Player Budget - That's About It...

[Saint Without a Halo]

People should stop accepting that the players are grumbling and ask the question why. They were perfectly happy 6 months ago.

 

Herein is the big conundrum for the board how did this close knit team a number of whom shared the fantastic journey up from league 1 suddenly all turn into money grabbing mercenaries inside 6 months?

[Window Cleaner]

Good find, quite possibly. And there have been a lot of murmurings that players aren't receiving bonuses promised to them.

 

 

bonuses no doubt triggered by finishing 8th instead of say 15th. That brings money to the club, players would normally participate in those gains. If the "board" thinks that they can attract top players and coaching staff and not pay them bonuses for achieving better results which in turn bring supplementary revenues to the club then they are dwelling in cloud cuckoo land. If the club paid even a quarter of the 7.4 million £ that finishing 8th instead of 15th brought in then I'd be surprised. Probably works out at 100K per first team player.

[Saint Without a Halo]

Interesting post guided

And is probably nearer the truth as to why players are leaving , I had heard NC wasn't the nicest of guys but then I have heard that les read has be facing about re sorting out player contracts etc in recent months

 

It makes sense bringing in our new manager . We are going to gave bumpy times these season but we will be okay

If NC has crippled the club then thank god he left . He could still be here if he had listened to the advice he was given by the owners . But then it's NC and he was pretty nasty character

 

I hope you are right but based on evidence and performance to date I'd rather have NC than this lot! As a person by all accounts he appears to be obnoxious but as a Chairman he was spot on and gave us supporters some of the best years ever.

[Ed Rooney]

I just had a text from a football agent with strong ties to Southampton FC, who told me that the player budget at Saints was out of control. He suggested that the board was hamstrung by the commitments Cortese had made to both the players and Pochettino et al, which would have ensured that any future success on the field would have swallowed up income off of it and led to an unsustainable situation going forward, given our restricted income, with regard to sponsorship and crowds. Cortese had taken his focus off of the commercial income growth. In fact it was shrinking, due to the fact he was an unpleasant guy to deal with. Sony swore never to sponsor a box again, after the way they were treated last season.

 

So, my take is that to prevent all and more of the riches earned in the Premiership disappearing via players, their contracts, bonuses and constant demands, leading to an unsustainable future, it made sense to clear the decks and adjust the player budget to a level that a club our size, with 30,000 crowds and a tiny commercial income, compared with virtually any other club in the Premiership, could afford. Cutting our cloth in an area in which the majority of the overheads are spent. The area of greedy, spoilt, ungrateful, spoilt and self-obsessed children who can kick a ball around for a living. Better to start with new contracts than have to pay for the mistakes of the past.

 

English players? Cr@p and overpriced in my opinion.

 

Exactly the same as I have heard

[BARCELONASAINT]

I just had a text from a football agent with strong ties to Southampton FC, who told me that the player budget at Saints was out of control. He suggested that the board was hamstrung by the commitments Cortese had made to both the players and Pochettino et al, which would have ensured that any future success on the field would have swallowed up income off of it and led to an unsustainable situation going forward, given our restricted income, with regard to sponsorship and crowds. Cortese had taken his focus off of the commercial income growth. In fact it was shrinking, due to the fact he was an unpleasant guy to deal with. Sony swore never to sponsor a box again, after the way they were treated last season.

 

So, my take is that to prevent all and more of the riches earned in the Premiership disappearing via players, their contracts, bonuses and constant demands, leading to an unsustainable future, it made sense to clear the decks and adjust the player budget to a level that a club our size, with 30,000 crowds and a tiny commercial income, compared with virtually any other club in the Premiership, could afford. Cutting our cloth in an area in which the majority of the overheads are spent. The area of greedy, spoilt, ungrateful, spoilt and self-obsessed children who can kick a ball around for a living. Better to start with new contracts than have to pay for the mistakes of the past.

