View From The Top Posted 31 March, 2014 Share Posted 31 March, 2014 Considering how much we've spent on Wanyama, Osvalso, Lovrens & Gaston it's no shock that we still owe monies on transfer fees. The overspend on the TG will be down to NC's vanity. No wonder they wanted him out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 31 March, 2014 Share Posted 31 March, 2014 Decent enough figures in my opinion. We came a long way quickly and needed to invest in a few quality players. The circa 20mill we need to pay next season should be largely if not completely offset by additional revenue. Wages are at a manageable level. Also encouraging to hear that further Liebherr funds have been coming in. Overall, I bet those figures are healthier than a lot of clubs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BARCELONASAINT Posted 31 March, 2014 Share Posted 31 March, 2014 looking at the statement today i feel quite positive about the future of our club. I bet if you compared our club debt to every other Premiership club we would be in a very healthy position! Out of interest i was speaking to someone at the weekend who is part of the Portsmouth fan consortium and to put things into perspective you only have to look at Portsmouth to see how bad management at every level and taking massive gambles can kill a club. This guy was very pessemistic about Portsmouth future.....he had no reason to lie to me, we were just two blokes disscussing football and the way our clubs are run. It must have been very hard for him to admitt to a Saints fan that their club is dying due to ridiculous management.....oh and the F.A.Cup, yep you can guess where you can shove that now.....it will count as nothing to him if they completely dissapear! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingsbridge Saint Posted 31 March, 2014 Share Posted 31 March, 2014 Owing money is never a problem provided you have the asset security behind it and can service the debt. If you have growth too, it can be a positive. So we owe 30Mill on the training ground - how much do you think we could rent it out for to top sports organisations across the region? And what would the yield be? I think that's fine. And we owe a bit on transfers? So what - they are an asset too, we have bought players we could sell on the registrations for to recoup the vast majority of that. I see no reason to be concerned at all and the headline is grossly misleading given the revenues flowing into a PL club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 31 March, 2014 Author Share Posted 31 March, 2014 Overall, I bet those figures are healthier than a lot of clubs. I bet if you compared our club debt to every other Premiership club we would be in a very healthy position! Found this report from the Guardian (published this time last year based on 2012 figures)... http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/apr/18/premier-league-finances-club-by-club Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DuncanRG Posted 31 March, 2014 Share Posted 31 March, 2014 Considering how much we've spent on Wanyama, Osvalso, Lovrens & Gaston it's no shock that we still owe monies on transfer fees. The overspend on the TG will be down to NC's vanity. No wonder they wanted him out. We bought players, not yachts. Two of this year's title contenders are vanity projects. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BARCELONASAINT Posted 31 March, 2014 Share Posted 31 March, 2014 Found this report from the Guardian (published this time last year based on 2012 figures)... http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/apr/18/premier-league-finances-club-by-club Thanks for that Trousers. Gives a good indication that we have little to worry about.....i would have sleepless nights if i were a fan of some of those clubs with massive debt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graffito Posted 31 March, 2014 Share Posted 31 March, 2014 Owing money is never a problem provided you have the asset security behind it and can service the debt. If you have growth too, it can be a positive. So we owe 30Mill on the training ground - how much do you think we could rent it out for to top sports organisations across the region? And what would the yield be? I think that's fine. And we owe a bit on transfers? So what - they are an asset too, we have bought players we could sell on the registrations for to recoup the vast majority of that. I see no reason to be concerned at all and the headline is grossly misleading given the revenues flowing into a PL club. £30m on training ground improvements is a vast sum. The ground's existing and future use value is restricted by planning consent. I'd really like to know how the projected costs have doubled and whether someone thought this was a good investment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jez Posted 31 March, 2014 Share Posted 31 March, 2014 Found this report from the Guardian (published this time last year based on 2012 figures)... http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/apr/18/premier-league-finances-club-by-club Published 18 April last year. Perhaps in a few weeks we'll have a clearer picture