Goatboy Posted 27 February, 2015 Share Posted 27 February, 2015 but we are backed by a person that owns more than than the shareholders of Man Utd, Liverpool, Spurs (maybe), she could compete if she wanted to, Chelsea and City have shown that's possible over the last decade or so. We cant compete with their history or even their fanbase so some extent, but its actually not that hard to pay Clyne 80K a week if she wanted to. That would spell real ambition, but if we are not ambitious then fine, its not an issue, its just, what are we? Have you read any of RedSlo's blog? Jinx UJ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 27 February, 2015 Share Posted 27 February, 2015 Do you understand what FFP is? Toothless that's what it is. Hull have been fined 145K by UEFA for non-compliance which probably brought threm in a couple of million £ more revenue, Liverpool were cleared for whatever it was that they did. There is also a player's agent waging war on the UEFA FFP ruling at Brussels alleging that it contradicts free circulation of players and restricts his trade. We shall see what happens to all of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 27 February, 2015 Share Posted 27 February, 2015 Didn't Man City get done for £60m or something, or did i dream bout that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 27 February, 2015 Share Posted 27 February, 2015 Didn't Man City get done for £60m or something, or did i dream bout that? But it's always only money, apart from recruitment restrictions which don't make much difference, PSG got one and then paid 50 million €s for David Luiz the very next week. It's a little pot boiler in the provinces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redslo Posted 27 February, 2015 Share Posted 27 February, 2015 Toothless that's what it is. Hull have been fined 145K by UEFA for non-compliance which probably brought threm in a couple of million £ more revenue, Liverpool were cleared for whatever it was that they did. There is also a player's agent waging war on the UEFA FFP ruling at Brussels alleging that it contradicts free circulation of players and restricts his trade. We shall see what happens to all of that. You are wrong. Liverpool was cleared because they did nothing wrong. They lost lots of money but it was spent on infrastructure things which are excluded expenses under FFP. Hull was given a minor penalty because they did very little wrong. Their loses included time in the Championship and they had no reason--coming into last season--to expect that they had to comply with the stricter European FFP rules. It would be a different matter if Southampton qualified for Europe and then went crazy signing people to salaries that are unaffordable under FFP with our financial situation. However, it would no prevent us from playing in Europe next year, but they might withhold some of our prize money. There are really only two ways to get around FFP (as opposed to complying with the spirit and letter of the rules): 1) refuse to follow it and go to court. If you win, FFP goes away for everyone; and, 2) get a rich friend (not family member) who is financially independent of you to way overpay your club for sponsorships. If Katharina Liebherr could convince, for example, Paul Allen to become our new shirt sponsor for 30 M pounds a year and pay a similar amount for stadium naming rights, that would work--so long as she did not get caught offering equivalent sponsorships to the Seattle Seahawks and Sounders--clubs owned by Paul Allen. ManCity is trying a third way, but shifting some of its losses into related companies--specifically the companies running their Australian and American soccer clubs. How that will be accepted is as yet unknown. However, I don't believe anyone Liebherr should buy two more football teams from outside of Europe to help her lose money more efficiently. It is true that by wanting Southampton to break even on its own, Liebherr is forgoing the opportunity to put in roughly 8M pounds a year plus the cost of the Youth Development program and any infrastructure expenses. So possibly she is demonstrating a lack of ambition to the tune of 10-15 M pounds a year, but that is hardly going to let us catch Chelsea, Man U, Man City, Liverpool, Arsenal, and Tottenham. It might let us catch Everton and Newcastle, but we have already done that haven't we. Didn't Man City get done for £60m or something, or did i dream bout that? I suspect you probably did dream about that, but your dream was slightly off reality. They were limited to registering 21 players for the Champions League. They were limited to a net transfer spend of 49 M pounds. Their European salary was capped at the same level as last years and they were fined about 49 M pounds but two thirds of it was suspended. They were also assigned specific limits on their losses for the next two years--although those actually helped them because the three year rolling loss limits would have been more stringent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 27 February, 2015 Share Posted 27 February, 2015 but we are backed by a person that owns more than than the shareholders of Man Utd, Liverpool, Spurs (maybe), she could compete if she wanted to, Chelsea and City have shown that's possible