Window Cleaner Posted 29 July, 2014 Share Posted 29 July, 2014 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. But would i not be right in thinking that 52 million £ is (or was) the salarial mass for the whole club whereas FFP refers only to player salaries IIRC. As the FFP cap for this coming season is higher than 52 million anyway it is highly unlikely that we would have breached it under normal circumstances. Now it comes down to "have we increased non TV revenues" in any way at all because FFP salary cap is linked to that alone. Selling Shaw for instance, something I've always advocated because I truly believe there is better available for less, now that gives us more CAP space and we already had firm offers apparently because it is a non-broadcasting revenue. Making our own shirts, that probably increases commercial revenue a bit as well, perhaps Veho pay a bit more tha AAP3. The salarial mass cannot be the sole reason for this unprecendented exodus of senior players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 29 July, 2014 Share Posted 29 July, 2014 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. Manchester United are a money-making machine and their debt as a result of the Glazer takeover is rapidly being reduced these days. That'll increase speed from next season when the new Adidas kit deal kicks in. £115m a year, just in shirt manufacturer and sponsorship rights, probably more than our entire annual turnover. Even Chelsea seem to be somewhere approaching self-sustainability these days, having been given a free pass with the £1bn Abramovich has poured into the club and no FFP regulations to get in their way over the past decade. Once you get yourself to the top table in a free market, it's much easier to stay there as success breeds more success and the natural by-product of that is greater support. Now, of course, FFP has come along and turned off the tap for any potential challengers, and there's no way through for clubs like us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 29 July, 2014 Share Posted 29 July, 2014 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! The only crumb of comfort is that GM posted on the Pompey Takeover Saga around the end of the season saying that a source had told him Pompey were on the brink of going back into admin before the start of next season whereas it looks like they may have steadied the ship for a while. Not having a pop at GM there, just highlighting that 'sources' can sometimes be wide of the mark.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 29 July, 2014 Share Posted 29 July, 2014 Matter of interest regarding FFP. What would be the position if a mega billionaire eg Sheik of Qatar bought a football club, kept it strictly amateur, the Sheik bought out the players contracts, employed the players in Qatar for a company not related with the football club, allowed the players to play full time as amateurs and the football club paid no salaries? Fantasy I know, but what if? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doddisalegend Posted 29 July, 2014 Share Posted 29 July, 2014 When Ralph was appointed he spoke alot about being sustainable "...that allows Southampton to remain healthy and sustainable in the future." + top 8 bonuses are not uncommon http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?49098-The-real-reason-that-we-sacrificed-the-cups#.U9dqQGK9KK0 Perhaps some players had similar deals? Good find, quite possibly. And there have been a lot of murmurings that players aren't receiving bonuses promised to them. Prehaps this is the finanical problems the board alluded to after NC left everyone assumed it was debt maybe is was more to with unsustainable contracts and wages? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killers Knee Posted 29 July, 2014 Share Posted 29 July, 2014 erm, FFP regulations limit the wage bill. If we went over £52m last year we are limited to annual increases of £4m plus new commercial revenue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 29 July, 2014 Share Posted 29 July, 2014 (edited) I know I sound like a scratched record, but I (and a few others) have been banging on about the shackles of the FFP rules being the straw that broke the camel's back for a long time now. IMO, all of what we have seen over the last 9 months can be traced back to the day in history that Cortese/Saints voted against the FFP rules, and lost. From that day on, the fallout was inevitable....I've always been convinced this was the "financial difficulty" that Hoffsetter was referring to in that now infamous interview.....IMHO of course.... Edited 29 July, 2014 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 29 July, 2014 Share Posted 29 July, 2014 (edited) Prehaps this is the finanical problems the board alluded to after NC left everyone assumed it was debt maybe is was more to with unsustainable contracts and wages? Quoting Glasgow regards a baseless rumour that was motivated by the whole FA cup meltdown. Par for the course. Edited 29 July, 2014 by shurlock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doddisalegend Posted 29 July, 2014 Share