 

English players? Cr@p and overpriced in my opinion.

 

 

This is completely what i have alluded to in my previous posts.....as my as i thought the Don was a "go getter" i had my concerns he was playing with fire and being totally reliant on KL pot of gold never drying up. Thanks for the post, makes perfect sense.

[Greedyfly]

Sell the club for £150M or sell our best young players every other season for £100M. You do the maths...

 

Has to be the most concerning response I have heard yet.

[Greenridge]

So Chambers was on a huge contract with bonuses too and we needed him off our books these excuses begger belief

based on this all our incomings (when they eventually appear) must be on less than Chambers no wonder we are having problems convincing the big raft of excellent players who want to come here to put pen to paper.

 

Yes that doesn't stack-up. It can't be wages alone. We've still got Gaston, was he not believed to be our highest earner? There's more to it but cost-cutting is clearly a strategic decision and despite the stick that Reed is given maybe he's actually doing a very good job (for his employers) in maximising the transfer fees.

 

If it was just wages alone we got have managed the departure of a few of the highest earners over a period of transfer windows and not stripped the team bare in one swipe.

[sfc1976]

But the board told us we didn't have to sell?!

[Alien]

I just had a text from a football agent with strong ties to Southampton FC, who told me that the player budget at Saints was out of control. He suggested that the board was hamstrung by the commitments Cortese had made to both the players and Pochettino et al, which would have ensured that any future success on the field would have swallowed up income off of it and led to an unsustainable situation going forward, given our restricted income, with regard to sponsorship and crowds. Cortese had taken his focus off of the commercial income growth. In fact it was shrinking, due to the fact he was an unpleasant guy to deal with. Sony swore never to sponsor a box again, after the way they were treated last season.

 

So, my take is that to prevent all and more of the riches earned in the Premiership disappearing via players, their contracts, bonuses and constant demands, leading to an unsustainable future, it made sense to clear the decks and adjust the player budget to a level that a club our size, with 30,000 crowds and a tiny commercial income, compared with virtually any other club in the Premiership, could afford. Cutting our cloth in an area in which the majority of the overheads are spent. The area of greedy, spoilt, ungrateful, spoilt and self-obsessed children who can kick a ball around for a living. Better to start with new contracts than have to pay for the mistakes of the past.

 

English players? Cr@p and overpriced in my opinion.

 

My input for what it's worth, that's one hell of a text.

[View From The Top]

I hope you are right but based on evidence and performance to date I'd rather have NC than this lot! As a person by all accounts he appears to be obnoxious but as a Chairman he was spot on and gave us supporters some of the best years ever.

 

Easy when your spunking other peoples money. Not so easy when the tap is turned off.

 

Think some of you are convinced that he was spending his own cash.

[Gorgiesaint]

So Cortese decided to take the pompey approach. If you remember the bonuses they had to pay out for winning their FA Cup exceeded the extra income they got from the games and prize money, it was part of what brought them down.

 

Were we headed in the same direction?

 

For those saying but the players were happy 6 months ago, of course they were. They were on contracts with massive bonuses. Subsequently I guess they've been told they will have to re-negotiate, or be sold.

[Batman]

Easy when your spunking other peoples money. Not so easy when the tap is turned off.

 

Think some of you are convinced that he was spending his own cash.

 

its all some body elses money

[Katalinic]

If this is true then the club could do worse than come out and tell us - most sensible minded people with a concept of commerciality would understand it - it is the silence that is deafening and fuelling the conspiracy theories.

[Whitey Grandad]

Because that's not for the club to financially reward.

 

It depends upon who owns the image rights.

[Whitey Grandad]

Well i dont believe it. The contracts would have been signed well before the massive TV revenue was assured. As for the box issue, if somebody had paid 30k for a box and then the next door one is sold for 16k you upset the original good customer. NC is a financial man and I suspect had a longterm plan. We are also told that the matchday income is now less important nowadays as the TV money is so vast.

