Chez Posted 9 October, 2015 Share Posted 9 October, 2015 Did we? Lots actually went down I thought? You are right, I retract my statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redslo Posted 10 October, 2015 Share Posted 10 October, 2015 I transcribed the Adam Blackmore interview with Gareth Rogers on my blog. http://redsloscf.blogspot.com/ http://redsloscf.blogspot.co.uk/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 10 October, 2015 Share Posted 10 October, 2015 The loan is still in there from the time of the original purchase, I would have thought. That was written off. The current debt appears to be loans from Kat for the training ground, loans for paying off the Vibrac debt that was taken out before Cortese left (£19million!) and other exceptional costs (Osvaldo etc.) and future transfer payments, which are debts. So its probably about 45 or 50 million in owner loans and ten or fifteen million in future transfer payments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pluto Posted 10 October, 2015 Share Posted 10 October, 2015 I see that tosser journalist from bournemouth that supports Man United, gobbing off in the comic 'daily star' about the debt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 10 October, 2015 Share Posted 10 October, 2015 That was written off. The current debt appears to be loans from Kat for the training ground, loans for paying off the Vibrac debt that was taken out before Cortese left (£19million!) and other exceptional costs (Osvaldo etc.) and future transfer payments, which are debts. So its probably about 45 or 50 million in owner loans and ten or fifteen million in future transfer payments. Fair enough. Was it all converted into equity? Since we're in profit on transfers you might expect that we would have more owing to us in future transfer payments that we owed to others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supersonic Posted 10 October, 2015 Share Posted 10 October, 2015 Some big earners in our squad... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilchards Posted 11 October, 2015 Share Posted 11 October, 2015 (edited) Some big earners in our squad... That might be true but the real good ones can double their wages if they moved on, that's our problem right now as we can't hold onto them. Edited 12 October, 2015 by Pilchards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlakeySFC Posted 11 October, 2015 Share Posted 11 October, 2015 How much of that 'debt' is just owed to the Liebherr's though? Surely that's not real debt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rooney Posted 12 October, 2015 Share Posted 12 October, 2015 How much of that 'debt' is just owed to the Liebherr's though? Surely that's not real debt.[/quote a Limited Company is a separate legal entity from its Directors (Saloman v Saloman 1896-I think) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 12 October, 2015 Share Posted 12 October, 2015 It doesn't have to. Our sponsorship deal with Veho is up this summer and whilst it was a nice partnership it is now time to get a sponsor who can pay us market rate for our standing in the game. Likewise' date=' I think new shirt deal kicks in this summer. There is scope for it to increase dramatically this summer.[/quote'] Of course if we're splitting hairs, even having the kit and sponsorship deals end at the same time isn't maximising profit. It used to be that changing one or the other was an excuse to change the kit every season instead of every other season, but now we change all of the kits every season anyway, it's more that having a new sponsor or manufacturer is a unique selling point that will shift more of the things and having them both run out in the same year just provides one less reason for a casual consumer to want to buy a new shirt the season after the changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 12 October, 2015 Share Posted 12 October, 2015 By the way, £113.7m of revenue yet we put season ticket prices up. Disgusting. Except we didn't. At all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 12 October, 2015 Share Posted 12 October, 2015 (edited) Abroad? The only place where we sell them abroad is the Isle of Wight. Apart from Gatwick we don't sell them anywhere outside of the Southampton area. Not sure that commercial income is primarily based on shirt sales anyway, much of what you see in some parts of the world are fake anyway. But we really could do so much better, a 2 million increase over last year really is a bit pathetic, however many percentage points it is that are used to pull the wool over the eyes of the gullible. We have a deal with JD Sports this season, apart from Gatwick and a few south coast and nearby JD Stores you can also now buy Saints shirts in their store in Oxford Street in London, which is a start. Agreed that the international based commercial income needs a rocket strapped to it. Edited 12 October, 2015 by The9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 12 October, 2015 Share Posted 12 October, 2015 How much of that 'debt' is just owed to the Liebherr's though? Surely that's not real debt.