Jump to content

Taïder Joins on 1 year Loan & Osvaldo to Inter - Official

itchen_dan

By itchen_dan,
in The Saints

 Share

Recommended Posts

Ashby Saint

Ashby Saint

Posted
Posted
Another loanee. No money spent. Judgment day is a month away Krueger. £92m so far in, £20m out. £72m to go (not counting the £50m that we had from Premier League TV money already - wages and training ground, with money to spare?).

 

£72m still to go Krueger and Reed...

 

Wages need to come out of this as well. These loaners are not playing for free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
doddisalegend

doddisalegend

Posted
Posted
I can't help feeling that Taider coming in means a current midfielder leaving. Last night we played Wanyama in front of the two centre backs and Prowsey and Steven Davis further forward in the middle. Cork came on for Wanyama and we still have Morgan and Read to fit in.

 

We were effectively playing with three central midfield players, and we already have six players for those three roles, if we say that Gaston, McQueen and JayRod compete for the wide positions that Isgrove and Tadic played last night.

 

Morgan will go in January I reckon ( meaning Kruger didn't lie) so this is just advanced back up in midfield with an option to buy if Taider is any good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
There when Franny scored

There when Franny scored

Posted
Posted

http://www.fcinternews.it/rassegna-stampa/ts-osvaldo-per-la-champions-intanto-schelotto-taider-e-campagnaro-sono-vicini-al-southampton-159331

 

According to this Osvaldo - Taider is done bar any last minute hitches. In addition Schelotto is talking to us about a loan move with a 5m euro buy option and we also have "feelers" out for Campagnaro.

 

Wonder if the three players Koeman was talking about are all from the same club?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
S-Clarke

S-Clarke

Posted
Posted
http://www.fcinternews.it/rassegna-stampa/ts-osvaldo-per-la-champions-intanto-schelotto-taider-e-campagnaro-sono-vicini-al-southampton-159331

 

According to this Osvaldo - Taider is done bar any last minute hitches. In addition Schelotto is talking to us about a loan move with a 5m euro buy option and we also have "feelers" out for Campagnaro.

 

Wonder if the three players Koeman was talking about are all from the same club?

 

Other than Taider, I truly pray that the other 2 are false. As those are nothing other than average, actually no, **** squad fillers. Going back years if we sign those 2, and would kind of put question marks over this massive transfer strategy we have!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
S-Clarke

S-Clarke

Posted
Posted
Don't know anything about Schelotto but with Campagnaro, do we really want a 34 year old CB? Even as a squad player? Surely we can do better than that?

 

He's just a 25 year old Italian journey man. Not entirely sure what we're up to here. Seems as if Inter have seen we've lost loads of players, and want to help us out by sending us their dross, basically.

 

Loans have never been a thing we've done a great deal, but they can work - handy to be able to do it every now and then.....but potentially 4/5 loans in the same squad in the same transfer window? That screams to me that someone has locked away the money, but I hope I'm wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SaintRobbie

SaintRobbie

Posted
Posted
Wages need to come out of this as well. These loaners are not playing for free.

 

You're right. But we have £50m on top of the £72m from TV money. Over half of that should pay off the training ground. So I am budgeting the rest into wages.

 

I admit I'm swagging that, anyone have a feel for our wage bill? Is it more than £20m???

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Badger

Badger

Posted
Posted
Campagnaro sounds better than Schelotto, I'd happily have him if it meant getting rid of Jos. Schelotto sounds garbage though

 

Although Jos does have some limitations in the Prem, he does seem to bring something to the squad in the dressing room harmony. On balance I think I'd take the risk with Jos over a couple of past it sulking South Americans that Inter are keen to palm off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Whitey Grandad

Whitey Grandad

Posted
Posted
You're right. But we have £50m on top of the £72m from TV money. Over half of that should pay off the training ground. So I am budgeting the rest into wages.

 

I admit I'm swagging that, anyone have a feel for our wage bill? Is it more than £20m???

 

Over £50m, and even that is light for Premier League clubs. And don't forget that tax on these profits we have made (I keep repeating this and I'm beginning to sound like and old grandad).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SaintRobbie

SaintRobbie

Posted
Posted

 

Replacement for Morgan effectively on a free? No money spent. £72m still to go (plus whatever we get for Morgan), let's say £90m left to spend if Morgan goes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwoPints

TwoPints

Posted
Posted
Replacement for Morgan effectively on a free? No money spent. £72m still to go (plus whatever we get for Morgan), let's say £90m left to spend if Morgan goes.

Yep, you can just imagine the players we're going to bring in before the end of the transfer window with that sort of cash. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gary3009

gary3009

Posted
Posted

Going to be fascinating to see what happens in the last weeks of the window.Certainly not unhappy about bringing in quality players on loan with a view to buy like Bertrand,Taider and possibly Hernandez (unlikely). Do start fearing the worst if we bring in some of the others mentioned though. We NEED players on a permanent basis and have the money to do this.I trust the board unlike some and hope they keep to their word about using at least a fair amount of the money to improve the team. Players like Redmond seem ideal at a good price,yet the link with Campagnaro and the other fella from Inter just makes me concerned...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SaintRobbie

SaintRobbie

Posted
Posted (edited)
Over £50m, and even that is light for Premier League clubs. And don't forget that tax on these profits we have made (I keep repeating this and I'm beginning to sound like and old grandad).