 

I spoke to somebody who used to have a box in the Championship. He was so ****ed off by Cortese and the price hike that he walked away and hasn't been back. Have you ever wondered why so many boxes are empty?

[saint_ed]

It depends upon who owns the image rights.

 

Nothing to do with image rights.

[Whitey Grandad]

I have often wondered if Cortese might have had a couple of time bombs in place. Other reports, such as the difference in the way he reportedly treated the players (gods) to the way he treated most everyone else (scum), give this a bit of weight.

 

Reading between the lines, looks like he cultivated a cult of personality style of management, backed up with readies. If we're being honest, it wasn't even that stable a form of management while he was about. Looks to be killing us after the event.

 

You're very perceptive, young man. I predict a bright future for you.

[a1ex2001]

But the board told us we didn't have to sell?!

 

The borad will never announce that they need to sell as that instantly slashes the asking price for players, some football fans seem to be a little silly?

 

No idea what to believe is going on behind the scenes there are too man plausible explanations and nothing like enough facts to base a decision on, one thing I do know is that the return of Guided Missile to the main board can't be a good thing he is generally only seen in times of trouble and we don't want this situation getting worse!

[shurlock]

We had a small squad and a lot of young players playing key roles. Our wage bill must still have been a fraction of say, West Ham's.

 

Plus, it was pretty clear we had some major assets. We would have sold Shaw anyway this summer, and would have recouped 30m which would more than cover any playing costs.

 

Of course, the playing budget in the Championship will be lower.

 

Talking of West Ham, Winston Reid reportedly holding out for £80K p/w.

[Whitey Grandad]

Nothing to do with image rights.

 

What, international call-ups? They increase the value of the players image right, which is one method of rewarding the player by paying them through a separate company. Just ask Sol Campbell and HMRC about them.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I just had a text from a football agent with strong ties to Southampton FC, who told me that the player budget at Saints was out of control. He suggested that the board was hamstrung by the commitments Cortese had made to both the players and Pochettino et al, which would have ensured that any future success on the field would have swallowed up income off of it and led to an unsustainable situation going forward, given our restricted income, with regard to sponsorship and crowds. Cortese had taken his focus off of the commercial income growth. In fact it was shrinking, due to the fact he was an unpleasant guy to deal with. Sony swore never to sponsor a box again, after the way they were treated last season.

 

So, my take is that to prevent all and more of the riches earned in the Premiership disappearing via players, their contracts, bonuses and constant demands, leading to an unsustainable future, it made sense to clear the decks and adjust the player budget to a level that a club our size, with 30,000 crowds and a tiny commercial income, compared with virtually any other club in the Premiership, could afford. Cutting our cloth in an area in which the majority of the overheads are spent. The area of greedy, spoilt, ungrateful, spoilt and self-obsessed children who can kick a ball around for a living. Better to start with new contracts than have to pay for the mistakes of the past.

 

English players? Cr@p and overpriced in my opinion.

 

I would like to believe this is true. It's the only thing that makes sense. Enough sense to make me post for the first time in seasons!

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

I hope you are right but based on evidence and performance to date I'd rather have NC than this lot! As a person by all accounts he appears to be obnoxious but as a Chairman he was spot on and gave us supporters some of the best years ever.

 

The point is that NC was an employee and was spending 'this lots' money. It was not an either or scenario.

[Window Cleaner]

its all some body elses money

 

he probably thought it was the club's money after all. The football club earns money, the ex CEO spent it on err football.

[FloridaMarlin]

They wouldn't have bonuses in their domestics contracts for international recognition.

 

A standard clause in most players' contracts.

 

An increase on first international cap, and increases based on a subsequent number of appearances will be in pretty much every player's contract.

[Batman]

so, we have to sell £150m worth of players, throw in a few million in sponserships etc, throw £80m TV money

in order to pay off player bonuses?

