CLUB ACCOUNTS: 2013/14 - Saints reveal first profit

[Lallana's Left Peg]

I understand. We are comparing 2012-2013 with 2013-2014. The currents season's financial results are a year away from being announced. Most of the increase in gross receipts between 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 will be due to finishing 8 instead of 14 and to the much larger TV contract. That part of our income will not grow much at all during this season since our league position will only increase from 1 to 4 places and I don't think we were on national TV more than the minimum amount.

 

Yeah we probably won't get much increase in league position but we will get some - though I think we'll get more from TV than last year. Last season we got the minimum, by my reckoning we've been on TV 10 times already this season so any more is additional money to the minimum.

 

I found this in the Mail which says what activity from this summer is and is not included in the accounts:

 

The headline income for the five major players sold was reportedly £94m but the MoS can reveal Southampton cleared ‘only’ £82m on them - after fees, sell-on payments to Lyon and Bournemouth in relation to Lovren and Lallana respectively, and Premier League levy payments of 4 per cent on each deal.

 

Saints accounted for £31.9m of the quintet’s transfer receipts in the 2013-14 figures, but have spent the balance (£50m) plus another £12.6m on the permanent purchases of Dusan Tadic, Graziano Pelle, Fraser Forster, Shane Long, Florin Gardos, Sadio Mane and Ryan Bertrand, and on the loans for Toby Alderweireld, Eljero Elia and Filip Duricic

[Window Cleaner]

Sorry missed this. Says £32 m included. The balance of £50m (we only got £82 m for the 5 players) will be in next year's accounts. However we spent £63m which will also be included, so net spend of £13m so far

 

So we got 32 million for Lambert and Shaw and a total of 50 million for Lovren,Lallana and Chambers then, which tends to suggest that we got far less as a basic fee than popularly perceived for at least one of those 3.

[St Chalet]

At least those bellends who insisted Kat was asset stripping or using the club for her handbag fund have been shut up. Also it does appear that as more and more comes out getting shot of nick nack was the best thing she could have done. The fact that she has lent the club £20m to replace the vibrac loan suggests she either wasn't aware or didn't approve that his loan was taken out.

 

I have it on good authority that she wasn't aware.

[Turkish]

I have it on good authority that she wasn't aware.

 

So do I, but I didn't want to say that as Id be accused of trolling and hating cortese again.

[Chez]

The fact that she has lent the club £20m to replace the vibrac loan suggests she either wasn't aware or didn't approve that his loan was taken out.

 

Are you saying that the vibrac loan has been paid off?

[Batman]

Look at how much Chelsea owe their owner. Wowzers

 

Not that he looks like he is going to need it soon

[Lets B Avenue]

So we got 32 million for Lambert and Shaw and a total of 50 million for Lovren,Lallana and Chambers then, which tends to suggest that we got far less as a basic fee than popularly perceived for at least one of those 3.

 

6 million went to Bournemouth and presumably, a similar amount to Lyon for Lovren. 20 plus 14 plus 16 for Chambers =50.

[Whitey Grandad]

So we got 32 million for Lambert and Shaw and a total of 50 million for Lovren,Lallana and Chambers then, which tends to suggest that we got far less as a basic fee than popularly perceived for at least one of those 3.

 

The headline figures are usually misleading. 'A deal worth up to £...' is common wording.

[Frank's cousin]

Question to those that know about these things.... which if an, of our sales and purchases would have been full amount upfront versus spread over number of years? If spread over a number of years and each deal is different, how does this play out in the annual accounts? It would seem 'normal' that only receipts and payments due in that year would be included and NOT the full amount of the deals? This makes a big difference to what is read into the 'accounts' as I understand that its noraml to right off the cost of a player purchase over the years of his contract?

 

This would also account for why club have stated that the additional 20 mil loaned by Kat during 2013/2014 was to aid 'cashflow', rather than an amount to cover additional overspend? Interested to know what is the correct accounting process here, rather than more speculation.... Its like the time the BBC made a headline out of us 'owing' 27mil in transfer fees, when this was the balances due over a subsequent years.

