Shaw and Cole in World Cup shoot-out

Luke Shaw

Luke Shaw

First published in Sport Basingstoke Gazette: Photograph of the Author by , Senior Sports Reporter

England manager Roy Hodgson has indicated that Luke Shaw is in a shoot-out with Ashley Cole for one place at the World Cup.

Hodgson has confirmed that he does not intend to play regular left-back Leighton Baines in tonight’s friendly against Denmark, signalling that the Everton man’s place in Brazil is all but secured.

Instead, the England boss wants to use the final match before naming his World Cup squad to look at Shaw and Cole.

“All three of them want to play, but even with substitutions I can’t fit in three left-backs,” said Hodgson.

“You might as well know now that I’ve spoken to Leighton and he won’t feature, unless we get an incredible number of injuries.

“It’s the right moment, in this game, to look at one of, or both, Luke and Ashley Cole, as Leighton has been playing regularly for us.

“The two I need to look at in an England shirt are Ashley and Luke.”

The battle between those two promises to be one of the most intriguing before Hodgson names his 23-man squad, on May 13, for the World Cup.

Cole, 33, has experience in his favour, having earned 106 caps for his country, but his position has come under significant threat after dropping well out of favour at Chelsea.

Shaw, by contrast, has been one of the most outstanding left-backs in the Premier League this season, and has won rave reviews for his performances with Saints.

However, the 18-year-old has never played for England at senior level before and, therefore, arguably has more to prove this week than Cole.

Shaw is relishing the challenge, though.

He said: “The competition spurs me on.

“Obviously, to have competition like that is amazing for me, and I am only going to thrive off it.

“If I keep working hard in training and, obviously, play well for my club, hopefully I might be able to get a chance, and then who knows what might happen.”

The teenage ace, in an interview with the FA, added: “If you get a chance, you have to give everything and try and impress the manager.

“Hopefully I can do it this week.”

Comments (31)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:29am Wed 5 Mar 14

saints1998 says...

If Ashley Cole does not get any more first team action at Chelsea then surely Luke Shaw has to be the pick.
If Ashley Cole does not get any more first team action at Chelsea then surely Luke Shaw has to be the pick. saints1998
  • Score: 18

8:43am Wed 5 Mar 14

JohnItaly says...

Clearly Leighton Baines is currently number one choice for LB. With Cole's age against him surely Hodgson must look to the future i.e. European Championship and World Cup in 2018 and therefore assuming Luke doesn't get it completely wrong tonight he must go to Brazil.
Clearly Leighton Baines is currently number one choice for LB. With Cole's age against him surely Hodgson must look to the future i.e. European Championship and World Cup in 2018 and therefore assuming Luke doesn't get it completely wrong tonight he must go to Brazil. JohnItaly
  • Score: 21

9:28am Wed 5 Mar 14

REDARMYRULETHESOUTH says...

CHOOSE LUKE - You know it makes sense.

Can anyone remember last time we played Palarse - when we took 6000 Fans Away with us.

WE OWNED THE STREETS.

No different when we took much less to Watford Away - when our Fans were passionate and vocal in the streets.

Google the article - Adkins staying calm as SAINTS edge nearer promotion.

Speaking of the 6,000 Saints Supporters who cheered on the Team at Selhurst Park he added : The Supporters are Great.

We were on the bus coming in and they were outside the Pubs singing and it put the hairs on the back of your next next standing up - it was brilliant.

That's why SweSaints gets lots of thumbs down for his late night post - You're tallking bollux ...

YOU HAVE TO BE THERE AND GET INVOLVED.

ON THE HIGH STREET - CHOOSE YOUR PUB.

WE ARE THE MIGHTY SOUTHAMPTON.
WE GO TO PALARSE TO WIN AND 3 POINTS.

RED ARRRRRRRRRRRRRMY.
CHOOSE LUKE - You know it makes sense. Can anyone remember last time we played Palarse - when we took 6000 Fans Away with us. WE OWNED THE STREETS. No different when we took much less to Watford Away - when our Fans were passionate and vocal in the streets. Google the article - Adkins staying calm as SAINTS edge nearer promotion. Speaking of the 6,000 Saints Supporters who cheered on the Team at Selhurst Park he added : The Supporters are Great. We were on the bus coming in and they were outside the Pubs singing and it put the hairs on the back of your next next standing up - it was brilliant. That's why SweSaints gets lots of thumbs down for his late night post - You're tallking bollux ... YOU HAVE TO BE THERE AND GET INVOLVED. ON THE HIGH STREET - CHOOSE YOUR PUB. WE ARE THE MIGHTY SOUTHAMPTON. WE GO TO PALARSE TO WIN AND 3 POINTS. RED ARRRRRRRRRRRRRMY. REDARMYRULETHESOUTH
  • Score: 43

9:38am Wed 5 Mar 14

Egomaniac says...

I totally sympathise with - and support - the views of saints1998 andJohnItaly.

However, I suspect in the final analysis that Roy will go with experience the time, but start to 'bet in' Luke Shaw in preparation for the next European Championship and subsequent world Cup (2018).

Hope I'm wrong, and Luke puts up a stellar performance tonight!!

The bottom line is, of course, that Luke is a future permanent England player, regardless.
I totally sympathise with - and support - the views of saints1998 andJohnItaly. However, I suspect in the final analysis that Roy will go with experience the time, but start to 'bet in' Luke Shaw in preparation for the next European Championship and subsequent world Cup (2018). Hope I'm wrong, and Luke puts up a stellar performance tonight!! The bottom line is, of course, that Luke is a future permanent England player, regardless. Egomaniac
  • Score: 8

9:41am Wed 5 Mar 14

Egomaniac says...

Whoops! Must proof read before I press 'submit'! My second par should read 'experience THIS time" and 'BED in'….

Sorry all, standards slipping ……!
Whoops! Must proof read before I press 'submit'! My second par should read 'experience THIS time" and 'BED in'…. Sorry all, standards slipping ……! Egomaniac
  • Score: 6

10:00am Wed 5 Mar 14

RED & WHITE..RED & WHITE says...

Out with the Old in with the new we need to start to look to the future...Shaw should be first choice...get him ready for the euro's England will not win the World cup...
Out with the Old in with the new we need to start to look to the future...Shaw should be first choice...get him ready for the euro's England will not win the World cup... RED & WHITE..RED & WHITE
  • Score: 9

10:05am Wed 5 Mar 14

hedge end bob says...

May the best man win...........and we hae no need to tell WOY who that is!!!!!

On another thread if and i say if , Luke moved to Chelsea in the summer how would we feel about Cole coming to us as part of the deal ???
Myself i would say yes for his experience he could pass on to the young boys coming through. Although i would never want Luke anywhere but in a SAINTS and ENGLAND SHIRT.
May the best man win...........and we hae no need to tell WOY who that is!!!!! On another thread if and i say if , Luke moved to Chelsea in the summer how would we feel about Cole coming to us as part of the deal ??? Myself i would say yes for his experience he could pass on to the young boys coming through. Although i would never want Luke anywhere but in a SAINTS and ENGLAND SHIRT. hedge end bob
  • Score: 1

10:11am Wed 5 Mar 14

Confucious says...