Posted 29 July, 2014 erm, FFP regulations limit the wage bill. If we went over £52m last year we are limited to annual increases of £4m plus new commercial revenue. So we would have only been able to bring in players who would work for free or very small wages? Basically we could afford to buy players but FFP would stop us paying them with out us breaching FFP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 29 July, 2014 Share Posted 29 July, 2014 (edited) Basically we could afford to buy players but FFP would stop us paying them with out us breaching FFP? Bingo.... Maybe Katharina actually shared Cortese's ambition but they were hamstrung by FFP....? Edited 29 July, 2014 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 29 July, 2014 Share Posted 29 July, 2014 So we would have only been able to bring in players who would work for free or very small wages? Basically we could afford to buy players but FFP would stop us paying them with out us breaching FFP? don't even know what the sanctions are on FFP, if they're anything similar to those operated by UEFA it's just a smack on the wrist and don't do it again until the next time. Liverpool must be breaching FFP regulations, what punishment do they risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 29 July, 2014 Share Posted 29 July, 2014 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. Makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 29 July, 2014 Author Share Posted 29 July, 2014 Only Fulham, West Brom, Manchester City, Aston Villa, Swansea and Southampton voted against the Financial Fair Play rules, when Cortese was Chairman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doddisalegend Posted 29 July, 2014 Share Posted 29 July, 2014 Bingo.... Maybe Katharina actually shared Cortese's ambition but they were hamstrung by FFP....? Maybe FFP was the day the dream died........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 29 July, 2014 Share Posted 29 July, 2014 Maybe FFP was the day the dream died........ Well, that's always been my hunch, but who knows? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wurzel Posted 29 July, 2014 Share Posted 29 July, 2014 New "theory" for me but, with hindsight, it does seem to make sense. Am I getting this right? Promise the players the earth for success only for them to realise if they achieve it they won't get what's promised because we wouldn't be allowed to pay them it. No wonder they started looking elsewhere. Sounds like contracts included a lot of performance related pay, so the higher we go the more we pay them. FFP based on commercial income so there would be a need to increase that to pay more wages. Puts the comments from the new post NC board about concentrating on commercial income into perspective. Also our meek "surrender" of the FA Cup last season, perhaps, as Pompey found to their cost, we couldn't afford to win it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graffito Posted 29 July, 2014 Share Posted 29 July, 2014 New "theory" for me but, with hindsight, it does seem to make sense. Am I getting this right? Promise the players the earth for success only for them to realise if they achieve it they won't get what's promised because we wouldn't be allowed to pay them it. No wonder they started looking elsewhere. Sounds like contracts included a lot of performance related pay, so the higher we go the more we pay them. FFP based on commercial income so there would be a need to increase that to pay more wages. Puts the comments from the new post NC board about concentrating on commercial income into perspective. Also our meek "surrender" of the FA Cup last season, perhaps, as Pompey found to their cost, we couldn't afford to win it. And the lack of interest in the Europa League. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 29 July, 2014 Share Posted 29 July, 2014 Also our meek "surrender" of the FA Cup last season, perhaps, as Pompey found to their cost, we couldn't afford to win it. Maybe Ricky was aware of the situation.....would perhaps explain how he managed to miss an open goal from 3 inches off the line.... (Not that I'm suggesting for one moment that any of the players deliberately threw the game under the instruction of the powers that be of course....that would be ridiculous) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelman Posted 29 July, 2014 Share Posted 29 July, 2014 With respect to the OP, if that is all true (and I have no reason to not think that it is) then the board NEED TO COME OUT AND TELL US THAT THAT IS SO. I think all supporters would understand the choice made or are there confidentiality clauses with NC's departure? It would also show up the players for what they are, which we all know anyway - mercenaries, and a wee bit ungrateful (despite the parting words thanking the club/staff). What really upsets me these days, is the way that football players are held up as role models. Is being hugely nummamorous really the goal of so many people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 29 July, 2014 Share Posted 29 July, 2014 And the lack of interest in the Europa League. Which is particularly strange because there is still considerable money to be made from playing in it. If you're in the group stage, you've got at least three home games to generate revenue, plus prize money for progression and any points gained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 29 July, 2014 Share Posted 29 July, 2014 if that is all true (and I have no reason to not think that it is) then the board NEED TO COME OUT AND TELL US THAT THAT IS SO. If its true then its best they don't shout it from the rooftops whilst trying to get best prices for the players they need to shift.