in a position worth £10 million, the economics or Soccernomics were plain, cash in and buy wisely and that we did meaning that even after buying Ryan Bertrand we had £20 million still left to strengthen the team.

Of course you cannot be successful with every incoming player, but if you apply the rules of Soccernomics then you will keep progressing.

That being the case Saints problem this summer is not the fact that Schneiderlin and Clyne want to go, but that the club's seemingly in the market for them are not serious, you have the feeling that having already sourced Clyne's replacement Saints would almost prefer he go then the current situation of limbo continue.

This can be evidenced by the fact that Saints have set several deadlines to either sign a new deal or ship out, the reason these deadlines have passed is that the only club in the market place for Clyne is Liverpool and to be blunt they are trying to cash cheques based on Brendan Rodgers ego and not reality, but for Saints this is a nightmare hence the stand off.

Schneiderlin is a similar case, although Saints are more in command here as he has two years left on his contract, the rumour is that there is a £24 million buy out clause in his contract, the club would prefer that United, Arsenal or even Spurs get down to reality instead of the phoney war of the media.

Saints these days are very focused on their strategy and they want to implement it rather than sit there with two players who may or might not be here, they are not afraid to say to them sign up or ship out.

In this respect they are almost looking forward to selling them, this forms part of the strategy, Saints having done their work want to see it come to fruition, unlike football supporters who see clubs letting players go as a negative, Saints will see it as a positive as long as they get in the replacement they are after.

So there will be those at Southampton Football Club who know exactly what a players worth is to the club, with Nathaniel Clyne like Shaw they will feel that they have a man in a £10 million pound position, if they get £15 million then that is good business given his replacement is already at the club, they will almost want that £15 million more than they would prefer Clyne to stay. They will feel they have a man in Cedric Soares who can do as good a job as Clyne and at a 3rd of the price, that being the case they want the other £10 million to strengthen the squad, perhaps losing Clyne will cost us 3 goals and 2 points, but strengthening the squad will gain us 4 goals at the other end and win us 3 points.

This is the basis that Saints strategy will work on when buying and selling players now.

So the fear factor is gone from Southampton Football Club, of course there will be rocky times and bad signings, but they will be outweighed by the good ones and if that is the case then the club will get that little bit stronger every season.

The only problem is that after our 7th place finish last season there are 6 clubs ahead of us who have more money and more resources than us, that being the case they can afford to get things wrong more, it will be hard to break into that top 6 on a regular basis so we should not base progress on our ability to do so or get into the Champions league, if that was the case Spurs and Liverpool would have given up over th past half dozen years.

We should base Saints progress on our ability to stay in the top 7 most seasons, to have a shot and perhaps achieve higher in some seasons and our ability to challenge for a cup or two both domestically & in Europe.

If we do that and we get our Soccernomics right then there are exciting times ahead.

Photo: Action Images

Dan_P326 added 11:32 - Jun 25 And not forgetting the endless youth talent we churn out ;)
3

aceofthebase added 11:52 - Jun 25 Let's hope that our younger players get a game. They were ignored towards the end of the season, perhaps they are not as good as we expect. Good article, fear no-one and make progress.
1

TeamCortese added 12:01 - Jun 25 Nick as much as I'd like to agree with you on this one I'm afraid I can't . The reason is because you have overlooked certain things: 1) Football teams compete to win games of football. In order to win you must keep your best players. The business side of football has nothing to do with it. It's secondary. Fundamentally the wealthiest clubs are the clubs with the best players. 2) You mention we do not have the resources like other clubs. Our owners is the heiress to one the largest construction companies in the world which has a legacy going back tens to hundreds of year. The last time I checked her fortune was in excess of £3bn. When they acquired Southampton we were at best worth tens of millions. Now we're into the hundreds. From a business perspective that's unbelievable growth for 6 years of investment and it's common sense to pump more money into such an investments. Furthermore we made a lot of money last summer. If we give our top performers the wages and build the team around them with better players then I'd guarantee you they'll stay. The bottom line is this club doesn't aspire to anything else than a top 10 finish. We were lucky last season that we finished 7th due to the appointment of Roko. That's not progress that's football mediocrity with a sustainable business model. I personally think we should keep Clyne and Schneiderlin by doubling their wages and buy another 5-6 player top quality players to shake things up and give us enough depth to handle the extra fixtures.

