shurlock

Nothing to do with release clauses - fits none of the facts so far. If they existed, we'd be in no position to negotiate and push hard for fees.

Perhaps playing for Poch means something.

He was interviewed - spoke about Saints current/former crop of academy prospects wanting to match, if not better United's class of 92....

Still playing the ball, not the man.

Koeman had a great side at Valencia. Still managed to botch things with Villa, Silva, Mata etc.

The same life-sapping clichés as the Beattie interview, albeit taking a different position. Nothing sums up TalkSport's approach to discount bin pundits than yesterday's interview with Mark Wright. Was brought on to discuss what Liverpool could expect from Lovren, though as Wright pointed out he had never seen him play.

The theory of a rumour clause is b******ks, spun by dimwits and dinlows. For starters, they're almost always reported on by the media (btw Utd finished 7th for those claiming Shaw had one) and in many cases have a fee attached that doesn't explain the haggling that's gone on. As a matter of principle, putting a release clause into the contract of a 19 year old squad player would make no sense - they're concessions, typically in the contracts of established players who've outgrown the club in and have had their arm twisted to extend their contract.

Is this from SaintsList?

Only a matter of time before what? He's sold or offered a new contract?

United's mongboard discussing whether we're relegation candidates - the usual misinformation here and there but on the whole a balanced discussion. http://www.redcafe.net/threads/southampton-relegation-candidates-next-season.393722/

Such is the nature of financial results but they remain the latest ones. Will be very surprised if the transfer fees are all guaranteed (over several years) and not conditioned with add-ons. Whether Roma see the entire fee for Osvaldo is debatable. Of course, we've subsequently sold Lovren for a massive profit, the value of Wanyama is likely to hold up etc. Am sure the player wage bill as a % of turnover has crept up, even with the massive increase in TV money for the 2013/14 season but unless there have fundamental restructuring of contracts across the board, not enough to significantly move the dial and so its possible to be pretty sanguine about the financial condition of the club.

Wrong - if we were selling the most valuable players off individually in advance of selling the club - the last and most moronic thing you could do is advertise that the club is for sale. That would weaken our bargaining position when negotiating individual fees for players no end. FWIW- I don't think we're up for sale but do think the club is not in control of the situation and underestimated the snowball effects of sales on our ability to retain our better players and recruit new ones.

Not saying this is what is happening but if someone wanted to sell the club, the usual route would be to sell the most valuable assets individually, rather than bundling them. The market for individual players is deeper and more liquid and thus more likely to cause a bidding war than the market for football clubs. Of course, there's a fine balance to strike -sell too much, and you threaten it's ability to retain its prem status -and it's accompanying income streams without significant restructuring/reinvestment.

Outside experts who looked at our accounts at the time said they were a relative picture of health - much better than other prem sides. Even listening now to the extended interview between Blackmore and Rodgers reinforces this impression, not least the fact that our players wage bill as a % of turnover, the best indicator of whether a side's spending is sustainable or not, is one of the lowest in the league.

So apart from Suarez, how many of Liverpool's top players have left exactly? Keep' em coming.

Arsenal flew back to the UK almost immediately after their game with NY Red Bulls yesterday.

Very unlikely that a player who came here for £20m -assuming they're not young and English- would leave for a tasty profit. To add further value to an already high price, we'd have to qualify for Europe and said player would have to shine in Europe, catapulting him into the next price bracket. At some point, a player's value becomes heavily dependent on the club's progress.

I sense a 'are we aiming too high in our transfer targets' thread coming along soon...

Throw in Wes Morgan, Albrighton etc and you have a pretty strong side. As others have said, not only have we lost the nucleus and spirit of the side that took us up the leagues but unless some of the academy products step up big time, it'll be hard to claim that we're beacons of hope for English football -quite apart from whether we'll be able to compete effectively. It's going to be quite a culture shock watching us next season.

Leicester City's first XI is basically all English - would muller that team you put up. Stoke, palace, wham etc have pretty strong English spines.

True top teams value prem experience, though it also makes players more expensive. Arguably, Lovren demonstrates the limits of the type of player we can attract. We basically got him when his stock was at an all-time low: for whatever reason, he had gone badly off the boil at Lyon and wasn't first choice for the national side. Neither Rojo or De Vrij really fit that profile.

Let's see where they end up this summer but I would be very surprised if they feel they have to do an 'apprenticeship' or take a detour with us to raise their visibility or signal their quality. More so after their WC performances.

Neither Rojo or De Vrij need stepping stones - both are established internationals and could walk straight into top club sides. There's the Feyenoord connection with De Vrij, even though he didn't see eye-to-eye with Koeman and probably couldn't give two s**ts about his medals.

In his heyday, Glasgow used to be able to churn this stuff out in seconds.