over the last decade or so. We cant compete with their history or even their fanbase so some extent, but its actually not that hard to pay Clyne 80K a week if she wanted to. That would spell real ambition, but if we are not ambitious then fine, its not an issue, its just, what are we? So, to summarise, waaah waaah waaah waaah waaah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redslo Posted 28 February, 2015 Share Posted 28 February, 2015 There are really only two ways to get around FFP (as opposed to complying with the spirit and letter of the rules): 1) refuse to follow it and go to court. If you win, FFP goes away for everyone I wanted to edit my post to add this, but edit did not work right for some reason. There is an ongoing challenge to FFP that started its court hearings this week. http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/financial-fair-play-under-threat-brussels-court-case-could-potentially-lead-to-rules-being-scrapped-10070581.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cellone Posted 28 February, 2015 Share Posted 28 February, 2015 You are wrong. Liverpool was cleared because they did nothing wrong. They lost lots of money but it was spent on infrastructure things which are excluded expenses under FFP. Hull was given a minor penalty because they did very little wrong. Their loses included time in the Championship and they had no reason--coming into last season--to expect that they had to comply with the stricter European FFP rules. It would be a different matter if Southampton qualified for Europe and then went crazy signing people to salaries that are unaffordable under FFP with our financial situation. However, it would no prevent us from playing in Europe next year, but they might withhold some of our prize money. There are really only two ways to get around FFP (as opposed to complying with the spirit and letter of the rules): 1) refuse to follow it and go to court. If you win, FFP goes away for everyone; and, 2) get a rich friend (not family member) who is financially independent of you to way overpay your club for sponsorships. If Katharina Liebherr could convince, for example, Paul Allen to become our new shirt sponsor for 30 M pounds a year and pay a similar amount for stadium naming rights, that would work--so long as she did not get caught offering equivalent sponsorships to the Seattle Seahawks and Sounders--clubs owned by Paul Allen. ManCity is trying a third way, but shifting some of its losses into related companies--specifically the companies running their Australian and American soccer clubs. How that will be accepted is as yet unknown. However, I don't believe anyone Liebherr should buy two more football teams from outside of Europe to help her lose money more efficiently. It is true that by wanting Southampton to break even on its own, Liebherr is forgoing the opportunity to put in roughly 8M pounds a year plus the cost of the Youth Development program and any infrastructure expenses. So possibly she is demonstrating a lack of ambition to the tune of 10-15 M pounds a year, but that is hardly going to let us catch Chelsea, Man U, Man City, Liverpool, Arsenal, and Tottenham. It might let us catch Everton and Newcastle, but we have already done that haven't we. I suspect you probably did dream about that, but your dream was slightly off reality. They were limited to registering 21 players for the Champions League. They were limited to a net transfer spend of 49 M pounds. Their European salary was capped at the same level as last years and they were fined about 49 M pounds but two thirds of it was suspended. They were also assigned specific limits on their losses for the next two years--although those actually helped them because the three year rolling loss limits would have been more stringent. Please nobody say what's 10 -15 million pounds in the grand scheme of things or or words of that ilk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redslo Posted 28 February, 2015 Share Posted 28 February, 2015 Please nobody say what's 10 -15 million pounds in the grand scheme of things or or words of that ilk. Don't misunderstand me. I am not saying this is not a significant amount of money. As a rough approximation, it is what it would take to sign Clyne, Schneiderlin, and Wanyama to 100K per week contracts. That would certainly matter. It just wouldn't catch us up to the richer clubs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noodles34 Posted 28 February, 2015 Share Posted 28 February, 2015 Yep, because that's the only factor players consider when looking at the next move in their career... Well that was sort of my point, clearly these footballers sign up for the money, so if we offer the same wages and keep the best players and then win stuff and then go into the champions league we become a big club. We aren't a million miles away at the moment are we, so is not the optimum time to take the next step forward? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noodles34 Posted 28 February, 2015 Share Posted 28 February, 2015 and of course, money doesn't come into it at all. I mean..... .who would want to earn £5 million a year, when they could be quite happy on £2 million? So we pay them £5m, then we are competing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noodles34 Posted 28 February, 2015 Share Posted 28 February, 2015 Oh, please. You should've supported Pompey if that's your idea of 'ambition'. So that comment goes for Chelsea and City does it? The difference here is that we do have the money, unlike the nonces down the road, who had nowhere near enough to sustain their payroll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noodles34 Posted 28 February, 2015 Share Posted 28 February, 2015 Do you understand what FFP is? Probably not to be fair, but I thought it was about transfers in, not necessarily wages. I might be wrong but if I am not then spending might be an issue, but if we have good players then it's a case of keeping them, does that break FFP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 28 February, 2015 Share Posted 28 February, 2015 Probably not to be fair, but I thought it was about transfers in, not necessarily wages. I might be wrong but if I am not then spending might be an issue, but if we have good players then it's a case of keeping them, does that break FFP? I don't think there is any probably about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 28 February, 2015 Share Posted 28 February, 2015 Well that was sort of my point, clearly these footballers sign up for the money, so if we offer the same wages and keep the best players and then win stuff and then go into the champions league we become a big club. We aren't a million miles away at the moment are we, so is not the optimum time to take the next step forward? You've not bothered to pay attention to anything Ralph, Les or Ronald have said on this matter? Worth a read, and then worth getting over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 28 February, 2015 Share Posted 28 February, 2015 You've not bothered to pay attention to anything Ralph, Les or Ronald have said on this matter? Worth a read, and then worth getting over it. "But Cortese said......." Wahhh wahhhh wahhhh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niceandfriendly Posted 28 February, 2015 Share Posted 28 February, 2015 Would love to see a midfield partnership of Clasie and Davro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goatboy Posted 28 February, 2015 Share Posted 28 February, 2015 Would love to see a midfield partnership of Clasie and Davro. Bobby? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 28 February, 2015 Share Posted 28 February, 2015 Probably not to be fair, but I thought it was about transfers in, not necessarily wages. I might be wrong but if I am not then spending might be an issue, but if we have good players then it's a case of keeping them, does that break FFP? Go away, read up on it and then, perhaps, just may be, you'll understand why Saints can't be paying players £80k a week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Restark19 Posted 28 February, 2015 Share Posted 28 February, 2015 I think there's a (small) chance of Toby signing for us this summer. He wants first team football which he didn't get at Atleti, why would he expect it at City/United/other big club? I'd put it at 50:50 tbh. Although money may be an obstacle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supersonic Posted 28 February, 2015 Share Posted 28 February, 2015 First priority has to be signing a striker, one that preferably knows where the goal is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeBizzier69 Posted 28 February, 2015 Share Posted 28 February, 2015 Still like Hernandez to come but that ain't gonna happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSAINT Posted 28 February, 2015 Share Posted 28 February, 2015 Wouldn't surprise me to see Guidetti get linked again this summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noodles34 Posted 1 March, 2015 Share Posted 1 March, 2015 Go away, read up on it and then, perhaps, just may be, you'll understand why Saints can't be paying players £80k a week. Yes, maybe I will but were we not paying GR an DO 60K per week? And how much is Toby on? So how much are Utd going to pay Clyne, more than 80K? Doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 1 March, 2015 Share Posted 1 March, 2015 So why can't we pay someone £80k a week? Bullet point summary please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 1 March, 2015 Author Share Posted 1 March, 2015 Yes, maybe I will but were we not paying GR an DO 60K per week? And how much is Toby on? So how much are Utd going to pay Clyne, more than 80K? Doubt it. I think £110k Is what has been mooted - considering Shaw is on similar to that it wouldn't surprise me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 1 March, 2015 Author Share Posted 1 March, 2015 So why can't we pay someone £80k a week? Bullet point summary please. - It would break our wage structure leading to more unhappy players wanting pay parity. - If our wage structure was broken then it would break FFP rules. We could pay it for one player, but that would be pretty stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 1 March, 2015 Share Posted 1 March, 2015 - It would break our wage structure leading to more unhappy players wanting pay parity. - If our wage structure was broken then it would break FFP rules. We could pay it for one player, but