2 stars to be sold in Jan

[JustMike]

on skysports news, the news paper review, they had a snippet from the sun (i know, i know) that said that 2 of saints young stars would be sold to avoid the 10 point deduction of administration. Anyone else see this?

[Master Bates]

SOUTHAMPTON will sell their top two players next month in a desperate bid to avoid administration — and a 10-point penalty.

 

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/article2002068.ece

[JustMike]

SOUTHAMPTON will sell their top two players next month in a desperate bid to avoid administration — and a 10-point penalty.

 

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/article2002068.ece

 

thats the one..thanks master b

[Saint Bones]

At least theres no suprises there.

 

Sell - lets do EVERYTHING we can to stave off administration.

[JustMike]

we are fooooked. So much for Lord Lowe and his master plan..unless, this was his master plan

[Pancake]

So is it 2 "top" players (eg Rasiak and Saga) or 2 "young" players (eg Surman and Lallana"?

[JustMike]

At least theres no suprises there.

 

Sell - lets do EVERYTHING we can to stave off administration.

 

and get relegated anyway?

[Saint Bones]

and get relegated anyway?

 

No surety there.

Yes, anyway I'd rather get relegated without the -10 points - if thats what comes to be.

[JustMike]

No surety there.

Yes, anyway I'd rather get relegated without the -10 points - if thats what comes to be.

 

id rather have neither. stay up fighting.

 

If we did sell the likes of AL and AS would that mean that rasiak and john or saga could come back?

[saintjay77]

id rather have neither. stay up fighting.

 

If we did sell the likes of AL and AS would that mean that rasiak and john or saga could come back?

 

I think that would make are problems worse, there wages alone must be much higher than anything surman and adam are on.

[Saint Bones]

id rather have neither. stay up fighting.

 

:smt023

 

Well said. Lets hope we can - and hope even harder our club will truly become ours again. Clean sweep of the current board.

 

Personally I believe Lowe is doing what he can to keep the wolves at bay - But the fan base split he causes is getting too much. Wilde should have been the mouth this season with Lowe a pretty much Ghost.

 

Sadly I truly believe if Crouch, Wilde and Lowe could have worked together it would have been magic.

[JustMike]

:smt023

 

Well said. Lets hope we can - and hope even harder our club will truly become ours again. Clean sweep of the current board.

 

Personally I believe Lowe is doing what he can to keep the wolves at bay - But the fan base split he causes is getting too much. Wilde should have been the mouth this season with Lowe a pretty much Ghost.

 

Sadly I truly believe if Crouch, Wilde and Lowe could have worked together it would have been magic.

 

yes i agree, maybe even would have found the investment TOGETHER rather than competing against one another.

[JustMike]

so, IF we went into administration, would it be more than likely that lowe et al would go?

[JustMike]

another point is, its a shame the AGM isnt after the window closes, be interested to see how people vote differently

[saintjay77]

yes i agree, maybe even would have found the investment TOGETHER rather than competing against one another.

 

but unfortunatly these sort of simple ideas are far beyond anything these 3 important men can cope with.

[saintjay77]

so, IF we went into administration, would it be more than likely that lowe et al would go?

 

Personally I think Lowe and Wilde and the other ijits wont want to lose out so will come up with a plan to buy the company back off the administrators - much of the debt and carry on where they left off. The model they are using has shown signs of working but just needs just a little more cash to keep it on track. with much of the debt gone they will be able to operate there plan easier and try to get the club back to a position here they can make there money back.

[Iowsaintsfan]

Personally I think Lowe and Wilde and the other ijits wont want to lose out so will come up with a plan to buy the company back off the administrators - much of the debt and carry on where they left off. The model they are using has shown signs of working but just needs just a little more cash to keep it on track. with much of the debt gone they will be able to operate there plan easier and try to get the club back to a position here they can make there money back.

 

I think your right, whether you like it or not Lowe and Co are here to stay

[INFLUENCED.COM]

Sensationalism is all, who, supporters of this club, were not aware that this may happen ?

[badgerx16]

Kee jerk, stop gap solution that merely delays the inevitable ; ( if things really are that bad ).