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Without a Halo Posted 29 July, 2014 Share Posted 29 July, 2014 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. When you put your money in a house or in fund you are investing it! NC convinced and sold the Southampton project to ML as an investment. The investment was based on putting money in to increase the value of the club and the assets(the players). To do this you had to improve the football move up the leagues and access the TV money. To do that you needed a ruthless businessman which NC was and ML appreciated and trusted. Where did Kat lose money? ML invested 15m at the outset and lets say we take a conservative view that investments of 10m a year in league 1, 20m in the championship and say 30m in each of our 2 premiere years were required over and above the clubs income (excluding the money from selling ox too) that adds to a total of 115m invested at the top side By all accounts at the end of last season the players were worth 120m and the club over 100m that gives a value of 220m and a return of 105m in 5 years. Pretty good business by anyones standards! The fall out between NC and KAT was purely about when to cash in. NC felt there was more value to be added KAT by all accounts didn't want to risk more and wanted to cash in now as it appears she is now doing or she has a different plan which is to blood in a lot of youngsters and sell them every year for 50m to 100m assuming we stay up and develop players (come in Mr Koeman) So not sure what your spunking money comment is all about if I had a few million I would let NC spunk it about if I got more than twice my money back! ML agreed to the business plan and the investments by NC and this continued whilst he had control of the monies as executor to ML's will. KAT inherited control last year after the will was executed and her and her advisors had different plans on how and when to cash in than NC did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelman Posted 29 July, 2014 Share Posted 29 July, 2014 If its true then its best they don't shout it from the rooftops whilst trying to get best prices for the players they need to shift.... I was presuming that that is all done and dusted, or are you expecting more to go? Maybe it is, and that is why Ralph is going on the radio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 29 July, 2014 Share Posted 29 July, 2014 How long have the club got to pay for it though, surely it's not a cash on the nail job. Why wouldn't it be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 29 July, 2014 Share Posted 29 July, 2014 Why wouldn't it be? that's not what I meant really, I presumed we had arranged suitable financement over say 5 years for the Staplewood project. Big hit to take out of a season's football income really. I certainly wouldn't condone the idea that we've had to actually sell players to pay for a bit of bricks and mortar. I mean you wouldn't sell the kids to pay for a lounge extension now would you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 29 July, 2014 Share Posted 29 July, 2014 that's not what I meant really, I presumed we had arranged suitable financement over say 5 years for the Staplewood project. Big hit to take out of a season's football income really. I certainly wouldn't condone the idea that we've had to actually sell players to pay for a bit of bricks and mortar. I mean you wouldn't sell the kids to pay for a lounge extension now would you. No, you're right, normally you'd take out long-term finance for such an investment but if there are massive cost overruns it might get difficult to increase your borrowing and suddenly you need to find another spare £20m or so. Who knows? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackFrost Posted 29 July, 2014 Share Posted 29 July, 2014 IF stories like in the original post are true then it's starting to sound like classic sociopathy. Squad built up that can compete in the top half of the PL, players sold an extremely convincing promise that their being taken to the Champions League. After certain events, players realise the promise is based on personal ego, hot air and bull****. Top 6-7 clubs circle like vultures, start a chain reaction and players want out. The bubble was crafted, manipulated and decorated to perfection for the players to admire and yearn for. Problem is all bubbles go pop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 29 July, 2014 Share Posted 29 July, 2014 Makes sense. No it doesnt 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