Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Bexley

Who made the best purchase? Southampton getting Lambert or us getting Holt?

Recommended Posts

Holt because even with their 10 points back they would be no where near us. That said Barnard is looking more and more like a good signing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Has to be Holt every time for me. He was, as far as I know, far cheaper than Lambert and has been fantastic as a ''figurehead'' type of player - he''s the captain and a 100-er every game. He''d have also had plenty more goals under his belt had he been our penalty taker.

I don''t really know a great deal about Lambert but he didn''t look great against us, was well outshone by Barnard. And as someone else has said, Saints would still be miles behind even without their 10 point deduction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I still think that Lambert is the better player out of the two and has more potential at a higher level.That said Holt was half the price of Lambert and along with Chris Martin, plus another addition to the squad, I am confident that Holty can chip in with a fair few goals in the Championship for us too.Would still liked to of had Barnard as part of our squad for around the £250k that the Saints spent on him though... Puncheon too is a player who I think was an absolute bargain and somebody I would very much liked to of seen added to our squad (another one who has the ability to succeed at a higher level - can''t see why Plymouth got shot of him).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Branston Pickle"]Has to be Holt every time for me. He was, as far as I know, far cheaper than Lambert and has been fantastic as a ''figurehead'' type of player - he''s the captain and a 100-er every game. He''d have also had plenty more goals under his belt had he been our penalty taker.

I don''t really know a great deal about Lambert but he didn''t look great against us, was well outshone by Barnard. And as someone else has said, Saints would still be miles behind even without their 10 point deduction.[/quote]I think that the 10 point deduction theory is way off to be honest.  Do you believe that we would be sat in the play-offs now if we started the season with a 10 point deduction?  It is more than merely a points deduction - it has a mental impact upon a clubs fans, players and officials for months after that penalty is handed down to them.I also tried to point out that although Rickie Lambert takes the Saints penalties, Holt has taken one of our spot kicks and converted and also has the opportunity to score goals from corner kicks where as Lambert is unlikely to score from a flag kick unless he curls it straight in as he has to take them despite being one of the Saints strongest players in the air.  I think that Lambert and Holt have been playing on a pretty level playing field when it comes to their goals per game ratios this season - I don''t buy in to this Holt not taking penalties lets add a few goals on to his total malarky.The best thing about us having Holt is that he cost us half as much as what the Saints spent on Lambert.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering we paid 500k for holt and they paid 1.5 mill for lambert id have to go with holt..... not that im bias or anything ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lambert cost around £1 million or more. Holty cost £500k. Lambert is 28 and Holty is 29 so neither is exactly a spring chicken. So in terms of value, Holty for me. Oh and throw in the fact he is also an absolute legend and we love him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Smudger"]I still think that Lambert is the better player out of the two and has more potential at a higher level.That said Holt was half the price of Lambert and along with Chris Martin, plus another addition to the squad, I am confident that Holty can chip in with a fair few goals in the Championship for us too.Would still liked to of had Barnard as part of our squad for around the £250k that the Saints spent on him though... Puncheon too is a player who I think was an absolute bargain and somebody I would very much liked to of seen added to our squad (another one who has the ability to succeed at a higher level - can''t see why Plymouth got shot of him).[/quote]We are going to need another striker of Lee Barnard''s quality next year if we are going to make a success of the championship so it would have made sense to have paid the £250,000 for him in January. Also he would not have scored 2 goals against us! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Smudger"][quote user="Branston Pickle"]Has to be Holt every time for me. He was, as far as I know, far cheaper than Lambert and has been fantastic as a ''figurehead'' type of player - he''s the captain and a 100-er every game. He''d have also had plenty more goals under his belt had he been our penalty taker.