I guess what's ideally needed is Cole's older head on Luke's younger body.

As this would look very strange indeed, I think Woy should simply pick the whole of Luke and not play any Cole parts.
I guess what's ideally needed is Cole's older head on Luke's younger body. As this would look very strange indeed, I think Woy should simply pick the whole of Luke and not play any Cole parts. Confucious
  • Score: 18

10:24am Wed 5 Mar 14

killared says...

@RED & WHITE..RED & WHITE

And they won't win the Euro either our squad is very average remember we struggle to beat a team like Scotland not long ago, we fail to beat Germany B team at Wembley and the media hype England big time when our team is utter Shiite. England need to change big time if they want to win any trophy by starting to stop picking players because they play for Man U, Liverpool.... and start picking players based on performance. Nobody understand why Jack Cork or Tom Huddleston are not picked for this friendly knowing that they are really good for Saint and Hull. A call up should base on merit not because you play for a top side
@RED & WHITE..RED & WHITE And they won't win the Euro either our squad is very average remember we struggle to beat a team like Scotland not long ago, we fail to beat Germany B team at Wembley and the media hype England big time when our team is utter Shiite. England need to change big time if they want to win any trophy by starting to stop picking players because they play for Man U, Liverpool.... and start picking players based on performance. Nobody understand why Jack Cork or Tom Huddleston are not picked for this friendly knowing that they are really good for Saint and Hull. A call up should base on merit not because you play for a top side killared
  • Score: 7

11:00am Wed 5 Mar 14

warrens 76 says...

Firstly the most important point from Redarmyrules….
…never mind 6000 Saints at Selhurst try over 20.000 at Selhurst park in 99 against Wimbledon…we had to win 2-0 to stay up we did..the papers as usual downplayed our support making out we took 10.000….as wombledon averaged 3000 and they had nothing to play for and the crowd was a full house…well you do the maths…

Secondly, I am less excited about Luke only because I just do not expect him to be here next season, unfortunately if he is offered Chelsea wages and it's the club he supports I can see us losing him more than any other player..

…this is also extra sad because he is one of the few players who does really give us speed of attack and can cross….

Now I have that off my chest somebody cheer me up.
Firstly the most important point from Redarmyrules…. …never mind 6000 Saints at Selhurst try over 20.000 at Selhurst park in 99 against Wimbledon…we had to win 2-0 to stay up we did..the papers as usual downplayed our support making out we took 10.000….as wombledon averaged 3000 and they had nothing to play for and the crowd was a full house…well you do the maths… Secondly, I am less excited about Luke only because I just do not expect him to be here next season, unfortunately if he is offered Chelsea wages and it's the club he supports I can see us losing him more than any other player.. …this is also extra sad because he is one of the few players who does really give us speed of attack and can cross…. Now I have that off my chest somebody cheer me up. warrens 76
  • Score: 4

11:10am Wed 5 Mar 14

REDARMYRULETHESOUTH says...

warrens 76 wrote:
Firstly the most important point from Redarmyrules….
…never mind 6000 Saints at Selhurst try over 20.000 at Selhurst park in 99 against Wimbledon…we had to win 2-0 to stay up we did..the papers as usual downplayed our support making out we took 10.000….as wombledon averaged 3000 and they had nothing to play for and the crowd was a full house…well you do the maths…

Secondly, I am less excited about Luke only because I just do not expect him to be here next season, unfortunately if he is offered Chelsea wages and it's the club he supports I can see us losing him more than any other player..

…this is also extra sad because he is one of the few players who does really give us speed of attack and can cross….

Now I have that off my chest somebody cheer me up.
Great post ... LUKE IS NOT FOR SALE

COYR
[quote][p][bold]warrens 76[/bold] wrote: Firstly the most important point from Redarmyrules…. …never mind 6000 Saints at Selhurst try over 20.000 at Selhurst park in 99 against Wimbledon…we had to win 2-0 to stay up we did..the papers as usual downplayed our support making out we took 10.000….as wombledon averaged 3000 and they had nothing to play for and the crowd was a full house…well you do the maths… Secondly, I am less excited about Luke only because I just do not expect him to be here next season, unfortunately if he is offered Chelsea wages and it's the club he supports I can see us losing him more than any other player.. …this is also extra sad because he is one of the few players who does really give us speed of attack and can cross…. Now I have that off my chest somebody cheer me up.[/p][/quote]Great post ... LUKE IS NOT FOR SALE COYR REDARMYRULETHESOUTH
  • Score: 17

11:40am Wed 5 Mar 14

george chivers says...

warrens 76 wrote:
Firstly the most important point from Redarmyrules….
…never mind 6000 Saints at Selhurst try over 20.000 at Selhurst park in 99 against Wimbledon…we had to win 2-0 to stay up we did..the papers as usual downplayed our support making out we took 10.000….as wombledon averaged 3000 and they had nothing to play for and the crowd was a full house…well you do the maths…

Secondly, I am less excited about Luke only because I just do not expect him to be here next season, unfortunately if he is offered Chelsea wages and it's the club he supports I can see us losing him more than any other player..

…this is also extra sad because he is one of the few players who does really give us speed of attack and can cross….

Now I have that off my chest somebody cheer me up.
lf like me you think Luke will go next season then cheer yourself up by wishing him all the best for tonight. And then wish him a great WC. His price will go up and we will have a good slug of money to invest next season.

That's the best we can hope for with all of our star youngsters. To expect them to stay is not realistic. The lure of money and medals will always attract the best players. We are lucky to have such a great academy. Think about that.
[quote][p][bold]warrens 76[/bold] wrote: Firstly the most important point from Redarmyrules…. …never mind 6000 Saints at Selhurst try over 20.000 at Selhurst park in 99 against Wimbledon…we had to win 2-0 to stay up we did..the papers as usual downplayed our support making out we took 10.000….as wombledon averaged 3000 and they had nothing to play for and the crowd was a full house…well you do the maths… Secondly, I am less excited about Luke only because I just do not expect him to be here next season, unfortunately if he is offered Chelsea wages and it's the club he supports I can see us losing him more than any other player.. …this is also extra sad because he is one of the few players who does really give us speed of attack and can cross…. Now I have that off my chest somebody cheer me up.[/p][/quote]lf like me you think Luke will go next season then cheer yourself up by wishing him all the best for tonight. And then wish him a great WC. His price will go up and we will have a good slug of money to invest next season. That's the best we can hope for with all of our star youngsters. To expect them to stay is not realistic. The lure of money and medals will always attract the best players. We are lucky to have such a great academy. Think about that. george chivers
  • Score: -8

11:43am Wed 5 Mar 14

el caballo santos101 says...

JohnItaly wrote:
Clearly Leighton Baines is currently number one choice for LB. With Cole's age against him surely Hodgson must look to the future i.e. European Championship and World Cup in 2018 and therefore assuming Luke doesn't get it completely wrong tonight he must go to Brazil.
agree 100%.
however when did an England manager ever look to the future?
to my knowledge it was Sven Goran Erikkson when he picked theo in 2006. the press went mad about it and slated sven.
we now have a manager who most think wont be here much longer so why would he pick for the future.
this annoys the hell out of me, why would you pick a left back who rarely starts is getting on and has been replaced by a right back at club level over a player who has played most games and is young and full of energy and has been getting rave reviews all season.