 

I accept the whole cloth-cutting thing, slashing the wage bill to reduce overheads, etc. But surely the first team salary total now, as compared to 2 years ago, must be significantly less, and yet we are told we are still leaking like a colander. ( I know that Rasiak, Saga, and SJ are still technically our players, but surely we are not paying for them whilst they are on loan ? )

Given the law of diminshing returns; younger players, poorer prospects on the pitch, hence lower gates ( including the anti-Lowe factor ), - therefore having to sell off the family pewter, ( the silver has already gone ), leading to a weaker team, lesser capability in the squad, even lower gates, etc, etc, etc, is there actually a level at which this club is financially viable and capable of being self sustaining ?

Edited 4 December, 2008 by badgerx16

[labibs]

That is a terrible story in the Sun. Where's the actual facts within it? We know that things are hard for us financially and we may have to sell one or two. This article paints as we need to immediately these 2 players whatever happens, which I don't think is the case. We could still sell Rasiak, Saga and John in January, which could be enough to see us through. Revenue from the Utd game should help as well.

 

Personally I am anti-administration and feel we should do all that we can to avoid it. Minus 10 points will almost certainly result in relegation. If we were in league 1, unable to play any players, with all and any promising talent sold off (I'm reasonably certain administrators will sell for a fee substantially lower than Lowe would) and not owning our stadium, times would look bleak for our future.

[Master Bates]

Tottenham, Arsenal and Liverpool are chasing Lallana, 20, who is rated at around £2 million.

 

http://www.tribalfootball.com/arsenal-spurs-liverpool-scramble-available-lallana-214655

[benjii]

This article tells us nothing new.

[saintjay77]

Kee jerk, stop gap solution that merely delays the inevitable ; ( if things really are that bad ).

 

I accept the whole cloth-cutting thing, slashing the wage bill to reduce overheads, etc. But surely the first team salary total now, as compared to 2 years ago, must be significantly less, and yet we are told we are still leaking like a colander. ( I know that Rasiak, Saga, and SJ are still technically our players, but surely we are not paying for them whilst they are on loan ? )

Given the law of diminshing returns; younger players, poorer prospects on the pitch, hence lower gates ( including the anti-Lowe factor ), - therefore having to sell off the family pewter, ( the silver has already gone ), leading to a weaker team, lesser capability in the squad, even lower gates, etc, etc, etc, is there actually a level at which this club is financially viable and capable of being self sustaining ?

 

out outgoings have been reduced but we dont know the terms on the loans we have sent out, we may still be paying a portion of there wages for instance. trouble is, as we have reduced our outgoings our income has also fallen. we need the income to be allot higher than it is to service the club and the debt.

[Dicko]

Can we avoid the drop without Surman & Lallana?

 

If not, avoiding the 10 point penalty is balanced out by relegation.

Either way, we are totally buggered

[benjii]

Can we avoid the drop without Surman & Lallana?

 

If not, avoiding the 10 point penalty is balanced out by relegation.

Either way, we are totally buggered

 

Much higher chance of doing so than without, for example, Davis and Pearce IMO.

[benjii]

If it's sell them to avoid administration then we have to. We don't know if we'll survive without them, but there's a chance. Not selling it seems might guarantee relegation. So surely we should at least give ourselves a chance if those are the options?

 

I actually think we could survive without them. Especially if one of the loaned players came back. We'd need to extend the cork loan too, play him and morgan central. get holmes back left wing, gasmi would get a chance. We do have options and it wouldn't be over if they left.

 

I agree.

 

Our most important players are:

 

Davis

Pearce

Holmes

McGoldrick

Schneiderlin

 

IMO.

[Scudamore]

No quotes, no sources, no story. That's another Sun "EXCLUSIVE" for you ladies and gents.

[Dicko]

I agree.

 

Our most important players are:

 

Davis

Pearce

Holmes

McGoldrick

Schneiderlin

 

IMO.

 

And you think we can avoid relegation when McGoldrick is one of our most important players?

[Saints foreva]

I agree.

 

Our most important players are:

 

Davis

Pearce

Holmes

McGoldrick

Schneiderlin

 

IMO.

 

Might aswell take the 10 point deduction if hes one of our most important players.

[Victor]

"Some Saints players and coaches are also extremely concerned by increased involvement in team matters by some of the club’s directors."

 

Surely this is just as worrying. I thought we were supposed to be surviving by using a bunch of youngsters and coaches who were all singing from the same hymn sheet and super-keen to put Rupert's visionary plan into action.