[/quote a Limited Company is a separate legal entity from its Directors (Saloman v Saloman 1896-I think) The football club is a limited company owned by another limited company. That second limited company is wholly owned by Katrina Liebherr. Whether it is owed directly to her or some other company she owns, the point is that it's under her control and is just an efficient way of injecting money into the business. I would imagine the terms of the debt are favourable. That's not to say she won't hope to get a decent return one day but she's not a "lender" in the way that a bank (or some weird offshore thing like Vibrac) is. There is no security registered against the group, for example. No business lender in their right mind would lend £50million without security. So, although it is "debt" for accounting purposes, it is more akin to "investment" in practical terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norwaysaint Posted 12 October, 2015 Share Posted 12 October, 2015 When putting the debit into context, this is the key factor... "our ability to service it" No debt would mean paying higher tax on profits, sustaining debt means we can (to a certain extent) have better control over the tax we pay back, allowing that money that would have gone on taxes to be re-invested into the football club I certainly hope trying to cheat taxes isn't what this is about. Are saints really just another sleazy business trying to avoid paying the fair share, meaning the burden goes to the other taxpayers and the country becomes poorer? Hopefully that's not the reason. Football isn't that important that things like education, health and defence should suffer, so that football players can get a wage increase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 12 October, 2015 Share Posted 12 October, 2015 I certainly hope trying to cheat taxes isn't what this is about. Are saints really just another sleazy business trying to avoid paying the fair share, meaning the burden goes to the other taxpayers and the country becomes poorer? Hopefully that's not the reason. Football isn't that important that things like education, health and defence should suffer, so that football players can get a wage increase. Any interest paid on the debt (investment) would have to be at a commercial rate, that is you can't pay an inflated rate just in order to reduce your profits and hence your corporation tax. If you're concerned about legal ways of tax avoidance, as we should be, then you might do better to look at the way that the footballers are paid, often in the form of 'image rights' to a company registered offshore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 12 October, 2015 Share Posted 12 October, 2015 I certainly hope trying to cheat taxes isn't what this is about. Are saints really just another sleazy business trying to avoid paying the fair share, meaning the burden goes to the other taxpayers and the country becomes poorer? Hopefully that's not the reason. Football isn't that important that things like education, health and defence should suffer, so that football players can get a wage increase. You might want to mention that to the £130m debt writer-offers (including a sizeable chunk of HMRC revenue) down the road first... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VectisSaint Posted 12 October, 2015 Share Posted 12 October, 2015 We have a deal with JD Sports this season, apart from Gatwick and a few south coast and nearby JD Stores you can also now buy Saints shirts in their store in Oxford Street in London, which is a start. Agreed that the international based commercial income needs a rocket strapped to it. Not sure if you are agreeing with me or not, or whether you think kit is available more generally. I did forget Oxford Street, but otherwise as I said, it is only available in Southampton area JD Sports outlets (includes Eastleigh), Isle of Wight and Gatwick (and Oxford Street). It is not available in any other JD Sports outlets unless this has been changed since. This is the news item from the OS: http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/news/article/20150702-201516-home-kit-launch-friday-2521966.aspx and the relevant extract: There’s also some good news for supporters located away from Southampton as, for the first time, select branches** of JD Sports – including at Gatwick Airport and on London’s Oxford Street – will be stocking Saints’ home kit. **Newport (Isle of Wight), London Oxford Street, Gatwick Airport (South Terminal Departures), Eastleigh, Southampton West Quay Road, Southampton Above Bar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_emu Posted 12 October, 2015 Share Posted 12 October, 2015 Not sure if you are agreeing with me or not, or whether you think kit is available more generally. I did forget Oxford Street, but otherwise as I said, it is only available in Southampton area JD Sports outlets (includes Eastleigh), Isle of Wight and Gatwick (and Oxford Street). It is not available in any other JD Sports outlets unless this has been changed since. This is the news item from the OS: http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/news/article/20150702-201516-home-kit-launch-friday-2521966.aspx and the relevant extract: There’s also some good news for supporters located away from Southampton as, for the first time, select branches** of JD Sports – including at Gatwick Airport and on London’s Oxford Street – will be stocking Saints’ home kit. **Newport (Isle of Wight), London Oxford Street, Gatwick Airport (South Terminal Departures), Eastleigh, Southampton West Quay Road, Southampton Above Bar Reality check - the online Saints store is going to be our only real avenue to global revenue in terms of kit merchandising. Having a couple of shirts hidden on a rack behind an array of other clubs shirts isn't going to cut the mustard. That's why its pivotal to invest in a solid e-commerce and SOE strategy, fully integrated website, rich content, social media, mobile integration yadi-yada, none of which we really have but as an outsider looking in seem to be making some inroads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericb Posted 12 October, 2015 Share Posted 12 October, 2015 Reality check - the online Saints store is going to be our only real avenue to global revenue in terms of kit merchandising. Having a couple of shirts hidden on a rack behind an array of other clubs shirts isn't going to cut the mustard. That's why its pivotal to invest in a solid e-commerce and SOE strategy, fully integrated website, rich content, social media, mobile integration yadi-yada, none of which we really have but as an outsider looking in seem to be making some inroads. Quite simply that won't happen as a "bespoke" product for saints, the agreement for