 

Oh yes. Tax. Now that is a very very good point. Makes it even more grating.

 

So what do we think after wages, tax et al we really have to spend!?

Edited by SaintRobbie
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saint Without a Halo

Saint Without a Halo

Posted
Posted
Over £50m, and even that is light for Premier League clubs. And don't forget that tax on these profits we have made (I keep repeating this and I'm beginning to sound like and old grandad).

 

Corporation Tax is only paid on declared profits if we spend the money on incoming transfers and wages and even on the academy no tax is due! Otherwise 23% of it will go to HM Government. (but again only after any loans are paid off)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mallagroth

Mallagroth

Posted
Posted

The quality of trolls on this site has severely diminished, it's just the same predictable repetitive crap. On this thread it's look look aren't you angry at how the board has made a loan not bought, whilst disregarding the fact that its a swap deal for Osvaldo and its probably the best way to get players who believe the media spin of our biblical exodus to come play for a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Whitey Grandad

Whitey Grandad

Posted
Posted
Oh yes. Tax. Now that is a very very good point. Makes it even more grating.

 

So what do we think after wages, tax et al we really have to spend!?

 

First a disclaimer: Premier League football club accounting is devilishly complicated and involves some of the most imaginative accountants on the planet, but in basic terms Corporation Tax is liable on any profits made over the accounting year of the company. The figures that gave been quoted for the sales are the maximum figures for the deals with supplements for future achievements, e.g. Calum Chambers is £16m rising to £20m. Secondly we are not told whether these are cash on delivery or staged payments over several years. Players we have previously 'bought' have the capital value of their contracts written down over the length if the contract but players we have developed through the academy have no capital value so the £16m for Chambers would appear as all profit and subject to tax at 21% for the current tax year. Lovren was bought for £8.5m written down after one year to £6.375m but sold for £20m so a profit of £13.625m. Shaw is pure profit at a reported £27m. Lallana is a complicated deal but we might clear £12m or so after Bournemouth have their share.

 

So, back to your question, a headline sales figure of £92m or so but cash in the bank a fraction of that, maybe £60m up front, less their book value of probably less than £10m for Lambert, Lovren and Lallana would make a notional profit of £50m or potentially £39.5m after tax. This is extra to what our trading position would have been but is comfortably better than a lot of other clubs but leaves us temporarily short of players. If we buy new ones then we are replacing players who had a low value in the existing books with new ones who have a much higher one and whether we keep the cash or spend it the value of the company will increase and hence the tax liability, unless you can offset it against other losses, Osvaldo perhaps.

 

My guess, for what it's worth, £30m to £50m for buying contracts of which we have already spent £20m. The club may have already budgeted some funds for purchases, of course :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Smirking_Saint

Smirking_Saint

Posted
Posted
Don't really understand the logic in signing Taider unless we are going to sell a midfielder, as we are already pretty well stacked in this department.

 

I fear this could mean the end for Cork? (assuming Morgan is staying now).

 

Just said this on the transfer thread. Its looking bleak for cork, which is a shame

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Verbal

Verbal

Posted
Posted
First a disclaimer: Premier League football club accounting is devilishly complicated and involves some of the most imaginative accountants on the planet, but in basic terms Corporation Tax is liable on any profits made over the accounting year of the company. The figures that gave been quoted for the sales are the maximum figures for the deals with supplements for future achievements, e.g. Calum Chambers is £16m rising to £20m. Secondly we are not told whether these are cash on delivery or staged payments over several years. Players we have previously 'bought' have the capital value of their contracts written down over the length if the contract but players we have developed through the academy have no capital value so the £16m for Chambers would appear as all profit and subject to tax at 21% for the current tax year. Lovren was bought for £8.5m written down after one year to £6.375m but sold for £20m so a profit of £13.625m. Shaw is pure profit at a reported £27m. Lallana is a complicated deal but we might clear £12m or so after Bournemouth have their share.

 

So, back to your question, a headline sales figure of £92m or so but cash in the bank a fraction of that, maybe £60m up front, less their book value of probably less than £10m for Lambert, Lovren and Lallana would make a notional profit of £50m or potentially £39.5m after tax. This is extra to what our trading position would have been but is comfortably better than a lot of other clubs but leaves us temporarily short of players. If we buy new ones then we are replacing players who had a low value in the existing books with new ones who have a much higher one and whether we keep the cash or spend it the value of the company will increase and hence the tax liability, unless you can offset it against other losses, Osvaldo perhaps.

 

My guess, for what it's worth, £30m to £50m for buying contracts of which we have already spent £20m. The club may have already budgeted some funds for purchases, of course :)

 

The club won't pay anything like 10m+ in corporation tax. As you say, Premier league football club accounting is complex and there are plenty of ways of offsetting such large income, including (obviously) costs and write-downs on Staplewood, dividend payments (which may be reinvested). The stage payments themselves are likely to have been carefully managed across accounting years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Give it to Ron

Give it to Ron

Posted
Posted
Don't really understand the logic in signing Taider unless we are going to sell a midfielder, as we are already pretty well stacked in this department.

