VIDEO: Les Reed reviews the season and discusses the club's ambition and future plans

More likely Groningen.

Groningen and Southampton have close relations thanks to the Koeman brothers, i know that a lot of people from Groningen have visited Southampton multiple times but i dont think a club like Groningen would want to take a lot of players on loan. And really not a lot of teams in Holland will want to do that, at least not the top half of the table.

Pretty much all clubs in Holland heavily depend on transfers. Groningen for example needs to sell players pretty much every year to balance and fill holes in the budgets. Thats why good scouting and academies are so important to Dutch clubs, selling players is the only real source of income for most clubs. Getting players on loan is a last resort for a club like Groningen.

Groningen and Southampton have close relations thanks to the Koeman brothers, i know that a lot of people from Groningen have visited Southampton multiple times but i dont think a club like Groningen would want to take a lot of players on loan. And really not a lot of teams in Holland will want to do that, at least not the top half of the table.

 

Pretty much all clubs in Holland heavily depend on transfers. Groningen for example needs to sell players pretty much every year to balance and fill holes in the budgets. Thats why good scouting and academies are so important to Dutch clubs, selling players is the only real source of income for most clubs. Getting players on loan is a last resort for a club like Groningen.

Good points, it will be interesting to see what we have in mind. Perhaps there will be some more formal arrangement and some sort of financial support. It would have to be an arrangement with a club we trust judging by the comments on this years loans. Sending the youngsters overseas would be a bit commitment for all involved.

Be very interesting finding out. I can't help but feel that last season was a fluke and that the top 4 will become a closed shop again from 16/17.

 

Hope I'm wrong but don't expect to be.

Strange that the Leicester thing happened this season rather than next, given the levelling out of the money available to clubs and the closing of the revenue gap. Not to mention the huge jump in money available to clubs and the opportunity to actually build a team by prioritising particular key players' wages.

All the money in the world doesn't mean anything if the XI you put on the pitch aren't trying anything like as much as they're expected to. Man City and Chelsea had that for a big chunk of time, and Chelsea's players are as likely to react to Conte the way they did Mourinho rather than Hiddink. Guardiola at Man City might or might not get the reaction he wants.

Liverpool haven't got Europe but they also don't have Suarez like they did the last time they could concentrate on the league, or reliable strikers at the moment. Man U have Mourinho, but it remains to be seen if the bloom is off that rose - anyone fancy a cheeky bid for Mata? We can guarantee him a game, if not his current megabucks, and he probably won't feature for Mourinho. Leicester will not be at the same level due to Europe, but they won't completely collapse and will probably finish top 8. Actually, it would be nice if they could drop into the Europa last 32 and we were in there...

Spurs and Arsenal are going to be up there somewhere, but Spurs tailed off badly either through fatigue or lack of bottle.

There's still a ton of transfer activity to be done though, ours will be more important to Saints than anyone else's.

Feeder clubs, it's all gone a bit Champ man.

 

The idea is sound though, Saints obviously have a very thorough approach to developing young players that goes beyond just game time and training. Making sure this is still followed through with players on loan will ensure they will get maximum benefit from it.

 

Plus there is no point players going on loan and then not playing, so i think that is what they were getting at, some of those clubs may just loan players to cover injuries etc. which is pointless, those players might as well be at our excellent facilities playing in the U21 and U18 teams.

The emergency loan system has finished - there won't be loans outside transfer windows next season (though I'm not sure if U21 loans will be allowed?).

Meh! Not too sure myself, and yes I might be completely wrong. I just think LR is average and fortunate to be in the right place at the right time. He has changed his stance on major issues too many times for me (e.g. loans, developing youth) to believe he has a core belief, rather than “go with the flow”.

As I said, I think he is ok and a valuable asset, but far from the messiah many would have us believe. Let’s face it, how do you go from being an England / FA supremo to joining a lowly SFC club (when he first joined SFC) if he was “Le God” 2^nd ?

Les is not the force behind our success, rather he helps in some manner and of course talks a good story!

Meh! Not too sure myself, and yes I might be completely wrong. I just think LR is average and fortunate to be in the right place at the right time. He has changed his stance on major issues too many times for me (e.g. loans, developing youth) to believe he has a core belief, rather than “go with the flow”.

 

As I said, I think he is ok and a valuable asset, but far from the messiah many would have us believe. Let’s face it, how do you go from being an England / FA supremo to joining a lowly SFC club (when he first joined SFC) if he was “Le God” 2^nd ?