 

As to whether Kat knew of the the Cortese loans... It would be just as easy to assume that his contract/role gave him that permission... If not, would have expected a 'gross misconduct charge or something? Its clear Kat wanted to change to a 'board' based decision making process and Corteses did not want this more democratic approach, a bit of fall out so he buggered off/resigned, but not sure there was anything 'wrong' in his taking out loans... even if courtesy may have suggested he offer a more open communication withe the owner.

 

Interesting as well that NC was heavily criticised for the 'overspend' on Staplewood development, yet Kat and the new board committed to even further spending and development on top of this, expanding the facilities further. Again, from a more neutral perspective, it seems we probably payed more than we needed to because of design and additional changes to the plans after work had started, but I have no issue with that additional spend given the quality of the facilities we end up - 38mil may seem a lot, but its 8mil less than we received for Shaw and Chambers... so value is another thing.

 

KL has been great, happy to state that for the record and I am pleased because it continues Markus' legacy. But we should at least acknowledge that her 'investment' has as far as we know only been the 30mil that was converted to equity and included Markus' original 12-13mil to pay off the debts and take the club on. The rest has been loans, and through the current and precious leadership that 30mil is probably worth over 100mil-130mil today. Not a bad return really for 7 years.

[Window Cleaner]

6 million went to Bournemouth and presumably, a similar amount to Lyon for Lovren. 20 plus 14 plus 16 for Chambers =50.

 

Bournemouth got about 4 million, their chairman made a big public fact of having to take a cut in the amount due to get the deal done, Lovren...Lyon got squat, they sold him to us with no kickbacks, don't think that they even exist in French football, add ons yes, cuts of future transfers no.. I

Edited 29 March, 2015 by Window Cleaner

[Whitey Grandad]

Question to those that know about these things.... which if an, of our sales and purchases would have been full amount upfront versus spread over number of years? If spread over a number of years and each deal is different, how does this play out in the annual accounts? It would seem 'normal' that only receipts and payments due in that year would be included and NOT the full amount of the deals? This makes a big difference to what is read into the 'accounts' as I understand that its noraml to right off the cost of a player purchase over the years of his contract?

 

This would also account for why club have stated that the additional 20 mil loaned by Kat during 2013/2014 was to aid 'cashflow', rather than an amount to cover additional overspend? Interested to know what is the correct accounting process here, rather than more speculation.... Its like the time the BBC made a headline out of us 'owing' 27mil in transfer fees, when this was the balances due over a subsequent years.

 

As to whether Kat knew of the the Cortese loans... It would be just as easy to assume that his contract/role gave him that permission... If not, would have expected a 'gross misconduct charge or something? Its clear Kat wanted to change to a 'board' based decision making process and Corteses did not want this more democratic approach, a bit of fall out so he buggered off/resigned, but not sure there was anything 'wrong' in his taking out loans... even if courtesy may have suggested he offer a more open communication withe the owner.

 

Interesting as well that NC was heavily criticised for the 'overspend' on Staplewood development, yet Kat and the new board committed to even further spending and development on top of this, expanding the facilities further. Again, from a more neutral perspective, it seems we probably payed more than we needed to because of design and additional changes to the plans after work had started, but I have no issue with that additional spend given the quality of the facilities we end up - 38mil may seem a lot, but its 8mil less than we received for Shaw and Chambers... so value is another thing.

 

KL has been great, happy to state that for the record and I am pleased because it continues Markus' legacy. But we should at least acknowledge that her 'investment' has as far as we know only been the 30mil that was converted to equity and included Markus' original 12-13mil to pay off the debts and take the club on. The rest has been loans, and through the current and precious leadership that 30mil is probably worth over 100mil-130mil today. Not a bad return really for 7 years.

 

When you buy a player (you pay a fee in order to get his contract) the value of the player increases your capital assets and this value is usually written down over the term of the contract, so a £20m deal for 4 years will increase your book value by £20m which will then decrease by £5m per season. The terms of the deal don't alter this basic process but will affect the cash flow. For this reason loans are sometimes more attractive because the player's value won't affect your capital value much and may ease your Corporation Tax liabilities. It's a bit like the difference between buying a car outright or just leasing it.

