John B Posted 6 January, 2009 Share Posted 6 January, 2009 (edited) SAINTS have to decide whether to take a financial gamble and play Marek Saganowski in crucial January fixtures according to the Echo The Polish international has returned to Southampton and resumed training with Jan Poortvliet’s squad following the end of his loan spell with Danish side Aalborg. However, due to various FIFA rulings, if he plays for Saints this month it would rule him out of a move abroad during this transfer window and end Saints’ chances of selling him to anyone. Though he could technically still be loaned to an English Football League side it leaves Saints with a difficult decision – play him and almost certainly keep him, or leave him out to see if they can move him on before the transfer window closes and if not play him come February. It will cost Saints around £150,000 to pay Saganowski until the end of the season and I think it is a risk well worth taking Mr Lowe Edited 6 January, 2009 by John B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scudamore Posted 6 January, 2009 Share Posted 6 January, 2009 You "would" pay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iowsaintsfan Posted 6 January, 2009 Share Posted 6 January, 2009 get your cheque book out then Mr B! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 6 January, 2009 Author Share Posted 6 January, 2009 (edited) You "would" pay? Whoops should have said I would pay £150000 for Saga to play if I was Lowe Lost Concentration there with receiving a phone call Seems a risk well worth taking in the present situation may also get bigger gates an extra 1000 per game would probably cover it and we would have to pay a loanee if we do not pay Saga Edited 6 January, 2009 by John B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slickmick Posted 6 January, 2009 Share Posted 6 January, 2009 Keep him and sell DMG. He is our best option up front. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
labibs Posted 6 January, 2009 Share Posted 6 January, 2009 Are there really 1000 people who would come to home games when they otherwise wouldn't, purely to see Saga play? I doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 6 January, 2009 Author Share Posted 6 January, 2009 Are there really 1000 people who would come to home games when they otherwise wouldn't, purely to see Saga play? I doubt it. They may feel that we have a better chance of winning and results may improve but I agree no one would pay to see Saga except possibly Polish fans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fitzhugh Fella Posted 6 January, 2009 Share Posted 6 January, 2009 So now we know why "his international clearance didn't come through in time". I wish the OS would just give us the truth instead of all this subterfuge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greenridge Posted 6 January, 2009 Share Posted 6 January, 2009 So now we know why "his international clearance didn't come through in time". I wish the OS would just give us the truth instead of all this subterfuge. Unfortunately it just reinforces what a propoganda machine the OS really is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N/West Saint Posted 6 January, 2009 Share Posted 6 January, 2009 Saga and BWP up front for me. We need goals and hopefully they can put some points on the board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 6 January, 2009 Share Posted 6 January, 2009 (edited) Simple maths really... If Saga is deemed good enough to help save us from relegation (and one would have thought that a player who appeared at the world cup last year might just meet such criteria) then a £150,000 outlay is a "non-brainer". Interestingly, if Lowe doesn't deem him good enough to help Saints survive then he creates a paradox for himself in that he would effectively be reducing Saga's value and offload potential by declaring "he's not good enough to help us stave off relegation". What sort of message is that to send to potential new clubs? So, logic would suggest one sensible answer to the question...Yes, he should stay. Edited 6 January, 2009 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 6 January, 2009 Author Share Posted 6 January, 2009 So now we know why "his international clearance didn't come through in time". I wish the OS would just give us the truth instead of all this subterfuge. Thats not the point though is it we are not debating whether his clearance came through or not Would you think it would be sensible to play him if it cost £150000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Saint Posted 6 January, 2009 Share Posted 6 January, 2009 (edited) Quite simply we need goals and Saganowski has shown in his original loan spell he can provide them. £150,000, if the Echo are right, suggests he is on about £6,000 per week but I would expect appearances and goal bonus will increase that. I can understand the clubs reluctance and may be they do not feel he fits into the plan of play BUT we are at a critical point in the season. The next month is likely to shape whether our future is in the Championship or League 1. My own view is to use some of the Cup profits to pay his salary. Take a chance he will be able to contribute and it will save us looking for a loan player up front. If it goes tits up I challenge the club to show it will not without him. If the kids are to improve individually and as a team confidence is a big part of such development. Confidence comes with winning. They need to find that formula and fast. Edited 6 January, 2009 by Weston Saint keying error Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 6 January, 2009 Share Posted 6 January, 2009 So now we know why "his international clearance didn't come through in time". I wish the OS would just give us the truth instead of all this subterfuge. Indeed. Although at least the OS has now come full circle in that it is so blatantly obvious to see when it is 'covering up the truth' on occasions that it makes it easy for us to see through it. It was clear the second that the "international clearance" article was published that it fell into this category due to the number of holes in its logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scudamore Posted 6 January, 2009 Share Posted 6 January, 2009 If Saga is deemed good enough to help save us from relegation (and one would have thought that a player who appeared at the world cup last year might just meet such criteria) then a £150,000 outlay is a "non-brainer". There was no football World Cup last year... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INFLUENCED.COM Posted 6 January, 2009 Share Posted 6 January, 2009 Are there really 1000 people who would come to home games when they otherwise wouldn't, purely to see Saga play? I doubt it. That number would certainly return if his contribution meant a run of wins and a climb up the table, sadly I do not believe his contribution would amount to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 6 January, 2009 Share Posted 6 January, 2009 There was no football World Cup last year... Damnation....you found me out....here was me pretending to be intelligent for 3 years and it's all been blown apart in one careless post. It's back to selling photocopiers for me.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slickmick Posted 6 January, 2009 Share Posted 6 January, 2009 SAINTS have to decide whether to take a financial gamble and play Marek Saganowski in crucial January fixtures according to the Echo The Polish international has returned to Southampton and resumed training with Jan Poortvliet’s squad following the end of his loan spell with Danish side Aalborg. However, due to various FIFA rulings, if he plays for Saints this month it would rule him out of a move abroad during this transfer window and end Saints’ chances of selling him to anyone. Though he could technically still be loaned to an English Football League side it leaves Saints with a difficult decision – play him and almost certainly keep him, or leave him out to see if they can move him on before the transfer window closes and if not play him come February. It will cost Saints around £150,000 to pay Saganowski until the end of the season and I think it is a risk well worth taking Mr Lowe On the other hand, if he were to play and score for fun in the next three games his value would be much greater. That would still give Saints time to sell him before the window closes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 6 January, 2009 Share Posted 6 January, 2009 or what if we used that money on another goal scorer. I dont dislike Saga but do believe he too highly rated by some.he hardly set the world alight, he hasnt at his foreign club and only seemed keen when he was playing for a contract.We dont need people unledss they are hungry to be successful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INFLUENCED.COM Posted 6 January, 2009 Share Posted 6 January, 2009 On the other hand, if he were to play and score for fun in the next three games his value would be much greater. That would still give Saints time to sell him before the window closes. Isn't the point that if he plays he CAN'T be sold in the window ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scudamore Posted 6 January, 2009 Share Posted 6 January, 2009 Damnation....you found me out....here was me pretending to be intelligent for 3 years and it's all been blown apart in one careless post. It's back to selling photocopiers for me.... Much like the OS it's all propoganda with you You couldn't make it up, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slickmick Posted 6 January, 2009 Share Posted 6 January, 2009 Isn't the point that if he plays he CAN'T be sold in the window ? Only to a foreign club he said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 6 January, 2009 Share Posted 6 January, 2009 or what if we used that money on another goal scorer. I dont dislike Saga but do believe he too highly rated by some.he hardly set the world alight, he hasnt at his foreign club and only seemed keen when he was playing for a contract.We dont need people unledss they are hungry to be successful. Any examples of prolific goalscorers that would cost 'only' £6k and aren't happy where they are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DT Posted 6 January, 2009 Share Posted 6 January, 2009 Any examples of prolific goalscorers that would cost 'only' £6k and aren't happy where they are? Exactly. Some are in cloud cuckoo land. Get him back and play him instead of the useless McGoldrick (who I suspect has an 'I must play however cack I am' in his contract). I fully expect Lowe to not do this just as he has not done the obvious thing to get us out of this mess and appoint Billy Davies. Doomed while Lowe's ego is in control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr X Posted 6 January, 2009 Share Posted 6 January, 2009 SAINTS have to decide whether to take a financial gamble and play Marek Saganowski in crucial January fixtures according to the Echo The Polish international has returned to Southampton and resumed training with Jan Poortvliet’s squad following the end of his loan spell with Danish side Aalborg. However, due to various FIFA rulings, if he plays for Saints this month it would rule him out of a move abroad during this transfer window and end Saints’ chances of selling him to anyone. Though he could technically still be loaned to an English Football League side it leaves Saints with a difficult decision – play him and almost certainly keep him, or leave him out to see if they can move him on before the transfer window closes and if not play him come February. It will cost Saints around £150,000 to pay Saganowski until the end of the season and I think it is a risk well worth taking Mr Lowe I honestly don't believe he would score anywhere near the number of goals needed to keep us up. That said he is better than our other striking options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surrey1saint Posted 6 January, 2009 Share Posted 6 January, 2009 (edited) Saga needs to play IMO. He could be the difference between relegation/administration or staying up. Edited 6 January, 2009 by surrey1saint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 6 January, 2009 Share Posted 6 January, 2009 Any examples of prolific goalscorers that would cost 'only' £6k and aren't happy where they are?I didnt say prolific goallscorer as Saga is not one either. Until Gb brought him here I had not heard of Saga, i