how we compare. I always thought and assumed the plan was to overspend initially, when we got promoted, as we had to to play catch up with the rest of the established Prem teams. We have done more than catch a lot of the teams, we have clearly overtaken a lot of them too. Our future earnings would cover this initial expenditure, due to the increased revenues from TV etc, so for example we could spend the same again during the next period, and still make a profit (in theory, without going the into mathematical calculations). And hopefully we can respend the Osvaldo money if we sell him. Plus it sounds as though if things improve on the commercial side of things, then it only looks better. Besides, do any teams ever pay upfront for transfers? I thought the majority are structured over time in some way. Can't see much bad news from this myself. I would much rather we were spending money on the training ground instead of wages too (a la Pompey), as it'll recoup its own value overtime in improving our players (that is of course taking a simplistic view like something off a computer game whereby better facilities instantly means better players!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 31 March, 2014 Share Posted 31 March, 2014 The argument on here when the BVA loans were being discussed was that the transfer fees would be paid off within 12 months using the Prem/TV money. How much of that is still to be paid into our account? I guess the large chunk of Prem money will arrive after the final league table has been decided. It might be encouraging that KL has added funds, but slightly worrying that we were reliant on a £14m injection despite the huge increase in income last season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 31 March, 2014 Share Posted 31 March, 2014 £30m on training ground improvements is a vast sum. The ground's existing and future use value is restricted by planning consent. I'd really like to know how the projected costs have doubled and whether someone thought this was a good investment. It seems a vast amount of money, especially compared to the cost of the stadium, but perhaps it is an essential asset to attract the best players and youngsters. The phrase `overspend' is used on the BBC website, I assume SFC used that terminology, which is different from `increase'. It feels as though Cortese is being blamed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EBS1980 Posted 31 March, 2014 Share Posted 31 March, 2014 Looks like if we are able to increase our sponsorship and commercial side of the business we should be able to bring in quite a bit of extra cash, if you compare to say even Fulham theirs are much higher than ours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 31 March, 2014 Share Posted 31 March, 2014 £30m on training ground improvements is a vast sum. The ground's existing and future use value is restricted by planning consent. I'd really like to know how the projected costs have doubled and whether someone thought this was a good investment. Significant alterations to the plans after they had been signed off, most likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norwaysaint Posted 31 March, 2014 Share Posted 31 March, 2014 It seems a vast amount of money, especially compared to the cost of the stadium, but perhaps it is an essential asset to attract the best players and youngsters. The phrase `overspend' is used on the BBC website, I assume SFC used that terminology, which is different from `increase'. It feels as though Cortese is being blamed. I think one of the most interesting parts of this has been that, although when Cortese left they made it very clear they had wanted him to stay and that KL had been happy with him, they have been very happy here to give an impression of him leaving the club in a big mess. They haven't said it outright but it's heavily implied. That says to me that there could be some unwelcome changes on the way and they want to make sure any bad feeling is deflected nice and early. I think this will simply be a lack of transfer spending rather than sales as they would look very bad if they sold now after giving guarantees otherwise. Perhaps it also gives them good grounds not to move ahead with any hinted stadium developments too. Now any bad news in policy will be met by "Oh well, I suppose Cortese did leave the club in a financial mess." rather than anger at the new regime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 31 March, 2014 Share Posted 31 March, 2014 Significant alterations to the plans after they had been signed off, most likely. think the whole layout had to be changed because of drainage issues on 3G surface, but 30m still seems a lot of money, unless that includes land acqusitions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 31 March, 2014 Share Posted 31 March, 2014 I think one of the most interesting parts of this has been that, although when Cortese left they made it very clear they had wanted him to stay and that KL had been happy with him, they have been very happy here to give an impression of him leaving the club in a big mess. They haven't said it outright but it's heavily implied. That says