 

As I understand it cash upfront deals are not common these days although Abramovich was doing that when he took over Chelsea and started splashing the cash.

[VectisSaint]

Bournemouth got about 4 million, their chairman made a big public fact of having to take a cut in the amount due to get the deal done, Lovren...Lyon got squat, they sold him to us with no kickbacks, don't think that they even exist in French football, add ons yes, cuts of future transfers no..

We also paid Bristol Rovers half a million as part of the Lambert deal.

[Lets B Avenue]

Bournemouth got about 4 million, their chairman made a big public fact of having to take a cut in the amount due to get the deal done, Lovren...Lyon got squat, they sold him to us with no kickbacks, don't think that they even exist in French football, add ons yes, cuts of future transfers no..

 

As you obviously have a copy of the contract in front of you, I will bow to your superior knowledge in this and all things Saints related.

 

Strange that The Mail referred to it, but then they probably didn't ask you for clarification.

[Window Cleaner]

As you obviously have a copy of the contract in front of you, I will bow to your superior knowledge in this and all things Saints related.

 

Strange that The Mail referred to it, but then they probably didn't ask you for clarification.

 

 

I've seen Lyon's accounts yes, it's a listed company.

ACTIVITÉ SUR CONTRATS JOUEURSCessions/résiliations de contrats joueurs (valeurs IFRS)• Kim Kallström (27/07/12) au club du Spartak Moscou(2,85 M€ + incentives)• Aly Cissokho (23/08/12) au club du FC Valence(5 M€ + incentives)• Jérémy Pied (24/08/12) à l’OGC Nice (3 M€)• Hugo Lloris (31/08/12) à Tottenham Hotspur(9,7 M€ + incentives)• Enzo Réale (04/09/12) au FC Lorient(1 M€ + intéressement sur plus-value future)• Cris : contrat résilié au 31/08/12• Dejan Lovren (14/06/13) au club de Southampton FC(6,9 M€ + 2 M€ maximum d’incentives)• Anthony Martial (29/06/13) à l’AS Monaco(5 M€ + intéressement sur transfert futur

 

Here it is in B+W 6.9 million euros plus a maximum of 2 million euros add-ons with no reference to any payment on a future transfer (as is the case for Martial who'd have come out of their academy). So whatever the press might say when the accounts are public and detailed anyone can see the truth.

Edited 29 March, 2015 by Window Cleaner

[Frank's cousin]

When you buy a player (you pay a fee in order to get his contract) the value of the player increases your capital assets and this value is usually written down over the term of the contract, so a £20m deal for 4 years will increase your book value by £20m which will then decrease by £5m per season. The terms of the deal don't alter this basic process but will affect the cash flow. For this reason loans are sometimes more attractive because the player's value won't affect your capital value much and may ease your Corporation Tax liabilities. It's a bit like the difference between buying a car outright or just leasing it.

 

As I understand it cash upfront deals are not common these days although Abramovich was doing that when he took over Chelsea and started splashing the cash.

 

Cheers Whitey, interesting stuff. From my limited accounting knowledge, it would appear as if we are in great financial health right now and that despite Gareth Rogers talking of 'legacy' debt, surely if the value of the asset has increased to where we are now, its not a bad thing? As NET, KL mill be quids in.

 

Its why it always surprised me when Mat Le Tiss IMHO rather disingenuously, criticized Cortese as 'being good at spending other peoples money' - if Cortese had spent 30 mil and not increased the value of the asset then fair enough, fire away, (as we have seen ther are many examples of spending millions and achieving nothing) but given how the spending 'worked' and increased the value of the Liebherr's asset by probably 300%, I am sure Matt wishes he had seen those kind of returns on his own business ventures?

[Redslo]

So we got 32 million for Lambert and Shaw and a total of 50 million for Lovren,Lallana and Chambers then, which tends to suggest that we got far less as a basic fee than popularly perceived for at least one of those 3.