 

Les is not the force behind our success, rather he helps in some manner and of course talks a good story!

Complete non sequitur.

Meh! Not too sure myself, and yes I might be completely wrong. I just think LR is average and fortunate to be in the right place at the right time. He has changed his stance on major issues too many times for me (e.g. loans, developing youth) to believe he has a core belief, rather than “go with the flow”.

 

As I said, I think he is ok and a valuable asset, but far from the messiah many would have us believe. Let’s face it, how do you go from being an England / FA supremo to joining a lowly SFC club (when he first joined SFC) if he was “Le God” 2^nd ?

 

Les is not the force behind our success, rather he helps in some manner and of course talks a good story!

No one says he is the Messiah or Le God 2.

Meh! Not too sure myself, and yes I might be completely wrong. I just think LR is average and fortunate to be in the right place at the right time. He has changed his stance on major issues too many times for me (e.g. loans, developing youth) to believe he has a core belief, rather than “go with the flow”.

 

As I said, I think he is ok and a valuable asset, but far from the messiah many would have us believe. Let’s face it, how do you go from being an England / FA supremo to joining a lowly SFC club (when he first joined SFC) if he was “Le God” 2^nd ?

 

Les is not the force behind our success, rather he helps in some manner and of course talks a good story!

Your entitled to your opinion - but Les has set the tone and isn't director of football for nothing. Right place, right time etc - that can be pointed at any successful person/group and is generally pointed out by those less fortunate.

Meh! Not too sure myself, and yes I might be completely wrong. I just think LR is average and fortunate to be in the right place at the right time. He has changed his stance on major issues too many times for me (e.g. loans, developing youth) to believe he has a core belief, rather than “go with the flow”.

 

As I said, I think he is ok and a valuable asset, but far from the messiah many would have us believe. Let’s face it, how do you go from being an England / FA supremo to joining a lowly SFC club (when he first joined SFC) if he was “Le God” 2^nd ?

 

Les is not the force behind our success, rather he helps in some manner and of course talks a good story!

Since he has been here our results (I keep hearing that this is a 'results business') have been extremely impressive and the progression immense !

As the man at the top of the football side of the organisation, he has to receive the plaudits, if only because, had it been the other way around he would have been slaughtered and probably sacked !

TBH, he has been regularly criticised on here (particularly during the summer meltdowns!) so he has not had an easy ride either !

Credit where it is due, he has done very well !

Since he has been here our results (I keep hearing that this is a 'results business') have been extremely impressive and the progression immense !

As the man at the top of the football side of the organisation, he has to receive the plaudits, if only because, had it been the other way around he would have been slaughtered and probably sacked !

TBH, he has been regularly criticised on here (particularly during the summer meltdowns!) so he has not had an easy ride either !

Credit where it is due, he has done very well !

Honestly, I wonder why we have a forum if every time someone offers an opinion that is not flavour of the month it is firmly stuffed back down the throat? Please read carefully, I have not criticised Les, rather said "he is ok and a valuable asset" but not the hero people are trying to make out here - mostly the same people who have vilified him a lot more at various times. No wonder the Brexit debate is such a mess if we can't even proffer a simple view on a footballing director's role! Let's see what the view is when we sell off the next crop of best players.

Honestly, I wonder why we have a forum if every time someone offers an opinion that is not flavour of the month it is firmly stuffed back down the throat? Please read carefully, I have not criticised Les, rather said "he is ok and a valuable asset" but not the hero people are trying to make out here - mostly the same people who have vilified him a lot more at various times. No wonder the Brexit debate is such a mess if we can't even proffer a simple view on a footballing director's role! Let's see what the view is when we sell off the next crop of best players.

Who is calling him a hero? (or the Messiah or Le God 2 as you previously claimed). You've been "reading carefully" so no doubt you can point me in the direction.

For all your complaining about not being allowed to have an opinion, you seem to object very strongly to people simply saying he has done a very good job.

Honestly, I wonder why we have a forum if every time someone offers an opinion that is not flavour of the month it is firmly stuffed back down the throat? Please read carefully, I have not criticised Les, rather said "he is ok and a valuable asset" but not the hero people are trying to make out here - mostly the same people who have vilified him a lot more at various times. No wonder the Brexit debate is such a mess if we can't even proffer a simple view on a footballing director's role! Let's see what the view is when we sell off the next crop of best players.