to me that there could be some unwelcome changes on the way and they want to make sure any bad feeling is deflected nice and early. I think this will simply be a lack of transfer spending rather than sales as they would look very bad if they sold now after giving guarantees otherwise. Perhaps it also gives them good grounds not to move ahead with any hinted stadium developments too. Now any bad news in policy will be met by "Oh well, I suppose Cortese did leave the club in a financial mess." rather than anger at the new regime. Good shout, norwaysaint. With all the talk of burdens, think we might lose some players that fans would like to keep. As long as MP says he doesn't want them, promise kept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 31 March, 2014 Author Share Posted 31 March, 2014 (edited) Adam Blackmore @bigadamsport Had feedback from football finance expert - a senior lecturer in economics- who thinks #saintsfc figures show they're a solid well-run club Trousers @Lord_Trousers @bigadamsport Perhaps the BBC website headline should be changed to "Southampton are well run club" in that case...? Edited 31 March, 2014 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goatboy Posted 31 March, 2014 Share Posted 31 March, 2014 needs to have more courage in convictions, like goatboy who even for the most minor disagreement immediately puts the life of his first born son on the line No point visiting when you can invade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 31 March, 2014 Share Posted 31 March, 2014 think the whole layout had to be changed because of drainage issues on 3G surface' date=' but 30m still seems a lot of money, unless that includes land acqusitions[/quote'] I meant it terms of signing off the plans, building commencing, and then Cortese deciding he wanted to completely change something. Drainage issues would have been surveyed in the initial planning stages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 31 March, 2014 Share Posted 31 March, 2014 I think the club's PR office has slipped up here - the headline is grossly misleading, and the quotes from the Board members could have put a better spin on what look like perfectly acceptable figures, given the nature of the business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 31 March, 2014 Share Posted 31 March, 2014 I think the club's PR office has slipped up here - the headline is grossly misleading, and the quotes from the Board members could have put a better spin on what look like perfectly acceptable figures, given the nature of the business. The headline on the OS, which just says "2012/13 financial results released", or the headline on the BBC, which the club has absolutely no say over? I think most of the quotes are sensible in the club's article are sensible, taking a fairly reserved attitude towards them and not giving themselves (or others) too much of a pat on the back - although the "difficult financial situation" one is a bit odd - and I think you get a bit more clarity of the situation with Adam Blackmore's interview. Would be handy if someone had the time to transcribe that, actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 31 March, 2014 Share Posted 31 March, 2014 It looked like a reasonable statement to me. Why bother with all the micro analysis. Eg selling Osvaldo and Ramirez wipes out the transfer debt. Although I'd like to see us keep Ramirez. Shaw quoted in the Echo hardly sounds like he wants to go. It seems that Pochettino staying is probably a key element. I suspect with the right money offered he will stay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 31 March, 2014 Share Posted 31 March, 2014 v.concerned bout this now, has anyone got any ideas for fundraising??? Obv i spose we can have buckets out at SMS, that would eat into it a bit but remember we do need to raise £27m so that is quite a lot of buckets! Maybe if all the fans could pay £1000 like at portsmouth? True fans like at portsmouth would have no problem with this. Makes you think about the financial mis-management of our club tho doesn't it! If ur £27m in debt should you really be going to local hospitals giving out free printers + easter eggs??? Also hans gruber prob should look at bringing back parking charges + ticket taxes, dunno if we can afford to write off those income streams right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 31 March, 2014 Share Posted 31 March, 2014 I meant it terms of signing off the plans, building commencing, and then Cortese deciding he wanted to completely change something. Drainage issues would have been surveyed in the initial planning stages. but they weren't, it was laid and then had to be moved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlakeySFC Posted 31 March, 2014 Share Posted 31 March, 2014 https://www.duedil.com/company/06951765/dmwsl-613-limited [h=5]Cash[/h]2.5MGBP [h=5]Net Worth[/h]-48.9MGBP [h=5]Current Liabilities[/h]28MGBP [h=5]Health[/h]Active Is that good? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rooney Posted 31 March, 2014 Share Posted 31 March, 2014 There was also a large wages bill for the dead wood we cleared out when the transfer window opened included in these figures. I would suggest too that much of the Training Ground costs are classified as repairs and replacements rather than improvements and thus are an income cost and not a capital cost. On this basis, they would appear in the P & L as tax deductable before the net profit/ loss is calculated. As somebody has also remarked that there are the larger payments from the Premier League this season which are not shown in these accounts. Sleep tight everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miltonaggro Posted 31 March, 2014 Share Posted 31 March, 2014 More reliance on tv rights to secure players, awful business model for all clubs to have, we dont get the money to keep the players, agents and tax man does. Lol!... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 31 March, 2014 Share Posted 31 March, 2014 Pretty clear why they wanted shot of Nick Nack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint-Armstrong Posted 31 March, 2014 Share Posted 31 March, 2014 Makes me laugh. People relished the new 'era of openness' and said they'd appreciate to know what's going on more, Cortese's era being too secretive or whatever. Now that Hofstetter and Rogers are honest and admit the books are "surprising" and "difficult", people moan that they're not gushing with optimism or false promises. I feel comfortable with the current Board of Directors, and the continued backing of Katharina Liebherr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bewildered Posted 31 March, 2014 Share Posted 31 March, 2014 Adam Blackmore @bigadamsport 6h #saintsfc transfer debt surprising not in the amount, but because I was briefed under previous regime that they paid for players outright !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DuncanRG Posted 31 March, 2014 Share Posted 31 March, 2014 Hans Hofsetter: "Every fan is aware this club had the full support of her father, and I can assure everybody this club will have the full support of Katharina, there's no doubt about it" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cryoman1965 Posted 31 March, 2014 Share Posted 31 March, 2014 Pretty clear why they wanted shot of Nick Nack. Yep, coz paddy wack spent so much of KL money we will sell all the top players that mopo don t want. Mopo is off to spurs so they sell whoever they want then offload to an asian finance company;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bucks Saint Posted 31 March, 2014 Share Posted 31 March, 2014 Adam Blackmore @bigadamsport 6h #saintsfc transfer debt surprising not in the amount, but because I was briefed under previous regime that they paid for players outright !! "he comes from It-al-y, the books are dead dod-gy" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doddisalegend Posted 31 March, 2014 Share Posted 31 March, 2014 Just underlines why Champions league or even a top 6 finish in the PL is very unlikely we've had to put ourselves back in debt (weren't we debt free when we came up from the championship?) just to get where we are a top 10 PL side the kind of spending required to go further just isn't IMO on the owners radar. Not that I blame her sinking all your cash into a black hole like a football club is a quick way to get poor. TBH I think I would rather have a well run (with as little debt as possible) mid table side than a top six club riddled with debt. The academy bolstered by a low number of sensible player purchases has to be the way for a club like us to go. Spending on the training facilities will hopeful pay dividends in the long run if we can continue to bring through talent from the academy and use the training facilities to get the best from the players we have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lets B Avenue Posted 31 March, 2014 Share Posted 31 March, 2014 (weren't we debt free when we came up from the championship?) Don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bewildered Posted 31 March, 2014 Share Posted 31 March, 2014 Hoftsetter from the interview "Everybody who is involved in football knows that we have to go for long term goals, When we would start to sell players to cover any gaps we have in the financials, that would be definitely the wrong way." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doddisalegend Posted 31 March, 2014 Share Posted 31 March, 2014 Don't think so. I thought the owners wrote of a load of debt and took it as shares which left us basically debt free? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 31 March, 2014 Share Posted 31 March, 2014 From a financial point of view, the figures really don't look bad. I think the quotes were said to make negative headlines, but to show up Cortese. Seriously, the results are fine, and will look brilliant next year with the increased revenue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draino76 Posted 31 March, 2014 Share Posted 31 March, 2014 A bit better than Pompey then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miserableoldgit Posted 31 March, 2014 Share Posted 31 March, 2014 http://www.ftbpro.com/xposts/southampton/821799/southampton-s-finances-mean-no-need-to-sell-adam-lallana-luke-shaw-jay-rodriguez Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DuncanRG Posted 31 March, 2014 Share Posted 31 March, 2014 It seems a vast amount of money, especially compared to the cost of the stadium, but perhaps it is an essential asset to attract the best players and youngsters. The phrase `overspend' is used on the BBC website, I assume SFC used that terminology, which is different from `increase'. It feels as though Cortese is being blamed. Overspend is different from an increase. An increase can be planned. They're not using the word so they can go 'ner-ner, look how wasteful the old guy was!' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Wayman Posted 31 March, 2014 Share Posted 31 March, 2014 Great news regarding the selling of players. Still think Shaw will leave however. Keeping MP is vital to the progress of the club and keeping players. Perhaps this shows the iron fisted Cortese wasn't running quite a tight ship as he would have let us believe. Why raise the Shaw matter yet again when it is clear he plans to stay for at least 2 more years. Stop worrying and enjoy the meal we are being served. Tomorrow will take care of itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan83 Posted 31 March, 2014 Share Posted 31 March, 2014 Ok.... so I've only had a brief skim through the thread so forgive me if this has been covered. But it seems obvious to me! So we have £27m in transfer fee liabilities right now. I'm not sure if it is easy to find precise figures for 2013/2014 Premier League prize-money, but I read at the end of last season there was to be a huge increase in TV money this year compared to last. Given that we earned £46.9m in broadcasting rights for 2012/13, and the team finishing 20TH in 2013/2014 is expected to receive £63m this season (source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/premier-league/10072297/New-Premier-League-TV-deal-promises-100m-prize-money-for-next-seasons-title-winners.html), then if we come 8th/9th we should expect TV/prize money revenue to go up to £83m - £85m (an increase of around £20m on last year). This increase, plus the operating profit (which I assume we'll be able to make again - at least) eliminates the entire £27m. I'm no accountant. But sounds to me like we're entirely well-positioned financially. The BBC article is way OTT, and I'm slightly disappointed with the tone taken by Hans Hoffsteter in his comments. It may be that he is accentuating the negatives now to (1) have a dig at the previous regime and (2) make it look like the new regime has done a better job down the line, but I really can't see any reason why we can't invest again in the summer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan83 Posted 31 March, 2014 Share Posted 31 March, 2014 Ok.... so I've only had a brief skim through the thread so forgive me if this has been covered. But it seems obvious to me! So we have £27m in transfer fee liabilities right now. I'm not sure if it is easy to find precise figures for 2013/2014 Premier League prize-money, but I read at the end of last season there was to be a huge increase in TV money this year compared to last. Given that we earned £46.9m in broadcasting rights for 2012/13, and the team finishing 20TH in 2013/2014 is expected to receive £63m this season (source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/premier-league/10072297/New-Premier-League-TV-deal-promises-100m-prize-money-for-next-seasons-title-winners.html), then if we come 8th/9th we should expect TV/prize money revenue to go up to £83m - £85m (an increase of around £20m on last year). This increase, plus the operating profit (which I assume we'll be able to make again - at least) eliminates the entire £27m. I'm no accountant. But sounds to me like we're entirely well-positioned financially. The BBC article is way OTT, and I'm slightly disappointed with the tone taken by Hans Hoffsteter in his comments. It may be that he is accentuating the negatives now to (1) have a dig at the previous regime and (2) make it look like the new regime has done a better job down the line, but I really can't see any reason why we can't invest again in the summer! Forgive my maths - been a long day! Should've said an increase in prize-money of around £40m! Easily swallows this £27m liability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doddisalegend Posted 31 March, 2014 Share Posted 31 March, 2014 Why raise the Shaw matter yet again when it is clear he plans to stay for at least 2 more years. Stop worrying and enjoy the meal we are being served. Tomorrow will take care of itself. Isn't that what Pompey fans said just before it went tits up (twice)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0108787 Posted 31 March, 2014 Share Posted 31 March, 2014 Ok.... so I've only had a brief skim through the thread so forgive me if this has been covered. But it seems obvious to me! So we have £27m in transfer fee liabilities right now. I'm not sure if it is easy to find precise figures for 2013/2014 Premier League prize-money, but I read at the end of last season there was to be a huge increase in TV money this year compared to last. Given that we earned £46.9m in broadcasting rights for 