mcjwills Posted 21 April, 2014 Share Posted 21 April, 2014 (edited) ...... Edited 21 April, 2014 by mcjwills merged posts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 21 April, 2014 Share Posted 21 April, 2014 A lot is going to depend on the shirt sponsor next season, we have probably the worst shirt sponsorship deal in the PL at the moment, but have a chance to increase that significantly now the aap3 is due to finish. Ralph and his team have to step up to the plate and get a decent deal, I think a £200m deal with Leibherr construction would be a great sponsorship deal over 3 years ? The findings of FFP are coming out early May. The overpriced sponsorship deals are factored in and sounds like City are going to be in trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 21 April, 2014 Share Posted 21 April, 2014 (edited) We're not qualified for Europe so UEFA's rules mean nothing to us just now. Liverpool made a massive loss 2 years ago but that won't be taken into account. Only clubs qualified for Europe are affected by UEFA's rules. However the PL rule is not to lose more than 105 million £ over 3 years which we are no doubt well within because we only lost 6 million or so last season and will make a profit this season. What might cause us problems is the increase in player salarial mass which can be funded from the PL hand-outs. Last season we were below the 52 million threshold so it didn't apply to us, it might still not but there I couldn't say. For 2012/13 the organisations total salarial mass was 47.1 million, 90% of that should probably be down to players salaries so we had a good margin. with the 3 major additions at say 50K a week each we'd still be well under the 52 million plus we've loaned a few players out. We're permitted an 8 million rise next season so that should still give us good scope. Edited 21 April, 2014 by Window Cleaner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 21 April, 2014 Share Posted 21 April, 2014 If you think that is something you can be actually be "condemned" to, then fine. Appalling word choice, I'd say. By the way, I have just had my breakfast and was condemned to having Lemon Curd on my toast as we'd run out of marmalade. Ha! I hope that's not the breakfast equivalent of being "condemned" to play fox at lb once/if shaw is sold :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whelk Posted 21 April, 2014 Share Posted 21 April, 2014 By the way, I have just had my breakfast and was condemned to having Lemon Curd on my toast as we'd run out of marmalade. That is the problem when supermarkets close for a day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 21 April, 2014 Share Posted 21 April, 2014 That is the problem when supermarkets close for a day. Quite. In other news, Mrs CBF significantly over - bought milk. One day FFS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 21 April, 2014 Share Posted 21 April, 2014 Quite. In other news, Mrs CBF significantly over - bought milk. One day FFS. Did you condemn her and have to sell your home garden grown carrots before you could buy anything else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Sanchez Posted 21 April, 2014 Share Posted 21 April, 2014 He expressed an opinion and even qualified it by the caveat "I think". You happen to agree with him, but just because the two of you think along the same lines, doesn't make him correct, does it? But Wes we are correct, get over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Who? Posted 21 April, 2014 Share Posted 21 April, 2014 I would not want to sign Terry! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barry Sanchez Posted 21 April, 2014 Share Posted 21 April, 2014 I would not want to sign Terry! For improving the side yes of course but as a person representing the club no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloridaMarlin Posted 21 April, 2014 Share Posted 21 April, 2014 The main issue I have with Martin Samuels' article is that he assumes the reader knows how the FFP rules work, and offers no explanation to those who might not. He maps out the effects it might have on Saints, without explaining how the rules will affect those clubs the FFP rules are designed to curb - Citeh, Chelsea - whose owners have just bought success without paying even as much as lip service to the development of young players. I would have liked Samuels to speculate how clubs like Man City and Chelsea will get round the FFP rules - which they will. Football has become much more venal since the advent of the Premier League, but not just in this country. I'm old enough to remember the great Ajax sides of the 1970s, who conquered Europe with a team composed of home-grown players (with the one or two foreign players permitted then). But what are a great club like Ajax now? Little more than a feeder club. I've long made my theory known about where football is heading - a Kerry packer style schism with the big clubs hiving off, sticking two fingers up to Fifa and forming their own TV-sponsored World Super League to compete with and undermine the World Cup. A previous poster mentioned the Far East market and it's the vast still largely-untapped Chinese market which appears to be the focus of the efforts of clubs and organisations like the Premier League. The clubs hold a lot of power and want more, as power = wealth, and the big clubs are heading for a showdown with Fifa. I would not be surprised to see in my lifetime, the World Cup and continental championships reduced to second-rate competitions. The Far Eastern hordes are not interested in national teams, they want to be able to parade their Man Utd/Liverpool/Chelsea/Barca/Real Madrid shirts through the streets of Beijing and Shanghai. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DuncanRG Posted 21 April, 2014 Share Posted 21 April, 2014 Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EBS1980 Posted 21 April, 2014 Share Posted 21 April, 2014 I think (and hope) that providing MoPo stays the squad will give it another season. We have progress YOY so if our aim next season is Europe then I think the players will give it a shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DuncanRG Posted 21 April, 2014 Share Posted 21 April, 2014 Is this a conspiracy from within? Jesus christ lad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Fan CaM Posted 21 April, 2014 Share Posted 21 April, 2014 I think everyone including Samuels is overlooking the massive part team spirit plays in this young squad. They are here because they want to be here to play football...to be a part of the journey. Lallana, Lambert, Morgan and Fonte are key leaders in reminding their team mates where they've come from. Don't write off the possibility of this group of players sticking with us for a while yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkSFC Posted 21 April, 2014 Share Posted 21 April, 2014 If we sell Osvaldo, Ramirez, Mayuka, Fox, Hoiveld (maybe just get rid!), then surely that covers the 22 odd million talked about and we then keep the nucleus and kids and go again for 3 quality players. There may well be some truth in this story but I suspect it's more spinning the line to suit the obsession of big club little club the press thrive upon. They love a success story but until it comes along they write in the opposite corner to satisfy their customer base. When will people ignore these agenda ridden people do their own research and make their own minds up??!!! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkSFC Posted 21 April, 2014 Share Posted 21 April, 2014 He hasn't condemned Saints at all. He is positive about Saints. He has condemned UEFA's rule. What he says about Saints is pretty accurate apart from the signals from our Board are that we wouldnt be looking to spend massively anyway. What he said about Shaw and Chambers is sadly true. Most likely in two years neither will be at the club which is a massive shame. We produce excellent young players, keep them whilst they learn their trade then sell them for the bigger clubs to benefit from their talents. Sad but true. And so far we havent even got much money for them. He's got you hook line and sinker. Never mind. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DuncanRG Posted 21 April, 2014 Share Posted 21 April, 2014 I'd be interested to know whether Southampton still formally object to FFP. We know Cortese did and can see how it got in the way of his plans, but the new board might see it differently. If I remember correctly we were one of three clubs to object, the others being Chelsea and Fulham. Some of the smaller clubs in favour doubtless lack ambition to climb and are happy to sell and stay in midtable, but I'd be interested to see why Everton (a club who face financial barriers to breaking in) didn't object. (Can I also note that his name is Martin Samuel, not Samuels?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VectisSaint Posted 21 April, 2014 Share Posted 21 April, 2014 Horror of horrors. Martin Samuels believes Saints will be forced to sell due to the fair play regulations. Not nice reading http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2609004/MARTIN-SAMUEL-Why-Southampton-sign-stars-like-Christian-Benteke-Robin-van-Persie-John-Terry-instead-sell-sell-sell.html Not nice reading because it is an awful article, full of mistakes, which does nothing to explain the author's assertion that Saints will have to sell. It is to put it politely ********. But then that is par for the course for the idiot that is Samuels "sportswriter of the year, my arse". By the way he also doesn't condemn Saints, he is actually very flattering, though you could say he is condemning us in the sense that he thinks we are condemned to our current position due to the Fair Play rules (which we aren't). Thank God though that we will not be signing stars like John Terry, I really almost feel sick seeing that ***** in a Saints shirt (would take RvP though). Rubbish also about it always being so with us, citing Shearer as being not part of a young squad with potential, no you're right Samuels, only crap players like Le Tissier, Rod Wallace, Jeff Kenna and