Göztepe

Friends from Valenciennes, what sort of player is Mohamed Kaba? Is he a number 6 or a number 8 who can carry the ball?

The multi-club system has caused no harm; it has brought a slight benefit to the clubs, so expectations need to be managed properly.

Lis is the goalkeeper you signed on a free transfer from a relegated team. Göztepe paid Romulo’s transfer fee. Romulo moved to a Champions League club; had Southampton not been relegated, he would most likely have gone there. You want Romulo, who is valued at 25 million euros and for whom Göztepe paid the fee, but Göztepe wasn’t even given a player of Onuachu’s calibre in return. Your expectation of mutual benefit is purely one-sided and far too high. The multi-club system has caused no harm to the clubs; it has brought only a very minor benefit. In other words, there is no situation that can be regarded as a loss. The Kayi Sanda transfer was made to increase the player’s market value; should there be an issue with Financial Fair Play, Valenciennes could balance the situation by signing two or three Southampton academy players by paying their transfer fees. Dragan Solak manages Southampton with a greater focus on sporting success, whilst he manages Göztepe with a greater focus on profit. If he’d spent an extra 5 million euros on Göztepe, they’d be competing in the Europa League; Göztepe is a goose that lays golden eggs, but he isn’t feeding it too much I’m allowed three messages a day – I don’t know why.

Every club has its own sporting director, head coach and scouts; it’s not you who’s doing the legwork, it’s Sport Republic. Clubs that sign players from Göztepe don’t really care about the quality of the Turkish league. The player who replaced Sesko shone at Göztepe and was transferred; the Ipswich Town striker shone at Göztepe; Juan, who was sought after by Champions League teams, was developed by Göztepe – they all shone in the Turkish league.

First of all, it is Dragan Solak who is spending the money – it’s coming out of his own pocket. Over the last two Premier League seasons, Southampton spent 280 million euros on transfers; 2.5 million euros was spent on Matsuki, which is less than 1 per cent of the total transfer spend. Matsuki was loaned to Göztepe for one year before returning to Southampton. In the Kayi Sanda transfer, the money simply moved from one of Dragan Solak’s pockets to the other. To suggest that Southampton were relegated because of an expenditure amounting to less than 1 per cent of the total is absurd.

I didn't write anything absurd. What kind of harm has the multi-club model caused you? With Southampton, the owner is losing money and spending out of his own pocket. Göztepe, on the other hand, is making a profit; they generate 30 million euros from player sales but spend only 3 million of that on new signings.

Can you explain what harm you suffered from the multi-club system? Let me remind you that it was Göztepe that took a risk on Juan—who was valued at €800,000—and turned him into a €15 million player; don't talk as if I acquired a €15 million Juan from you for free.

While the multi-club system poses absolutely no downside for you, the potential benefit is massive This transfer will happen if you pay 8 million euros. Alternatively, you would need to offer Jander as a replacement for Dennis.

It didn’t affect your profit and loss statement. Göztepe, who signed the player on the cheap, fielded him and turned him into a star.

As I said, it might be so that he has a Premier League club on his CV, even if only for a single day.

The fact that he was transferred to you first—perhaps just to attach a "Premier League" label to the player—isn't really the main issue. Expectations within the multi-club model are incredibly high and often one-sided; a player like Juan—suited for a two-striker system—would likely struggle as a lone striker in the Premier League, much like Armstrong did. There is a perception that Southampton is handing over ready-made star players to us for free, which is nonsense.

We could have signed Juan directly from São Paulo; €900,000 is a very small sum—São Paulo fans used to mock him, calling him a "catfish." We took a risk and worked on his development for two years, yet he never even set foot in the Southampton facilities.

Here is another rare example from the old days of football—he didn't play as a central midfielder, either. In the past, center-backs like Cannavaro and Córdoba—standing 1.75m tall—could play the position; nowadays, how many 1.75m center-backs are there in the world? One? Two?

Messi is a very rare case—a player from the old school of football. He is not a central midfielder. Short players represent a risk regarding both success and resale value. Messi played for teams with unlimited budgets; for clubs with limited budgets, signing short players is a luxury.

Signing a short central midfielder is a big risk, as it's against modern football principles. If playing with a two-man midfield, the average height of both midfielders should be 1.85 meters, with the short midfielder being at least 1.81 meters, or higher if the others start at 1.89 meters.