 

Or that part of the fee was due in future years just like some of our past transfer fees paid were not due immediately.

[Redslo]

Question to those that know about these things.... which if an, of our sales and purchases would have been full amount upfront versus spread over number of years? If spread over a number of years and each deal is different, how does this play out in the annual accounts? It would seem 'normal' that only receipts and payments due in that year would be included and NOT the full amount of the deals? This makes a big difference to what is read into the 'accounts' as I understand that its noraml to right off the cost of a player purchase over the years of his contract?

 

This would also account for why club have stated that the additional 20 mil loaned by Kat during 2013/2014 was to aid 'cashflow', rather than an amount to cover additional overspend? Interested to know what is the correct accounting process here, rather than more speculation.... Its like the time the BBC made a headline out of us 'owing' 27mil in transfer fees, when this was the balances due over a subsequent years.

 

As to whether Kat knew of the the Cortese loans... It would be just as easy to assume that his contract/role gave him that permission... If not, would have expected a 'gross misconduct charge or something? Its clear Kat wanted to change to a 'board' based decision making process and Corteses did not want this more democratic approach, a bit of fall out so he buggered off/resigned, but not sure there was anything 'wrong' in his taking out loans... even if courtesy may have suggested he offer a more open communication withe the owner.

 

Interesting as well that NC was heavily criticised for the 'overspend' on Staplewood development, yet Kat and the new board committed to even further spending and development on top of this, expanding the facilities further. Again, from a more neutral perspective, it seems we probably payed more than we needed to because of design and additional changes to the plans after work had started, but I have no issue with that additional spend given the quality of the facilities we end up - 38mil may seem a lot, but its 8mil less than we received for Shaw and Chambers... so value is another thing.

 

KL has been great, happy to state that for the record and I am pleased because it continues Markus' legacy. But we should at least acknowledge that her 'investment' has as far as we know only been the 30mil that was converted to equity and included Markus' original 12-13mil to pay off the debts and take the club on. The rest has been loans, and through the current and precious leadership that 30mil is probably worth over 100mil-130mil today. Not a bad return really for 7 years.

 

Under FFP loans that can be converted to equity in the future actually have some value because owners are limited in the amount of equity contributions they can make each year. So if the club needed 20 million to assist cash flow in September, it would make sense to wait until June to figure out how much could or should be converted to equity given the financial results for the year and the FFP rules.

[Redslo]

We also paid Bristol Rovers half a million as part of the Lambert deal.

 

Bet they were pleasantly surprised.

[Redslo]

I've seen Lyon's accounts yes, it's a listed company.

ACTIVITÉ SUR CONTRATS JOUEURSCessions/résiliations de contrats joueurs (valeurs IFRS)• Kim Kallström (27/07/12) au club du Spartak Moscou(2,85 M€ + incentives)• Aly Cissokho (23/08/12) au club du FC Valence(5 M€ + incentives)• Jérémy Pied (24/08/12) à l’OGC Nice (3 M€)• Hugo Lloris (31/08/12) à Tottenham Hotspur(9,7 M€ + incentives)• Enzo Réale (04/09/12) au FC Lorient(1 M€ + intéressement sur plus-value future)• Cris : contrat résilié au 31/08/12• Dejan Lovren (14/06/13) au club de Southampton FC(6,9 M€ + 2 M€ maximum d’incentives)• Anthony Martial (29/06/13) à l’AS Monaco(5 M€ + intéressement sur transfert futur

 

Here it is in B+W 6.9 million euros plus a maximum of 2 million euros add-ons with no reference to any payment on a future transfer (as is the case for Martial who'd have come out of their academy). So whatever the press might say when the accounts are public and detailed anyone can see the truth.

 

Wouldn't Dinamo Zagreb have received a small percentage of the transfer fee for being the club that trained him.

[Saint_clark]

Wouldn't Dinamo Zagreb have received a small percentage of the transfer fee for being the club that trained him.

 

Not necessarily, that isn't written into every deal as standard.

[VectisSaint]

Bet they were pleasantly surprised.