had not heard of many of our signings over the years, that is not my job.There are players out there who can put the ball into the net ( I would love to get that bloke utited had up front David Welling?? He will not get many games at man u and Fergie does loan out players) and os the club jan might find/know of a goalscorer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 6 January, 2009 Author Share Posted 6 January, 2009 or what if we used that money on another goal scorer. I dont dislike Saga but do believe he too highly rated by some.he hardly set the world alight, he hasnt at his foreign club and only seemed keen when he was playing for a contract.We dont need people unledss they are hungry to be successful. Well he is not going to get another contract if he does not score goals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scummer Posted 6 January, 2009 Share Posted 6 January, 2009 I didnt say prolific goallscorer as Saga is not one either. Until Gb brought him here I had not heard of Saga, i had not heard of many of our signings over the years, that is not my job.There are players out there who can put the ball into the net ( I would love to get that bloke utited had up front David Welling?? He will not get many games at man u and Fergie does loan out players) and os the club jan might find/know of a goalscorer. The forwards we've brought in on loan so far this season seem to have been worse that what we already have (and that's ignoring our better forwards out on loan). So I'm not all that confident that Jan will be able to pull a rabbit out of his hat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 6 January, 2009 Share Posted 6 January, 2009 I didnt say prolific goallscorer as Saga is not one either. Sorry. Lazy post from me. I should have said "name me a player who is more prolific than Saga and is available on the same terms". Appreciate it's not our job to find such a player for the club but the fact that no-one springs to mind either speaks volumes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arizona Posted 6 January, 2009 Share Posted 6 January, 2009 Well, if he goes on a short scoring run and we win 2 or 3 games, all it would take is an extra 1,000 through the gate for one game to cover his wages. Or, put it this way. If Lowe gets rid of Saga to save £150,000 and we go down unable to his a cows arse with a barn door I will be p*ssed off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rooney Posted 6 January, 2009 Share Posted 6 January, 2009 If you cannot put in £75K each Mr Lowe and Mr Wilde to play him, I am afraid your shareholding we devalue at far more than this sum by the end of the season. In fact, just as they did when the club would not purchase after the cup final and look how much you have lost since then. You know it makes sense! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 6 January, 2009 Share Posted 6 January, 2009 Well, if he goes on a short scoring run and we win 2 or 3 games, all it would take is an extra 1,000 through the gate for one game to cover his wages. Or, put it this way. If Lowe gets rid of Saga to save £150,000 and we go down unable to his a cows arse with a barn door I will be p*ssed off.I agree if we have nothing better lined up and saga is our only option of improvement then 150k is nothing in the big picture.If we could offload him (forget not his wages will carry on in the summer etc) and get someone better in then Id be for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 6 January, 2009 Author Share Posted 6 January, 2009 I agree if we have nothing better lined up and saga is our only option of improvement then 150k is nothing in the big picture.If we could offload him (forget not his wages will carry on in the summer etc) and get someone better in then Id be for that. Is he on a two or 3 year contract? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordswoodsaints Posted 6 January, 2009 Share Posted 6 January, 2009 its only about a third of the money we made out of the manu game so it seems like a good investment to me,if true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
labibs Posted 6 January, 2009 Share Posted 6 January, 2009 I would keep him and play him. I guess the problem is if he comes back and simply can't be bothered, much like he seemingly was at the start of this season. Thing is, if we let him go and bring in another striker of the quality of Robertson on loan, we will definitely go down. If Molyneux's signing is a prelude to Skacel leaving, you would hope that this could accommodate Saga's wages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arizona Posted 6 January, 2009 Share Posted 6 January, 2009 Is he on a two or 3 year contract? 3 Rasiak and Saga have another 18 months on their contracts, John leaves in the summer. I would keep him and play him. I guess the problem is if he comes back and simply can't be bothered, much like he seemingly was at the start of this season. Thing is, if we let him go and bring in another striker of the quality of Robertson on loan, we will definitely go down. If Molyneux's signing is a prelude to Skacel leaving, you would hope that this could accommodate Saga's wages. Where the f**k did you get that idea from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 6 January, 2009 Author Share Posted 6 January, 2009 3 Rasiak and Saga have another 18 months on their contracts, John leaves in the summer. QUOTE] Thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
labibs Posted 6 January, 2009 Share Posted 6 January, 2009 I seem to remember him playing in a pre-season friendly and JP slating him for not making much of an effort. I think even the echo described his performance as lacklustre. I could be imagining things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greenridge Posted 6 January, 2009 Share Posted 6 January, 2009 I seem to remember him playing in a pre-season friendly and JP slating him for not making much of an effort. I think even the echo described his performance as lacklustre. I could be imagining things. I think you will find, and from what we know now in hindsight, that this type of comment was coming out of the OS at a time when many of the senior pro's (for 'senior' read 'high earners') where being engineered out of the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arizona Posted 6 January, 2009 Share Posted 6 January, 2009 I think you will find, and from what we know now in hindsight, that this type of comment was coming out of the OS at a time when many of the senior pro's (for 'senior' read 'high earners') where being engineered out of the club. Exactly the point I was going to make. Funny how at the time the club are trying to offload all the high earners, stories and rumours start surfacing about how they don't care about the club, never put any effort in etc. It's almost as if the people running the club want us to think we're better off playing the kids. :-k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