The 'major issues' that you mention- loans, developing youth- are both the same one issue and, in the grand scheme of things, not that major.

Your logic that he can't be any good because he was once employed in a more prestigious role is obviously flawed if you spend a bit of time thinking about it. Happy to suggest why if you disagree.

You're right, it's a forum. You stated your opinion, somebody else disagrees. Seems pretty standard to me, no idea how that related to Brexit.

The 'major issues' that you mention- loans, developing youth- are both the same one issue and, in the grand scheme of things, not that major.

 

Your logic that he can't be any good because he was once employed in a more prestigious role is obviously flawed if you spend a bit of time thinking about it. Happy to suggest why if you disagree.

 

You're right, it's a forum. You stated your opinion, somebody else disagrees. Seems pretty standard to me, no idea how that related to Brexit.

Agree, it's all about opinions, and I think Les R overall is good for us, but as with anything / anyone else can we do better? I believe we can as we seek to progress, but equally I am more than happy for the club to make that call. I simply offered my view, and if that is controversial, sorry.

As for Brexit - reference was that people have (at least IMHO - in case people freak out again) forgotten how to debate properly, instead of just mud slinging without any facts - hope you see the relevance, and if not, it's my last post and I will continue to support the team I love and have done for nearly 40 years.

Groningen and Southampton have close relations thanks to the Koeman brothers, i know that a lot of people from Groningen have visited Southampton multiple times but i dont think a club like Groningen would want to take a lot of players on loan. And really not a lot of teams in Holland will want to do that, at least not the top half of the table.

 

Pretty much all clubs in Holland heavily depend on transfers. Groningen for example needs to sell players pretty much every year to balance and fill holes in the budgets. Thats why good scouting and academies are so important to Dutch clubs, selling players is the only real source of income for most clubs.

Getting players on loan is a last resort for a club like Groningen.

Taking players "on loan" isn't a disgrace. It's a good way to strengthen your options and see if the player would be worth signing. There's some, I'm glad we didn't sign.

Saints have "loaned" players like Jack Cork and Ryan Bertrand in the past....who later signed and DAJFU. Maarten Stekelenburg may even sign permanently (rumoured)

Toby Alderweireld's loan season was beneficial for Saints - even though he didn't stay in the end, we got a good season out of him.

Promising Dutch players may get the chance to try their luck in England, and it's not as if they'd feel lonely - with almost half the Saints team already speaking Dutch.

There are some good youngsters on the books with Saints, and those who fancy some adventure in their lives might get valuable experience playing in another country.

The whole idea (if indeed they choose Groningen), sounds great to me, but first ....I'd like to see Ronald Koeman signing a long term extension to his contract.

Strange that the Leicester thing happened this season rather than next, given the levelling out of the money available to clubs and the closing of the revenue gap. Not to mention the huge jump in money available to clubs and the opportunity to actually build a team by prioritising particular key players' wages.

 

All the money in the world doesn't mean anything if the XI you put on the pitch aren't trying anything like as much as they're expected to. Man City and Chelsea had that for a big chunk of time, and Chelsea's players are as likely to react to Conte the way they did Mourinho rather than Hiddink. Guardiola at Man City might or might not get the reaction he wants.

 

Liverpool haven't got Europe but they also don't have Suarez like they did the last time they could concentrate on the league, or reliable strikers at the moment. Man U have Mourinho, but it remains to be seen if the bloom is off that rose - anyone fancy a cheeky bid for Mata? We can guarantee him a game, if not his current megabucks, and he probably won't feature for Mourinho. Leicester will not be at the same level due to Europe, but they won't completely collapse and will probably finish top 8. Actually, it would be nice if they could drop into the Europa last 32 and we were in there...

 

Spurs and Arsenal are going to be up there somewhere, but Spurs tailed off badly either through fatigue or lack of bottle.

 

There's still a ton of transfer activity to be done though, ours will be more important to Saints than anyone else's.

I would think that will largely depend on whether he can cope with John Terry. If not, that's the dressing room gone right away.

Honestly, I wonder why we have a forum if every time someone offers an opinion that is not flavour of the month it is firmly stuffed back down the throat? Please read carefully, I have not criticised Les, rather said "he is ok and a valuable asset" but not the hero people are trying to make out here - mostly the same people who have vilified him a lot more at various times. No wonder the Brexit debate is such a mess if we can't even proffer a simple view on a footballing director's role! Let's see what the view is when we sell off the next crop of best players.