2012/13, and the team finishing 20TH in 2013/2014 is expected to receive £63m this season (source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/premier-league/10072297/New-Premier-League-TV-deal-promises-100m-prize-money-for-next-seasons-title-winners.html), then if we come 8th/9th we should expect TV/prize money revenue to go up to £83m - £85m (an increase of around £20m on last year). This increase, plus the operating profit (which I assume we'll be able to make again - at least) eliminates the entire £27m. I'm no accountant. But sounds to me like we're entirely well-positioned financially. The BBC article is way OTT, and I'm slightly disappointed with the tone taken by Hans Hoffsteter in his comments. It may be that he is accentuating the negatives now to (1) have a dig at the previous regime and (2) make it look like the new regime has done a better job down the line, but I really can't see any reason why we can't invest again in the summer! This Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Sanchez Posted 31 March, 2014 Share Posted 31 March, 2014 Nonetheless it did require outlay (let's face it, that was clear as day given how quickly we rebuilt after administration) to get us here in the first place. It seems to me at least that Cortese wanted us to keep pushing up on the back of investment from the family before stabilising at as high a level as possible. Be it through an appreciation that we have realistically hit a glass ceiling or through simple lack of desire to sink any further millions in we are now appearing to be moving away from this. Consolidation makes a lot of sense right now to ensure that we are stable going forward but treading water in football can be very unsatisfying in the context of the recent good times we've had. I have said this for ages, and yes you are correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 31 March, 2014 Share Posted 31 March, 2014 I'm no accountant. But sounds to me like we're entirely well-positioned financially. The BBC article is way OTT, and I'm slightly disappointed with the tone taken by Hans Hoffsteter in his comments. It may be that he is accentuating the negatives now to (1) have a dig at the previous regime and (2) make it look like the new regime has done a better job down the line, but I really can't see any reason why we can't invest again in the summer! From my quick look at the numbers I have to say that given our current position (safe in the Prem & with a benefactor still willing to support us), I too couldn't find much to worry about. We cleared £20m+ of transfer fees this season and given the large increase in TV income, can't see why it will be a problem doing it again. Any refund/resale on Osvaldo will also help!!!! So like you, also not sure why the negative slant?? I'd suggest (1) a chance to have a thinly veiled pop at Cortese, and/or (2) an early dampening of expectations with regards spending millions this summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graffito Posted 31 March, 2014 Share Posted 31 March, 2014 Significant alterations to the plans after they had been signed off, most likely. £15m worth of alterations since it was granted consent last October or thereabouts? That's just not credible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 31 March, 2014 Share Posted 31 March, 2014 Ok.... so I've only had a brief skim through the thread so forgive me if this has been covered. But it seems obvious to me! So we have £27m in transfer fee liabilities right now. I'm not sure if it is easy to find precise figures for 2013/2014 Premier League prize-money, but I read at the end of last season there was to be a huge increase in TV money this year compared to last. Given that we earned £46.9m in broadcasting rights for 2012/13, and the team finishing 20TH in 2013/2014 is expected to receive £63m this season (source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/premier-league/10072297/New-Premier-League-TV-deal-promises-100m-prize-money-for-next-seasons-title-winners.html), then if we come 8th/9th we should expect TV/prize money revenue to go up to £83m - £85m (an increase of around £20m on last year). This increase, plus the operating profit (which I assume we'll be able to make again - at least) eliminates the entire £27m. I'm no accountant. But sounds to me like we're entirely well-positioned financially. The BBC article is way OTT, and I'm slightly disappointed with the tone taken by Hans Hoffsteter in his comments. It may be that he is accentuating the negatives now to (1) have a dig at the previous regime and (2) make it look like the new regime has done a better job down the line, but I really can't see any reason why we can't invest again in the summer! Hoffsteter obviously said what he said for a reason. Last week our manager was saying we had the best left back in the world, today we have a director announcing a "difficult" financial position and being left with a "burden". They might as well have said "Gentlemen, let the bidding commence". The figures don't seem like anything to worry though, it all depends how much money KL wants to make/throw away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now