-7

DPeps added 12:05 - Jun 25 Agree. Class though Morgan is, I think it's time to sell for the club and player. Based on the quality of the players we brought in last summer I have confidence that we'll bring in a decent replacement for a lot less than £24/25mill (i.e. Imbula, Clasie). And as the previous comments say, it'd be good for someone like Harrison Reed to get more game-time next season. Similar situation with Clyne, although we'd need to replace him as having only one RB again all season isn't ideal

2

mesquita added 12:15 - Jun 25 So there you have it. The previous posts perfectly sum up the situation that Saints face. Which is the better strategy only time will tell. But no-one can argue that the club as a whole is not stronger than it was 24, 12 ago. The key man to my mind is Alderwerield, keep him and we will progress even more. Wanyama is also important and will hopefully kick on to become the key midfielder

0

mesquita added 12:25 - Jun 25 Additionally, whilst the impasse over the futures of Clyne and Scheiderlin is frustrating, we cannot expect the other "big" clubs to dance to our tune and timetable, what is important is that we no longer dance to theirs.
2

BoondockSaint added 13:24 - Jun 25 Team Cortese, I couldn't disagree more: 1) The business side of sport is the most important side in any sport. Seasons are won and lost in board rooms. Big money=big wages=best players. When was the last time a player said "I am on of the best players in the world in my sport, so I want to move to a low paying team with inferior players and spend my career seeing if I can make them rich." ? 2)Citehad has an owner worth 20 Billion and who's source of income is constant regardless of the economy. When he took over the club, he earmarked half a billion to spend on transfers. Do you expect Katharina to spend a quarter of her net worth on a football club??? You are being as unrealistic as your namesake!

4

BoondockSaint added 13:31 - Jun 25 Echo just reported Clyne's gone Scouse for 12.5. Pity, he had such a promising career, and now he will go into rapid decline under the tutelage of Brenda.
0

mattlegod added 13:42 - Jun 25 Agreed but should have held out for at least 17.5 million for Clyne as there are clearly other clubs other than liverhampton who are interested.
4

mattlegod added 13:43 - Jun 25 Oh... and he's worth it (other shampoos are available!)
0

Jesus_02 added 15:40 - Jun 25 We have one (if not THE) best "homegrown" RB in the country. A position that Nick says is a 10m position. It is being reported that the deal that has been accepted is 10.5m + ad-ons that "could eventually" reach 12m.... Is that good business? TeamCortese - You are getting thumbs down for 2 reasons. You are called TeamCortese - most people believe him to be evil (mainly because of the car parking issue) People can’t get their heads around how remarkable the beginning of last season was, and somehow think that selling our best players and improving league position can be simply replicated this season. Our form dipped at the end of last season because Pelle (amongst others) was found out and Clyne and to a lesser extent Morgan had their heads elsewhere. Last season we performed a miracle, let’s not assume that we can go on selling our best players to the teams above us and still somehow usurp them! The “soccernomics” are simple if we sell the league’s best players in their positions to teams that have the leagues best players in other positions they will have ALL of the leagues best players and therefore finish above us!

-3

TeamCortese added 15:52 - Jun 25 BoondockSaint, I think you've misunderstood my point: It goes without saying that football clubs are businesses. However, at the core of every football club is the FOOTBALL. It doesn't matter how much money a football club has ultimately its success depends on the players performance. The better your players the higher the chances of success. Saints are losing their best players because they have not created an attractive enough offer to keep them there. Everyone knows Man City are on a different level when it comes to transfer funds. However, I'm not concerned with Man City. I'm concerned with our immediate competition i.e. Liverpool, Totenham, and Everton (and possibly Man U). Why would you sell your best assets to your immediate competition and take a risk on replacements with little premier league experience? It worked last season but it can't work every season. You need stability, cohesion and loyalty within the squad. Also if you read this article below KL is 6th in the richest owners list for PL clubs. http://talksport.com/football/premier-leagues-seven-richest-billionaire-owners-r Also in terms of wages relative to performance we are one of the highest clubs. http://www.itv.com/news/2015-04-21/premier-league-wages-southampton-and-chelsea- What does that say to our players? What does that say to our coaching staff and management? At the end of the day what you put in is what you get out. Man Utd ultimately spent a lot money last summer but they got the Champions League spot and that is what really matters. I personally feel KT needs to invest in our playing squad and keep our prized assets. That's just common sense. She has the money it's simply not a priority.

