Stern John to Palace part 2

[MOSaint]

The way I read the Stern bit was that Palace simply offered him a contract and he now has to choose between us and them. It would be a shame if he left, but I wouldn't blame him as Palace are in the Championship.

 

The big problem is that Rasiak definitely wants to go and I think we need to keep one of them in order to do well this season unless AP spends a bit of money as this will leave us needing three strikers considering Saga will be off too.

[OldNick]

Remarkably pessimistic, and I can only hope you are wrong. I would guess that the club will stick to a wage structure and not break the bank just to keep someone like SJ (much as I rate him) at SMS. As someone said, surely it will come down to loyalty and a desire for 90 minutes at Saints vs higher status and wages at Palace.

 

As for being run as a profit making company, that is not going to happen unless we get back to the EPL. I can't see that ML spent 10M+ on us just to settle for generating a few thousand every few months in L1.

 

You say a leopard never changes its spots, but this leopard is still a cub, give it a chance! :-)

I also dearly want to be wrong. It has been put on here Leeds make a decent profit in L1. ML got rid of the major cost of running the club in his purchase. To break even is a much lower level now. Of course he may have bought the club as a loan and interest to be paid back to him . That will of course make the running costs seem higher.

The leopard reference is not aimed at Saints but to MR Liebherr, in respect he has made it evident that all businesses have to stand on their own feet, therefore I doubt his ethics are going to change. As I say I hope to be wrong.

I do expect a small amount of money to be made available to purchase players to make sure we can comfortably stave off relegation. If we start doing well, the crowds will return and then the transfer money will be self generating

[NickG]

Nick you say "clearing the stadium loan" but really that was all wrapped up in the purchase price when ML acquired the club (12m?) so he got a bargain imo.

 

However I am today hearing positive news that substantual (for a club outside the Prem) funds will be made available should they be required. I guess it is going to take time but after the last few years we are all anxious to get the cart back on the right track.

 

it maybe a bargain, but it still makes a real difference to our running costs

[Clifford Nelson]

iam very happy, i made an observation not a complaint.Iam very happy to have a football club to support.

 

Just don't equate St Markus, the glorious one, with the schweinhund RL.

[Matthew Le God]

it maybe a bargain, but it still makes a real difference to our running costs

 

We are debt free so no impact on the running costs what so ever.

[OldNick]

As we are L1 now, an Mr L has (apparently) paid off the stadium loan, and cleared the overdraft, that must have reduced our costs considerably. That's actually quite a big help. No doubt signings will have to fit with projected revenue (whether that's a projection over the short or over a longer term we have yet to find out). What we also don't know yet is whether Mr L will also be setting up a stadium holding company to whom the club will have to pay a rent, reducing the cost saving benefits.

 

You could be right about RL part2, but the new Mr L might not be so lacking in ambition, and may well be prepared to take a longer term view of costs and income, so the business plan could be more "flexible". I'm sure he realises that and won't want a floundering L1 team club on his hands.

He has appointed Pardew who certainly isn't another 40k a year man or whatever Lowe was paying MW & JP, so there is some evidence that he is prepared to spend to improve.

At least you can understand what i was alluding to, not a criticism but an observation. I agree that he may have more ambition than RL, but in the financial sense of it paying its way (ML is by far a better businessman of course, and I dont want to bring the old arguements about that man)

[CB Fry]

it maybe a bargain, but it still makes a real difference to our running costs

 

 

Yes, it does. It massively reduces them.

[OldNick]

Just don't equate St Markus, the glorious one, with the schweinhund RL.

I agree

[NickG]

We are debt free so no impact on the running costs what so ever.

 

the stadium debt didn't cost us anything then?

[Matthew Le God]

the stadium debt didn't cost us anything then?

 

It has been cleared. Not been made public how this was done. But Nicola Cortese has stated that we have "no debt". So no more stadium repayments.

[VectisSaint]

It has been cleared. Not been made public how this was done. But Nicola Cortese has stated that we have "no debt". So no more stadium repayments.

So, thats a massive saving then, because before it did cost us.

[Matthew Le God]

So, thats a massive saving then, because before it did cost us.

 

Indeed, a massive saving per season.