the site (along with all the others in the group) sits with the agency Sapient in London. All of the club sites (including e-com) are on a single platform that's updated in a feature manor and rolled out to each of them. Saints actually have very little control over features that are added or going to be released in the coming future, and i'd hazard a guess they're not hugely privy to the road map either as it's done at a top level, not at a partner level. What Saints do have control of, and are doing very well is their social and above the line marketing, infact i'd argue they're probably one of the best in any league in England at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lallana's Left Peg Posted 12 October, 2015 Share Posted 12 October, 2015 Quite simply that won't happen as a "bespoke" product for saints, the agreement for the site (along with all the others in the group) sits with the agency Sapient in London. All of the club sites (including e-com) are on a single platform that's updated in a feature manor and rolled out to each of them. Saints actually have very little control over features that are added or going to be released in the coming future, and i'd hazard a guess they're not hugely privy to the road map either as it's done at a top level, not at a partner level. What Saints do have control of, and are doing very well is their social and above the line marketing, infact i'd argue they're probably one of the best in any league in England at that. As someone who doesn't live in Southampton I rely quite heavily on Saints digital media output to see what is going on at the club and keep up to date with things. I personally think that what they do is outstanding and very well balanced all things considering. The work with the Academy and U21 news / games is brilliant and in general the features they produce every so often are of the right tone and varied enough to not become boring. The pieces are for the clubs fans and whilst they may not directly increase our revenue or fan base, they are something which keep existing fans engaged and there is a lot to be said for that. Gaining new fans isn't anything to do with the digital media output - you need other channels to introduce the club for that but there is no doubt that our media guys do a great job. It's the marketing department that needs to come up with ways to grow our fan base - the team do the business on the pitch more often than not and the media guys certainly produce enough output to keep fans engaged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norwaysaint Posted 12 October, 2015 Share Posted 12 October, 2015 You might want to mention that to the £130m debt writer-offers (including a sizeable chunk of HMRC revenue) down the road first... If we are doing anything morally ambiguous (no idea whether that's the case or not) then that's a very odd response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 12 October, 2015 Share Posted 12 October, 2015 If we are doing anything morally ambiguous (no idea whether that's the case or not) then that's a very odd response. We clearly aren't. It's common business practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norwaysaint Posted 12 October, 2015 Share Posted 12 October, 2015 We clearly aren't. It's common business practice. I find that an odd response too. Are you saying if something is common business practice it can't be morally ambiguous? I think any commercial company trying to pay less tax is in a very grey area morally. It isn't okay just because lots of people do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 12 October, 2015 Share Posted 12 October, 2015 (edited) I find that an odd response too. Are you saying if something is common business practice it can't be morally ambiguous? I think any commercial company trying to pay less tax is in a very grey area morally. It isn't okay just because lots of people do it. It's not illegal and I don't consider it morally ambiguous either. If anyone had a real issue with it then the law could easily be changed to stop the practice from happening but they don't because it isn't an issue. It's not about cheating taxes, it's about securing maximum investment in the team in a totally legal way. Edited 12 October, 2015 by hypochondriac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 12 October, 2015 Share Posted 12 October, 2015 I find that an odd response too. Are you saying if something is common business practice it can't be morally ambiguous? I think any commercial company trying to pay less tax is in a very grey area morally. It isn't okay just because lots of people do it. Do you think private individuals that put their savings into ISAs are "morally ambiguous"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doggface Posted 12 October, 2015 Share Posted 12 October, 2015 (edited) Of course if we're splitting hairs, even having the kit and sponsorship deals end at the same time isn't maximising profit. It used to be that changing one or the other was an excuse to change the kit every season instead of every other season, but now we change all of the kits every season anyway, it's more that having a new sponsor or manufacturer is a unique selling point that will shift more of the things and having them both run out in the same year just provides one less reason for a casual consumer to want to buy a new shirt the season after the changes. no idea on main shirt sponsor but also a great opportunity to increase commercial rev Edited 26 October, 2015 by doggface Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JRM Posted 12 October, 2015 Share Posted 12 October, 2015 Good to see that the commercial revenue has increased, but as others have pointed out clearly a big potential for easy additional income once the Shirt deal and sponsorship get renewed. The debt is not too concerning as the majority to the owner probably isn’t even costing the business to service the load through