0

mattlegod added 16:30 - Jun 25 All of the best players don't make the best 'team'.. that is what counts. Arguably Man City AND Man U underperformed last season, certainly in relation to their squad costs.
0

BoondockSaint added 16:45 - Jun 25 TeamCortese- I understand your point, but even before Katharina took over, the business model was that the team should be self-supporting. Unfortunately the sport we love is not a level playing field. Without a salary cap, players will always be "cherry picked" by richer teams. It is almost impossible for "smaller" teams to assemble a winning culture that attracts star players. Players see teams like us as stepping stones. Even the so called "Fair Play" rules are really bout keeping upstarts out and preserving the status quo. I totally agree with not selling players to our competition (those close to us in the league standings), but unfortunately they appeal to our players because they have a better rep historically or bigger brand recognition-(particularly in the case of Scousehampton-it can't be the weather!) Our only hope is that clubs around us trip and fall through mismanagement (Hi Brenda!) a la Leeds and we can step over them up the ladder. Oh, yeah I know 500 million would not be 1/4th of Katharina's fortune as I said, but 1/6th. I have the same problem when I try to balance my check book, you know how it is, half a billion here, half a billion there......

4

Jesus_02 added 18:06 - Jun 25 At the root of the Saints culture is sustainability. But really the question is sustainability at what level. I am not suggesting for a moment that we "do a Leeds (or Pompey !) and go wild in isles. But if we have any hope of sustaining our position and not slipping back to perennial strugglers we need to retain our players for continuity reasons if nothing else. Every time we sell a successful player and replace him we encounter a risk. I am as hopeful that Soarse is going to to set the Prem alight as everyone else but if he doesn't we have waisted 5m plus wages. Last season was different in lots of ways. We got amazing money for players that in reality we could easily replace. We are currently talking about losing Clyne for 10.5m and Morgan for half of what Sterling is going for. when we sold Shaw all we needed to do was by a more experienced left back for less than 30m! He was exiting because he had potential. Out off all of them Lallana was the hardest to replace , he was great but let's be honest he had trouble lasting the full 90. Either way we had 2 £25m to find an above average attacking midfielder. Lambert needed replacing and Lovren gave us 20m to find a new CB (which we haven't yet) This season we will need to find probably the second best defensive midfielder for about 20m and a RB that can be in the top 3 for his position for significantly less than 10m (and trippier has already gone!) I'm not being pessimistic . The task (if we are willing to accept it) is mission impossible!

1

TeamCortese added 19:21 - Jun 25 BoondockSaint: Agreed I think there needs to be salary cap. It's getting ridiculous. 20 year olds like Sterling rejecting 100K per week contracts and not evening making himself available for the England U21 smh. The fact that we couldn't get past the group stages is disgraceful. The only shining hope in English football at the moment is Southampton. We are the only club who can disrupt the top 4 monopoly. I really hope the board know what they're doing.

2

Hugh_Jarce added 19:27 - Jun 25 We have to be sustainable - why would KL want to gamble her interests when a continued but gradual self financed growth plan is already working. The glass ceiling above us wont go away but we have to chip away at it year on year.
1

IanRC added 19:55 - Jun 25 A salary cap by player is all very well but as I understand it the salary cap on the total player payroll is one of the major factors in the rigging of the fair play rules in favour of the 'big teams'. It is an apalling state of affairs and corruption in the game clearly runs far beyond FIFA. Another example is the continued picking of their less experienced and skilful players by international managers than our individuals. Hope you are listening Hodgson and Southgate. England's men will never be successful unless this changes and players are picked on merit. Just left with supporting the women now I guess, roll on Saturday night.