[eurosaint]

One of the most preposterous, and potentially deliberately attention seeking, claims made on here in recent history; not to mention another missed apostrophe.

 

Don't worry Joe this is a compliment from nick as he was one of RL's biggest fans !

[hughieslastminutegoal]

It has been cleared. Not been made public how this was done. But Nicola Cortese has stated that we have "no debt". So no more stadium repayments.

 

No debt (and no repayments) isn't quite the same thing as no stadium payments. He could, for example make the club pay a rent for the stadium. Not saying he will, but at the moment no one knows how the club's finances will be organised. I don't think we can assume anything, but he won't have bought the club for it to limp along and just scrape survival out of the ashes.

[NickG]

:confused:

We are debt free so no impact on the running costs what so ever.

 

Indeed, a massive saving per season.

 

is it just me confused at what you are saying??:confused:

 

 

In answer to NickH saying there is lack of investment I made the point that by clearing the debt, reducing the stadium running costs, there has already been an indirect investment, i.e. a lot more money available for team.

[NickG]

No debt (and no repayments) isn't quite the same thing as no stadium payments. He could, for example make the club pay a rent for the stadium. Not saying he will, but at the moment no one knows how the club's finances will be organised. I don't think we can assume anything, but he won't have bought the club for it to limp along and just scrape survival out of the ashes.

 

the club own the stadium, they are now one and the same. The club would be paying rent to themselves!

[hughieslastminutegoal]

the club own the stadium, they are now one and the same. The club would be paying rent to themselves!

 

Do you know for a fact that there is (and will only be) one entity?

Are you saying that you know for sure that Mr L will not indulge in any of the former regime's company structurings?

 

What is the current legal status of the club and it's relationship to Mr L?

I bet you don't actually know for sure. I think you are surmising.

[Clifford Nelson]

the stadium debt didn't cost us anything then?

 

Since the mortgage was in the region of £30M it's hard to believe that it was part of the purchase price, but we are, according to Cortese, "debt free".

 

I guess that the Norwich Union/Aviva's arm was twisted quite ferociously, and since one wonders who else would like to buy a premiership stadium in Southampton, the price was probably reasonable.

 

That means that all income goes towards the running costs of the club. It will, however, be a great difference in income if we have an average of 15000, 25000 or 30000. There is obviously a break-even figure. I wonder what that one is.

[NickG]

Do you know for a fact that there is (and will only be) one entity?

Are you saying that you know for sure that Mr L will not indulge in any of the former regime's company structurings?

 

What is the current legal status of the club and it's relationship to Mr L?

I bet you don't actually know for sure. I think you are surmising.

 

one entity as in Liebherr has bought a single package off of fry, sole owner, private company - of course he could split it and start cross charging but that doesn't fit in with anything he has said on the matter.

 

The previous structure were for very different reasons - not least not privately owned by one person.

[CB Fry]

Do you know for a fact that there is (and will only be) one entity?

Are you saying that you know for sure that Mr L will not indulge in any of the former regime's company structurings?

 

What is the current legal status of the club and it's relationship to Mr L?

I bet you don't actually know for sure. I think you are surmising.

 

 

So what are you doing apart from "surmising" that there is some convoluted stadium repayment plan?

 

The club is debt free, as ML and Cortese have said, and the stadium was by far the biggest debt. I don't think ML and co are lying.

 

I get the feeling everyone else's "surmising" of the situation is a lot more accurate than yours.

[Gemmel]

Since the mortgage was in the region of £30M it's hard to believe that it was part of the purchase price, but we are, according to Cortese, "debt free".

 

I guess that the Norwich Union/Aviva's arm was twisted quite ferociously, and since one wonders who else would like to buy a premiership stadium in Southampton, the price was probably reasonable.

 

That means that all income goes towards the running costs of the club. It will, however, be a great difference in income if we have an average of 15000, 25000 or 30000. There is obviously a break-even figure. I wonder what that one is.

 

The actual stadium debt was just under 22 million. If the 12.5 million purchase price bandied around is correct, then Aviva would have got around 8 - 9 million, which is less than they got back from the Ipswich deal (Bet Aviva are glad they went into financing football stadiums), so yes it would just be the running costs.