I did like luke interview though where he said that because SRL, lalla and J-rod were being picked it proved that the national team are looking at clubs like Southampton. maybe he`s thinking that he doesn't have to move get into the national side. gives hope for the future, he could also have a chat with lalla who admitted he might not be where he is now in his career if he had moved in the dark days, like so many of our players did.
[quote][p][bold]JohnItaly[/bold] wrote: Clearly Leighton Baines is currently number one choice for LB. With Cole's age against him surely Hodgson must look to the future i.e. European Championship and World Cup in 2018 and therefore assuming Luke doesn't get it completely wrong tonight he must go to Brazil.[/p][/quote]agree 100%. however when did an England manager ever look to the future? to my knowledge it was Sven Goran Erikkson when he picked theo in 2006. the press went mad about it and slated sven. we now have a manager who most think wont be here much longer so why would he pick for the future. this annoys the hell out of me, why would you pick a left back who rarely starts is getting on and has been replaced by a right back at club level over a player who has played most games and is young and full of energy and has been getting rave reviews all season. I did like luke interview though where he said that because SRL, lalla and J-rod were being picked it proved that the national team are looking at clubs like Southampton. maybe he`s thinking that he doesn't have to move get into the national side. gives hope for the future, he could also have a chat with lalla who admitted he might not be where he is now in his career if he had moved in the dark days, like so many of our players did. el caballo santos101
  • Score: 10

11:47am Wed 5 Mar 14

Costa Baz says...

Egomaniac wrote:
I totally sympathise with - and support - the views of saints1998 andJohnItaly. However, I suspect in the final analysis that Roy will go with experience the time, but start to 'bet in' Luke Shaw in preparation for the next European Championship and subsequent world Cup (2018). Hope I'm wrong, and Luke puts up a stellar performance tonight!! The bottom line is, of course, that Luke is a future permanent England player, regardless.
You may well be right, but if so it will be a wasted opportunity.

With few expecting England to get past the Quarter Finals, this would be the ideal time to take young players, as back up to the regular players, just to prepare them for future competitions and all the media hype that goes with it.
[quote][p][bold]Egomaniac[/bold] wrote: I totally sympathise with - and support - the views of saints1998 andJohnItaly. However, I suspect in the final analysis that Roy will go with experience the time, but start to 'bet in' Luke Shaw in preparation for the next European Championship and subsequent world Cup (2018). Hope I'm wrong, and Luke puts up a stellar performance tonight!! The bottom line is, of course, that Luke is a future permanent England player, regardless.[/p][/quote]You may well be right, but if so it will be a wasted opportunity. With few expecting England to get past the Quarter Finals, this would be the ideal time to take young players, as back up to the regular players, just to prepare them for future competitions and all the media hype that goes with it. Costa Baz
  • Score: 6

11:56am Wed 5 Mar 14

Costa Baz says...

On another note, I have a lot of sympathy for Clyne.

With Roy previously saying that "Clyne is in his thoughts", then also making comments about players needing to be playing regularly, to be considered, it's disappointing that Clyne hasn't been given the opportunity to show what he can do, when Cole has.
With Walker injured, that now leaves just Johnson as the specialist right back, so it would have been the perfect time to give Clyne a chance.
On another note, I have a lot of sympathy for Clyne. With Roy previously saying that "Clyne is in his thoughts", then also making comments about players needing to be playing regularly, to be considered, it's disappointing that Clyne hasn't been given the opportunity to show what he can do, when Cole has. With Walker injured, that now leaves just Johnson as the specialist right back, so it would have been the perfect time to give Clyne a chance. Costa Baz
  • Score: 7

12:03pm Wed 5 Mar 14

killared says...

@Costa Baz

You are so right won't get past the group stage that's why That useless Roy should take a young squad and prepare for the future
@Costa Baz You are so right won't get past the group stage that's why That useless Roy should take a young squad and prepare for the future killared
  • Score: -5

12:51pm Wed 5 Mar 14

DisplacedFan says...

JohnItaly wrote:
Clearly Leighton Baines is currently number one choice for LB. With Cole's age against him surely Hodgson must look to the future i.e. European Championship and World Cup in 2018 and therefore assuming Luke doesn't get it completely wrong tonight he must go to Brazil.
Agree. Luke would have to play really badly tonight to lose his spot. All any player can ask is give me a chance and he has it.
[quote][p][bold]JohnItaly[/bold] wrote: Clearly Leighton Baines is currently number one choice for LB. With Cole's age against him surely Hodgson must look to the future i.e. European Championship and World Cup in 2018 and therefore assuming Luke doesn't get it completely wrong tonight he must go to Brazil.[/p][/quote]Agree. Luke would have to play really badly tonight to lose his spot. All any player can ask is give me a chance and he has it. DisplacedFan
  • Score: 5

1:21pm Wed 5 Mar 14

F Fan says...

Anyone got a Palace ticket for sale?
Anyone got a Palace ticket for sale? F Fan
  • Score: 6

1:54pm Wed 5 Mar 14

circa 66 saint says...

I think everyone knows we can't compete with the high transfer fees and wages of the top 6, but Luke and the other lads coming through have not cost us the £25/30million in fees so we should be able to compete with paying top wages to keep them.
This in my opinion, is a fact, and in fact, my opinion.
I think everyone knows we can't compete with the high transfer fees and wages of the top 6, but Luke and the other lads coming through have not cost us the £25/30million in fees so we should be able to compete with paying top wages to keep them. This in my opinion, is a fact, and in fact, my opinion. circa 66 saint
  • Score: 3

2:25pm Wed 5 Mar 14

george chivers says...

circa 66 saint wrote:
I think everyone knows we can't compete with the high transfer fees and wages of the top 6, but Luke and the other lads coming through have not cost us the £25/30million in fees so we should be able to compete with paying top wages to keep them.
This in my opinion, is a fact, and in fact, my opinion.
So where do we get the money from to pay players between £100,000 and £200,000 a week from? Not from season ticket sales, walk ups on the day or from sponsorship. Nor from world wide shirt sales.

I would guess we pay our senior pros about £40/45000 a week and that is it.