 

They were, helped them survive relegation to the Conference.

[Redslo]

They were, helped them survive relegation to the Conference.

 

Getting relegated to the conference has to be the most miserable experience for a fan. I wonder how the QPR fans are going to deal with it if their owner doesn't cough up the 50 million.

[Turkish]

Getting relegated to the conference has to be the most miserable experience for a fan. I wonder how the QPR fans are going to deal with it if their owner doesn't cough up the 50 million.

 

I've recently had my greatest success on football manager when I took Over as manager of Plymouth when they were in the lower half of the conference. 4 promotions in 5 seasons later we were in the premier league. Extended home park to 50k and just retained the champions league, won the world club cup and won the league 4 seasons in a row, winning it last season by 23 points. Anything is possible.

[Redslo]

I've recently had my greatest success on football manager when I took Over as manager of Plymouth when they were in the lower half of the conference. 4 promotions in 5 seasons later we were in the premier league. Extended home park to 50k and just retained the champions league, won the world club cup and won the league 4 seasons in a row, winning it last season by 23 points. Anything is possible.

 

I am glad some one is getting to enjoy FM this year. Other than using it for my blog, I have not had time to play it what with work, life, blogging, and the world of warcraft expansion (done with it now) in that order.

[stevegrant]

Getting relegated to the conference has to be the most miserable experience for a fan. I wonder how the QPR fans are going to deal with it if their owner doesn't cough up the 50 million.

As if the Football League would have the balls to do that

 

They'll come to some sort of convenient agreement where QPR pay a tiny fine in exchange for not taking legal action against the FL (which the FL couldn't afford to defend) and it all quietly goes away...

[Matthew Le God]

Saints and Newcastle both reveal record profits... BBC ignores Saints £33.4m profit in headline and focus on the Liebherr loan, but use Newcastle's £18.7m profit as headline and focus of article.

 

[a1ex2001]

As if the Football League would have the balls to do that

 

They'll come to some sort of convenient agreement where QPR pay a tiny fine in exchange for not taking legal action against the FL (which the FL couldn't afford to defend) and it all quietly goes away...

 

Sadly that is almost certain to be the outcome, the football authorities seemed to have lost the backbone that nailed leeds and luton to the wall and now all you have to do is ***** and moan a bit and they bend the rules.

[Matthew Le God]

As if the Football League would have the balls to do that

 

They'll come to some sort of convenient agreement where QPR pay a tiny fine in exchange for not taking legal action against the FL (which the FL couldn't afford to defend) and it all quietly goes away...

 

What about legal action against the Football League from all the other Championship clubs ****ed off that they cut their cloth to meet FFP and QPR are let off?

[a1ex2001]

Saints and Newcastle both reveal record profits... BBC ignores Saints £33.4m profit in headline and focus on the Liebherr loan, but use Newcastle's £18.7m profit as headline and focus of article.

 

Not really bothered about the tone of the aritcles, what I would say is I guarantee 99% of Newcastle fans would swap owners with us and that for me sums up the situation. We are clearly in good committed hands and I for one hope she stays oner of the club for a very very long time.

[stevegrant]

What about legal action against the Football League from all the other Championship clubs ****ed off that they cut their cloth to meet FFP and QPR are let off?

The resources of QPR's owners would dwarf most of the rest of the Football League's owners put together. I'm not convinced that any organisation that imposes FFP sanctions can do so with any real guarantee that they're on solid legal ground - even UEFA watered down Man City's punishment which meant they could get away with only two home-grown players in their Champions League squad this season.

[a1ex2001]

What about legal action against the Football League from all the other Championship clubs ****ed off that they cut their cloth to meet FFP and QPR are let off?

 

they will be bought of with some re-distribution of QPR's parachute payments or such nonsense it is in nobody's interest for it to end up in court.

[The9]

The resources of QPR's owners would dwarf most of the rest of the Football League's owners put together. I'm not convinced that any organisation that imposes FFP sanctions can do so with any real guarantee that they're on solid legal ground - even UEFA watered down Man City's punishment which meant they could get away with only two home-grown players in their Champions League squad this season.

