Big rumour this morning that we are going back to Southampton to get Nicola Cortese to replace Ian Ayre.
Could the banker be replacing the scouser??
Not a fan of Ian Ayre too much. He is part of the old Hicks & Gillett era and I feel he is a yes man for our owners.
Cortese is an Italian banker which doesn't fill me with confidence but he is the Executive Chairman at Saints and helped them find an owner to save them from going into administration. He has transformed the club since then and made them a stable club and attracted a god manager.
He was questioned when he let Pardew go after winning the Football league trophy. He has since managed to bring Pochettino & Koeman to the club.
Would you be happy to see us get rid of Ayre? Some people blame him for losing out on transfer deals.
Would you be happy with Cortese or is he going to be another rash appointment and can he cope with a club our size?? He knows how to look after Billionaires from his days working in Geneva looking after billionaires.
Ayre out Cortese in?
posted on 8/6/15
I have a feeling we have 2 transfer lists -
1, A set budget of around £40m which we are working on
2, The above budget with the addition of whatever we get for Sterling if we sell him
posted on 8/6/15
comment by shortlightandugly. "You can't put fourth place on your mantelpiece". (U13938)
posted 16 minutes ago
Grizz.
Good point. But we fall into that 'wait and see' trap every summer, and every summer we end up disappointing.
=======================
THIS ^^^^^
posted on 8/6/15
I really dont understand our transfer policy at times.
£1m give or take on the transfer fee is about £19k a year on wages.
Yet we seem to spend transfer fees like monopoly money but scrutinize on wages
And yes i know that contracts are usually over 4-5 years and transfers are just once-off...but the inflated prices we pay on PL players can be better used elsewhere and even possibly cheaper wages.
posted on 8/6/15
comment by shortlightandugly. "You can't put fo... (U13938)
posted 2 hours, 46 minutes ago
TOOR.
That's right mate, it's just purely our bad luck that Mikhi, Willian, Salah, Costa, Valdes, Depay, Shaq etc, turned us down. Definitely nothing to do with the contracts we offered
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think it's bad luck at all. It's much more simple than that. The clubs players went to are more attractive than we are for several reasons, namely they are doing much better than we are. It's not the 80s anymore. Some people have still to accept this.
posted on 8/6/15
comment by shortlightandugly. "You can't put fo... (U13938)
posted 2 hours, 46 minutes ago
TOOR.
That's right mate, it's just purely our bad luck that Mikhi, Willian, Salah, Costa, Valdes, Depay, Shaq etc, turned us down. Definitely nothing to do with the contracts we offered
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think it's bad luck at all. It's much more simple than that. The clubs players went to are more attractive than we are for several reasons, namely they are doing much better than we are. It's not the 80s anymore. Some people have still to accept this.
--------------------
Come on, TOOR, you seem like a bright guy, you can't seriously believe it's as simple as 'clubs doing better than us'. If that were the case, the players in question wouldn't have entertained our interest in the first place.
The majority of players (and their agents) are mercenary. When Man City first got their money, do you think someone like Robinho went there because of the prestige of the club or their champs league status? They went there for the money.
I'm not suggesting we could offer the same salaries as City shell out but, if LFC offered competitive wages, players would come. Simple as that.
The bottom line is: getting players like Ings and Bogdan is not going to get us into the top four. But getting players like Costa or Depay would at least give us a fighting chance.
posted on 8/6/15
I don't agree that's what the majority of players look for, it's certainly a major factor. I'd say how the club is doing and chances at competing at the top would be the deciding factor. We can't do what City did, they signed players on high wages whilst they weren't as attractive as some because of how they were doing they were very attractive in the fact players knew there would be a host of big money signings on crazy wages to come after them. Surely you can understand that?
You can't really believe the top players who turned us down would have joined us over more attractive clubs at the time, if we had simply offered them more than others, which in fact we have done, in the case of Sanchez, Costa and Mkhitaryan at least. We offered more than Arsenal for Sanchez, more than Atletico for Costa and you can be in no doubt more than Dortmund who don't pay great wages in comparison. Simply they were more attractive at the time.
posted on 8/6/15
comment by shortlightandugly. "You can't put fourth place on your mantelpiece". (U13938)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by shortlightandugly. "You can't put fo... (U13938)
posted 2 hours, 46 minutes ago
TOOR.
That's right mate, it's just purely our bad luck that Mikhi, Willian, Salah, Costa, Valdes, Depay, Shaq etc, turned us down. Definitely nothing to do with the contracts we offered
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think it's bad luck at all. It's much more simple than that. The clubs players went to are more attractive than we are for several reasons, namely they are doing much better than we are. It's not the 80s anymore. Some people have still to accept this.
--------------------
Come on, TOOR, you seem like a bright guy, you can't seriously believe it's as simple as 'clubs doing better than us'. If that were the case, the players in question wouldn't have entertained our interest in the first place.
The majority of players (and their agents) are mercenary. When Man City first got their money, do you think someone like Robinho went there because of the prestige of the club or their champs league status? They went there for the money.
I'm not suggesting we could offer the same salaries as City shell out but, if LFC offered competitive wages, players would come. Simple as that.
The bottom line is: getting players like Ings and Bogdan is not going to get us into the top four. But getting players like Costa or Depay would at least give us a fighting chance.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To be fair though, do we want players like Robinho and Roque Santa Cruz?
posted on 8/6/15
"I'm not suggesting we could offer the same salaries as City shell out but, if LFC offered competitive wages, players would come. Simple as that.
The bottom line is: getting players like Ings and Bogdan is not going to get us into the top four. But getting players like Costa or Depay would at least give us a fighting chance."
---------------------------------------
What exactly are 'competitive wages' when you acknowledge that we can;t pay the same as the mega rich?
Of course we would fare better with Costa and Depay but they signed for teams who's wage bills are 30-50% higher than ours. How exactly can we be competitive there?
We can't. So pining for these players is pointless.
posted on 8/6/15
Well I think there is a middle ground. The squad, if you include the players on loan, is huge so that doesn't need to be the case.We're also the 9th richest club in the world. We paid Suarez £220k I think but what we have to do is buy less and buy wiser.
The younger players are coming through now and we must back them.
posted on 8/6/15
Didn't the parent company at Southampton go into administration