 

In the Premier (Someone can probably tell you the exact breakeven figure) but from memory it was around 22,000. Given the current squad, i suspect somewhere around 10 - 12,000 would be a breakeven figure. But i would imagine we will add to that and are costs will go up

[Professor]

It is a big worry that despite AP's time on the phone keeping him from the training ground, we still have had about 12 players leave and only 2 (if you county Murty) coming in. Rasiak and Saga leaving look certainties so if Stern goes as well, will there even be enough strikers to put out a half-decent side against Millwall? Things need to move v v v fast or we'll have a typical Saints start to the season and be deeper than ever in relegation mire given the -10 start. My optimism is being tested.

[Gemmel]

So what are you doing apart from "surmising" that there is some convoluted stadium repayment plan?

 

The club is debt free, as ML and Cortese have said, and the stadium was by far the biggest debt. I don't think ML and co are lying.

 

I get the feeling everyone else's "surmising" of the situation is a lot more accurate than yours.

 

I dont think he is saying they are lying, but Southampton Leisure holdings had a company called Southampton Stadia (or stadium , can't remember) who would have billed the club for the use etc etc , so whilst all part of the same company, it might make sense for ML to operate along the same lines.

The reality is we are debt free, how ML decides to bill or structure individual parts of the business is down to him

[CB Fry]

I dont think he is saying they are lying, but Southampton Leisure holdings had a company called Southampton Stadia (or stadium , can't remember) who would have billed the club for the use etc etc , so whilst all part of the same company, it might make sense for ML to operate along the same lines.

The reality is we are debt free, how ML decides to bill or structure individual parts of the business is down to him

 

 

Yes it is but it is unlikely he has, or is going to, set up lots of mini entities for the sake of accounting.

 

Whatever he does on that front doesn't alter the fact that we are debt free meaning gate reciepts and other income is now money thatnow could (not will or must) be invested into the playing staff, because the biggest drain on our revenue is now gone.

Edited 28 July, 2009 by CB Fry

[hughieslastminutegoal]

one entity as in Liebherr has bought a single package off of fry, sole owner, private company - of course he could split it and start cross charging but that doesn't fit in with anything he has said on the matter.

 

The previous structure were for very different reasons - not least not privately owned by one person.

 

Don't really understand your last point. IF there were benefits to splitting things up before, those potential benefits presumably haven't disappeared.

Mr L might well see a legal and business benefit in holding all land/property/buildings seperately from the user of them, a very common practice, even in private companies. And he has indicated he expects things to be run on a sound business footing, so at the moment we just don't know how he'll do things, and probably won't ever really know. But presumably there are tax implications, and no doubt he would like to secure physical assets against (the unlikely event of) poor performace of the football club?

 

Similarly, I keep wondering exactly why BE etc bought QPR.

 

Of course he may see it all at the moment as small beer, not worth the trouble of trying to be too clever.

[sotonjoe]

...

[sotonjoe]

Don't worry Joe this is a compliment from nick as he was one of RL's biggest fans !

 

 

eek

[NickG]

It is a big worry that despite AP's time on the phone keeping him from the training ground, we still have had about 12 players leave and only 2 (if you county Murty) coming in. Rasiak and Saga leaving look certainties so if Stern goes as well, will there even be enough strikers to put out a half-decent side against Millwall? Things need to move v v v fast or we'll have a typical Saints start to the season and be deeper than ever in relegation mire given the -10 start. My optimism is being tested.

 

missed the optimistic bit?

 

v v v early days. We could lose first three, have minus 10 points and still go up -who knows.

 

Last season something like 99-98% of tranfer deals were not just Augurst -but on the very last 48 hours of August.

[Toadhall Saint]

Don't really understand your last point. IF there were benefits to splitting things up before, those potential benefits presumably haven't disappeared.

Mr L might well see a legal and business benefit in holding all land/property/buildings seperately from the user of them, a very common practice, even in private companies. And he has indicated he expects things to be run on a sound business footing, so at the moment we just don't know how he'll do things, and probably won't ever really know. But presumably there are tax implications, and no doubt he would like to secure physical assets against (the unlikely event of) poor performace of the football club?