A pity but... we have to live that. We don't have the money to compete at the highest level. Only Man City and Chelsea have that. Man U, Arsenal, Spurs, Liverpool and Everton become behind them. Everton couldn't retain Rooney and won't retain Ross Barkley for much longer. Such is life.
[quote][p][bold]circa 66 saint[/bold] wrote: I think everyone knows we can't compete with the high transfer fees and wages of the top 6, but Luke and the other lads coming through have not cost us the £25/30million in fees so we should be able to compete with paying top wages to keep them. This in my opinion, is a fact, and in fact, my opinion.[/p][/quote]So where do we get the money from to pay players between £100,000 and £200,000 a week from? Not from season ticket sales, walk ups on the day or from sponsorship. Nor from world wide shirt sales. I would guess we pay our senior pros about £40/45000 a week and that is it. A pity but... we have to live that. We don't have the money to compete at the highest level. Only Man City and Chelsea have that. Man U, Arsenal, Spurs, Liverpool and Everton become behind them. Everton couldn't retain Rooney and won't retain Ross Barkley for much longer. Such is life. george chivers
  • Score: 3

2:36pm Wed 5 Mar 14

el caballo santos101 says...

circa 66 saint wrote:
I think everyone knows we can't compete with the high transfer fees and wages of the top 6, but Luke and the other lads coming through have not cost us the £25/30million in fees so we should be able to compete with paying top wages to keep them.
This in my opinion, is a fact, and in fact, my opinion.
interesting point.
however even £70,000 a week would £3.6mill a year so a 4yr deal would make it £14.5mill, but that's what the player expects to take home so, and poopey would do well to remember this, the club has to add NI and income tax to that which nearly doubles it. so we are talking around £30mill for £70k. it would make sense to pay luke that sort of money but even £70k is peanuts to what he could earn at manure or chelski.
it all depends on what luke wants, if he wants money he might go, but if he is happy and settled and wants regular first team football with players he has known since he was 8, whilst getting called up for England and in a progressive club that is trying to build a squad to break into the top 6. it can also be down to his relationship with the manager and how MP makes luke feel wanted and a major part of the team.
I think if/when luke is called up for the world cup squad it will be great for our club, luke said that its great that England are looking at Southampton, so being picked might make him feel that he can become a regular international whilst still with us. heres hoping!
[quote][p][bold]circa 66 saint[/bold] wrote: I think everyone knows we can't compete with the high transfer fees and wages of the top 6, but Luke and the other lads coming through have not cost us the £25/30million in fees so we should be able to compete with paying top wages to keep them. This in my opinion, is a fact, and in fact, my opinion.[/p][/quote]interesting point. however even £70,000 a week would £3.6mill a year so a 4yr deal would make it £14.5mill, but that's what the player expects to take home so, and poopey would do well to remember this, the club has to add NI and income tax to that which nearly doubles it. so we are talking around £30mill for £70k. it would make sense to pay luke that sort of money but even £70k is peanuts to what he could earn at manure or chelski. it all depends on what luke wants, if he wants money he might go, but if he is happy and settled and wants regular first team football with players he has known since he was 8, whilst getting called up for England and in a progressive club that is trying to build a squad to break into the top 6. it can also be down to his relationship with the manager and how MP makes luke feel wanted and a major part of the team. I think if/when luke is called up for the world cup squad it will be great for our club, luke said that its great that England are looking at Southampton, so being picked might make him feel that he can become a regular international whilst still with us. heres hoping! el caballo santos101
  • Score: 5

2:44pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Velleity says...

warrens 76 wrote:
Firstly the most important point from Redarmyrules….
…never mind 6000 Saints at Selhurst try over 20.000 at Selhurst park in 99 against Wimbledon…we had to win 2-0 to stay up we did..the papers as usual downplayed our support making out we took 10.000….as wombledon averaged 3000 and they had nothing to play for and the crowd was a full house…well you do the maths…

Secondly, I am less excited about Luke only because I just do not expect him to be here next season, unfortunately if he is offered Chelsea wages and it's the club he supports I can see us losing him more than any other player..

…this is also extra sad because he is one of the few players who does really give us speed of attack and can cross….

Now I have that off my chest somebody cheer me up.
I'll cheer you up - he's on a long contract. No-one can force you to sell a player.
[quote][p][bold]warrens 76[/bold] wrote: Firstly the most important point from Redarmyrules…. …never mind 6000 Saints at Selhurst try over 20.000 at Selhurst park in 99 against Wimbledon…we had to win 2-0 to stay up we did..the papers as usual downplayed our support making out we took 10.000….as wombledon averaged 3000 and they had nothing to play for and the crowd was a full house…well you do the maths… Secondly, I am less excited about Luke only because I just do not expect him to be here next season, unfortunately if he is offered Chelsea wages and it's the club he supports I can see us losing him more than any other player.. …this is also extra sad because he is one of the few players who does really give us speed of attack and can cross…. Now I have that off my chest somebody cheer me up.[/p][/quote]I'll cheer you up - he's on a long contract. No-one can force you to sell a player. Velleity
  • Score: 9

3:07pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Positively4thStreet says...

hedge end bob wrote:
May the best man win...........and we hae no need to tell WOY who that is!!!!!

On another thread if and i say if , Luke moved to Chelsea in the summer how would we feel about Cole coming to us as part of the deal ???
Myself i would say yes for his experience he could pass on to the young boys coming through. Although i would never want Luke anywhere but in a SAINTS and ENGLAND SHIRT.
..."and we hae no need..." Are you a closet Scotsman Bob? ;0)
[quote][p][bold]hedge end bob[/bold] wrote: May the best man win...........and we hae no need to tell WOY who that is!!!!! On another thread if and i say if , Luke moved to Chelsea in the summer how would we feel about Cole coming to us as part of the deal ??? Myself i would say yes for his experience he could pass on to the young boys coming through. Although i would never want Luke anywhere but in a SAINTS and ENGLAND SHIRT.[/p][/quote]..."and we hae no need..." Are you a closet Scotsman Bob? ;0) Positively4thStreet
  • Score: -3

3:51pm Wed 5 Mar 14

adscm says...

warrens 76 wrote:
Firstly the most important point from Redarmyrules….
…never mind 6000 Saints at Selhurst try over 20.000 at Selhurst park in 99 against Wimbledon…we had to win 2-0 to stay up we did..the papers as usual downplayed our support making out we took 10.000….as wombledon averaged 3000 and they had nothing to play for and the crowd was a full house…well you do the maths…

Secondly, I am less excited about Luke only because I just do not expect him to be here next season, unfortunately if he is offered Chelsea wages and it's the club he supports I can see us losing him more than any other player..

…this is also extra sad because he is one of the few players who does really give us speed of attack and can cross….

Now I have that off my chest somebody cheer me up.
If Luke was to leave in the summer, the only silver lining to our cloud would be that if he gets his full cap tonight and goes to the world cup, his price tag would go up.

But like you Warrens, I would rather have Luke in a Saints shirt next season than have, say, an extra £30 million in the bank.
[quote][p][bold]warrens 76[/bold] wrote: Firstly the most important point from Redarmyrules…. …never mind 6000 Saints at Selhurst try over 20.000 at Selhurst park in 99 against Wimbledon…we had to win 2-0 to stay up we did..the papers as usual downplayed our support making out we took 10.000….as wombledon averaged 3000 and they had nothing to play for and the crowd was a full house…well you do the maths… Secondly, I am less excited about Luke only because I just do not expect him to be here next season, unfortunately if he is offered Chelsea wages and it's the club he supports I can see us losing him more than any other player.. …this is also extra sad because he is one of the few players who does really give us speed of attack and can cross…. Now I have that off my chest somebody cheer me up.[/p][/quote]If Luke was to leave in the summer, the only silver lining to our cloud would be that if he gets his full cap tonight and goes to the world cup, his price tag would go up. But like you Warrens, I would rather have Luke in a Saints shirt next season than have, say, an extra £30 million in the bank. adscm
  • Score: -2

4:43pm Wed 5 Mar 14

george chivers says...