 

I fear this could mean the end for Cork? (assuming Morgan is staying now).

 

Its simple really...Inter want Osvaldo dont want to buy him yet...nor does anyone else really. We have been offered Taider in exchange of any fee...he looks decent. We get something in exchange for getting rid of a prize ****.

Doesnt mean Cork is not wanted....however we need goalscoring and creative midfielders to compliment Wanyama/JWP who I think will be the defensive ones. Cork cant hit a cows arse with a banjo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Whitey Grandad

Whitey Grandad

Posted
Posted
The club won't pay anything like 10m+ in corporation tax. As you say, Premier league football club accounting is complex and there are plenty of ways of offsetting such large income, including (obviously) costs and write-downs on Staplewood, dividend payments (which may be reinvested). The stage payments themselves are likely to have been carefully managed across accounting years.

 

Dividends are paid out of profits after tax has been deducted. They cannot be offset against profits, and can only be paid out if the company has made a profit. As you say, the club needs to be careful to spread a sudden windfall over several years, but by the same token that money is not instantly available, unless our purchase are structured the same way.

 

Presuming that Corporation tax is payable on profits - when did SFC last make a profit?

 

When did SFC last sell £20m of assets for £92m?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bucks Saint

Bucks Saint

Posted
Posted
Its simple really...Inter want Osvaldo dont want to buy him yet...nor does anyone else really. We have been offered Taider in exchange of any fee...he looks decent. We get something in exchange for getting rid of a prize ****.

Doesnt mean Cork is not wanted....however we need goalscoring and creative midfielders to compliment Wanyama/JWP who I think will be the defensive ones. Cork cant hit a cows arse with a banjo.

 

Agreed. Goals scored by Cork, Wanyama and JWP together are sod all. Morgan chipped in with a few vital goals, Steve D can do so but overall the goals from the midfield are pretty poor

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Whitey Grandad

Whitey Grandad

Posted
Posted
It was a genuine question - when did SFC last make a profit?

 

A good question, but I don't know the answer. We need an input from someone who know what they're talking about ;) what you make and what you declare are not necessarily the same thing and some very clever people are working on ways to offset any sudden windfall. I think this may be why we shall be seeing loans instead of purchases as the loan fee can be offset straight away with the option to purchase being taken in a subsequent trading year. Whatever, the financial situation is very complicated and not as straightforward as 'Hooray, we've got £92m, let's go and spend it all'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saint Without a Halo

Saint Without a Halo

Posted
Posted
A good question, but I don't know the answer. We need an input from someone who know what they're talking about ;) what you make and what you declare are not necessarily the same thing and some very clever people are working on ways to offset any sudden windfall. I think this may be why we shall be seeing loans instead of purchases as the loan fee can be offset straight away with the option to purchase being taken in a subsequent trading year. Whatever, the financial situation is very complicated and not as straightforward as 'Hooray, we've got £92m, let's go and spend it all'.

 

Tax is not an issue money in will be staged over many years and offset against other costs such as transfers in, wages, ground and academy investments etc. Tax is only paid on annual profits of the business declared annually, not on transfer fees received. New transfers in will also be phased over many years too.

I am sure this is one thing the board will have good advice on!

 

Dividends are paid after tax but not loan maintenance costs or repayments so if KL's invested monies are loans they can be paid back before tax if they are equity she can only take dividends on the equity through declared profits after tax.

 

Not sure the club has declared an official profit for years!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Whitey Grandad

Whitey Grandad

Posted
Posted
Tax is not an issue money in will be staged over many years and offset against other costs such as transfers in, wages, ground and academy investments etc. Tax is only paid on annual profits of the business declared annually, not on transfer fees received. New transfers in will also be phased over many years too.

I am sure this is one thing the board will have good advice on!

 

Dividends are paid after tax but not loan maintenance costs or repayments so if KL's invested monies are loans they can be paid back before tax if they are equity she can only take dividends on the equity through declared profits after tax.

 

Not sure the club has declared an official profit for years!

 

Tax cannot be offset against transfers in or any other capital investments such as building projects, these have to be amortised over a longer term. You can't even reclaim VAT on additions to existing property, it has to be a new separate construction. Loan repayments cannot be repaid without tax. The recipient doesn't pay the tax but if they are repaid out if profits then they will have been taxed first. Transfer fees received in excess of the player's existing value on the books are most definitely income! Normal running costs are allowable against income and these include wages, but of course these should be subject to Income Tax and NI for both the employee and the employer. Or this reason many players are paid partly through a separate company for their services, particularly so-called image rights' and HMRC have clamped down on this system. You're right, the club will certainly be taking the best advice they can get but deciding what to do about profits is much easier than trying to cut the losses!

 

http://www.lawinsport.com/features/item/image-rights-companies-where-are-we-now

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/23923904

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...