that would be pretty stupid. We could easily pay it for more than one player; but you're correct in that it would break our wage structure, creating other issues. At some point, we would also be sacrificing the depth of the squad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noodles34 Posted 1 March, 2015 Share Posted 1 March, 2015 I think £110k Is what has been mooted - considering Shaw is on similar to that it wouldn't surprise me. Shaw is on that? I find that really hard to believe for his first contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Posted 1 March, 2015 Share Posted 1 March, 2015 Lallana much better than tadic etc. Lambert much better than pelle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 1 March, 2015 Share Posted 1 March, 2015 Lallana much better than tadic etc. Lambert much better than pelle. At the start of the season, perhaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saints foreva Posted 1 March, 2015 Share Posted 1 March, 2015 Wonder which player(s) Liverpool will take from us in the Summer. Schneiderlin, maybe. Pretty sure he said in an interview once that he was a boyhood Liverpool fan..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 1 March, 2015 Share Posted 1 March, 2015 Shaw is on that? I find that really hard to believe for his first contract. It was pretty widely reported that was the figure. Mourinho even said it was why Chelsea weren't going to bother trying to sign him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noodles34 Posted 1 March, 2015 Share Posted 1 March, 2015 It was pretty widely reported that was the figure. Mourinho even said it was why Chelsea weren't going to bother trying to sign him. Thats crazy money, guess Clynee would be on the same. It's not really a fair game anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KelvinsRightGlove Posted 1 March, 2015 Share Posted 1 March, 2015 (edited) Thats crazy money, guess Clynee would be on the same. It's not really a fair game anymore. Found one of the Mourinho articles btw, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/chelsea/10991879/Jose-Mourinho-says-signing-Luke-Shaw-from-Southampton-would-have-killed-Chelsea.html There's plenty more a quick google search will throw up. It's mad money, but that is football in a nutshell. All the money is crazy. Edited 1 March, 2015 by KelvinsRightGlove plenty not plnety Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 1 March, 2015 Author Share Posted 1 March, 2015 Shaw is on that? I find that really hard to believe for his first contract. Mourinho pulled out from signing him for Chelsea because he wanted £120 p/w. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 1 March, 2015 Author Share Posted 1 March, 2015 Found one of the Mourinho articles btw, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/chelsea/10991879/Jose-Mourinho-says-signing-Luke-Shaw-from-Southampton-would-have-killed-Chelsea.html There's plnety more a quick google search will throw up. It's mad money, but that is football in a nutshell. All the money is crazy. Exactly. Hopefully Noodles can see why we don't agree with him now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintAndyB Posted 1 March, 2015 Share Posted 1 March, 2015 The we'll probably get on Morgan should be spent on a reliable striker that can compliment Pelle and his play. Keep Clyne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JxgrSaint Posted 1 March, 2015 Share Posted 1 March, 2015 We can't just "keep" players, they can get more money, more endorsements and Champions League football (in that order of priority) at a big club.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david in sweden Posted 1 March, 2015 Share Posted 1 March, 2015 Thats crazy money, guess Clynee would be on the same. It's not really a fair game anymore. If Man U. are (reportedly?) paying Rooney £300K / week, it shows they have money to spend, so £100K is about par for the course for their players. Of course only MU can judge if he's worth it. FFP rules fall heavily on the balance between income and fees /salaries. Our income is small in comparison. Apart from worldwide fans (don't know how many shirts that is?)...and the huge sponsorship deals...filling a 75, 000 stadium every match must be fairly profitable, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 1 March, 2015 Share Posted 1 March, 2015 We can't just "keep" players, they can get more money, more endorsements and Champions League football (in that order of priority) at a big club.... Dreams and ambition is all you need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 1 March, 2015 Share Posted 1 March, 2015 Shaw is on that? I find that really hard to believe for his first contract. You find quite a lot hard to believe, which comes as no surprise to the rest of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 1 March, 2015 Share Posted 1 March, 2015 Dreams and ambition is all you need. That was my favourite quote from last summer. The utter muppet that posted it actually believed it as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 1 March, 2015 Author Share Posted 1 March, 2015 That was my favourite quote from last summer. The utter muppet that posted it actually believed it as well. We do have some utter fantasists on this board. By the way, when is the first post season argument going to kick off. I reckon the 27th May. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 1 March, 2015 Share Posted 1 March, 2015 This. No idea where he may end up; lots of regular speculation that it will be one of the top clubs, but then he has talks with Moyes about Real Soc, which is a bit left field but not the worst move for him. Would be an excellent result if we get him He doesnt want to come south Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingsland Red Posted 1 March, 2015 Share Posted 1 March, 2015 Baz Dost, the Dutch guy at Wolfsburg, would be worth a look. We certainly need options up front. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redslo Posted 2 March, 2015 Share Posted 2 March, 2015 So why can't we pay someone £80k a week? Bullet point summary please. We can afford to pay someone 80K per week, but not too many someones. Assume our salary cap next year is the basic 60 million and we have to play 25 players. (These assumptions are both wrong. We could probably go a bit above 60 million, but we have to pay more than 25 players. Therefore, my assumptions are good enough for a basic calculation.) That is an average of just over 46K per week for each player. Since the cap includes most bonuses, the actual face weekly average has to be lower than that amount. Using the figures from FM 2015 the current average for our top 25 paid players is 34K per week. http://redsloscf.blogspot.com/2015/02/southampton-weekly-salaries-update.html So there is some room to increase pay or sign new players but this is only the salary cap. Other FFP rules limit our loses and it is not clear that we are breaking even for FFP purposes with our current salary structure. And breaking even under FFP is still losing money in the real world. If Katharina Liebherr really wants the club to pay its own way then that limits our spending even more. Plus, there is the effect on other players. The squad as a whole would probably tolerate paying Schneiderlin that much money to resign him and maybe Toby and Clyne as well but it would increase the pay everyone else will expect when they sign new (or first) contracts with the club. Thus, we need to increase our income to increase pay rates across the board. Making the Champions League this year would help--making the Europa League would not really matter unless we could be sure of selling out St. Mary's for each game at a nice high ticket price. The new TV contract will help but the premier league will almost certainly limit how much of it can be used for player's salaries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ludwig Posted 2 March, 2015 Share Posted 2 March, 2015 We can afford to pay someone 80K per week, but not too many someones. Assume our salary cap next year is the basic 60 million and we have to play 25 players. (These assumptions are both wrong. We could probably go a bit above 60 million, but we have to pay more than 25 players. Therefore, my assumptions are good enough for a basic calculation.) That is an average of just over 46K per week for each player. Since the cap includes most bonuses, the actual face weekly average has to be lower than that amount. Using the figures from FM 2015 the current average for our top 25 paid players is 34K per week. http://redsloscf.blogspot.com/2015/02/southampton-weekly-salaries-update.html So there is some room to increase pay or sign new players but this is only the salary cap. Other FFP rules limit our loses and it is not clear that we are breaking even for FFP purposes with our current salary structure. And breaking even under FFP is still losing money in the real world. If Katharina Liebherr really wants the club to pay its own way then that limits our spending even more. Plus, there is the effect on other players. The squad as a whole would probably tolerate paying Schneiderlin that much money to resign him and maybe Toby and Clyne as well but it would increase the pay everyone else will expect when they sign new (or first) contracts with the club. Thus, we need to increase our income to increase pay rates across the board. Making the Champions League this year would help--making the Europa League would not really matter unless we could be sure of selling out St. Mary's for each game at a nice high ticket price. The new TV contract will help but the premier league will almost certainly limit how much of it can be used for player's salaries. He did ask for a bullet pointed summary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Jeff Posted 2 March, 2015 Author Share Posted 2 March, 2015 Baz Dost, the Dutch guy at Wolfsburg, would be worth a look. We certainly need options up front. Well yes, except he's at a bigger team that can pay him more money and he's going to be playing in the Champions League next season with them. We have no chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 2 March, 2015 Share Posted 2 March, 2015 Would be interested in Everton's finances. They seem to be on a higher level to us, but I doubt there income/wealth is exponentially more than ours. They've kept Baines, Coleman and up until now, Barkley. They signed Lukaku. It can be done. 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