Velleity wrote:
warrens 76 wrote:
Firstly the most important point from Redarmyrules….
…never mind 6000 Saints at Selhurst try over 20.000 at Selhurst park in 99 against Wimbledon…we had to win 2-0 to stay up we did..the papers as usual downplayed our support making out we took 10.000….as wombledon averaged 3000 and they had nothing to play for and the crowd was a full house…well you do the maths…

Secondly, I am less excited about Luke only because I just do not expect him to be here next season, unfortunately if he is offered Chelsea wages and it's the club he supports I can see us losing him more than any other player..

…this is also extra sad because he is one of the few players who does really give us speed of attack and can cross….

Now I have that off my chest somebody cheer me up.
I'll cheer you up - he's on a long contract. No-one can force you to sell a player.
Contracts are meaningless if players want to go. Agents can manipulate anything, including forcing clubs to sell players. Many clubs are frightened of agents and employ one to fend off the others. A poacher turned game keeper.

One of the main reasons clubs like us put players on long or medium term contracts is so they can get a relatively good transfer fee. We did it with Puncheon when we gave him a three year contract. Poch has no intention of playing wingers, he made no effort to replace Puncheon. Mores the pity in my view, I like wingers. We got £1.75M for Puncheon, a decent price for a player of his ability.
[quote][p][bold]Velleity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]warrens 76[/bold] wrote: Firstly the most important point from Redarmyrules…. …never mind 6000 Saints at Selhurst try over 20.000 at Selhurst park in 99 against Wimbledon…we had to win 2-0 to stay up we did..the papers as usual downplayed our support making out we took 10.000….as wombledon averaged 3000 and they had nothing to play for and the crowd was a full house…well you do the maths… Secondly, I am less excited about Luke only because I just do not expect him to be here next season, unfortunately if he is offered Chelsea wages and it's the club he supports I can see us losing him more than any other player.. …this is also extra sad because he is one of the few players who does really give us speed of attack and can cross…. Now I have that off my chest somebody cheer me up.[/p][/quote]I'll cheer you up - he's on a long contract. No-one can force you to sell a player.[/p][/quote]Contracts are meaningless if players want to go. Agents can manipulate anything, including forcing clubs to sell players. Many clubs are frightened of agents and employ one to fend off the others. A poacher turned game keeper. One of the main reasons clubs like us put players on long or medium term contracts is so they can get a relatively good transfer fee. We did it with Puncheon when we gave him a three year contract. Poch has no intention of playing wingers, he made no effort to replace Puncheon. Mores the pity in my view, I like wingers. We got £1.75M for Puncheon, a decent price for a player of his ability. george chivers
  • Score: -1

5:07pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Velleity says...

george chivers wrote:
Velleity wrote:
warrens 76 wrote:
Firstly the most important point from Redarmyrules….
…never mind 6000 Saints at Selhurst try over 20.000 at Selhurst park in 99 against Wimbledon…we had to win 2-0 to stay up we did..the papers as usual downplayed our support making out we took 10.000….as wombledon averaged 3000 and they had nothing to play for and the crowd was a full house…well you do the maths…

Secondly, I am less excited about Luke only because I just do not expect him to be here next season, unfortunately if he is offered Chelsea wages and it's the club he supports I can see us losing him more than any other player..

…this is also extra sad because he is one of the few players who does really give us speed of attack and can cross….

Now I have that off my chest somebody cheer me up.
I'll cheer you up - he's on a long contract. No-one can force you to sell a player.
Contracts are meaningless if players want to go. Agents can manipulate anything, including forcing clubs to sell players. Many clubs are frightened of agents and employ one to fend off the others. A poacher turned game keeper.

One of the main reasons clubs like us put players on long or medium term contracts is so they can get a relatively good transfer fee. We did it with Puncheon when we gave him a three year contract. Poch has no intention of playing wingers, he made no effort to replace Puncheon. Mores the pity in my view, I like wingers. We got £1.75M for Puncheon, a decent price for a player of his ability.
I'm afraid what you're saying isn't correct. The only reason you have to sell someone is if you're offered enough money that it's worth it to you as the selling club.

"Agents can manipulate anything"? Yes, they can stir things up; they can generate the feeling that a deal just has to be done; they can possibly scare selling clubs into lower prices but they can't break contracts.

It feels a little like you're contradicting yourself when you say both that contract can be broken and contracts guarantee high selling prices. One or the other but not both.

So, as I've said before we MIGHT sell Luke but it'll be at a price where we feel the money coming in can more than improve the team by the amount the team declines with his going. That sentence does make sense. Give it another go.
[quote][p][bold]george chivers[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Velleity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]warrens 76[/bold] wrote: Firstly the most important point from Redarmyrules…. …never mind 6000 Saints at Selhurst try over 20.000 at Selhurst park in 99 against Wimbledon…we had to win 2-0 to stay up we did..the papers as usual downplayed our support making out we took 10.000….as wombledon averaged 3000 and they had nothing to play for and the crowd was a full house…well you do the maths… Secondly, I am less excited about Luke only because I just do not expect him to be here next season, unfortunately if he is offered Chelsea wages and it's the club he supports I can see us losing him more than any other player.. …this is also extra sad because he is one of the few players who does really give us speed of attack and can cross…. Now I have that off my chest somebody cheer me up.[/p][/quote]I'll cheer you up - he's on a long contract. No-one can force you to sell a player.[/p][/quote]Contracts are meaningless if players want to go. Agents can manipulate anything, including forcing clubs to sell players. Many clubs are frightened of agents and employ one to fend off the others. A poacher turned game keeper. One of the main reasons clubs like us put players on long or medium term contracts is so they can get a relatively good transfer fee. We did it with Puncheon when we gave him a three year contract. Poch has no intention of playing wingers, he made no effort to replace Puncheon. Mores the pity in my view, I like wingers. We got £1.75M for Puncheon, a decent price for a player of his ability.[/p][/quote]I'm afraid what you're saying isn't correct. The only reason you have to sell someone is if you're offered enough money that it's worth it to you as the selling club. "Agents can manipulate anything"? Yes, they can stir things up; they can generate the feeling that a deal just has to be done; they can possibly scare selling clubs into lower prices but they can't break contracts. It feels a little like you're contradicting yourself when you say both that contract can be broken and contracts guarantee high selling prices. One or the other but not both. So, as I've said before we MIGHT sell Luke but it'll be at a price where we feel the money coming in can more than improve the team by the amount the team declines with his going. That sentence does make sense. Give it another go. Velleity
  • Score: 2

5:26pm Wed 5 Mar 14

The Inbetweener says...

F Fan wrote:
Anyone got a Palace ticket for sale?
F Fan, I'm need two tickets for Palace. It is really annoying that the Club don't make it known how many tickets the away allocation is for each game. I believe nearly every away game (maybe not Hull on the Tuesday night) has been a sell out and unless you are a STH you have no chance of attending an away game unless you can acquire a season ticket number, but even then of somebody who has attended away games and doesn't want to go. Is it possible for the Club to ask for a higher allocation for say the less attractive away games?
[quote][p][bold]F Fan[/bold] wrote: Anyone got a Palace ticket for sale?[/p][/quote]F Fan, I'm need two tickets for Palace. It is really annoying that the Club don't make it known how many tickets the away allocation is for each game. I believe nearly every away game (maybe not Hull on the Tuesday night) has been a sell out and unless you are a STH you have no chance of attending an away game unless you can acquire a season ticket number, but even then of somebody who has attended away games and doesn't want to go. Is it possible for the Club to ask for a higher allocation for say the less attractive away games? The Inbetweener
  • Score: 5

6:20pm Wed 5 Mar 14

saintbobby says...