0

GeordieSaint added 20:59 - Jun 25 Ha, soccernomics!! Can't decide whether I love it or hate it. Has anyone read money ball? It is really good. Turned out a few of the players they made huge money on were implicated in the BALCO scandal and were jacked up on 'the clear' but hey ho, why let that spoil the business plan of hundreds of other sports clubs around the world. I will be sorry to see Clyne go, he is a fantastic player who represents a different strategy of buying a few of the best up and coming championship players, to be honest I kind of miss that. At least he might get on for england now so good luck to the kid. Wouldn't it be kind of funny if he went there and was as bad as Lovren? I wonder if that would stop them pinching our players?

0

BoondockSaint added 21:39 - Jun 25 A salary cap on the total team payroll would make success depend on a team's staff and their ability at spotting and developing talent. The "Fair Play" rules state a team cannot spend more on buying players than it has taken in. The supposed idea is to stop teams like (excuse the term) Pompey spending money they don't have. But it also stops a small team getting a sugar daddy and challenging the rich teams.

0

DPeps added 21:47 - Jun 25 I stick by my earlier point that we should sell at the right price, but not sure 10.5+2million for appearances is the right price for Clyne. Especially as I hear we'll need to give 2million to Palace for sell-on
0

gpsgm added 23:11 - Jun 25 Basing your clubs economics on a constant and never-ending pumping in of funds from the owner doesn't work. We are challenging the status quo because we have an enlightened owner and an enlightened management team. If players are good enough then the club will try to keep them, but they will never be able to keep them all because of the various lures that the 6 clubs above us may hold. And when they can't they will try and replace them with better cheaper players. However we won't sell anyone we want to keep to anyone in England except those 6 and actually only 2 of those so far. Very level headed article NIck. Let's get the talk of money and business out the way now so we can concentrate on the football when the season starts again. At the end of the day that's all I really care about the £ are just a necessary evil.

0

VancouverSaint added 07:21 - Jun 26 Unfortunately a salary cap cannot work in the structure that exists in English football. How can you have players coming and going from lower leagues and clubs striving to get into the top division with a cap on players? Too many one sided rules They all want to get/stay in the Premier League. TV money is too much.. If you Google this same question it's all laid out there. The North American situation with NFL, NHL and MLB is so different. It works there but it can't work in the football world as we know it. No even playing field. It should be something that we should work towards but until then the rich clubs will rule!!! Which in my mind is B......T.

1

gpsgm added 09:02 - Jun 26 And surely more importantly the cap needs to be global or the top players follow the money. Easy for NFL as there's no competition and nowhere for the sport to go outside the US and thrive in the same way, but cap the PL and everyone will go to the other European Leagues. However, before FFP Man City can overspend by £197m with no sanction, with FFP at least UEFA are trying to level the playing field and I there are signs that clubs are self-regulating their finances. Meantime, we keep producing academy talent challenging the status quo. Something to be proud of.

0

SaintOxford added 16:20 - Jun 26 To the fans who want Saints to simply splash the Liebherr cash on our dream, the bad news is, she cannot do this even if she wanted to. Financial Fair Play puts strict limits on the amount that a club can increase it's wages expenditure in a season, and even allowing for our significant revenue growth, we simply can't afford to start paying people £120k a week. Clubs like United, and to a lesser degree City, Chelsea and Arsenal are already spending so much money that they can buy who they want and pay what they want. For united the sky is the limit with wages and transfers. City's owners are so rich that they don't even care about FFP fines, apparently. But Chelsea have changed their model, employing really top players by using a small playing squad and generating revenues from buying and selling Europe's most promising young players, many of whom never even kick a ball for Chelsea. Katarina has invested heavily in the areas of Saints that she can - particularly in the new Staplewood campus and in developing the brand. These are the things that will steadily grow our income to compete. Not this year or next, but perhaps in 5 or so. Until then I will settle for Europa League. (And will still open a beer each time we are safe from relegation). .

0

Blogs 32 bloggers

Manchester United Polls