Club Chairmen

[Turkish]

Is this a hint that you have a pair of Mister Bates glasses perchance?

 

No but the I hear they are all the rage with the skinny jean, Notting Hill types. Timeless style.

[Saintandy666]

Apologies young Andy. I had no idea you had access to information as to what our budgets and wage system is. Would you mind sharing them? Or at very least confirming that Ramriezs rumoured wages of anything between £35-£60k a week fit within those systems.

 

I have no idea and you know that. I based my wage stuff on the typical total wage bill of an average Premier League club.

[CB Fry]

If I was running a club hell bent on being self sufficient in the Premier League, I seriously doubt my starting point would be becoming the seventh biggest spenders on transfers in the whole of Europe.

 

I think I'd follow the Blackpool model. Or the Swansea one.

 

I think we are far closer to Chelsea in or actions than either of those two. We're a million miles away from self-sufficiency.

[Turkish]

I have no idea and you know that. I based my wage stuff on the typical total wage bill of an average Premier League club.

 

So in that case then you have no idea if Cortese has shown the great restraint in not breaking our wage or budget systems as you said he had.

[Saintandy666]

So in that case then you have no idea if Cortese has shown the great restraint in not breaking our wage or budget systems as you said he had.

 

The only player who might have broken it was Ramirez. But I was inferring that he had a strict plan and budget from the amount of fallen through deals.

[Turkish]

The only player who might have broken it was Ramirez. But I was inferring that he had a strict plan and budget from the amount of fallen through deals.

 

But would be prepared to break it in circumstances, such as Ramirez?

[Saintandy666]

But would be prepared to break it in circumstances, such as Ramirez?

 

We don't know what went on behind closed doors during the negotiations. He certainly refused to break it for Buttner.

[The Kraken]

We don't know what went on behind closed doors during the negotiations. He certainly refused to break it for Buttner.

 

The Buttner deal broke down because of a required payment to a third party; not because of wage demands (which supposedly had been met).

[Saintandy666]

The Buttner deal broke down because of a required payment to a third party; not because of wage demands (which supposedly had been met).

 

Indeed. So he refused to break his budget for Buttner.

[The Kraken]

Indeed. So he refused to break his budget for Buttner.

 

The payment was a one-off payment, so no, I disagree, I think the CEO's morals got in the way of doing a deal.

[Saintandy666]

The payment was a one-off payment, so no, I disagree, I think the CEO's morals got in the way of doing a deal.

 

A one off payment which would have broken the budget perhaps?

[Turkish]

We don't know what went on behind closed doors during the negotiations. He certainly refused to break it for Buttner.

 

So you don't know if he showed great restraint in sticking to our wages and budget system or not, the thing you were quick to give gushing praise for earlier. There was a third party also involved in the Ramirez deal which didn't seem to prevent that one happening did it.

[Saintandy666]

So you don't know if he showed great restraint in sticking to our wages and budget system or not, the thing you were quick to give gushing praise for earlier. There was a third party also involved in the Ramirez deal which didn't seem to prevent that one happening did it.

 

Well, it appears the Buttner deal fell through due to an excessive third party demand which couldn't be resolved. We know that Cortese spent ages negotiating over the third party in the Ramirez deal and we can assume that terms within his budget were met.

[Turkish]

Well, it appears the Buttner deal fell through due to an excessive third party demand which couldn't be resolved. We know that Cortese spent ages negotiating over the third party in the Ramirez deal and we can assume that terms within his budget were met.

 

And also stopped negotiating at one point due to the demands. Would it be fair to say the fact negotiations were reopened and we ended up agreeing a deal with Penrol as well that he was determined to get this player?

[The Kraken]

A one off payment which would have broken the budget perhaps?

 

No Andy, that's not how I see it. A fee had been agreed, a wage had supposedly been agreed, then the player's dad came back in at the death and required an up front payment as he had his fingers in the contractual pie. Cortese it woud seem balked at the idea of further add-ons to the deal and pulled out of the deal, as he refused to countenance what was perceived as an underhand addition.

[Saint86]

FFS, Andy good effort, but you really need to understand that Turkish is either just trolling or a nutter.

 

I agree with SaintAndy and various others stating that our strategy is clearly different to the supposed big 4.

 

We spent big this summer, using the £40m tv money from sky. This has been invested in top quality young players. Future England CF, RB and a new KaKa. If we survive (ofc we will) we won't need to blow the boat massively next year and can begin steady growth like everton et all, buying the odd good buy and letting our quality youth players develop. The only major concern in terms of age is Lambert - and he has another 2 season in him before he is likely to old.

 

If we go down, well hey, we sell and get our money back or better for players like ramirez. Hence our loss over 12months is negated. We then have the enlarged parachute payments and whats left of our old championship topping team with strong youth players. AKA we really should be fine.