 

"some coaches" - how many have we got? Does it mean all coaches except Poortvliet and Wotte, or does it include one, or both, of them? So in January we sell the best players, lose some loanees (a few of which we obviously need to) and are left with the bones of a squad who are unhappy, a team that hasn't played together consistently, a lack of positive leadership and direction etc., etc..

 

Let's hope this son-of-Pulis is the next Paul Scholes.

[DT]

Are they worth 10 points? Maybe. It would be a lot more palatable to lose these two (especially Lallana in my view, who doesn't really look like his heart's in it, as opposed to Drew) if we could assure ourselves that we would use a bit of the cash to get some good loans in. Sadly I fear this does not enter Lowe's tiny mind.

[krissyboy31]

No quotes, no sources, no story. That's another Sun "EXCLUSIVE" for you ladies and gents.

 

I think it's called Journalistic Licence. The've looked at Jones' statement to the LSE, when the EoY figures were released, probably at the Echo's report and who knows? Could quite easily of taken a look at this site, where posters have been quite open of their expectations of Lallana and Surman being sold. The've also looked at which of our players realistically will demand the sort of fee required for a short-term fix and to be honest these two are really the only options. I hope they are way off the mark but I wouldn't stake my house on it.

[trousers]

Hang on a minute....

 

Going into Administration costs 10 points.

 

That's 3 wins and a draw....

 

So, by selling our two best players in January the Club (or their creditors?) are predicting that we will lose less than 10 points over 20 games without our two best players....

 

Surely that's a contradiction?

 

If our two "star" players are as good as they're being made out to be then wouldn't they be worth more to the team than 10 points over half a season?

 

Can someone explain this lack of logic for me?

 

Thanks.

[benjii]

McGoldrick was by far our most threatening attacking player against Charlton on Saturday and is the new "Jermaine Wright" IMO.

 

People have to blame someone and it's easy to point the finger at a creative player.

 

Given that we are clearly not going to see John, Rasiak or Saga in a Saints shirt again would someone like to suggest who in our current squad is remotely capable of playing upfront?

 

Wright Phillips missed two great chances against Charlton and has a proven track-record of being unable to find the net on a consistent basis. Peckhart and Robertson are awful. Paterson may be good but frankly, who knows how good or whether good enough.

 

McGoldrick is one of our only players actually able to hurt the opposition. When isolated against a defender he will beat him more often than not. He was taking the **** out of Cranie when he moved to left wing.

 

By the way, I probably would have included Euell in the list but I forgot about him.

Edited 4 December, 2008 by benjii

[benjii]

Hang on a minute....

 

Going into Administration costs 10 points.

 

That's 3 wins and a draw....

 

So, by selling our two best players in January the Club (or their creditors?) are predicting that we will lose less than 10 points over 20 games without our two best players....

 

Surely that's a contradiction?

 

If our two "star" players are as good as they're being made out to be then wouldn't they be worth more to the team than 10 points over half a season?

 

Can someone explain this lack of logic for me?

 

Thanks.

 

Easy. They're not actually that good.

[Weston Super Saint]

So is it 2 "top" players (eg Rasiak and Saga) or 2 "young" players (eg Surman and Lallana"?

 

Probably both

[trousers]

Easy. They're not actually that good.

 

Cheers.

 

Back to building my rocket....

[Weston Super Saint]

The thing is, while Lallana is good and will get better, he's not great in terms of end product yet, so doesn't help us secure a lot of points. From his position, effectively a forward behind the striker, he should have at least 5 or 6 goals. We'll be gutted to lose him, but we won't lose any goals as a team, and not that many assists. So it's not impossible for another player to come in and contribute something more to the team.

 

Likewise, Surman is a good player, but not a great creator or scorer. On the left we have Mills, Skacel and Holmes. Cork is a very good player centrally. I just hope we don't lose Skacel now, as the defence has looked better since he came back. He's just quietly got on with things, but he's a useful experienced head in the team.

 

Would you say they were the best we have in their respective positions?

 

If not, do you really think we'll command enough money to keep the Wolves from the door?