I don''t really know a great deal about Lambert but he didn''t look great against us, was well outshone by Barnard. And as someone else has said, Saints would still be miles behind even without their 10 point deduction.[/quote]I think that the 10 point deduction theory is way off to be honest.  Do you believe that we would be sat in the play-offs now if we started the season with a 10 point deduction?  It is more than merely a points deduction - it has a mental impact upon a clubs fans, players and officials for months after that penalty is handed down to them.I also tried to point out that although Rickie Lambert takes the Saints penalties, Holt has taken one of our spot kicks and converted and also has the opportunity to score goals from corner kicks where as Lambert is unlikely to score from a flag kick unless he curls it straight in as he has to take them despite being one of the Saints strongest players in the air.  I think that Lambert and Holt have been playing on a pretty level playing field when it comes to their goals per game ratios this season - I don''t buy in to this Holt not taking penalties lets add a few goals on to his total malarky.The best thing about us having Holt is that he cost us half as much as what the Saints spent on Lambert.[/quote]Plus Southamptons team at the start of the season compared to now is completely changed! It is now more like Pardews team than before they are his players not reject left behinds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Time will tell on this one. It all depends on what happens over the summer.I say that because Lambert will be stuck in this division for another season and there is nothing saying that a champ club or even a prem club wont take a punt on him. Having a class player always has its risks.For example look at Beckford. What happened with him at Leeds is arguably one of the main reasons their promotion charge has wobbled and almost fallen off the rails completely. The same could happen at Southampton.Strangely if you compare their league stats Holt seems to have the marginally better reccord and is a year older.Holt cost a rumoured £400k Vs Lamberts rumoured £800k rising to £1million+ subject to appearences.League goals Holt is on 19 Vs Lamberts 21. Is that £400k rising to £600k more for Lambert worth that extra two goals?I would have to say at the moment Holt was the better buy simply because he works out to be better value for money. For the sake of two goals I also dont think there is much else in it.As for the people who say they are off the play off pack. If you consider they have two games in hand on most of the play off teams and they stand at 41 points, consider if they win those two games in hand which takes them to 47 and then add on the ten points - 57. They are one point behind Millwall and Huddersfield and 9 ahead of MK Dons.However - how a team can go into administration and then afford to pay out millions of pounds for players seems a bit wrong to me - and lets not forget he is the not the only one they have forked out a load of money for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Iwan Roberts Dentist"]Lambert cost around £1 million or more. Holty cost £500k. Lambert is 28 and Holty is 29 so neither is exactly a spring chicken. So in terms of value, Holty for me. Oh and throw in the fact he is also an absolute legend and we love him.[/quote]Holt is still 28! Lambert just turned 28 and Holt turns 29 in April. At this rate Holt will have been 29 for over 18months . . . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It annoys me how some clubs seem to get off lightly with the administration thing. Ok the 10 point deduction is a small hit, but Southampton have had all debts written off and are rebuilding a strong team. IMO regardless of any new owners, the club should still be responsible for paying off the people they owe money too, when they have the means to pay it. If they want to get away from paying the debt, the club should be dissolved, and have to reapply to join the football league, probably in at least 2 divisions lower. Similar to what has happened at Kings Lynn.

This would mean, the administration option is more like a limited time freeze on debt payments, meaning the clubs can survive, but must sort out their overspending and quickly. If no progress was being made they would have to be wound down by the administrators over time until they were a viable financial concern.

I''m sure this would make clubs far more reluctant to take the adminstration thing as an easy option to get back on track, with the 10 points being a very limited penalty for years of overspending and living beyond their means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Smudger"]

I think that the 10 point deduction theory is way off to be honest.  Do you believe that we would be sat in the play-offs now if we started the season with a 10 point deduction?  It is more than merely a points deduction - it has a mental impact upon a clubs fans, players and officials for months after that penalty is handed down to them.

[/quote]

I am not sure it is.   Without the 10 pt penalty would it have been realistic for them to be aiming for automatic promotion of 90 points?   Yes it was.   Even with the deduction that leaves 80pts and comfortably in the play offs.    Having spend £1.25m on lambert and invested in loans and players during the season play offs was def the aim.

despite that they remain well off the pace for a play off slot.

They are now in a rich vein off form which will hopefully impact our competitors ;   but like MK dons they have been too inconsistent across the season.   They have not been focused enough to succeed where we have.   For me that is a manager and club underperforming and not matching the ambition they should have held...

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Smudger"][quote user="Branston Pickle"]Has to be Holt every time for me. He was, as far as I know, far cheaper than Lambert and has been fantastic as a ''figurehead'' type of player - he''s the captain and a 100-er every game. He''d have also had plenty more goals under his belt had he been our penalty taker.

I don''t really know a great deal about Lambert but he didn''t look great against us, was well outshone by Barnard. And as someone else has said, Saints would still be miles behind even without their 10 point deduction.[/quote]I think that the 10 point deduction theory is way off to be honest.  Do you believe that we would be sat in the play-offs now if we started the season with a 10 point deduction?  It is more than merely a points deduction - it has a mental impact upon a clubs fans, players and officials for months after that penalty is handed down to them.I also tried to point out that although Rickie Lambert takes the Saints penalties, Holt has taken one of our spot kicks and converted and also has the opportunity to score goals from corner kicks where as Lambert is unlikely to score from a flag kick unless he curls it straight in as he has to take them despite being one of the Saints strongest players in the air.  I think that Lambert and Holt have been playing on a pretty level playing field when it comes to their goals per game ratios this season - I don''t buy in to this Holt not taking penalties lets add a few goals on to his total malarky.The best thing about us having Holt is that he cost us half as much as what the Saints spent on Lambert.[/quote]Didnt Leeds make the play-offs with a bigger points deduction?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="ZippersLeftFoot"]

[quote user="Smudger"]

I think that the 10 point deduction theory is way off to be honest.  Do you believe that we would be sat in the play-offs now if we started the season with a 10 point deduction?  It is more than merely a points deduction - it has a mental impact upon a clubs fans, players and officials for months after that penalty is handed down to them.

[/quote]

I am not sure it is.   Without the 10 pt penalty would it have been realistic for them to be aiming for automatic promotion of 90 points?   Yes it was.   Even with the deduction that leaves 80pts and comfortably in the play offs.    Having spend £1.25m on lambert and invested in loans and players during the season play offs was def the aim.

despite that they remain well off the pace for a play off slot.