 

In terms of our comparison to Chelsea. They are making a 70million loss despite setting a record turnover due to a very lucky season in the cups - champions league etc. They won't do this every year. They have since spent an increased fortune on players with **** all resale (no one is topping £35m for Hazard - the silly days accross europe are gone. I quote turkish when I say WE were 7th highest spenders in Europe and our highest transfers was £12m followed by £6m).

 

Chelsea etc can't have that season every year, or if they do, other teams are not sustainable in their place. Therefore, they have increased their wages - which they couldn't afford in the first place. If the backers leave these clubs they are ****ed. Many have huge debts and massive wage demands. Without the excessive amount of money laundering they will go under very quickly. purely from wages. I mean ffs Turkish, you really are obtuse. How can you compare our transfer strategy with TORRES to chelsea. They would need to make profit on all their star players to sell torres and get their money back.

 

If our owners left, as i have said. most but not all of this seasons TV went on transfers, we have roughly 25% left for wages. Next year we can not spend and improve simply by young talented players growing as footballers. IF OUR OWNERS PULLED OUT, WE COULD STILL PAY THE WAGES.... our ambition may decline but we would still be sustainable. Bare in mind that this is on the back of having our previous debts blanked - so from this season onwards we are sustainable. Bit hard to understand.

 

Male it simple for u.....

 

No more oil - wave goodbye to city and chelsea

No more swizz chocolate - we won't be getting fat on champions league football anytime soon. Give us 5-10 years and their is no reason we can't do an everton - considering they have done it with a club on the fringe of big financial troubles for the last few seasons...

 

Thats my view tbh. As stated, how you can argue that or strategy is similar to Chelsea and $hitty when you look at transfers like Rodwell for £15m, and Torres is just flipping mental.

[Turkish]

So we sign a future England centre forward and a right back and it's hailed as great business. man City sign a future England central midfielder and it's dismissed as mental and signing on players with no sell on fee.

 

we are 7th highest spenders in Europe with no champions league money and not even an established top flight club. Chelsea are mad to spend big as they probably won't win th champions league this year.

 

If oil suddenly runs out Chelsea go under, we'll be fine because of something about chocolate.

 

Yep, your points makes total sense.

Edited 25 September, 2012 by Turkish

[Frank's cousin]

Turks - you are likely a midgey/mosquito bite - you know you shouldn't scratch it as it will only make teh irritation worse, but you cant help it...

 

You are right teh principle is teh same, but this is a case where the volume being so different makes the situation more manageable, and more likely that we will be able to get to a point where we are self sustainable in future - we are not a chelsea or City with a wage bill inexcess of sky income + normal revenue, but are probably for the next couple of seasons still reliant on a small supplement form the Liebherr estate, as opposed to an annual right off in excess of 100mil or so.... but whilst Andy keeps digging, you seem determine dto keep giveing him a larger spade... there does come a time though...

[The Kraken]

Frank, seriously.

 

Sort your "teh"s out, will you!

[Frank's cousin]

Frank, seriously.

 

Sort your "teh"s out, will you!

 

Kracken matey - not one to normally go on about it, but my typing is shiedt re RA in right hand... and then cant be arsed to run the whole spell check thing given its never off for work... letters get mixed up as left hand sort of over takes the right....

 

Left hand has the pace of J Rod, right is kind of Lambo

[CB Fry]

FFS, Andy good effort, but you really need to understand that Turkish is either just trolling or a nutter.

 

I agree with SaintAndy and various others stating that our strategy is clearly different to the supposed big 4.

 

We spent big this summer, using the £40m tv money from sky. This has been invested in top quality young players. Future England CF, RB and a new KaKa. If we survive (ofc we will) we won't need to blow the boat massively next year and can begin steady growth like everton et all, buying the odd good buy and letting our quality youth players develop. The only major concern in terms of age is Lambert - and he has another 2 season in him before he is likely to old.

 

If we go down, well hey, we sell and get our money back or better for players like ramirez. Hence our loss over 12months is negated. We then have the enlarged parachute payments and whats left of our old championship topping team with strong youth players. AKA we really should be fine.

 

In terms of our comparison to Chelsea. They are making a 70million loss despite setting a record turnover due to a very lucky season in the cups - champions league etc. They won't do this every year. They have since spent an increased fortune on players with **** all resale (no one is topping £35m for Hazard - the silly days accross europe are gone. I quote turkish when I say WE were 7th highest spenders in Europe and our highest transfers was £12m followed by £6m).

 

Chelsea etc can't have that season every year, or if they do, other teams are not sustainable in their place. Therefore, they have increased their wages - which they couldn't afford in the first place. If the backers leave these clubs they are ****ed. Many have huge debts and massive wage demands. Without the excessive amount of money laundering they will go under very quickly. purely from wages. I mean ffs Turkish, you really are obtuse. How can you compare our transfer strategy with TORRES to chelsea. They would need to make profit on all their star players to sell torres and get their money back.