As someone else said. your earlier post was a complete non sequitur.

The emergency loan system has finished - there won't be loans outside transfer windows next season (though I'm not sure if U21 loans will be allowed?).

Even GK ones? As in if your first 3 choices are all injured?

Taking players "on loan" isn't a disgrace. It's a good way to strengthen your options and see if the player would be worth signing. There's some, I'm glad we didn't sign.

 

Saints have "loaned" players like Jack Cork and Ryan Bertrand in the past....who later signed and DAJFU. Maarten Stekelenburg may even sign permanently (rumoured)

 

Toby Alderweireld's loan season was beneficial for Saints - even though he didn't stay in the end, we got a good season out of him.

 

Promising Dutch players may get the chance to try their luck in England, and it's not as if they'd feel lonely - with almost half the Saints team already speaking Dutch.

 

There are some good youngsters on the books with Saints, and those who fancy some adventure in their lives might get valuable experience playing in another country.

 

The whole idea (if indeed they choose Groningen), sounds great to me, but first ....I'd like to see Ronald Koeman signing a long term extension to his contract.

Of course its not a disgrace to get players on loan, its just most Dutch clubs need the income from transfers to pretty much survive without having to cut into budgets. When the loan ends the player goes back and you have no income what so ever to replace him. And if the player on loan stands out there's a big chance a club will come in and swoop him up with a bigger offer (same kinda happened with Toby).

Like i said in my previous post, Groningen actually needs to sell players from time to time with a profit to fill hole's in annual budgets and you dont make profits on players who are on loan, simple as that. Plus a 18/19/20 year old kid aint going to come in at a club like Groningen and carry the team, i've really only see 2 guys at that age doing that in the last 15 years or so and those 2 were Suarez and Robben. And if you have talents like that i highly doubt you need to loan them out.

So if the player on loan aint carrying the team immediately and wont sign with you after the season (for what ever reason) your left with nothing at the end of the season and you can start over. And pretty much all you did was developing and putting time and money in a player for someone else. So why would Groningen (or a different club similar to them) take a young kid on loan when they could buy one on their own with potentially a large transfer fee coming their way in the future? There is no reason really.

Revenue from transfers are just way too important for most Dutch clubs, thats all and has nothing to do with getting players on loan being a disgrace or not. The only teams in Holland who take a lot of players on loan literally have no money to buy players on their own and those are not teams where you want to send your players to to develop in the first place.

Of course its not a disgrace to get players on loan, its just most Dutch clubs need the income from transfers to pretty much survive without having to cut into budgets. When the loan ends the player goes back and you have no income what so ever to replace him. And if the player on loan stands out there's a big chance a club will come in and swoop him up with a bigger offer (same kinda happened with Toby).

 

Like i said in my previous post, Groningen actually needs to sell players from time to time with a profit to fill hole's in annual budgets and you dont make profits on players who are on loan, simple as that. Plus a 18/19/20 year old kid aint going to come in at a club like Groningen and carry the team, i've really only see 2 guys at that age doing that in the last 15 years or so and those 2 were Suarez and Robben. And if you have talents like that i highly doubt you need to loan them out.

 

So if the player on loan aint carrying the team immediately and wont sign with you after the season (for what ever reason) your left with nothing at the end of the season and you can start over. And pretty much all you did was developing and putting time and money in a player for someone else. So why would Groningen (or a different club similar to them) take a young kid on loan when they could buy one on their own with potentially a large transfer fee coming their way in the future? There is no reason really.

 

Revenue from transfers are just way too important for most Dutch clubs, thats all and has nothing to do with getting players on loan being a disgrace or not. The only teams in Holland who take a lot of players on loan literally have no money to buy players on their own and those are not teams where you want to send your players to to develop in the first place.

Because they're a good player and free? Plus the team doesn't have to be made of all loans (pretty sure you can only have 4 long term ones in the English lower leagues) the club will still be able to buy players to sell on as well, they'll just have a stronger squad or first 11 for no money!

Of course its not a disgrace to get players on loan, its just most Dutch clubs need the income from transfers to pretty much survive without having to cut into budgets. When the loan ends the player goes back and you have no income what so ever to replace him. And if the player on loan stands out there's a big chance a club will come in and swoop him up with a bigger offer (same kinda happened with Toby).