Egomaniac wrote:
Whoops! Must proof read before I press 'submit'! My second par should read 'experience THIS time" and 'BED in'….

Sorry all, standards slipping ……!
I do sympathise. Must check before sending anything as this predictive text is an absolute s.d! If not careful, I have found stuff being sent which I do not understand when reading later!
[quote][p][bold]Egomaniac[/bold] wrote: Whoops! Must proof read before I press 'submit'! My second par should read 'experience THIS time" and 'BED in'…. Sorry all, standards slipping ……![/p][/quote]I do sympathise. Must check before sending anything as this predictive text is an absolute s.d! If not careful, I have found stuff being sent which I do not understand when reading later! saintbobby
  • Score: 1

7:23pm Wed 5 Mar 14

george chivers says...

Velleity wrote:
george chivers wrote:
Velleity wrote:
warrens 76 wrote:
Firstly the most important point from Redarmyrules….
…never mind 6000 Saints at Selhurst try over 20.000 at Selhurst park in 99 against Wimbledon…we had to win 2-0 to stay up we did..the papers as usual downplayed our support making out we took 10.000….as wombledon averaged 3000 and they had nothing to play for and the crowd was a full house…well you do the maths…

Secondly, I am less excited about Luke only because I just do not expect him to be here next season, unfortunately if he is offered Chelsea wages and it's the club he supports I can see us losing him more than any other player..

…this is also extra sad because he is one of the few players who does really give us speed of attack and can cross….

Now I have that off my chest somebody cheer me up.
I'll cheer you up - he's on a long contract. No-one can force you to sell a player.
Contracts are meaningless if players want to go. Agents can manipulate anything, including forcing clubs to sell players. Many clubs are frightened of agents and employ one to fend off the others. A poacher turned game keeper.

One of the main reasons clubs like us put players on long or medium term contracts is so they can get a relatively good transfer fee. We did it with Puncheon when we gave him a three year contract. Poch has no intention of playing wingers, he made no effort to replace Puncheon. Mores the pity in my view, I like wingers. We got £1.75M for Puncheon, a decent price for a player of his ability.
I'm afraid what you're saying isn't correct. The only reason you have to sell someone is if you're offered enough money that it's worth it to you as the selling club.

"Agents can manipulate anything"? Yes, they can stir things up; they can generate the feeling that a deal just has to be done; they can possibly scare selling clubs into lower prices but they can't break contracts.

It feels a little like you're contradicting yourself when you say both that contract can be broken and contracts guarantee high selling prices. One or the other but not both.

So, as I've said before we MIGHT sell Luke but it'll be at a price where we feel the money coming in can more than improve the team by the amount the team declines with his going. That sentence does make sense. Give it another go.
What I am saying is contracts work two ways. They guarantee tenure of employment for the player on a decent remuneration package and they ensure the club get a good fee in the transfer market if the player wants to go because his agent has been approached illegally by another club. Long or medium term contracts are an insurance policy for the club.

Do you not think Osvaldo's exit was a plan dreamed up between him and his agent so he could get games in Italy and try to get on the plane to Brazil? I do. That I think was a good example of agent manipulation. Two acts of violence, neither of them on the pitch, gets him out of Southampton and on the plane to Italy. His position is untenable with us but he hasn't compromised his position by behaving badly on the field which would get him bad press in Italy and reduce his chances of being picked for the Italian squad because he is liability on the pitch.

If a player wants to go and is willing to go to the lengths Osvaldo went with the assistance of an agent, nothing can stop him going. A club won't want to keep a player like that. I grant you that is an extreme example but there are plenty of others about which aren't. Agents have too much power, earn too much money and have too much influence. The length of a contract between a club and a player doesn't in my eyes mean very much if the player/agent wants the player to move.
[quote][p][bold]Velleity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]george chivers[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Velleity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]warrens 76[/bold] wrote: Firstly the most important point from Redarmyrules…. …never mind 6000 Saints at Selhurst try over 20.000 at Selhurst park in 99 against Wimbledon…we had to win 2-0 to stay up we did..the papers as usual downplayed our support making out we took 10.000….as wombledon averaged 3000 and they had nothing to play for and the crowd was a full house…well you do the maths… Secondly, I am less excited about Luke only because I just do not expect him to be here next season, unfortunately if he is offered Chelsea wages and it's the club he supports I can see us losing him more than any other player.. …this is also extra sad because he is one of the few players who does really give us speed of attack and can cross…. Now I have that off my chest somebody cheer me up.[/p][/quote]I'll cheer you up - he's on a long contract. No-one can force you to sell a player.[/p][/quote]Contracts are meaningless if players want to go. Agents can manipulate anything, including forcing clubs to sell players. Many clubs are frightened of agents and employ one to fend off the others. A poacher turned game keeper. One of the main reasons clubs like us put players on long or medium term contracts is so they can get a relatively good transfer fee. We did it with Puncheon when we gave him a three year contract. Poch has no intention of playing wingers, he made no effort to replace Puncheon. Mores the pity in my view, I like wingers. We got £1.75M for Puncheon, a decent price for a player of his ability.[/p][/quote]I'm afraid what you're saying isn't correct. The only reason you have to sell someone is if you're offered enough money that it's worth it to you as the selling club. "Agents can manipulate anything"? Yes, they can stir things up; they can generate the feeling that a deal just has to be done; they can possibly scare selling clubs into lower prices but they can't break contracts. It feels a little like you're contradicting yourself when you say both that contract can be broken and contracts guarantee high selling prices. One or the other but not both. So, as I've said before we MIGHT sell Luke but it'll be at a price where we feel the money coming in can more than improve the team by the amount the team declines with his going. That sentence does make sense. Give it another go.[/p][/quote]What I am saying is contracts work two ways. They guarantee tenure of employment for the player on a decent remuneration package and they ensure the club get a good fee in the transfer market if the player wants to go because his agent has been approached illegally by another club. Long or medium term contracts are an insurance policy for the club. Do you not think Osvaldo's exit was a plan dreamed up between him and his agent so he could get games in Italy and try to get on the plane to Brazil? I do. That I think was a good example of agent manipulation. Two acts of violence, neither of them on the pitch, gets him out of Southampton and on the plane to Italy. His position is untenable with us but he hasn't compromised his position by behaving badly on the field which would get him bad press in Italy and reduce his chances of being picked for the Italian squad because he is liability on the pitch. If a player wants to go and is willing to go to the lengths Osvaldo went with the assistance of an agent, nothing can stop him going. A club won't want to keep a player like that. I grant you that is an extreme example but there are plenty of others about which aren't. Agents have too much power, earn too much money and have too much influence. The length of a contract between a club and a player doesn't in my eyes mean very much if the player/agent wants the player to move. george chivers
  • Score: 1

7:51pm Wed 5 Mar 14

Velleity says...

george chivers wrote:
Velleity wrote:
george chivers wrote:
Velleity wrote:
warrens 76 wrote:
Firstly the most important point from Redarmyrules….
…never mind 6000 Saints at Selhurst try over 20.000 at Selhurst park in 99 against Wimbledon…we had to win 2-0 to stay up we did..the papers as usual downplayed our support making out we took 10.000….as wombledon averaged 3000 and they had nothing to play for and the crowd was a full house…well you do the maths…

Secondly, I am less excited about Luke only because I just do not expect him to be here next season, unfortunately if he is offered Chelsea wages and it's the club he supports I can see us losing him more than any other player..