They are now in a rich vein off form which will hopefully impact our competitors ;   but like MK dons they have been too inconsistent across the season.   They have not been focused enough to succeed where we have.   For me that is a manager and club underperforming and not matching the ambition they should have held...

 

 

 

[/quote]

I think the key issue is the strength of their squad now compared to before the window. The addition of Barnard and Puncheon as well as Fonte and Seabourne (let''s not mention Semmy!) has given them both strength in depth and a very varied and potent attacking threat. Had they had that squad from day one I suspect that they would be very close to a play off spot now, and they should be shoo-in for automatic promotion next year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. I think to be hones they are a more balanced and more measured side than us now. I think Barnard and Lambert are the equal of Holt and Martin up front. Plus I think Puncheon and Lallana offer quality from out wide which we simply can''t match. I agree with Smudge that Barnard would have been a great signing but financially could it have worked? Would he have been happy with spending time on the bench? Would it have unsettled Chris Martin?

I think the big error was not going in for Puncheon. He is the sort of right sided player we were crying out for. He has help to take points off us twice this season (remember that free kick for MK Dons as well?). If we had him in the side we could deploy the 4-4-2 as a genuine alternative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thread might have read: Who made the best purchase? Southampton getting Lambert or us Getting Lambert. I know I''d go for us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I see it is: Southampton have signed a very decent striker for this level who will score goals and contribute with the odd free kick.We signed a leader on the pitch, something we''ve lacked for years. A man who will hold it up and work effortlessly for his team mates, defend from the front and has also contributed with a brilliant goal haul for a striker that works so hard.I honestly don''t think we would be at the top of the league had we have signed Lambert and not Holt. In all likelyhood, we will be in the Championship next season and Southampton will have to try again. Assuming they don''t make the playoffs, who''s to say bigger clubs wont come in for Lambert, Barnard, Lalanna, etc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="king canary"][quote user="Smudger"][quote user="Branston Pickle"]Has to be Holt every time for me. He was, as far as I know, far cheaper than Lambert and has been fantastic as a ''figurehead'' type of player - he''s the captain and a 100-er every game. He''d have also had plenty more goals under his belt had he been our penalty taker.

I don''t really know a great deal about Lambert but he didn''t look great against us, was well outshone by Barnard. And as someone else has said, Saints would still be miles behind even without their 10 point deduction.[/quote]I think that the 10 point deduction theory is way off to be honest.  Do you believe that we would be sat in the play-offs now if we started the season with a 10 point deduction?  It is more than merely a points deduction - it has a mental impact upon a clubs fans, players and officials for months after that penalty is handed down to them.I also tried to point out that although Rickie Lambert takes the Saints penalties, Holt has taken one of our spot kicks and converted and also has the opportunity to score goals from corner kicks where as Lambert is unlikely to score from a flag kick unless he curls it straight in as he has to take them despite being one of the Saints strongest players in the air.  I think that Lambert and Holt have been playing on a pretty level playing field when it comes to their goals per game ratios this season - I don''t buy in to this Holt not taking penalties lets add a few goals on to his total malarky.The best thing about us having Holt is that he cost us half as much as what the Saints spent on Lambert.[/quote]Didnt Leeds make the play-offs with a bigger points deduction?[/quote]Not sure what Leeds points deduction was in their first season down here, but they did make the play-offs YES.Leeds did fantastically well to make the play-offs that year.  They seemed to rebel against the points deduction almost and it spurred them on I think. I believe that there is certainly a mental effect that the points deduction itself has on a team though.I think that the Saints would be comfortable in the play-offs (at least) now, if it was not for the lingering effects that the points deduction seemed to have on their early season performances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Larry David"]The way I see it is: Southampton have signed a very decent striker for this level who will score goals and contribute with the odd free kick.We signed a leader on the pitch, something we''ve lacked for years. A man who will hold it up and work effortlessly for his team mates, defend from the front and has also contributed with a brilliant goal haul for a striker that works so hard.I honestly don''t think we would be at the top of the league had we have signed Lambert and not Holt. In all likelyhood, we will be in the Championship next season and Southampton will have to try again. Assuming they don''t make the playoffs, who''s to say bigger clubs wont come in for Lambert, Barnard, Lalanna, etc?[/quote]This is the problem that the Saints and any other team that misses out on promotion this season will face Larry... [Y]But for the money that the Saints have reportedly spent on Barnard and Puncheon they would surely be set to make a healthy profit if they did let either of them go.  They would probably make a little on Lambert, but not so sure as to how Adam Lallana''s contract looks at the moment.  Had I heard somewhere recently that Lallana was stalling on signing a new contract until the end of the season?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="followtheboyzinyellow"]One thing that no one seems to have mentioned is that has it ever been said that we didn''t try to sign Barnard or Puncheon? I imagine that Southampton would have been offering much higher wages than us[/quote]No... [;)]Do you work for the club?Is that what you are telling us???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...