 

Like i said in my previous post, Groningen actually needs to sell players from time to time with a profit to fill hole's in annual budgets and you dont make profits on players who are on loan, simple as that. Plus a 18/19/20 year old kid aint going to come in at a club like Groningen and carry the team, i've really only see 2 guys at that age doing that in the last 15 years or so and those 2 were Suarez and Robben. And if you have talents like that i highly doubt you need to loan them out.

 

So if the player on loan aint carrying the team immediately and wont sign with you after the season (for what ever reason) your left with nothing at the end of the season and you can start over. And pretty much all you did was developing and putting time and money in a player for someone else. So why would Groningen (or a different club similar to them) take a young kid on loan when they could buy one on their own with potentially a large transfer fee coming their way in the future? There is no reason really.

 

Revenue from transfers are just way too important for most Dutch clubs, thats all and has nothing to do with getting players on loan being a disgrace or not. The only teams in Holland who take a lot of players on loan literally have no money to buy players on their own and those are not teams where you want to send your players to to develop in the first place.

still think you haven't grasped the benefits of " loan players ".

As Saint IQ said on the above thread....the idea is you get an up-and-coming player to help stabilise your squad and it doesn't cost you very much. If (as you say) you don't have money to buy - why refuse a loan player who will cost you very little. Of course all clubs have good players who move to bigger clubs....look at Saints' recent history, but when you need to buy replacements....at least you have the benefit of a good loan player who won't cost you a fortune - and you still have your money to buy others.

You won't see many 18/19 year olds being loaned out by Saints. Players like Lloyd Isgrove (who is 23)... has been a huge benefit to Barnlsey this season and helped them to win a trophy at Wembley AND get the 3rd promotion slot into the Championship, and Jordan Turnbull has had excellent reviews after his second season with L1 Swindon.

Don't really understand your comment about .....expecting a kid to come in and " carry the team " ?.......it's your more experienced players who should be doing that.

In the best scenario..... the player may make a permanent move if he can't get in his Premier League squad. There are British players who play in other Euro countries.

I respect that you have your opinion, but if - as you say - a club has little money, then even one season with a good loan player will save you money, and may even help improve the overall quality /position of the team. You surely don't expect players to stay for the entire career? Although every club has it's long-serving players, the average stay for a player in an English club is often only 2-3 years, but obviously the best players are given much longer contracts.

Only since the Liebherr takeover in 2009 have Saints had " real money " to buy better players, but in over 50 years as a fan I've always known that Saints weren't a rich club and selling your best players was the only way to progress......if you are really lucky, they like the club long enough to stay longer.

Because they're a good player and free? Plus the team doesn't have to be made of all loans (pretty sure you can only have 4 long term ones in the English lower leagues) the club will still be able to buy players to sell on as well, they'll just have a stronger squad or first 11 for no money!

Players are never free, you pay their salary or a percentage of it, insurance and everything that comes with it and not to mention they take up a spot in your roster, which you could have given to a kid from the academy which you potentially do make a profit on and who will be longer at the club.

Most Dutch clubs dont have giant training grounds with a giant staff. They only have as much as they can afford and that aint much when you work with a 15 million pound annual budget for everything like Groningen. Your working with limited resources to develop players, so why spend those resources and money on players that you dont own? Doesnt make much sense.

Dutch clubs that have some money dont take players on loan besides them being brought in as backup players, you will have to look at teams that have zero money. Or you would need to buy a club yourself like Chelsea did with Vitesse.

still think you haven't grasped the benefits of " loan players ".

As Saint IQ said on the above thread....the idea is you get an up-and-coming player to help stabilise your squad and it doesn't cost you very much. If (as you say) you don't have money to buy - why refuse a loan player who will cost you very little. Of course all clubs have good players who move to bigger clubs....look at Saints' recent history, but when you need to buy replacements....at least you have the benefit of a good loan player who won't cost you a fortune - and you still have your money to buy others.

 

You won't see many 18/19 year olds being loaned out by Saints. Players like Lloyd Isgrove (who is 23)... has been a huge benefit to Barnlsey this season and helped them to win a trophy at Wembley AND get the 3rd promotion slot into the Championship, and Jordan Turnbull has had excellent reviews after his second season with L1 Swindon.

Don't really understand your comment about .....expecting a kid to come in and " carry the team " ?.......it's your more experienced players who should be doing that.

 

In the best scenario..... the player may make a permanent move if he can't get in his Premier League squad. There are British players who play in other Euro countries.