 

Similarly, I keep wondering exactly why BE etc bought QPR.

 

Of course he may see it all at the moment as small beer, not worth the trouble of trying to be too clever.

 

If you look at his personal worth and then just put an assumed interest on in just one year I think you'll find that what he has spent already is small beer.

[mcjwills]

The actual stadium debt was just under 22 million. If the 12.5 million purchase price bandied around is correct, then Aviva would have got around 8 - 9 million, which is less than they got back from the Ipswich deal (Bet Aviva are glad they went into financing football stadiums), so yes it would just be the running costs.

 

In the Premier (Someone can probably tell you the exact breakeven figure) but from memory it was around 22,000. Given the current squad, i suspect somewhere around 10 - 12,000 would be a breakeven figure. But i would imagine we will add to that and are costs will go up

 

 

If we had a staduim debt of £22M and that has been removed at 5% interest just paying the interest payment alone requires 1914 fans at £25 per game at every game to keep the payments up, for every change of 1% of interest up or down you would need or reduce by an additional 382 fans at every game at £25 per head. This of course did not take into effect the repayment part of the loan.

 

I think last year 16 -17K was break even so with the wage reductions I think 12K would be a rough estimate of beak even this season. Any more over 12 will be funds for investing in the team. QED get your ass to ST Marys the more there the more to invest in the team.

Edited 28 July, 2009 by mcjwills

[CB Fry]

Don't really understand your last point. IF there were benefits to splitting things up before, those potential benefits presumably haven't disappeared.

Mr L might well see a legal and business benefit in holding all land/property/buildings seperately from the user of them, a very common practice, even in private companies. And he has indicated he expects things to be run on a sound business footing, so at the moment we just don't know how he'll do things, and probably won't ever really know. But presumably there are tax implications, and no doubt he would like to secure physical assets against (the unlikely event of) poor performace of the football club?

 

Similarly, I keep wondering exactly why BE etc bought QPR.

 

Of course he may see it all at the moment as small beer, not worth the trouble of trying to be too clever.

 

 

It is small beer and you seem to be splitting a hair slightly smaller than the atom.

 

Even if ML has set up countless sub divisions of SFC we probably won't find out and it won't affect us in any meaningful way.

 

The point is we are debt free, meaning at least that our revenue is now not going to be diverted into mortgage payments.

 

And from everything so far said, that revenue is also not going to disappear into ML's back pocket and is very likely to be invested back into the club as a whole and players in particular.

 

I think that should satisfy everyone, surely? I can't really see what you're driving at here.

[derry]

The mortgage repayment was £2.4m p.a.

[Channon's Sideburns]

Christ let's worry when we KNOW we have to.

 

chill pills please...

 

We have a club, which is now debt free with a manager who has extensive experience not only in promotion from this league but also the CCC into the Prem.

 

We have an owner....ONE OWNER....'who is considerably richer than youuuussss'

 

The club is now WANTING to get families back and build the fanbase - not destroy it.

 

We have lots of players who want to be here, christ someone's even got Lallana on board bigtime..

 

WHAT ARE WE WORRYING ABOUT?

 

Three weeks or so ago we had fooook all chance of keeping Stern - now we do.

[NickG]

The mortgage repayment was £2.4m p.a.

 

a £1m player plus his wages instead then please!

[torsaint]

Any guesses how much income we have received from sales of players and sts (in full). Could be as much as £6m. If so we are serious players in this league.

[thefuriousb]

It is a big worry that despite AP's time on the phone keeping him from the training ground, we still have had about 12 players leave and only 2 (if you county Murty) coming in. Rasiak and Saga leaving look certainties so if Stern goes as well, will there even be enough strikers to put out a half-decent side against Millwall? Things need to move v v v fast or we'll have a typical Saints start to the season and be deeper than ever in relegation mire given the -10 start. My optimism is being tested.

 

I think we should enter administration again. It is the only way out of this mess.

 

You only have to go back to 8 July to see that for 2 whole weeks everythng in the garden was rosey.

 

Bring on administration!!

[Saint Fen]

Nick you say "clearing the stadium loan" but really that was all wrapped up in the purchase price when ML acquired the club (12m?) so he got a bargain imo.