Tim Flowers were in the squad when Shearer broke through (you could add others like Dodd as well if you were inclined) Apart from Wallace they were all still there when Shearer played his last game, indeed Kenna and Flowers followed Shearer to Blackburn, and Kenna made about 30 apps for Ireland, seem to recall Flowers made a few as well (I know Flowers was not a product of our Academy but I think he was only about 19 when he joined us from Wolves). Still I guess the article has boosted the anti-Saints posters on here, I see Barry and Glasgow Toffee have weighed in to say "told you so". Well Trolls, you are wrong again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bailey Posted 21 April, 2014 Share Posted 21 April, 2014 I'd be interested to know whether Southampton still formally object to FFP. We know Cortese did and can see how it got in the way of his plans, but the new board might see it differently. I understand the new board are in favour of FFP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 21 April, 2014 Share Posted 21 April, 2014 The article itself is pretty much all about the issues and scenarios that the FFP brings to the table, but I don't agree with the conclusion - In fact there is an argument that it would have the opposite impact. With restrictions on what wages and transfer fees could be spent, surely it makes more sense for Clubs (As we have done) to develop and retain their inhouse talent, as opposed to paying huge sums for other players. Additionally Young English players come at a premium, so assuming that the bigger clubs. will be forced to abide by the rules, means they perhaps can not be so gung ho in snapping up "unproven" (In international, European competitions) players. We know are turnover (From the latest set of accounts) and we know our average wage per week, is 23k. From my limited knowledge on the FFP rules and my dubious maths, we are fine (Acknowledging that it is a year out of date and wages will have gone up) so I just can't understand where the need to sell comes from - especially if we were forced to sell our younger (Cheaper wages) players and replace them with expensive foreign replacements. Now that of course doesn't detract from the fact that the bigger clubs will be all over our top talent like a rash and inevitably we will lose a couple, but that has been the case forever and day and has nothing to do with the FFP rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenilworthy Posted 21 April, 2014 Share Posted 21 April, 2014 Jeff Kenna never had an international career? 27 caps for the Republic of Ireland. And only horrendous luck with injuries prevented Richard Hall from playing for England. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Charlie Posted 21 April, 2014 Share Posted 21 April, 2014 He's got you hook line and sinker. Never mind. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Why? Walcott, Bale, AOC didnt play more than one full season for us and Shaw/Chambers won't reach 100 apps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baldbarbarian Posted 21 April, 2014 Share Posted 21 April, 2014 Samuels is a fat mess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Charlie Posted 21 April, 2014 Share Posted 21 April, 2014 Fonte comment interesting...if only we could keep our best players and add...if only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suewhistle Posted 21 April, 2014 Share Posted 21 April, 2014 But what are a great club like Ajax now? Little more than a feeder club. Lost 5-1 in the dutch cup final to PEC Zwolle. No, I hadn't heard of them either. One current regulation I agree with is the limitation in squad sizes, so that the large teams can't hoard players and deny them to other teams. Perhaps tightening up on the loan rules might help too.. How many is it that Chelsea have out on loan?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Depressed of Shirley Posted 21 April, 2014 Share Posted 21 April, 2014 My view of this is that FPP is in two parts. One for UEFA and one for the PL. The PL rules are the problem for us, because it puts us at disadvantage with the CL teams in terms of income. The UEFA rules are there to stop the City/Chelsea/PSG/Malaga/Monaco issues, but really wouldn't effect us unless we spent a couple of hundred million. The PL rules are a problem, because it entrenches the current top 4 plus Man U in those top five positions. If you look at Everton and Spurs, rather than us, they will lose players, as we will, because we they won't be able to pay the wages to keep the top players. The secret, is to sell say Shaw or Barkley for £30m, replace him with two academy graduates in the first team squad, and buy/acquire three players on fees or frees that improve the overall squad. Therefore, the key to FPP is good management, coaching, scouting allied to reasonable wages. The system puts pressure on the club at all levels, and there will be seasons where the players bought, promoted to the squad don't work out. In those years, avoiding relegation will be the target, in the good years, a cup or Europa