interest, compare that to the likes of Manchester United who pay millions on interest and loan re-payments to pay off the Glazer’s leveraged buy out. It would be good to see the Macquarie Bank loan re-paid and off the books, no doubt that will be costing us a bit and secured against future income, the new TV deal set to kick in next season should allow us to clear that if we wish to. Clearly paying off Cortese and Osvaldo have been big costs to the business that hopefully won’t need to be repeated, such a shame for a club of our modest standing to have spent so much of our relatively small wage budget on Osvaldo and Ramirez over the last two years, two players that have contributed nothing to our success , the money would have been much better spent compensating the players we wanted to keep to allow us to hold on to them, but that’s football I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 12 October, 2015 Share Posted 12 October, 2015 It would be good to see the Macquarie Bank loan re-paid and off the books, no doubt that will be costing us a bit and secured against future income, the new TV deal set to kick in next season should allow us to clear that if we wish to. There are no outstanding charges registered against Southampton Football Club Limited or St Mary's Football Group Limited (the holding company formerly known as DMWSL 613 LIMITED that Markus used to buy the club). There was a loan with Vibrac Corporation which was secured but that's been repaid. So if there is a Macquarie Bank loan (which I've never heard of - what are you referring to?) it is not secured against the football club or its holding company. There was talk previously about some loans being secured against the "estate of the shareholder" - ie. secured by Katharina herself but I'm not sure what the nature of those loans was/is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sour Mash Posted 12 October, 2015 Share Posted 12 October, 2015 There are no outstanding charges registered against Southampton Football Club Limited or St Mary's Football Group Limited (the holding company formerly known as DMWSL 613 LIMITED that Markus used to buy the club). There was a loan with Vibrac Corporation which was secured but that's been repaid. So if there is a Macquarie Bank loan (which I've never heard of - what are you referring to?) it is not secured against the football club or its holding company. There was talk previously about some loans being secured against the "estate of the shareholder" - ie. secured by Katharina herself but I'm not sure what the nature of those loans was/is. According to this the Vibrac loan has been replaced by one from Macquarie? http://m.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/13835835._Southampton_have_reinvested_everything_from_player_sales____Rogers/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redslo Posted 12 October, 2015 Share Posted 12 October, 2015 (edited) It's not illegal and I don't consider it morally ambiguous either. If anyone had a real issue with it then the law could easily be changed to stop the practice from happening but they don't because it isn't an issue. It's not about cheating taxes, it's about securing maximum investment in the team in a totally legal way. Do you think private individuals that put their savings into ISAs are "morally ambiguous"? I know nothing about UK taxes so I will use USA taxes as an example here. Capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than ordinary income. The supposed purpose of this is to encourage people make investments for the future growth of the economy. Thus, long term capital gains (investments held over a year) are taxed at a lower rate than short term capital gains. Taking advantage of this is in no way morally ambiguous even if you, for example, put off selling an investment a few days to get it over the one year mark. On the other hand, much of the expert legal advice put into the tax avoidance industry is directed at finding ways to turn ordinary income into long term capital gains. This is morally wrong (not just ambiguous) but it is a regular business practice. The fact that the law allows some such transactions is due to the fact that no matter what rules you create someone will find a way to use them to their benefit. (And rich people have more access to the politicians who set the rules.) The most prominent current example is the way hedge fund managers are paid with an increased interest in their hedge fund which they are allowed to treat as a capital gain. Edited 12 October, 2015 by Redslo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_emu Posted 12 October, 2015 Share Posted 12 October, 2015 Quite simply that won't happen as a "bespoke" product for saints, the agreement for the site (along with all the others in the group) sits with the agency Sapient in London. All of the club sites (including e-com) are on a single platform that's updated in a feature manor and rolled out to each of them. Saints actually have very little control over features that are added or going to be released in the coming future, and i'd hazard a guess they're not hugely privy to the road map either as it's done at a top level, not at a partner level. What Saints do have control of, and are doing very well is their social and above the line marketing, infact i'd argue they're probably one of the best in any league in England at that. Thanks for the info, wasn't aware of who it was with... a bit of digging revealed this.. "LONDON, UK– August 10th, 2011 – SapientNitro, part of Sapient (NASDAQ: SAPE), announced today that Football League Interactive (FLi) has signed a multi-million pound deal with integrated marketing and technology services firm SapientNitro to build the next generation digital platform for its member clubs. With 86 club websites (65 Football League, 9 Premier League and 12 non-league)" So in short, it's not all clubs but I'm guessing the lesser clubs who didn't have a decent