 

However I am today hearing positive news that substantual (for a club outside the Prem) funds will be made available should they be required. I guess it is going to take time but after the last few years we are all anxious to get the cart back on the right track.

 

Also the other thing people have to look at is the wage bill as this has been unsustainable recently (Probably since Lowe left and Wilde & Co went spending mad hence administration) so I am guessing they would be investing here. Especially with Pardew and Davis signing a new contract. I know the arguement will be Davis will be on a lower wage but this would still be out of our reach if we were to live to our means this year.

 

No matter what happens they will make no return on their investment over the long run so that is better than Lowe Straight away!

[The Godfather]

The fact is we are not paying Stern at the moment as he is a free agent and I should imagine that the contract offer to him is considerably less than what he was on. I oubt if Palace are offering him a large wage as they have financial problems thats why Palace are struggling to sign players, hence bwp's move to Plymouth over Palace.

 

The big advantage they are a division above us and it comes down to whether he wants to play for us. I'd rather keep Rasiak than John but thats only my opinion.

[NickG]

last season we could not have afforded

John, Saga, Rasiak.

 

I doubt whether we could have afforded KD's new contract - certainly one to stop him going to West Ham

 

We couldn't have afforded Pardew.

 

I really don't get NickH's criticisms? Was he expecting Kaka?

[The Godfather]

last season we could not have afforded

John, Saga, Rasiak.

 

I doubt whether we could have afforded KD's new contract - certainly one to stop him going to West Ham

 

We couldn't have afforded Pardew.

 

I really don't get NickH's criticisms? Was he expecting Kaka?

 

I know, the fact is, it is very hard to attract players to the third tier of english football especially if the type of player Pardew is after.

[Bobbyboy]

I know, the fact is, it is very hard to attract players to the third tier of english football especially if the type of player Pardew is after.

 

here's what we SHOULD be doing: going after the best players currently in this division. It means (1) we have the best players in this division and (2) our rivals DON'T. It's a pretty standard model for buying your way out of a league...

 

Hm, am I too cynical?

[The Godfather]

here's what we SHOULD be doing: going after the best players currently in this division. It means (1) we have the best players in this division and (2) our rivals DON'T. It's a pretty standard model for buying your way out of a league...

 

Hm, am I too cynical?

 

I agree but some of the best players in our division will cost silly money.

[Chez]

I know, the fact is, it is very hard to attract players to the third tier of english football especially if the type of player Pardew is after.

 

it might be difficult to attract players from the CCC but I don't see why we can't buy the best from this division and the one below.

 

I'd add that by doing so we would be avoiding injury prone last leg old timers that would offer no resale value. Instead we could be buying young hungry talent, probably on much lower wages, that really want to progress as the club does rather than just someone like Stern John who is just looking to pick up a final wage.

 

I realise we need good strong professionals to compliment youth talent, but don't kid yourself to think that Stern really gives a **** about this club, nor that he is only striker available to score goals at this level. Also don't underestimate Matt Patterson, plenty of young strikers have dropped down a division to get games and scored for fun. I saw Billy Sharpe mentioned a few days ago. If Sheff United had been relegated a few years back do you think Blades fans would have seen him scoring 20 goals in League 1. He joined Scunny and did exactly that before moving back to the CCC.

 

No matter what you think about Patterson there are a lot of very good players in the lower leagues and EVERY club is wiling to sell at the right price. Signing Stern John won't make or break us and IMHO we could do a lot better without him if the right players are brought in.

Edited 28 July, 2009 by Chez

[Panda]

From my perspective I am happy to wait for a better view of the big picture as it develops. The owners have been in, what, three weeks? the new manager less than two weeks? There is all sorts of rubbish and history to sort out let alone plan and implement a new future. Maybe, as an older supporter, I have learned to be a bit more patient and bit more realistic than some of you 'youngsters' who want everything now. Why not just give the guys a bit of time to sort things out before telling them if they are right or wrong?