warsash saint Posted 6 January, 2009 Share Posted 6 January, 2009 Bizarre that the club are happy to shell out tens of thousands for a couple of nights stay in London before the Palace game BUT are so reluctant to pay for a player that could be the difference between releagtion/adminstration :confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottery st mary Posted 6 January, 2009 Share Posted 6 January, 2009 Sometimes you have to gamble. Bit like, Robertson, Pulis, Smith,Gasmi, Forecast....Now that was real gambling on something you have not seen or have much hope of winning with. Cork was known due to his games at S****horpe in our league etc. Spiderman and Holmes the bet is still in the rotating wheel. Give Saga a proper run in the side not like the treatment he and a few other high earners received pre and early season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
del boy Posted 6 January, 2009 Share Posted 6 January, 2009 I would pay £150000 for Saga to play Have you sent the cheque yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 6 January, 2009 Share Posted 6 January, 2009 So now we know why "his international clearance didn't come through in time". I wish the OS would just give us the truth instead of all this subterfuge. I hope you're going to write a book about all this one day Duncan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 6 January, 2009 Share Posted 6 January, 2009 Wonder how much it'd cost us to get Rasiak back? (Our current squad member with the highest goalscoring tally for Saints with 33, a mile away from BWPs all time 24!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hughieslastminutegoal Posted 6 January, 2009 Share Posted 6 January, 2009 Thats not the point though is it we are not debating whether his clearance came through or not Would you think it would be sensible to play him if it cost £150000 Of course what FF said is valid to the discussion - surely making an assessment about whether RL will want to pay for the privelige of keeping Saga is valid - and him possibly using excuses like this not to play him adds weight to an argument that he won't play him, and therefore doesn't want to accept that cost. And for what it's worth, despite me wanting more experience and ability in the squad, Saga's goal-scoring record does not fill me with enthusiasm for playing him too soon and thereby losing the chance to offload him (in order to get someone else who might do a good job for us). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ooohTerryHurlock Posted 6 January, 2009 Share Posted 6 January, 2009 The only chance we have of staying up is if we win home games - in order to do that we need to score more goals than our opposition - this I believe is the basic principle of football. There fore in order to score goals you need to have GOALSCORERS in the side! We had three 15 - 20 goal strikers in the squad and put them all out on loan (2 to sides in the same division!) His fee's are £150 000 until the end of the season - surely the board of multi millionaire and business men can cover this out of there own pockets - FOr those on the Board this can be in the form of a DIRECTORS LOAN! - IF not I'm sure we could rake this up between us - Golden Gamble, Lottery or even a ****ing bucket - I'm fed up of hearing that we don't have a pot to **** in but the directors don't seem to have chucked anything in to give us a fighting chance! LEsson in football and Business over - we will move on to more complex issues later MR LOWE (DOF)!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan The Flames Posted 6 January, 2009 Share Posted 6 January, 2009 Its a no brainer, play maker returns to club that cant score. If we don't play him we can only assume that Lowe is bent on getting rid of every high earner at the club in spite of every thing else and crossing his fingers that we don't drop. Where a more intelligent approach would be to cut the cost and maximise our playing potential, the clever chairman would look to find the optimum postion between the two. Typical Mr Average Businessman Lowe he can only follow one objective at a time. Don't defend him by claiming it will be Barclays decision because even if they have influence to that degree there is a bloody good business case to keep Saga. £150,000 / 10 home game / £20 a game = 750 more punters a game. Start winning we will **** that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hughieslastminutegoal Posted 6 January, 2009 Share Posted 6 January, 2009 The only chance we have of staying up is if we win home games - in order to do that we need to score more goals than our opposition - this I believe is the basic principle of football. There fore in order to score goals you need to have GOALSCORERS in the side! We had three 15 - 20 goal strikers in the squad and put them all out on loan (2 to sides in the same division!) His fee's are £150 000 until the end of the season - surely the board of multi millionaire and business men can cover this out of there own pockets - FOr those on the Board this can be in the form of a DIRECTORS LOAN! - IF not I'm sure we could rake this up between us - Golden Gamble, Lottery or even a ****ing bucket - I'm fed up of hearing that we don't have a pot to **** in but the directors don't seem to have chucked anything in to give us a fighting chance! LEsson in football and Business over - we will move on to more complex issues later MR LOWE (DOF)!! But do you really think Saga will score, though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now