 

If our owners left, as i have said. most but not all of this seasons TV went on transfers, we have roughly 25% left for wages. Next year we can not spend and improve simply by young talented players growing as footballers. IF OUR OWNERS PULLED OUT, WE COULD STILL PAY THE WAGES.... our ambition may decline but we would still be sustainable. Bare in mind that this is on the back of having our previous debts blanked - so from this season onwards we are sustainable. Bit hard to understand.

 

Male it simple for u.....

 

No more oil - wave goodbye to city and chelsea

No more swizz chocolate - we won't be getting fat on champions league football anytime soon. Give us 5-10 years and their is no reason we can't do an everton - considering they have done it with a club on the fringe of big financial troubles for the last few seasons...

 

Thats my view tbh. As stated, how you can argue that or strategy is similar to Chelsea and $hitty when you look at transfers like Rodwell for £15m, and Torres is just flipping mental.

 

 

Our strategy is very similar to Chelsea, just at a smaller scale, and you disregard everything Chelsea do while bigging up everything we do.

 

You might say all we have done is spend our TV money this season, but we came into this season having already invested millions to get promoted, and invest in the training ground. We could have used the TV money to balance that off - that would be self-sufficient and sustainable. But we haven't done that, we've spent millions on new players instead.

 

 

If all we are doing is spending the TV money, how come Blackpool didn't spend £30m on players following their promotion? How come Norwich and Swansea didn't? Is it because those clubs are following a tighter, more sustainable model than us, and we are splashing cash like a mini-Chelsea? The simple answer is yes.

 

Which is fine, but let's not kid ourselves it is any better than what Chelsea do. We are not self-sufficient and definitely won't be this season....unless, of course the owners write off more debt, which is, in itself not self sufficiency, it's just being given free money.

 

And to focus on your capitalised bit IF THE OWNERS PULLED OUT....you have no idea whether we could pay the wages or not. No idea at all. If the Leibherrs pulled out tomorrow I think we would be in some bother on the wages front and I think we would see a significant change in transfer business.

 

 

Look, lets enjoy everything that is happening right now, let's rejoice in the fact we aren't doing what QPR are doing, but let's not pretend we are prudently building a sustainiable club just yet. We are doing generally the right things but we are significantly over spending at present.

[St_Tel49]

Well, I know that, but Cortese wanted us to be self-sufficient in the Prem. And the extra income and no debt interest should help us to be that. Why are you arguing against this?!

 

Ok, we are riddled with massive debts. If the Liebherr's sold us tomorrow, we'd be bankrupt by Christmas. Happy?

If you spent more than 10 minutes on this board you would realise that that is his reason for existence. Look at all the threads that have turned into endless ripostes between him and some poster or other and now you are being drawn in.

[Turkish]

If you spent more than 10 minutes on this board you would realise that that is his reason for existence. Look at all the threads that have turned into endless ripostes between him and some poster or other and now you are being drawn in.

 

What a load of nonsense. I find the The contestant lauding that everything we do as incredible and the southampton way and no one else has a clue very odd. It'd pretty evident at the moment we are dependant on our backers and have been since they arrived. We've posted losses every single season since theve been here, written off millions of pounds worth of debt and are 7th biggest spenders in Euope despite having less income than the others. It's pretty clear that the way we are operating at the moment is similar to Chelsea and Man City but just on a smaller scale. When they do it we wouldnt want that and it's madness, when we do it it's all part of the southampton way and this incredible plan to make us self sustaining that only Cortese is capable of succeeding with.

[Saint86]

Our strategy is very similar to Chelsea, just at a smaller scale, and you disregard everything Chelsea do while bigging up everything we do.

 

You might say all we have done is spend our TV money this season, but we came into this season having already invested millions to get promoted, and invest in the training ground. We could have used the TV money to balance that off - that would be self-sufficient and sustainable. But we haven't done that, we've spent millions on new players instead.

 

 

If all we are doing is spending the TV money, how come Blackpool didn't spend £30m on players following their promotion? How come Norwich and Swansea didn't? Is it because those clubs are following a tighter, more sustainable model than us, and we are splashing cash like a mini-Chelsea? The simple answer is yes.

 

Which is fine, but let's not kid ourselves it is any better than what Chelsea do. We are not self-sufficient and definitely won't be this season....unless, of course the owners write off more debt, which is, in itself not self sufficiency, it's just being given free money.

 

And to focus on your capitalised bit IF THE OWNERS PULLED OUT....you have no idea whether we could pay the wages or not. No idea at all. If the Leibherrs pulled out tomorrow I think we would be in some bother on the wages front and I think we would see a significant change in transfer business.