[stevegrant]

So Cortese decided to take the pompey approach. If you remember the bonuses they had to pay out for winning their FA Cup exceeded the extra income they got from the games and prize money, it was part of what brought them down.

 

Were we headed in the same direction?

 

For those saying but the players were happy 6 months ago, of course they were. They were on contracts with massive bonuses. Subsequently I guess they've been told they will have to re-negotiate, or be sold.

The Pompey approach combined unsustainable fixed salaries (many players on £70k+ a week, plus shady image rights deals) with massive performance-related bonuses, on a much smaller broadcasting contract and attendances of 20,000.

 

Our wage bill for last season will have been around the £50-60m mark, and I expect the club's revenue will be around £100m (approx £75m of that from central broadcasting/prize money). A 50-60% wages-to-turnover ratio is not excessive by any stretch of the imagination - in fact, it's probably among the lowest in the PL.

 

I can certainly accept that there is some adjustment to be done to ensure the Staplewood redevelopment and past transfer expenditure is fully covered, but I'm not sold on the idea that SEVEN first-teamers had to be sold to facilitate it. The wages, from my point of view, are not a problem.

 

I'd also ask what the problem is with performance-related bonuses - surely that's the ideal situation, you pay players a basic wage, and they get more if their performances, and those of their team-mates, merit it. I'd much rather that than paying someone £60k a week who then feels he doesn't need to work hard for the club to earn big money.

[Heisenberg]

so, we have to sell £150m worth of players, throw in a few million in sponserships etc, throw £80m TV money

in order to pay off player bonuses?

 

Or perhap Kat simply begrudged paying it? It was rumoured that Mopo would get an improved contract + 500k to £1m for finishing in 8th place. If you have a team of players on similar deals youre paying out £15-20m bonuses to players that finished 8th!! Im all for performance related bonuses, but 8th!?!?

 

If players are now also triggering international bonuses, perhaps Kat just simply had enough?

 

Just a shame NC didnt insert some cup bonuses too... We may then at least have a trophy to show for our best squad possibly ever

[egg]

bonuses no doubt triggered by finishing 8th instead of say 15th. That brings money to the club, players would normally participate in those gains. If the "board" thinks that they can attract top players and coaching staff and not pay them bonuses for achieving better results which in turn bring supplementary revenues to the club then they are dwelling in cloud cuckoo land. If the club paid even a quarter of the 7.4 million £ that finishing 8th instead of 15th brought in then I'd be surprised. Probably works out at 100K per first team player.

 

The club pay half to the players.

[The9]

Sell the club for £150M or sell our best young players every other season for £100M. You do the maths...

 

To get £100m every other season we'd have to bring through 5 x £20m players every 2 years, whilst remaining a Prem side. Even Man U with their Class of '92 lot only managed to do that once, ever...

[egg]

The Pompey approach combined unsustainable fixed salaries (many players on £70k+ a week, plus shady image rights deals) with massive performance-related bonuses, on a much smaller broadcasting contract and attendances of 20,000.

 

Our wage bill for last season will have been around the £50-60m mark, and I expect the club's revenue will be around £100m (approx £75m of that from central broadcasting/prize money). A 50-60% wages-to-turnover ratio is not excessive by any stretch of the imagination - in fact, it's probably among the lowest in the PL.

 

I can certainly accept that there is some adjustment to be done to ensure the Staplewood redevelopment and past transfer expenditure is fully covered, but I'm not sold on the idea that SEVEN first-teamers had to be sold to facilitate it. The wages, from my point of view, are not a problem.

 

I'd also ask what the problem is with performance-related bonuses - surely that's the ideal situation, you pay players a basic wage, and they get more if their performances, and those of their team-mates, merit it. I'd much rather that than paying someone £60k a week who then feels he doesn't need to work hard for the club to earn big money.

 

£52m wage bill.

 

£38m Staplewood bill.

 

KL funded £28m in April to meet pressing financial demands.

