Maybe weāve become a bit blinkerd by our recent success , but it used to be a source of great pride to be able to field a starting 11 plus subs that contained a good number of acadamy players. Last few years that really hasnāt been the case. Iād assumed it was because we were seeing the effects of the admin years coming through, but maybe not.
Originally posted by @areloa-grandee
Yep its a great - its an ideal approachā¦but not without a fair degree of risk given the league we are inā¦ its how we assess that risk and whether we feel its manageble or not, this is where there will be differences of opinion.
At this level, every signing, appointment or team selection is a risk - thereās huge sums of money and huge audiences involved in every game. Everything is a risk
The approach I outlined above is about risk limitation. In trying to stick to certain ways of doing things, or of running the club you attempt to minimise potential risk by keeping things as similar as possible.
Hiring a new manager with a different way of doing things brings about a huge amount of upheaval, and with that more uncertainty.
You talk of āriskā but the risk you present is a bit vague, and seems to be applied to the risk present in every decision ever taken at a top level football club.
Nothing new in your post - you seem to insinuate that I am missing the the 'logicāin our approach which is clearly obvious. I am not questioning the obvious benefits of the strategy, just pointing out that its is NOT perfect and not with out increasing risks.
All approaches carry risk - BUT one in which personnel change so frequently no matter how good your recruitment process is IMHO riskier than most - the risks were outlined in my previous post - The risks asociated with lack of continuity. Because no matter how much the desire is to create a system where no one person is irreplaceable and new folks can āslot inā (and it is indeed a fine notion), there is always added complication when talent leaves an organization - and with this strategy:
-
You are in some respects limited to personel who WILL be happy to fit in as opposed to bringing their own system (potentially the RK situation has come to a head because of this?), This can in time limit creativity, nmew ideas and innovation - as well as how quickly an organization can adapt to competitive threatsā¦
-
That the personnel do actually fit and can deliver.
-
That playing personnel gell and settle quickly as there is no time for a season to adaptā¦ its ok with 1 maybe 2, but 3, 4 or 5 1st team starters ? We have been lucky IMHO in this respect, for points 2 and 3, but no system is perfect as we have seen.
But what is often not discussed is that we are in effect improving the opposition - (beyond what happens when we sell teh odd player) yes we get financially rewarded, but ultimately we may find that our competitors improve and we are left further behind as they buy our ready made quality playersā¦discovered by our investment, nutured for the prem, and improved by us for their benefitā¦ makes a huge amount of sense from a business and financial perspectiveā¦ am sure KL and Ralph are very pleased with this, but from a footballing one it has obvious dangers in such a competitive environmentā¦ and smacks of acceptance of our position which in sport is a killerā¦ because sport has to be abput striving for improvement and being the best you canā¦ not being the best at helping to improve othersā¦
Can I submit Glass Half Nuked as your new username, GA?
Am I to understand that we are the single swirl in an unbroken sea of managerial calm elsewhere?
I was under the impression that continuity was a pretty rare commodity at managerial or player level.
You can moan about things not being settled if you wish, but I donāt think that you can level much fault at the club, that have to deal with the upsets caused by other clubs. As things stand, all the other aspects of the club are stable. I expect that the club still takes the view that the manager is the head of an important department. Our whole setup is built to absorb these shocks.
I donāt think weāre having high player & staff turnover because that is our ultimate strategy, I think itās happening bc other clubs look at little southampton doing well, ignore the fact that itās bc weāre gd club now, and think it must be more that Lovren is worth Ā£20m, and that Koeman is worldās greatest manager. Thatās not our fault, itās the other clubs what is dumb imo.
7 Likes
Am not suggesting club or RK are at fault her, just qestining whether the lack of flexibilty in out strategy is a contributor to teh complication - help or hinderance? We seem to have āaccepetedā the the club is rightā¦ all I am doing is posing a few questions to challenge this assumption? I believe there is value in our approach, but lets not get carried away and suggest its perfect or that it is not without inherent riskā¦ and that our approach can be restrictive.
Originally posted by @areloa-grandee
Nothing new in your post - you seem to insinuate that I am missing the the 'logicāin our approach which is clearly obvious. I am not questioning the obvious benefits of the strategy, just pointing out that its is NOT perfect and not with out increasing risks.
All approaches carry risk - BUT one in which personnel change so frequently no matter how good your recruitment process is IMHO riskier than most - the risks were outlined in my previous post - The risks asociated with lack of continuity. Because no matter how much the desire is to create a system where no one person is irreplaceable and new folks can āslot inā (and it is indeed a fine notion), there is always added complication when talent leaves an organization - and with this strategy:
You are in some respects limited to personel who WILL be happy to fit in as opposed to bringing their own system (potentially the RK situation has come to a head because of this?),
That the personnel do actually fit and can deliver.
That playing personnel gell and settle quickly as there is no time for a season to adaptā¦ its ok with 1 maybe 2, but 3, 4 or 5 1st team starters ? We have been lucky IMHO in this respect, for points 2 and 3, but no system is perfect as we have seen.