League place will be the target. In fact, this is just as it is now. The key to FPP will be the penalties applied if you break the rules. If Man City fail the UEFA test, then they may get punished. If they break the PL rules, they won't, because it could damage the "brand" if they can't compete. Man U or Liverpool won't get any penalties for anything they do on the UEFA or PL rules, as they are just too big to take on. The FPP rules are no different to the last successful attempt to keep the big clubs in control. When the clubs voted to keep their own home gate receipts in full, it was a response to clubs like Saints, Watford, Notts Forest, Ipswich etc finishing above Man U and Arsenal. This worked until Jack Walker turned up and bought the title for Blackburn, and laid down the blueprint for Abramovic, Abu Dhabi etc. Finally, if they really wanted to make things fairer, then ban loans between clubs in the same division, and ban foreign loans. That way, clubs couldn't stockpile talent, and their wage bill would reflect all the players they sign, not just the successful buys. Martin Samuel also suggests this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sotonist Posted 21 April, 2014 Share Posted 21 April, 2014 The secret, is to sell say Shaw or Barkley for £30m, replace him with two academy graduates in the first team squad as long as the players we well are replaceable. shaw and chambers, neither are indispensable. losing the likes of lallana will be gutting. we'll have to go through a number of Gastons and/or academy generations before we find anything comparable. if there had been money available to invest in keeping and supplementing the squad it's a damn shame that ffp will scupper it. who thought it was good idea to prevent owners introducing capital? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 21 April, 2014 Share Posted 21 April, 2014 Leibherr could still bankroll us if she wanted, there are a million ways around those rules - if not Man City and Chelsea are ****ed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leslie Charteris Posted 21 April, 2014 Share Posted 21 April, 2014 This is why I love The Daily Mail, it editorialises opinion all the time so people accept it as fact. Martin Samuel is expressing an opinion in something that reads like a blog. He misses out some facts, glosses over others and even gets one or two wrong in letting us know what he thinks. No wonder people are outraged, that never happens on here! Sadly, however, I fear he is essentially right, self-interest rules and wealth and power will stay with the rich and influential few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DuncanRG Posted 21 April, 2014 Share Posted 21 April, 2014 This is why I love The Daily Mail, it editorialises opinion all the time so people accept it as fact. Believe it or not, the Daily Mail is not the first paper to have comment pages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leslie Charteris Posted 21 April, 2014 Share Posted 21 April, 2014 Believe it or not, the Daily Mail is not the first paper to have comment pages. True, but The Mail mixes fact and opinion so freely and so well and not just in the comments section, it usually starts on the front page! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DuncanRG Posted 21 April, 2014 Share Posted 21 April, 2014 You're right about that! Still sick to the stomach over the Mail on Sunday's foodbank sting yesterday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david in sweden Posted 21 April, 2014 Share Posted 21 April, 2014 If we sell Osvaldo, Ramirez, Mayuka, Fox, Hoiveld (maybe just get rid!), then surely that covers the 22 odd million talked about and we then keep the nucleus and kids and go again for 3 quality players. There may well be some truth in this story but I suspect it's more spinning the line to suit the obsession of big club little club the press thrive upon. They love a success story but until it comes along they write in the opposite corner to satisfy their customer base. When will people ignore these agenda ridden people do their own research and make their own minds up??!!! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk .......one can but hope .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SW5 SAINT Posted 21 April, 2014 Share Posted 21 April, 2014 Pretty much spot on and is why I think we have now peaked under a glass ceiling. The Premiership is increasingly being devalued for the far eastern market. The rich are getting richer and football in this country has lost its way. It has been great being a Saints fan this season, bucking the trend with home grown players playing decent football but ultimately we are nothing more than a feeder club to dodgy oligarchs and dubious oil wealth conglomorates. How depressing is that? This. How depressing and predictable it is all going to become. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicestersaint Posted 21 April, 2014 Share Posted 21 April, 2014 I could not understand his argument. 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