 

Though they did also reduce the overall squad size City were allowed to name as a result. Which admittedly is a weak sanction, but it is still a sanction - and I'm sure Jovetic wasn't happy about it.

[Gemmel]

Are you saying that the vibrac loan has been paid off?

 

Yes there are no outstanding charges

 

 

http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk//compdetails

[stevegrant]

Though they did also reduce the overall squad size City were allowed to name as a result. Which admittedly is a weak sanction, but it is still a sanction - and I'm sure Jovetic wasn't happy about it.

Jovetic would still have missed out, as the squad spaces they had reduced by the sanction were all for home-grown players.

[Lallana's Left Peg]

When is the last time all three promoted clubs got relegated the following season? I keep saying it at the start of every season and it looks like it may be true this time.

[Bearsy]

Yes there are no outstanding charges

 

 

http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk//compdetails

 

Ain't it secured against her estate, or is that a whole other loan?

[stevegrant]

When is the last time all three promoted clubs got relegated the following season? I keep saying it at the start of every season and it looks like it may be true this time.

Promoted teams (straight back down in bold):

2013-14: Leicester, Burnley, QPR

2012-13: Cardiff, Hull, Crystal Palace

2011-12: Reading, Saints, West Ham

2010-11: QPR, Norwich, Swansea

2009-10: Newcastle, West Brom, Blackpool

2008-09: Wolves, Birmingham, Burnley

2007-08: West Brom, Stoke, Hull

2006-07: Sunderland, Birmingham, Derby

2005-06: Reading, Sheffield United, Watford

2004-05: Sunderland, Wigan, West Ham

2003-04: Norwich, West Brom, Crystal Palace

2002-03: Portsmouth, Leicester, Wolves

2001-02: Man City, West Brom, Birmingham

2000-01: Fulham, Blackburn, Bolton

1999-00: Charlton, Man City, Ipswich

1998-99: Sunderland, Bradford, Watford

1997-98: Nottingham Forest, Middlesbrough, Charlton

1996-97: Bolton, Barnsley, Crystal Palace

 

Not happened since the three promoted teams in 1997 went straight back down. I still fancy one of Hull or Sunderland to drop in, Burnley seem to at least be having a go.

 

It's interesting looking at that how the perception has always been that promoted teams are up against it in the Premier League because they're all playing catchup, there's a huge gulf between the PL and the Championship, and other such clichés, but the actual statistics suggest otherwise. In the last six completed PL seasons, only 5 of the 18 teams relegated had been promoted the previous season.

[Gemmel]

At least those bellends who insisted Kat was asset stripping or using the club for her handbag fund have been shut up. Also it does appear that as more and more comes out getting shot of nick nack was the best thing she could have done. The fact that she has lent the club £20m to replace the vibrac loan suggests she either wasn't aware or didn't approve that his loan was taken out.

 

It highlights the bizarre circumstances where the owners had little or no control over their own asset.

 

The vibrac loan was always a strange one for me as Cortese mocked other clubs for doing it, stated he would never do that and went and did! The second year he did it , must have been for significantly more money as the paperwork was much more indepth and included the FA or Premier League (Can't remember which one) which I assume was to divert TV money directly to them if we ever defaulted.

[krissyboy31]

Are you saying that the vibrac loan has been paid off?

From The Echo Report:

 

The loan taken out in September 2012 from the Vibrac company will stand at £19m in the accounts, but since June 30 Liebherr has contributed a further £20m loan herself that will replace that and be used to fund previous player trading and capital spending.

[Gemmel]

Ain't it secured against her estate, or is that a whole other loan?

 

The first tranch of Liebherr loans (34 Million or there abouts) were converted into equity.

 

The Vibrac loans were secured against every asset and future TV revenue the club had, which had a charge against the club. That has now been satisfied and there is no longer a charge.

 

You would assume that this latest loan from Katrina will need to be repaid, but probably just been done through "Directors loans".

[Bearsy]

The first tranch of Liebherr loans (34 Million or there abouts) were converted into equity.