 

I respect that you have your opinion, but if - as you say - a club has little money, then even one season with a good loan player will save you money, and may even help improve the overall quality /position of the team. You surely don't expect players to stay for the entire career? Although every club has it's long-serving players, the average stay for a player in an English club is often only 2-3 years, but obviously the best players are given much longer contracts.

 

Only since the Liebherr takeover in 2009 have Saints had " real money " to buy better players, but in over 50 years as a fan I've always known that Saints weren't a rich club and selling your best players was the only way to progress......if you are really lucky, they like the club long enough to stay longer.

Well its not my opinion. Its the opinion from pretty much every club in Holland that has a few bucks and they have said so publicly pretty often that getting players on loan is a last resort. Exactly for the reasons i've mentioned before on here: they dont make you any money.

What i mean with expecting 'a kid to come and carry the team' is that if you spend money on a player that you get on loan, that player needs to add something besides being a rotation or backup player. He's not going to make you any money and he will be around only on a short term so he better deliver or your ****ing money away, which you almost dont have, with almost no return. And i say kid cause Dutch clubs dont have the money to pay salaries/wages of older players. All the players (besides Van Ginkel at PSV) on loan in Holland are young kids at the age of 18/19/20 from Manchester City, PSG, Juventus etc who are on their first contract with low wages. And most of them are 'ok' players at best, just like the dozens that Chelsea drops at Vitesse. Most are 'ok', 1 or maybe 2 of them will be great, the rest isnt even good enough.

And there almost aren't any experienced players that carry the team. The average age is extremely low in Holland cause they all play with young talented kids that might make them money. There are almost no good experienced players in Holland. Why would you still be there if you are any good in the first place? If your past 25 and your still playing in Holland, your mediocre at best otherwise someone would have bought you long before that.

(Again) Players on loan are not free, there isnt a club that sends their players on loan for free (not to mention other costs that players bring with them) so Dutch clubs can only pay the wages of young talents. Groningen has tried to get older players on loan in the past because they couldnt find a replacement for a player they just sold within their budget but they simply couldnt afford them to get them on loan. They got a kid from Liverpool on loan not that long ago tho, wasnt good enough by a long shot. And they already said that they wont do that again in the near future cause it didnt do anything for them, so instead a year later they bought a kid from City that did good on loan at a smaller club. That makes a lot more sense for them.

Anyway ok lets take Isgrove as a example, the average salary/wage at Groningen is about 200k a year. What's Isgrove on at the moment? I doubt its around that and Southampton isnt going to send Isgrove to Groningen while they have to keep paying his (or large part of it) wage. Plenty of clubs out there who could and will cover that wage when they take him on loan.

But Isgrove helped Burnley getting promoted, which results in more money which would justify it. Problem is, the only way Isgrove would make a club like Groningen money is by getting them into Europe but Groningen wont reach the group stage so they pretty much dont make anything with that really. He's not going to help Groningen get into the Champions League (only way to make real money for Dutch clubs btw besides transfers) and a few places higher on the table doesnt cover his wage as well so again, there's no point for a club like Groningen to do so. And smaller clubs are kinda of a mess and not that interesting cause most of them they dont even have the money to play on grass so they play on artificial pitches, which is terrible for developing players if you ask me.

The big and decent clubs in Holland wont be interested in taking players on loan from Southampton on a regular base. Otherwise they would have been doing it already from other clubs but none of them do because they spend millions on developing players from their own academies with a potentially much larger return on players. Its really as simple as that and i really cant make it anymore clear then this.

Well its not my opinion. Its the opinion from pretty much every club in Holland that has a few bucks and they have said so publicly pretty often that getting players on loan is a last resort. Exactly for the reasons i've mentioned before on here: they dont make you any money.

 

What i mean with expecting 'a kid to come and carry the team' is that if you spend money on a player that you get on loan, that player needs to add something besides being a rotation or backup player. He's not going to make you any money and he will be around only on a short term so he better deliver or your ****ing money away, which you almost dont have, with almost no return. And i say kid cause Dutch clubs dont have the money to pay salaries/wages of older players. All the players (besides Van Ginkel at PSV) on loan in Holland are young kids at the age of 18/19/20 from Manchester City, PSG, Juventus etc who are on their first contract with low wages. And most of them are 'ok' players at best, just like the dozens that Chelsea drops at Vitesse. Most are 'ok', 1 or maybe 2 of them will be great, the rest isnt even good enough.