But what is often not discussed is that we are in effect improving the opposition - (beyond what happens when we sell teh odd player) yes we get financially rewarded, but ultimately we may find that our competitors improve and we are left further behind as they buy our ready made quality playersā¦discovered by our investment, nutured for the prem, and improved by us for their benefitā¦ makes a huge amount of sense from a business and financial perspectiveā¦ am sure KL and Ralph are very pleased with this, but from a footballing one it has obvious dangers in such a competitive environmentā¦ and smacks of acceptance of our position which in sport is a killerā¦ because sport has to be abput striving for improvement and being the best you canā¦ not being the best at helping to improve othersā¦
I think you are missing that short life spans, of both players and managers, are the norm now. This isnāt Saints strategy, itās the football environment.
Obviously continuity would be preferable. But that just doesnāt really happen anywhere. Itās not just Saints, that is football in general. The strategy is not to chop and change constantly, but, you have to be realistic and understand the environment you operate in. Trying to work in a model where players and staff never leave is unrealistic. Therefore, the strategy is about best managing the environment you are in.
Itās very well and good saying we improve the opposition, but how many of the players that have left in recent times have actually been that great at their new homes? This suggests that the approach of having an over-riding vision is a good way to go.
As for acceptance of our position. I keep seeing you mention this, but what is the alternative? Really? We are a mid-sized provincial club. We donāt have a huge fanbase, we donāt have a huge stadium, and donāt have access to uber-rich oil barons. The only way to have sustained success is to build the solid foundations of a club that can find gems, and sell them on. We canāt compete with bigger, more monied teams for fees or wages. Being a well-run club, that helps to progress players/managers is good for the club. Even if that does mean we are seen as a stepping-stone, we will still benefit from the talents of those progressing on to other things. People wanting our staff and players shows that we are doing the right things. I will be much more concerned if no one wants them.
Yes, it means some will go. But as has been repeated to death, there are 2, maybe 3 clubs on the planet that are not stepping stones. We know that, everyone knows that. That doesnāt equate to not looking to improve however, and with every success we have, and we every profit we make on players we have unearthed, or produced from the Academy we can attempt to mitigate the relative shortfalls we have due to financial clout or relative fan base.
What you seay is all well and good, again nothing new and now disputeā¦ its just a riskier approach, not because its not sensible, but because it relies on too muc luck IMHO. Success ghas alwways been built on continuity - no surprize that many of the ātopā cubs struggled this season because of many changesā¦ and Leicester took advantageā¦
The biggest problem with my POV is that the only way I can illustrate my point is is we have a crap season/s which I really dont want to see.
I still cannot comprehend what you are suggesting though?
How exactly do you think any team can over haul the current state of football and achieve this state of continuity? The only way I can see is being so mediocre every year that we never go down, but never cause any trouble - which attracts attention of the teams above us?
The only real alternative is to blow every other team out of the water financially, which isnāt likely to happen any time soon.
Continuity is only less risky when you are already at the top. If you are planning to improve, continuity is highly likely to fail (youāre relying on all your staff improving). Replacing people may fail or it may succeed and you can lean the chances in your favour with good research.
Thatāll be the same Leicester City who sacked their manager, whoād just pulled off the remarkable feat of keeping them up the previous season, and who brought in a number of players who nobody much fancied then? A lot of continuity there.
I get your argument, but what would you propose we do? If you really want stability, youāll almost certainly have to pay for it - and pay big time. Assuming we really wanted to keep Koeman (which is by no means a certainty), should we have doubled his salary and given him a nine-figure sum to spend on players? Personally, Iām glad that we didnāt.
Originally posted by @areloa-grandee
Originally posted by @pap
Can I submit Glass Half Nuked as your new username, GA?
Am I to understand that we are the single swirl in an unbroken sea of managerial calm elsewhere?
I was under the impression that continuity was a pretty rare commodity at managerial or player level.
You can moan about things not being settled if you wish, but I donāt think that you can level much fault at the club, that have to deal with the upsets caused by other clubs. As things stand, all the other aspects of the club are stable. I expect that the club still takes the view that the manager is the head of an important department. Our whole setup is built to absorb these shocks.
Am not suggesting club or RK are at fault her, just qestining whether the lack of flexibilty in out strategy is a contributor to teh complication - help or hinderance? We seem to have āaccepetedā the the club is rightā¦ all I am doing is posing a few questions to challenge this assumption? I believe there is value in our approach, but lets not get carried away and suggest its perfect or that it is not without inherent riskā¦ and that our approach can be restrictive.
What do you think the club should be doing better?
The club has chosen a strategy
I am merely suggesting the issues/risks with that strategy (imho). All approaches have pros and cons and whilst others have eloquently highlighted the pros of what we are doing, seems only fair to also point out the consā¦
I wish we were not not fed aload of BS about it though through the philosophical exchange or otherwise
unfortunately, thatās not an answer to papās question. What would you rather see happen? What should the club be doing?
2 Likes
Sorry, I am under no obligation to provide one. I can not provide a proposal on strategy without first having access to all the information, with respect to financing, costs, qality of academy kids etcā¦ thats the consultant in me 
but in all seriousness, making recommendations on such things does need information first as depends on a lot of variables.
Hmmmmā¦sounds like a cop out to me. If you need all of this extra information, how have you come to your original negative position?
Only presented the cons Fatsoā¦ in the interests of balance and transparency
Thereās no balance in what youāre saying though!
Fkn consultants.
Ooh, i wouldnāt do it like that, v.dodgy.
How would you do it then?
Dunno really. Pay me Ā£75 an hour, and Iāll look into it.
5 Likes
Haha Bearsy, woudl get me for about 10 minutes for that.
1 Like