 

The Vibrac loans were secured against every asset and future TV revenue the club had, which had a charge against the club. That has now been satisfied and there is no longer a charge.

 

You would assume that this latest loan from Katrina will need to be repaid, but probably just been done through "Directors loans".

 

Tks. Which of those is "The club also held a loan facility, secured against her estate for £14.5m."

[shurlock]

It highlights the bizarre circumstances where the owners had little or no control over their own asset.

 

The vibrac loan was always a strange one for me as Cortese mocked other clubs for doing it, stated he would never do that and went and did! The second year he did it , must have been for significantly more money as the paperwork was much more indepth and included the FA or Premier League (Can't remember which one) which I assume was to divert TV money directly to them if we ever defaulted.

 

Are these the same as the release clauses you were claiming all last summer? Truly bizarre :lol:

[doddisalegend]

Couple of things I saw in various articles that surprised me

 

a) Cortese got £450,000 severance pay (not bad) (daily Star)

b) the PL puts a levy of 4% on every player transfer..... (daily Mail)

[Window Cleaner]

Couple of things I saw in various articles that surprised me

 

a) Cortese got £450,000 severance pay (not bad) (daily Star)

b) the PL puts a levy of 4% on every player transfer..... (daily Mail)

 

a) wouldn't doubt it, B) seems strange,borderline illegal, never heard of it before.

[stevegrant]

Couple of things I saw in various articles that surprised me

 

a) Cortese got £450,000 severance pay (not bad) (daily Star)

b) the PL puts a levy of 4% on every player transfer..... (daily Mail)

 

a) wouldn't doubt it, B) seems strange,borderline illegal, never heard of it before.

a) Seems somewhat strange for someone who "resigned"...

b) Has always been the case, I believe the FA takes a cut as well.

[Matthew Le God]

Couple of things I saw in various articles that surprised me

 

a) Cortese got £450,000 severance pay (not bad) (daily Star)

b) the PL puts a levy of 4% on every player transfer..... (daily Mail)

 

a) wouldn't doubt it, B) seems strange,borderline illegal, never heard of it before.

 

FIFA's Solidarity Contribution is a mechanism that rewards clubs that trained a player at any point between the ages of 12 and 23. For a players entire career any time he is transferred 5% of the fee is shared among all the clubs that trained him from 12 to 23. A higher weighting is given to those years at a club between 16 and 23.

 

It isn't written into transfer deals like a sell on % is, it is just a standard for all transfers across the world for players of any age. This is how even though we lost our sell on fee for Gareth Bale, we did still get money when he went to Real Madrid.

Edited 30 March, 2015 by Matthew Le God

[Turkish]

a) Seems somewhat strange for someone who "resigned"...

b) Has always been the case, I believe the FA takes a cut as well.

 

Stop stirring steve, we all know he resigned because kats plans and Corteses ambtion didn't correlate. That's a foolish/stupid person board FACT

[Give it to Ron]

Great results. Surprised at the staff number increase though. A few in the coaching set up, and perhaps wider network of scouts etc, but that does not account for many surely? Staplewood preparations may have involved a few?

 

I was at a talk by Les Reed the other week and it maybe due to the new plan we have (replace old 5 year one). Every age group now has specialist teams diet, education, specialist age related coach from under 8 right up through all exactly the same. all have their own pitch - or nearly.

I was at Staplewood on Saturday and its amazing how its changed in the last couple of years - the new dome looks massive and "I believe one of the biggest in Europe". The extra staff could also be security as its a much larger site and has bigger car park etc. plus more ground staff to cover all the extra pitches.

[Gemmel]

Are these the same as the release clauses you were claiming all last summer? Truly bizarre :lol:

 

Not sure if you've got the right person or what context you mean release clauses?

[benjii]

In fairness, Rupert Lowe got a bigger payout than Cortese (circa £660k, IIRC) for doing a far worse job. Cortese had a much bigger salary, mind, but proportionately that makes his payoff even smaller.

 

Back to the news, and it's great to see Katharina providing this level of commitment.