 

And there almost aren't any experienced players that carry the team. The average age is extremely low in Holland cause they all play with young talented kids that might make them money. There are almost no good experienced players in Holland. Why would you still be there if you are any good in the first place? If your past 25 and your still playing in Holland, your mediocre at best otherwise someone would have bought you long before that.

 

(Again) Players on loan are not free, there isnt a club that sends their players on loan for free (not to mention other costs that players bring with them) so Dutch clubs can only pay the wages of young talents. Groningen has tried to get older players on loan in the past because they couldnt find a replacement for a player they just sold within their budget but they simply couldnt afford them to get them on loan. They got a kid from Liverpool on loan not that long ago tho, wasnt good enough by a long shot. And they already said that they wont do that again in the near future cause it didnt do anything for them, so instead a year later they bought a kid from City that did good on loan at a smaller club. That makes a lot more sense for them.

 

Anyway ok lets take Isgrove as a example, the average salary/wage at Groningen is about 200k a year. What's Isgrove on at the moment? I doubt its around that and Southampton isnt going to send Isgrove to Groningen while they have to keep paying his (or large part of it) wage. Plenty of clubs out there who could and will cover that wage when they take him on loan.

 

But Isgrove helped Burnley getting promoted, which results in more money which would justify it. Problem is, the only way Isgrove would make a club like Groningen money is by getting them into Europe but Groningen wont reach the group stage so they pretty much dont make anything with that really. He's not going to help Groningen get into the Champions League (only way to make real money for Dutch clubs btw besides transfers) and a few places higher on the table doesnt cover his wage as well so again, there's no point for a club like Groningen to do so. And smaller clubs are kinda of a mess and not that interesting cause most of them they dont even have the money to play on grass so they play on artificial pitches, which is terrible for developing players if you ask me.

 

The big and decent clubs in Holland wont be interested in taking players on loan from Southampton on a regular base. Otherwise they would have been doing it already from other clubs but none of them do because they spend millions on developing players from their own academies with a potentially much larger return on players. Its really as simple as that and i really cant make it anymore clear then this.

well that's clear enough. Obviously our perceptions (in UK) of Dutch football are usually based around the bigger names like Ajax/Feyernoord.

However, it seems to me that if less successful clubs in the lower end of the league are to improve they need to consider a few alternatives if they are ever to succeed.

btw ....I wasn't the one who suggested that players were loaned for free.....but Saints might well subsidize a player's wages to get him some game time / experience.

I think you might find that some of our younger players are not paid quite as much as you think......

Saints fans were sad to see Alderweireld leave, but we certainly got our moneys-worth for his loan even if it was only one season.

If Saints do partner with a Dutch club, it'll be interesting to see who they go with and how successful the loan deals are (for both clubs). Thanks for the mail chat. David.

The big and decent clubs in Holland wont be interested in taking players on loan from Southampton on a regular base. Otherwise they would have been doing it already from other clubs but none of them do because they spend millions on developing players from their own academies with a potentially much larger return on players.

That is not true, Vitesse Arnhem have a partnership deal with Chelsea.

2015/16 - 5 Chelsea players on loan

2014/15 - 3 Chelsea players on loan

2013/14 - 5 Chelsea players on loan

Saints could possibly look at a Chelsea/Vitesse style partnership with clubs like Groningan or AZ.

Players on loan are not free, there isnt a club that sends their players on loan for free (not to mention other costs that players bring with them) so Dutch clubs can only pay the wages of young talents.

 

Anyway ok lets take Isgrove as a example, the average salary/wage at Groningen is about 200k a year. What's Isgrove on at the moment? I doubt its around that and Southampton isnt going to send Isgrove to Groningen while they have to keep paying his (or large part of it) wage. Plenty of clubs out there who could and will cover that wage when they take him on loan.

If you enter a partnership with another club you reduce or completely remove the need for paying loan fees and/or % of wages.

That is not true, Vitesse Arnhem have a partnership deal with Chelsea.

 

2015/16 - 5 Chelsea players on loan

2014/15 - 3 Chelsea players on loan

2013/14 - 5 Chelsea players on loan

 

Saints could possibly look at a Chelsea/Vitesse style partnership with clubs like Groningan or AZ.