 

Something had to give, but not to this extent.

[Window Cleaner]

The club pay half to the players.

 

Official information ?

[shurlock]

£52m wage bill.

 

£38m Staplewood bill.

 

KL funded £28m in April to meet pressing financial demands.

 

Something had to give, but not to this extent.

 

£52m - source?

[Window Cleaner]

£52m wage bill.

 

£38m Staplewood bill.

 

KL funded £28m in April to meet pressing financial demands.

 

Something had to give, but not to this extent.

 

 

So in fact the cost of Staplewood is a problem,is that right ? And to think I've been lambasted constantly for querying it's cost/utility ratio.

[egg]

Official information ?

 

It's a fact.

[egg]

So in fact the cost of Staplewood is a problem,is that right ? And to think I've been lambasted constantly for querying it's cost/utility ratio.

 

The cost rose from £14m to £38m partly owing to £4m of "waste" and a desire to create "the 4 seasons".

[Window Cleaner]

It's a fact.

 

 

good enough for me, I like facts, positive or negative they're always what you need. Problem is on this forum positive non facts tend to be considered superior to negative facts.

[egg]

£52m - source?

 

Behave!

[Window Cleaner]

The cost rose from £14m to £38m partly owing to £4m of "waste" and a desire to create "the 4 seasons".

 

How long have the club got to pay for it though, surely it's not a cash on the nail job.

[egg]

How long have the club got to pay for it though, surely it's not a cash on the nail job.

 

That I don't know. I also don't know what the £28m released by KL in April was for.

[Window Cleaner]

Behave!

 

Absolutely 52 million sounds about right, it was 41.7 million in the last accounts I believe, a couple of players have had improved contracts since then but we've lost some top heavy stuff (like Cortese for instance) and we haven't suddenly doubled everyones money.MP was lowly paid by all accounts, probably had a decent bonus clause though.Still against our income of what 100 million + a year no-one could really say that salarial mass was out of hand I'd have thought. Isn't that what GM is trying to say?

[There when Franny scored]

The data doesn't seem to support this theory

 

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/may/01/premier-league-club-accounts-debt-wages#data

[Nolan]

£52m wage bill.

 

£38m Staplewood bill.

 

KL funded £28m in April to meet pressing financial demands.

 

Something had to give, but not to this extent.

So you think we maxed out our ffp wage allowance?

[shurlock]

Behave!

 

Either way, it's much lower than I thought, especially with the increase in TV money. Sits uncomfortably with the OP's claims.

 

The rights and wrongs of Staplewood -Four Seasons style- can be debated forever but ultimately it's a one-off project that in the long-run is expected to generate a return. Unlike a spiralling wage bill, it doesn't force clubs into huge selling frenzies as we're seeing.

 

Still think the Molina article is closest to the truth, something that was actually reported on by Henry Winter back in Jan.

[S-Clarke]

ultimately it's a one-off project that in the long-run is expected to generate a return.

 

Are we going to sell it to Liverpool next summer?

 

Could be quite a good catchment area for academy graduates for them, I'm sure we'd listen to offers.

 

I jest, but still wouldn't put it past anything I've seen these last few months!

[egg]

So you think we maxed out our ffp wage allowance?

 

That's an interesting subject. I understand that the bonus structure potentially put us in breach of FFP (ie if we won everything we were in breach territory is my understanding).

 

I gather the club were relaxed about FFP. I had understood that to mean that we were ignoring on the basis that contractual arrangements pre dated FFP meaning that we felt that we were not caught by them.

 

Our lowish wage bill meant that we were more hamstrung by FFP than others. The likes of Spurs, for example, have such a vast FFP cap that they can spend what they like.

[Charlie Wayman]

The obvious repost to this is that the financing of Chelski, Manure, Liverpool and ManC are nowhere near sustainable, in other words if we demand success in football these days we must expect out of control budgets and massive debts secured against future income. Cortese surely was only doing what was obvious to him from watching what the other top clubs have been doing for years to BUY success and not just in this country. I doubt there is one regular CL team that hasn't racked up debts in the £100 millions and growing year-on-year.