 

 

Look, lets enjoy everything that is happening right now, let's rejoice in the fact we aren't doing what QPR are doing, but let's not pretend we are prudently building a sustainiable club just yet. We are doing generally the right things but we are significantly over spending at present.

 

CB Fry, thank you for a sensible response. I think though that you have slightly missed my point in that our debt was blanked - most of which was to buy the club and spent on investment anyway. Hence the £3m net spend under Adkins. With that debt removed, we have spend a large proportion of this years TV revenue on transfers and the rest will go on wages. The wages we can handle under tv rights. The transfer fees would be reclaimed by selling the young players who will all increase in value. Therefore we are in a position whereby we will not go below the initial budget level upon promotion.

 

Chelsea have spend unsustainable amounts of money on players - hence the repeated debts for the last 3 years of circa -£70m each year (on the back of £230m record turnover.) Surely you can see the difference between their rare record turnover and our guaranteed 90m upon promotion.... Also, good luck to them in selling Hazard, torres etc for much of a profit. Now, if we continue to spend big then I would look again, but right now, we can stop spending massive somes of money and our team would improve simply because they are young and have great potential. We allready have a lambert replacement fighting in the wings and he is our major concern for the next 2 years. Everyone else can jog on for another 4 seasons pretty much. Therefore in my book we are sustainable at this moment. Chelski are not since they require oil money to pay wages and invest in massive transfers with sod all to no resale profit to be had.... Big difference in my book. We spent money we can afford and are guaranteed, chelsea spent someone's oil money..

[Frank's cousin]

What a load of nonsense. I find the The contestant lauding that everything we do as incredible and the southampton way and no one else has a clue very odd. It'd pretty evident at the moment we are dependant on our backers and have been since they arrived. We've posted losses every single season since theve been here, written off millions of pounds worth of debt and are 7th biggest spenders in Euope despite having less income than the others. It's pretty clear that the way we are operating at the moment is similar to Chelsea and Man City but just on a smaller scale. When they do it we wouldnt want that and it's madness, when we do it it's all part of the southampton way and this incredible plan to make us self sustaining that only Cortese is capable of succeeding with.

 

Its all semantics though is it not? Debt v investment?

 

If you define it, as debt is what the club is left owing to various creditors - if the owners pull out or stop injecting cash, and thus we end up increasing say an overdraft to pay the weekly bills - al la Portsmouth. On the other hand if an owner says 'for the next 5 years, I will personnally inject 10mil or 200 mil a season which will fund our campaign over and above our normal commercial revenue, and that it will be converted as equity (rather than accumulated loans due back to me), then whilst not 'self sustaining its also not 'debt' accumulation - but you are right in that whether its NC doing it with The leibherr 'provision fund' or chelski doing it with Abramovic's money there is no difffrence in the principle

 

The problems occur when an owner ceases the annual cash injection leaving the club with contracts or transfer installments to pay in excess of the the normal revenue streams - the pompey case seems to be slightly different in that they had no owners who ever seemed to inject any cash to cover their spending in the first place with a strategy based on 'next years income being higher to cover last years bills...or not'...cant quite figure out their model at all....

 

I would still say though that its been mentioned that we have an AIM to eventually be self sustaining - Whether this is at all possible will depend on what sort of player contracts we will have under those circumstances and what sort of revenue from player talent sales is posssible whilst wanting to be 'competitive'... I suspect our eventual model will still require us to sell prize assets, but hopefully AFTER they have provided 2-3 seasons of contribution on the pitch, not before.

 

Again its all speculation, but its possible that the total cash Markus was willing to inject would be roughly equal to what the club would be worth once that injection had placed us back in the prem as a stable and reasonably competitive club? I dont think he ever envisgaed making a profit out of saints, but break even naturally.

 

The advantage we do have is in the type of player we have spent the money on - younger players with the potential to have a higher sell on value than what we paid, thus protecting us to some extent form a financial melt down on relegation - selling ramirez if relegated for even 15mil (more likely 20 after a good season) would keep us on an even footing.

 

The club/NC is naturally quiet on the details - but I do think this is controlled spending in line with a sensible model. Blackpool invested a big chunk of prem cash in their infrastructure so could not afford to splash out on players, nor did they have the backing we have. Norwich are also looking at infrastructure investment so must assume they are also being tighter than their revenue would allow them to spend - all about what the clubs priorities are - and we have our infrastructure in place with the aim of not just staying up, but building a squad that can be top 8 regularly in the next few years...subject to the vagaries of sport/football.

 

Guess time will tell, but I would not be overly concerned just yet - Bankers tend to run pretty tight ships. My guess is it wont be long before some fans are complaining that we are not spending enough!

Edited 26 September, 2012 by Frank's cousin