 

 

 

If you enter a partnership with another club you reduce or completely remove the need for paying loan fees and/or % of wages.[/color]

In his defence he said Big and Decent

Players are never free, you pay their salary or a percentage of it, insurance and everything that comes with it and not to mention they take up a spot in your roster, which you could have given to a kid from the academy which you potentially do make a profit on and who will be longer at the club.

Most Dutch clubs dont have giant training grounds with a giant staff. They only have as much as they can afford and that aint much when you work with a 15 million pound annual budget for everything like Groningen. Your working with limited resources to develop players, so why spend those resources and money on players that you dont own? Doesnt make much sense.

 

Dutch clubs that have some money dont take players on loan besides them being brought in as backup players, you will have to look at teams that have zero money. Or you would need to buy a club yourself like Chelsea did with Vitesse.

This "Partnership" will see players go on loan to the club for no wages IMO (So yeah completely free) but in return they need to be played and be in the right environment similar to ours with good facilities and the same philosophy on football. It's complicated to know for sure, probably a annual pre season friendly thrown in there and maybe a small annual fee paid to the club by us. That's what happens in football manager anyway

That is not true, Vitesse Arnhem have a partnership deal with Chelsea.

Chelsea doesnt have a partnership with Vitesse, they own Vitesse. Not on paper because you are not allowed to own more then one club but behind the scenes everything is connected to Abramovich/Chelsea. The first 'owner' was even forced to transfer the shares to someone else because he was spending too much money and wasn't listening. And other people that were fired at that moment said on public television as well that everything that goes on at the club was controlled by 'London'.

Even the sponsor they now have is a company owned by Abramovich and they needed that because they were violating the FFP rules and were spending a ****load more money then was coming in and couldnt find a sponsor. Its all very fishy and a joke really. Everybody in Holland knows Vitesse is owned by Chelsea but everything on paper says otherwise so nobody can do anything.

If you enter a partnership with another club you reduce or completely remove the need for paying loan fees and/or % of wages.

Depends on the partnership i guess but i've never heard of a partnership where the other club receives players on loan for absolutely nothing, then it almost makes more sense to keep the guy at the club and use him to jack up the level of your U21 squad for example or put him out on loan to someone who can and will pay his wage.

Groningen for example had a partnership with Udinese and they tried to loan players from them but still couldn't or wanted to pay the wages Udinese was asking and some players simply didnt even want to come. But maybe Southampton will be the first that i know to send their players for free (no wage that is cause like i said, players are never totally free) on loan but again Groningen, or any other decent club in Holland, wont and cant guarantee that they will get a spot in the starting squad and regular play time cause what if a player from their own academy breaks through? Your not going to block the development from that player because the player on loan needs to play, fans would go absolute ape**** and the media will burn you to the ground for it.

Maybe if you can arrange that the player on loan stays at least for 2 seasons, a club like Groningen might be interested in receiving a player on loan then but i doubt the player himself is going to agree with that.

Putting players out on loan is just tricky and a mess, you see it everywhere and it almost never works.

The best young players at our academy need to be playing at a higher level than the League 1 clubs they have been loaned to over the last couple of seasons. Young players will only learn so much at these lower league clubs and they need to be playing at a higher level, in a more skilled league if they are ever likely to break through into the Southampton first team (now that we can afford top end players) they have to be playing at a higher level than League 1. The Premier League as a collective signs few players from the lower leagues compared to the second tier of European Leagues such as the Netherlands, and Belgium and there is a reason for that. If next season the likes of McQueen, Hesketh,Seager, Stephens get the chance to play in one of these leagues which has a reputation for producing players for the Premier League then I could see them making the first team at Southampton in the future, if they return to the lower leagues I think that Koeman will continue to be reluctant to play them.

Coming back to the subject of this thread, I liked Les Reed's comments. He clearly doesn't want to lose any players this close season and even if he knows that a couple might want away he wouldn't admit that if he plans to try to persuade them to stay. Quite a departure that the Pre-Season Training Camp is likely to be in the USA which would be in line with Ralph's objectives of a higher profile across the Atlantic. Les seemed to imply that agreement has been reached with Ronald extending his stay. He spoke about the ambition for Champions' League football within a 5-year plan and was positive about making a better start to the coming season as well as addressing the reasons why we fell short by 3 points this time round. He did say that to be at the top of the Premier League you do need a full team of international players, which we effectively have, but this makes pre-season more difficult when players are involved in international tournaments such as Euro 16. Not knowing when players will start their summer break means that Pre-Season will begin with largely a young squad. Thought he was very open and frank.