[Scudamore]

I think it's called Journalistic Licence. The've looked at Jones' statement to the LSE, when the EoY figures were released, probably at the Echo's report and who knows? Could quite easily of taken a look at this site, where posters have been quite open of their expectations of Lallana and Surman being sold. The've also looked at which of our players realistically will demand the sort of fee required for a short-term fix and to be honest these two are really the only options. I hope they are way off the mark but I wouldn't stake my house on it.

 

I love journalistic licence...

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7673148.stm

 

Although would perhaps suggest that licence to speculate would be a better description...

[londonsaint1604]

I agree with Adrian that, whilst they are both very good players, I think their importance to the team is being exaggerated. As long as we hang on to Schneiderlin, Cork and Pearce having sold Surman and Lallana, we would still have a very good chance of staying up.

[labibs]

I agree, I would hate to see us lose Schneiderlin or Davis in January, they are much more important than the other 2.

 

If we can somehow keep hold Cork and Pearce as well, I will be delighted.

 

If we do sign this lad on loan from Everton, I would imagine that may spell the end of Rudi. He has done well since he came back into the side, but if he is still one of our highest earners...

 

Lallana will be a great player, but he needs to learn how to use his ability to hurt the opposition. He reminds me a bit of Ronaldo when he first went to Man Utd, supremely talented, but in need of some guidance. It will hopefully come with time, but as it stands we could afford to lose him, if it meant staving off administration

[ozzmeister]

and i think the ready made replacement are fine.

 

Surman - Gillet/Cork

Lallanda - Gasmi/Patterson?

[slickmick]

Tottenham, Arsenal and Liverpool are chasing Lallana, 20, who is rated at around £2 million.

 

http://www.tribalfootball.com/arsenal-spurs-liverpool-scramble-available-lallana-214655

 

 

If only Man City would join the race, that would bump it up a bit.

[Saint_clark]

I'd much rather sell John, Rasiak and Saga in january instead of just loaning them out again.

[egreog]

Sadly, football is polarising by the day into the "haves" and "have nots"..........Saints are just factually the latter and are inevitably going to fall into administration, Div 1 and possibly Div 2 or both......... sad fact of life but there are very few winners and lots of losers......... Saints, sadly will be losers along with many other league clubs in the next 12 months

[krissyboy31]

The problem here is people are talking as if the loanees are our players. They are not!! If we manage to extend their loans and that is a big IF, their parent clubs will have instant recall on them.

 

I would love to keep Cork and don't really see him as part of Chelsea's immediate plans but if another Premiership club were to come in for him, we would lose out.

 

It's interesting people's opinions of Pearce because he has only played 2 1/2 games of the 5 we've played since his arrival, therefore surely too early to make any real decision.

 

Robertson's been no better than average and Smith and Peckhart haven't done anything.

 

I think if we lose Surman and Lallana, we will get relegated and that would almost certainly lead to administration anyway.

[Master Bates]

If only Man City would join the race, that would bump it up a bit.

 

Mmm..................... £28m mmm.....................

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

Fingers crossed we sell Rasiak/John/Skacel rather than Surman/Lallana/Schniderlin etc

[NickG]

Hang on a minute....

 

Going into Administration costs 10 points.

 

That's 3 wins and a draw....

 

So, by selling our two best players in January the Club (or their creditors?) are predicting that we will lose less than 10 points over 20 games without our two best players....

 

Surely that's a contradiction?

 

If our two "star" players are as good as they're being made out to be then wouldn't they be worth more to the team than 10 points over half a season?

 

Can someone explain this lack of logic for me?

 

Thanks.

 

if administration was a straight 10 points deduction then everything is rosy then that would make sense - but there are a lot of other negatives about the future of the club if we go into administration and has to be avoided if possible

[Professor]

I don't bother to post so often these days given the level of simplistic solutions that some people keep returning to.

(1) The directors have a duty to the shareholders to try to avoid administration.

(2) If the cost cutting measures by the current board had not been taken the club's financial position would be even worse than it is now.

(3) In an administration, the administrators act in the interests of the creditors, not the previous directors and would only sell to former directors if there was no better offer.

 

To those who constantly return to the refrain that if only Rupert Lowe was not involved all would be well, its true that is consistent with the LAW OF LOGICAL ARGUMENT - "All is possible if you don't know what you are talking about!"

 

If the club needs to raise capital in January and has no more credit with the banks, selling players is the only option. Better ideas, on postcards please to SMS, but doubt if the postman will be busy.