[Sanguin]

As far as I am aware Stern was on about £10,000 a week before his contract expired. Crystal Palace's striker Shefki Kuqi was on about the same and was transfer listed because they decided they were unable to pay his wages. Kuqi is now gone but despite that I doubt they would be offering Stern anywhere near £10,000 and I doubt it would be considerably more than Southampton. Furthermore, now we have got rid of some of the higher earners like Skacel, BWP and Euell and reduced other wages you would think they would be able to offer Stern John, not £10,000 but, an acceptable Championship wage. Although I admit I don't know what an acceptable Championship or League One wage is.

[revolution saint]

I'd like to keep any of Saga, Rasiak or John if they can prove they're motivated. If not they're pretty useless to us and I'd rather they leave.

 

John would be better than the other two but he wasn't exactly brilliant at Bristol City was he? If he left it wouldn't be the end of the world.

 

Rasiak is in a difficult situation. I simply can't see anyone in the championship matching his wages and all the noises suggest he isn't really interested in a paycut. If money is what motivates him he'll probably be better seeing out his contract here however I'd rather we pay it up and get rid if his heart isn't in it.

 

Saga? The best way to get a committed performance out of him is to pay off his contract and then sign him on a season long pay as you play deal. He hasn't been that great since we signed him permanently.

 

When I first started supporting Saints we always had some 1st teamers that were definites on the team sheet and ones I always hoped we could hold on to. Now though I listen to the team sheet and shrug - there are players I prefer over others but not to any major degree.

 

We could do with some players that simply "want it" more than anyone else and that may have to come from the lower divisions. Anyway, we've generally had a pretty lousy record when signing so called decent players - Hirst, Groves, Delap, Hughes, Petrescu, Dixon and Speedie spring to mind. They all had decent repututations and didn't really deliver. The ones that did were either home grown or slipped under the radar and became heroes. Of course I'm generalising and there are exceptions though.

 

It would be helpful if we could sort it out earlier than later but this is Saints. I'm still surprised not to be hitting F5 on a takeover thread.

[Fitzhugh Fella]

the club own the stadium, they are now one and the same. The club would be paying rent to themselves!

 

don't agree Nick - ML owns the stadium - there is a difference.

But SFC's only current significant overheads will be wages and upkeep of their property which compared to last season when we had an overdraft and a mortgage to service makes our position with or without ML far superior.

 

I do think some on here are struggling to get their heads around the private ownership malarkey. If and when ML opens his purse it will be interesting if it is in the form of a loan or an investment with no repayment.

Edited 28 July, 2009 by Fitzhugh Fella

[The Godfather]

it might be difficult to attract players from the CCC but I don't see why we can't buy the best from this division and the one below.

 

I'd add that by doing so we would be avoiding injury prone last leg old timers that would offer no resale value. Instead we could be buying young hungry talent, probably on much lower wages, that really want to progress as the club does rather than just someone like Stern John who is just looking to pick up a final wage.

 

I realise we need good strong professionals to compliment youth talent, but don't kid yourself to think that Stern really gives a **** about this club, nor that he is only striker available to score goals at this level. Also don't underestimate Matt Patterson, plenty of young strikers have dropped down a division to get games and scored for fun. I saw Billy Sharpe mentioned a few days ago. If Sheff United had been relegated a few years back do you think Blades fans would have seen him scoring 20 goals in League 1. He joined Scunny and did exactly that before moving back to the CCC.

 

No matter what you think about Patterson there are a lot of very good players in the lower leagues and EVERY club is wiling to sell at the right price. Signing Stern John won't make or break us and IMHO we could do a lot better without him if the right players are brought in.

 

I'd be quite happy if Stern John joins another club as he is lazy, I'd prefer Rasiak but expect him to go. We need a strong pacey striker or two to complement Patterson.

[Chez]

I agree but some of the best players in our division will cost silly money.

 

will they? Only Leeds' Delph is going to go for silly money. Other clubs need to balance books so players are available at the right price.

[Verbal]

It is a big worry that despite AP's time on the phone keeping him from the training ground, we still have had about 12 players leave and only 2 (if you county Murty) coming in. Rasiak and Saga leaving look certainties so if Stern goes as well, will there even be enough strikers to put out a half-decent side against Millwall? Things need to move v v v fast or we'll have a typical Saints start to the season and be deeper than ever in relegation mire given the -10 start. My optimism is being tested.

 

 

Calm down!