 

Laudible and idealistic as sustainability sounds, balancing the books has no place in modern top flight football and if this really is our new mission then we will probably never achieve it because the inevitable outcome will be cheap players, poorer standards and relegation leading to loss of income from TV, smaller gates, lower income and so on through the whole vicious cycle once again. There can be no such safe haven as comfortable mediocrity.

 

Still if the report is true then we have effectively been told there is nmo money to spend, the family silver has paid for the crumbling fabric.

[S-Clarke]

The obvious repost to this is that the financing of Chelski, Manure, Liverpool and ManC are nowhere near sustainable, in other words if we demand success in football these days we must expect out of control budgets and massive debts secured against future income. Cortese surely was only doing what was obvious to him from watching what the other top clubs have been doing for years to BUY success and not just in this country. I doubt there is one regular CL team that hasn't racked up debts in the £100 millions and growing year-on-year.

 

Laudible and idealistic as sustainability sounds, balancing the books has no place in modern top flight football and if this really is our new mission then we will probably never achieve it because the inevitable outcome will be cheap players, poorer standards and relegation leading to loss of income from TV, smaller gates, lower income and so on through the whole vicious cycle once again. There can be no such safe haven as comfortable mediocrity.

 

Still if the report is true then we have effectively been told there is nmo money to spend, the family silver has paid for the crumbling fabric.

 

The FPP will ensure that the elite stay the elite, and the also rans stay the also rans. That's the reality of it, and why it's such a pointless introduction to football. They've just made the gap bigger.

[stevegrant]

That's an interesting subject. I understand that the bonus structure potentially put us in breach of FFP (ie if we won everything we were in breach territory is my understanding).

 

I gather the club were relaxed about FFP. I had understood that to mean that we were ignoring on the basis that contractual arrangements pre dated FFP meaning that we felt that we were not caught by them.

 

Our lowish wage bill meant that we were more hamstrung by FFP than others. The likes of Spurs, for example, have such a vast FFP cap that they can spend what they like.

The FFP restrictions are heavily tied in with commercial revenue. In a nutshell, while clubs are restricted to a moderate increase in the wage bill based purely on the broadcasting revenue, they are free to use every penny generated from increased commercial deals. That is why Man United have been signing deals left, right and centre to have an official boiled sweet partner in Thailand, etc. They can use all of that to add to their wage bill, whereas they're heavily restricted (around £4m per year increase) if they maintain the same level of commercial revenue.

 

We are in the same boat (once the wage bill is above £52m, the restricted increases apply), but without the commercial pull to do anything about it. The Veho deal will help as it is a significant increase on the aap3 one before it, but that's still only going to pay for one player's £40k a week salary.

[shurlock]

Are we going to sell it to Liverpool next summer?

 

Could be quite a good catchment area for academy graduates for them, I'm sure we'd listen to offers.

 

I jest, but still wouldn't put it past anything I've seen these last few months!

 

 

 

Who knows? Didn't Ralphy claim he wanted to monetise the secret sauce behind the Academy, teach others how to run their set-ups like ours, no doubt with glossy pictures of Staplewood.

 

Remember Blackmore putting the Ralphy's idea to Rodgers - to which he got a curt reply that the Academy is meant to develop our own players, not others.

[doddisalegend]

Doesn't change the lack of communication.

 

If they'd stated 'wages are unsustainable, we need to sell players and start over on more sensible terms' I'd have been fine with it. Depressing, but I'd always rather we do things the right way and not get into debt.

 

Doesn't do much for the clubs bargining postion with regards to sales though. If we did want players with difficult contracts off our books telling everyone would make it hard to get any decent cash of buyers (and I think we've done pretty well with cash coming in) if they thought we were desperate.