marketing budget at the time. Frustratingly all the clubs above and around us have bespoke sites. I wonder how long it goes for, how cost effective it would be to opt out of and whether the club are seriously contemplating it. The under armour deal is very much long term. It is, which deal? Have I missed something as I've heard nothing but rumours about the Under Armour deal. I do not know what sums are involved but it will surely be significant to us and make a huge increase in our commercial revenue. Spurs get around 10 mill pa from them and our deal is longer than theirs, although they are a bigger name obviously. Should dwarf anything we have had before. no idea on main shirt sponsor but also a great opportunity to increase commercial rev Spurs deal reported is for them to get "up to" 10m a year, and Spurs commercial revenue is about 7 times ours. Our deal is reportedly 5m per year with Adidas so I think we are doing ok at the moment. Also not sure of the source this article suggests that our 3 year deal excludes the "gap" year and we have another year with adidas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VectisSaint Posted 12 October, 2015 Share Posted 12 October, 2015 So in short, it's not all clubs but I'm guessing the lesser clubs who didn't have a decent marketing budget at the time. Frustratingly all the clubs above and around us have bespoke sites. I wonder how long it goes for, how cost effective it would be to opt out of and whether the club are seriously contemplating it. We got into the original agreement when we were in the Football League - not sure if it was when we were in League One or Championship. It was initially for 3 years, it was discussed about changing when we were promoted to the PL, but it didn't happen and it looks like we extended the contract. Most (not all) of the PL teams who have been promoted in the last 4 or so years have the same agreement, none of the established PL teams use it as far as I can see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Posted 12 October, 2015 Share Posted 12 October, 2015 Not sure why people are getting so worked up?? From a business point of view we have made an operating profit for two years running now - under a "live within our means" model (as opposed to Nicky who wanted to gamble for the big time - which is another debate and not one for here). The only debt (or soft debt) is money owed to Kat, for which we are all grateful for, but hardly a big issue as she will more than make that back if/when she ever sells the club. Marcus paid circa £15M for club and stadium, add that to the soft debt and she is quids in even if sold now. If we manage to keep the majority of our squad for next year, with the increased TV money we will easily wipe out the soft debt. I just hope we continue to invest the additional funds we have to improve the squad (Mane replacement for starters!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericb Posted 13 October, 2015 Share Posted 13 October, 2015 We got into the original agreement when we were in the Football League - not sure if it was when we were in League One or Championship. It was initially for 3 years, it was discussed about changing when we were promoted to the PL, but it didn't happen and it looks like we extended the contract. Most (not all) of the PL teams who have been promoted in the last 4 or so years have the same agreement, none of the established PL teams use it as far as I can see. I would say the reason not to do it is probably a purely financial reason. The cost of a fully integrated E-Com and broucherware platform (including strategies for each area) at an agency of the size of Sapient is likely to be north of £5-10m (if not more). In doing an umbrella agreement between clubs that cost will be substantially lowered for each team. Sapient are actually part of the umbrella network that owns the agency i work for, and i did hear that that agreement was up for tender again relatively soon, but it's normally very unlikely that an agency of record will lose their client unless there's serious complaints against them. Something which takes years to build up. My guess will be we will have that site for a few years to come to be honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 13 October, 2015 Share Posted 13 October, 2015 If we are doing anything morally ambiguous (no idea whether that's the case or not) then that's a very odd response. Not really, I'm merely saying that no matter what we do we're still going to look good compared to what the Skates did with relation to the tax revenue lost from their activities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 13 October, 2015 Share Posted 13 October, 2015 Not really, I'm merely saying that no matter what we do we're still going to look good compared to what the Skates did with relation to the tax revenue lost from their activities. aim high and all that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farawaysaint Posted 13 October, 2015 Share Posted 13 October, 2015 Everyone is talking about racking up debt to avoid tax. I don't pretend to be a UK tax law expert but debt doesn't prevent tax, if she isn't taking interest on it we can't be running up tax losses to offset profits. It depends entirely on how the debt is structured so let's not prepare the lynch mob just yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stud mark of doom Posted 15 October, 2015 Share Posted 15 October, 2015 Everyone is talking about racking up debt to avoid tax. I don't pretend to be a UK tax law expert but debt doesn't prevent tax, if she isn't taking interest on it we can't be running up tax losses to offset profits. It depends entirely on how the debt is structured so let's not prepare the lynch mob just yet. I think typically the debt is owed to an entity in a low/nil tax regime. I'm also not an expert but I thought it was pretty normal practice. 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