You’ve probably got a point. I get the impression that Corteze was a ‘winner’ in his previous life in the banking world (or something like that I recall). He was probably not used to settling and accepting a lower seat in the pecking order. He entered a new industry/market and had every intention of conquering it. In the relative sense at least.
Quite easy though when it’s not your money. He certainly had ambition and wanted to challenge the big boys. How sustainable that would have been for a club of our size is not clear but I doubt it would have worked out.
People are quite quick to point towards us being hamstrung by FFP but that’s too easy a get out for me. Where there’s a will there’s a way. And rich folk always find loopholes in the system to further their fortunes and agendas. I highly doubt football is in any way different. If Katharina wanted to pump more of HER money in to the club she could easily do so without falling foul of FFP. The bottom line is she doesn’t want to. She probably fucking hates football. And that’s fine. I do sometimes as well!
Take Man City as an example. As crazy as it may sound, I don’t perceive them to be a MASSIVE club. I remember them being relegated about 15 years ago and being disastrously owned by the crooked Thai bloke. In my opinion there is no way their turnover is sufficient to make their outgoings acceptable to FFP. They hardly ever sell a player for significant money. Most of their aging players are happy to retire on the bench and in the reserves and collect their disgusting salaries.
If my research is correct (happy to proven wrong) then Man City are owned by a bloke who also happens to be the deputy prime minister and member of the ruling family of the UAE. City’s club sponsor is Etihad. Etihad just so happen to be owned by the government of the UAE. Bearing in mind their political system is far removed from our own… in my mind, albeit simplistically, he is essentially sponsoring himself. That must be a fun negotiation when discussing how much stadium sponsorship is worth. He’s probably the only one needed to be in the room. So he can sell the sponsorship rights to himself for as much as he needs to be able to spend. A closed economy of sorts. I’m no economist so there’s every chance that’s factually inaccurate in some/every way. But to my mind it explains how City exploded on to the scene. Sure, they’ve had a few fines along the way for breaches but that hasn’t stopped them.
What I will say is that if there is no underhandedness or corruption in that little arrangement then I’m a monkey’s uncle. And with such reputable governing bodies such as FIFA on hand to regulate then surely anything is possible.
Professional football is the living and breathing embodiment of capitalism. Disproportionate distribution of wealth and rotten to the core. If they truly wanted to make the league more competitive then salary and spending caps would be instilled and then it would be over to the managers and coaches to earn their corn. Maybe we need a socialist premier league? Ha.
Anyway, I digress…back to Saints. I’m pretty sure if she wanted to rename St Mary’s 'The Liebherr stadium" and ‘pay’ the club £100m a year for the advertising privilege and in turn increase the revenue, with the view to spending more as a club on transfers and wages, then she could. She wants it to be sustainable which is fair enough but it also means that she wants to be able to take her eye off it without fear that it’s eating away at her personal fortune. Again, fair enough. This is supported by the fact she’s plotting her exit and is trying to sell. She’s humoured her fathers investment long enough to honour him and his legacy but now she wants out. Again, fair enough. No judgement here, just stating the facts, they rescued us from the brink.
Since Corteze left we have carved out a new strategy to coexist with the big boys and their mega bucks. Sadly for us as fans it is based on regular upheaval of ambitious managers and young playing staff. We truly are the ‘showcase club’. We literally are a shop window of a football club.
Not great for the fans but it allows us to get to have players like VVD for a couple of years rather than old journeymen like John O’Shea who are surplus to requirements at the elite clubs. The main reason I find it frustrating is that we pay to endure the early days of players like Mane and Redmond being pony and then just when they improve and become enjoyable to watch they have ripened and are plucked by the big boys.
The fact that we also sell to and in turn improve the teams of our immediate rivals is also a bitch. Toby and Wanyama have definitely improved Tottenham and Mane has improved Liverpool significantly. Look at the stats with him and without him. Scary. Whoever we sell Bertrand to will improve that side, just look at how many big boys are crying out for a decent left back. No more so than City and our mates from Anfield who are currently playing a right footed central midfielder there.
VVD will improve all and any of them.
The problem with our moneyball model is that there is a lot of gambling involved and at some stage you will invariably lose the bet. I don’t think it is sustainable long term.
The appointment of Puel certainly felt and still feels like a step towards ‘settling’. He doesn’t strike me as hungry and ambitious like the last two managers were and who brought us relative success. He hasn’t job hopped, he has been loyal to clubs. And that is probably exactly why he was attractive to Les. That and his willing to us the academy. That sounds more like a criticism than I intend but hey ho. After MP and RK we all wished for somebody to stick around for more than two years so it’s perhaps a case of be careful what you wish for? Ha, irony.
In terms of the future, I have no clue what direction we are heading in. With ownership issues up in the air it won’t be an uninteresting summer that’s for damn sure.
Apologies for how fucking Long this is!