…this is also extra sad because he is one of the few players who does really give us speed of attack and can cross….

Now I have that off my chest somebody cheer me up.
I'll cheer you up - he's on a long contract. No-one can force you to sell a player.
Contracts are meaningless if players want to go. Agents can manipulate anything, including forcing clubs to sell players. Many clubs are frightened of agents and employ one to fend off the others. A poacher turned game keeper.

One of the main reasons clubs like us put players on long or medium term contracts is so they can get a relatively good transfer fee. We did it with Puncheon when we gave him a three year contract. Poch has no intention of playing wingers, he made no effort to replace Puncheon. Mores the pity in my view, I like wingers. We got £1.75M for Puncheon, a decent price for a player of his ability.
I'm afraid what you're saying isn't correct. The only reason you have to sell someone is if you're offered enough money that it's worth it to you as the selling club.

"Agents can manipulate anything"? Yes, they can stir things up; they can generate the feeling that a deal just has to be done; they can possibly scare selling clubs into lower prices but they can't break contracts.

It feels a little like you're contradicting yourself when you say both that contract can be broken and contracts guarantee high selling prices. One or the other but not both.

So, as I've said before we MIGHT sell Luke but it'll be at a price where we feel the money coming in can more than improve the team by the amount the team declines with his going. That sentence does make sense. Give it another go.
What I am saying is contracts work two ways. They guarantee tenure of employment for the player on a decent remuneration package and they ensure the club get a good fee in the transfer market if the player wants to go because his agent has been approached illegally by another club. Long or medium term contracts are an insurance policy for the club.

Do you not think Osvaldo's exit was a plan dreamed up between him and his agent so he could get games in Italy and try to get on the plane to Brazil? I do. That I think was a good example of agent manipulation. Two acts of violence, neither of them on the pitch, gets him out of Southampton and on the plane to Italy. His position is untenable with us but he hasn't compromised his position by behaving badly on the field which would get him bad press in Italy and reduce his chances of being picked for the Italian squad because he is liability on the pitch.

If a player wants to go and is willing to go to the lengths Osvaldo went with the assistance of an agent, nothing can stop him going. A club won't want to keep a player like that. I grant you that is an extreme example but there are plenty of others about which aren't. Agents have too much power, earn too much money and have too much influence. The length of a contract between a club and a player doesn't in my eyes mean very much if the player/agent wants the player to move.
You seem to be arguing that contracts are easily circumvented AND that they mean you'll get plenty of cash for a player. One or the other must be true, can't be both.

I believe that they allow you to wait until you get so much money offered that you're happy to sell. In which case, where's the problem, as we'll only sell Luke if we get enough cash to make it a worthwhile trade.
[quote][p][bold]george chivers[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Velleity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]george chivers[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Velleity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]warrens 76[/bold] wrote: Firstly the most important point from Redarmyrules…. …never mind 6000 Saints at Selhurst try over 20.000 at Selhurst park in 99 against Wimbledon…we had to win 2-0 to stay up we did..the papers as usual downplayed our support making out we took 10.000….as wombledon averaged 3000 and they had nothing to play for and the crowd was a full house…well you do the maths… Secondly, I am less excited about Luke only because I just do not expect him to be here next season, unfortunately if he is offered Chelsea wages and it's the club he supports I can see us losing him more than any other player.. …this is also extra sad because he is one of the few players who does really give us speed of attack and can cross…. Now I have that off my chest somebody cheer me up.[/p][/quote]I'll cheer you up - he's on a long contract. No-one can force you to sell a player.[/p][/quote]Contracts are meaningless if players want to go. Agents can manipulate anything, including forcing clubs to sell players. Many clubs are frightened of agents and employ one to fend off the others. A poacher turned game keeper. One of the main reasons clubs like us put players on long or medium term contracts is so they can get a relatively good transfer fee. We did it with Puncheon when we gave him a three year contract. Poch has no intention of playing wingers, he made no effort to replace Puncheon. Mores the pity in my view, I like wingers. We got £1.75M for Puncheon, a decent price for a player of his ability.[/p][/quote]I'm afraid what you're saying isn't correct. The only reason you have to sell someone is if you're offered enough money that it's worth it to you as the selling club. "Agents can manipulate anything"? Yes, they can stir things up; they can generate the feeling that a deal just has to be done; they can possibly scare selling clubs into lower prices but they can't break contracts. It feels a little like you're contradicting yourself when you say both that contract can be broken and contracts guarantee high selling prices. One or the other but not both. So, as I've said before we MIGHT sell Luke but it'll be at a price where we feel the money coming in can more than improve the team by the amount the team declines with his going. That sentence does make sense. Give it another go.[/p][/quote]What I am saying is contracts work two ways. They guarantee tenure of employment for the player on a decent remuneration package and they ensure the club get a good fee in the transfer market if the player wants to go because his agent has been approached illegally by another club. Long or medium term contracts are an insurance policy for the club. Do you not think Osvaldo's exit was a plan dreamed up between him and his agent so he could get games in Italy and try to get on the plane to Brazil? I do. That I think was a good example of agent manipulation. Two acts of violence, neither of them on the pitch, gets him out of Southampton and on the plane to Italy. His position is untenable with us but he hasn't compromised his position by behaving badly on the field which would get him bad press in Italy and reduce his chances of being picked for the Italian squad because he is liability on the pitch. If a player wants to go and is willing to go to the lengths Osvaldo went with the assistance of an agent, nothing can stop him going. A club won't want to keep a player like that. I grant you that is an extreme example but there are plenty of others about which aren't. Agents have too much power, earn too much money and have too much influence. The length of a contract between a club and a player doesn't in my eyes mean very much if the player/agent wants the player to move.[/p][/quote]You seem to be arguing that contracts are easily circumvented AND that they mean you'll get plenty of cash for a player. One or the other must be true, can't be both. I believe that they allow you to wait until you get so much money offered that you're happy to sell. In which case, where's the problem, as we'll only sell Luke if we get enough cash to make it a worthwhile trade. Velleity
  • Score: 0

9:09pm Wed 5 Mar 14

george chivers says...

Velleity wrote:
george chivers wrote:
Velleity wrote:
george chivers wrote:
Velleity wrote:
warrens 76 wrote:
Firstly the most important point from Redarmyrules….
…never mind 6000 Saints at Selhurst try over 20.000 at Selhurst park in 99 against Wimbledon…we had to win 2-0 to stay up we did..the papers as usual downplayed our support making out we took 10.000….as wombledon averaged 3000 and they had nothing to play for and the crowd was a full house…well you do the maths…

Secondly, I am less excited about Luke only because I just do not expect him to be here next season, unfortunately if he is offered Chelsea wages and it's the club he supports I can see us losing him more than any other player..

