Why it is smart? I'm sure Southampton knows what its like being in lower leagues and the value of the sell on clause for smaller clubs, what if other clubs starts doing samething to them? Like for example, Arsenal ******* them for Walcott and Ox deals if they have sell on clause.
I don't believe there is any truth in the reports but if they do them both clubs should be ashamed of the way they do business by killing smaller club.
Your are getting mixed up between smart and morally wrong... I completely agree it is morally wrong but from a business sense it is a very smart thing to do
Liverpool get the players they want, Southampton get more of the money, Bournemouth gets less... Perfect scenario for Southampton and it works out for Liverpool
That's business.
I'm not getting mixed up.
1. It's morally wrong.
2. It's not smart as I explained before. Southampton do have many sell on clauses and assuming they have for Walcott and Ox, what'll will stop Arsenal doing same thing to them?
I feel England is a place where lower league clubs are respected and looked after and that's one of the reason why no club have done this sort of dickish move before. This is not some genius move from Southampton, it's a moronic move which will only block lower league clubs making any business with them in future.
I doubt it was Liverpool's idea to overpay for Lovren and pay less for Lallana: it was probably Southampton who suggested that, as they are the only club to gain from it. If you were Ian Ayre (or whoever's leading the negotiation team), would you not just meet Southampton's asking price if it's reasonable?Because if this is true then Liverpool and Southampton negotiate price like overpaying for Lovern and getting Lallana for much lesser price. Southampton gets the money they would have got for selling both and they also save the sell on clause money that they owe to smaller club.
These kind of deals cannot happen without 2 clubs agreeing.
I doubt it was Liverpool's idea to overpay for Lovren and pay less for Lallana: it was probably Southampton who suggested that, as they are the only club to gain from it. If you were Ian Ayre (or whoever's leading the negotiation team), would you not just meet Southampton's asking price if it's reasonable?
So, for example, if United had enquired for both Fellaini and Baines last summer, and Everton had asked for ?20 million for Baines and ?10 million for Fellaini (because Fellaini, hypothetically, had a clause), would you not have taken it if you had thought ?30 million for the pair was reasonable?
It makes absolutely no difference to Liverpool if they pay ?12 million for Lovren and ?18 million for Lallana or ?28 million for Lovren and ?2 million for Lallana, so I doubt they'd go out of their way to be moral and negotiate a deal where Southampton get less of the transfer fee (which would annoy Southampton and perhaps even lead to negotiations breaking down).
Southampton wont care one bit about what Arsenal do in the future, right now they are getting more money out of a deal, that's all that matters.
Again, completely wrong, leaves a sour taste in the mouth but it is not moronic it's a smart business move and i would do exactly the same if i meant my club came out with 5-6 million extra
I doubt it was Liverpool's idea to overpay for Lovren and pay less for Lallana: it was probably Southampton who suggested that, as they are the only club to gain from it. If you were Ian Ayre (or whoever's leading the negotiation team), would you not just meet Southampton's asking price if it's reasonable?
So, for example, if United had enquired for both Fellaini and Baines last summer, and Everton had asked for ?20 million for Baines and ?10 million for Fellaini (because Fellaini, hypothetically, had a clause), would you not have taken it if you had thought ?30 million for the pair was reasonable?
It makes absolutely no difference to Liverpool if they pay ?12 million for Lovren and ?18 million for Lallana or ?28 million for Lovren and ?2 million for Lallana, so I doubt they'd go out of their way to be moral and negotiate a deal where Southampton get less of the transfer fee (which would annoy Southampton and perhaps even lead to negotiations breaking down).
So how will any lower league clubs do any business with Southampton after knowing what kind of management they have?
So 5-6 Million is all that matters? I'm sure this is just rumor with no truth whatsoever but if it true then like I said both the clubs should be ashamed of this business, at least southampton should know better as they were in similar position 3-4 years back and none of the clubs tried to **** them up.
Never said it was Liverpool's idea, for sure it would be Southampton as they will benefit more than anyone, just that Liverpool are helping them to **** the lower league club.
So how will any lower league clubs do any business with Southampton after knowing what kind of management they have?
So 5-6 Million is all that matters? I'm sure this is just rumor with no truth whatsoever but if it true then like I said both the clubs should be ashamed of this business, at least southampton should know better as they were in similar position 3-4 years back and none of the clubs tried to **** them up.
Never said it was Liverpool's idea, for sure it would be Southampton as they will benefit more than anyone, just that Liverpool are helping them to **** the lower league club.
*puts on rose tinted glasses*
I remember the days when football had ethics and morals. Whatever happened to those days.
It's what happens... I am amazed you are surprised about this to be honest!
It's what happens? Care to share any transfers like this?
Don't tell Monaco deal as it didn't happen like that.
It's what happens? Care to share any transfers like this?
Don't tell Monaco deal as it didn't happen like that.
Get over it.
It's like saying a big business would waste 5-6million because it helps the smaller businesses.. It doesn't work like that. If there is a way to save money, you save it.
Why do you care so much? It's hardly surprising that Sunderland want to make the most of our interest in their players whilst keeping the majority of the money for themselves.
It's hardly the first shady deal and it's far from the worst that's happened.
Big business is different from football. I have never seen big companies selling their employees for money. It's dickish move, not sure what's there to argue.
Big business is different from football. I have never seen big companies selling their employees for money. It's dickish move, not sure what's there to argue.
Its not Sunderland.
I don't care but that doesn't mean I don't have to express my opinion on something that is happening (rumored). I post what I feel and I feel that it's unethical move from both clubs.
Business is not different from football.... You're right, i'm not sure what there is to argue considering its a very smart move from Southampton
Back in the 1960s in Poland when Legia ( back then owned by Polish Army) wanted a player, they would just force him to enlist. Players were then given regular military ranks and they 'served' in the club.
Good times indeed.
Lets see how this smart thing works.
ManUtd and Barca made bids for Ronaldinho, we made 30 Million bid whereas Barca made just 27 Million. Our smart **** Kenyon reduced the bid to 28 Million (after agreeing 30 Million with PSG), so PSG got ****** off and sold him to Barca for 27 Million.
If they try to be so smart I hope it ***** their future transfers with lower league teams big time.