…this is also extra sad because he is one of the few players who does really give us speed of attack and can cross….

Now I have that off my chest somebody cheer me up.
I'll cheer you up - he's on a long contract. No-one can force you to sell a player.
Contracts are meaningless if players want to go. Agents can manipulate anything, including forcing clubs to sell players. Many clubs are frightened of agents and employ one to fend off the others. A poacher turned game keeper.

One of the main reasons clubs like us put players on long or medium term contracts is so they can get a relatively good transfer fee. We did it with Puncheon when we gave him a three year contract. Poch has no intention of playing wingers, he made no effort to replace Puncheon. Mores the pity in my view, I like wingers. We got £1.75M for Puncheon, a decent price for a player of his ability.
I'm afraid what you're saying isn't correct. The only reason you have to sell someone is if you're offered enough money that it's worth it to you as the selling club.

"Agents can manipulate anything"? Yes, they can stir things up; they can generate the feeling that a deal just has to be done; they can possibly scare selling clubs into lower prices but they can't break contracts.

It feels a little like you're contradicting yourself when you say both that contract can be broken and contracts guarantee high selling prices. One or the other but not both.

So, as I've said before we MIGHT sell Luke but it'll be at a price where we feel the money coming in can more than improve the team by the amount the team declines with his going. That sentence does make sense. Give it another go.
What I am saying is contracts work two ways. They guarantee tenure of employment for the player on a decent remuneration package and they ensure the club get a good fee in the transfer market if the player wants to go because his agent has been approached illegally by another club. Long or medium term contracts are an insurance policy for the club.

Do you not think Osvaldo's exit was a plan dreamed up between him and his agent so he could get games in Italy and try to get on the plane to Brazil? I do. That I think was a good example of agent manipulation. Two acts of violence, neither of them on the pitch, gets him out of Southampton and on the plane to Italy. His position is untenable with us but he hasn't compromised his position by behaving badly on the field which would get him bad press in Italy and reduce his chances of being picked for the Italian squad because he is liability on the pitch.

If a player wants to go and is willing to go to the lengths Osvaldo went with the assistance of an agent, nothing can stop him going. A club won't want to keep a player like that. I grant you that is an extreme example but there are plenty of others about which aren't. Agents have too much power, earn too much money and have too much influence. The length of a contract between a club and a player doesn't in my eyes mean very much if the player/agent wants the player to move.
You seem to be arguing that contracts are easily circumvented AND that they mean you'll get plenty of cash for a player. One or the other must be true, can't be both.

I believe that they allow you to wait until you get so much money offered that you're happy to sell. In which case, where's the problem, as we'll only sell Luke if we get enough cash to make it a worthwhile trade.
Yes I do mean that. And if a player makes a nuisance of himself the club will sell him below his market value because it is better to compromise on price than have a player who is disruptive and is not wanted by his colleagues. Osvaldo. They will of course do their best to maximise the transfer fee but in the end will give in and compromise because they know the player is not committed to the cause and will continue to be a pain. That's one of the services agents offer to players. How to get yourself a move from a club where you have a decent contract to get a better one somewhere else and make the agent more money.
[quote][p][bold]Velleity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]george chivers[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Velleity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]george chivers[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Velleity[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]warrens 76[/bold] wrote: Firstly the most important point from Redarmyrules…. …never mind 6000 Saints at Selhurst try over 20.000 at Selhurst park in 99 against Wimbledon…we had to win 2-0 to stay up we did..the papers as usual downplayed our support making out we took 10.000….as wombledon averaged 3000 and they had nothing to play for and the crowd was a full house…well you do the maths… Secondly, I am less excited about Luke only because I just do not expect him to be here next season, unfortunately if he is offered Chelsea wages and it's the club he supports I can see us losing him more than any other player.. …this is also extra sad because he is one of the few players who does really give us speed of attack and can cross…. Now I have that off my chest somebody cheer me up.[/p][/quote]I'll cheer you up - he's on a long contract. No-one can force you to sell a player.[/p][/quote]Contracts are meaningless if players want to go. Agents can manipulate anything, including forcing clubs to sell players. Many clubs are frightened of agents and employ one to fend off the others. A poacher turned game keeper. One of the main reasons clubs like us put players on long or medium term contracts is so they can get a relatively good transfer fee. We did it with Puncheon when we gave him a three year contract. Poch has no intention of playing wingers, he made no effort to replace Puncheon. Mores the pity in my view, I like wingers. We got £1.75M for Puncheon, a decent price for a player of his ability.[/p][/quote]I'm afraid what you're saying isn't correct. The only reason you have to sell someone is if you're offered enough money that it's worth it to you as the selling club. "Agents can manipulate anything"? Yes, they can stir things up; they can generate the feeling that a deal just has to be done; they can possibly scare selling clubs into lower prices but they can't break contracts. It feels a little like you're contradicting yourself when you say both that contract can be broken and contracts guarantee high selling prices. One or the other but not both. So, as I've said before we MIGHT sell Luke but it'll be at a price where we feel the money coming in can more than improve the team by the amount the team declines with his going. That sentence does make sense. Give it another go.[/p][/quote]What I am saying is contracts work two ways. They guarantee tenure of employment for the player on a decent remuneration package and they ensure the club get a good fee in the transfer market if the player wants to go because his agent has been approached illegally by another club. Long or medium term contracts are an insurance policy for the club. Do you not think Osvaldo's exit was a plan dreamed up between him and his agent so he could get games in Italy and try to get on the plane to Brazil? I do. That I think was a good example of agent manipulation. Two acts of violence, neither of them on the pitch, gets him out of Southampton and on the plane to Italy. His position is untenable with us but he hasn't compromised his position by behaving badly on the field which would get him bad press in Italy and reduce his chances of being picked for the Italian squad because he is liability on the pitch. If a player wants to go and is willing to go to the lengths Osvaldo went with the assistance of an agent, nothing can stop him going. A club won't want to keep a player like that. I grant you that is an extreme example but there are plenty of others about which aren't. Agents have too much power, earn too much money and have too much influence. The length of a contract between a club and a player doesn't in my eyes mean very much if the player/agent wants the player to move.[/p][/quote]You seem to be arguing that contracts are easily circumvented AND that they mean you'll get plenty of cash for a player. One or the other must be true, can't be both. I believe that they allow you to wait until you get so much money offered that you're happy to sell. In which case, where's the problem, as we'll only sell Luke if we get enough cash to make it a worthwhile trade.[/p][/quote]Yes I do mean that. And if a player makes a nuisance of himself the club will sell him below his market value because it is better to compromise on price than have a player who is disruptive and is not wanted by his colleagues. Osvaldo. They will of course do their best to maximise the transfer fee but in the end will give in and compromise because they know the player is not committed to the cause and will continue to be a pain. That's one of the services agents offer to players. How to get yourself a move from a club where you have a decent contract to get a better one somewhere else and make the agent more money. george chivers
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree