farawaysaint Posted 16 November, 2015 Share Posted 16 November, 2015 It's hardly surprising we can't hold onto players. "We are seen as a model club. In the ranking of salaries we stand I think fourth from bottom" http://sportwitness.ning.com/forum/topics/southampton-s-koeman-expects-middle-fingers-from-fans-gets-opposi I'm all for sustainability but can this really be true? Are we really ranked 17th in terms of wages paid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golden Balls Posted 16 November, 2015 Share Posted 16 November, 2015 On one hand it's something to be proud of that we don't over pay and are doing what we can to be sustainable. On the other hand we will always lose players and it will eventually catch up with us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doddisalegend Posted 16 November, 2015 Share Posted 16 November, 2015 I saw a stat the other day that the average stay of a player at a PL club is now two years and eight months given that we've not done that bad with player retention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 16 November, 2015 Share Posted 16 November, 2015 Southampton have only been back in the Premier League for 3 years, there are restrictions on how much you can add to the wage bill year on year but Southampton are quickly catching and overtaking many clubs... [saints are one of the few clubs to have already released 2014/15 account details] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 16 November, 2015 Share Posted 16 November, 2015 In terms of player retention, it doesn't matter if Saints are 17th or 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th for wage bill. The ability of the clubs to other large wages will see our best players see a move as good for them financially. The public and media keep bringing up the idea of "selling club", but the number of "non-selling clubs" in world football is tiny! Every club in the Premier League is likely to lose their star player if Barcelona or Real Madrid really wanted them. Under Liebherr ownership Southampton haven't sold our best players to anyone other than Arsenal, Man Utd, Liverpool. If we start losing our best players to Newcastle, Aston Villa, West Ham etc then that would be a concern as it would indicate the quality of our best players has dropped significantly. I doubt Saints will be losing their best players to any English club other than Man City, Man Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal or Liverpool anytime soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 16 November, 2015 Share Posted 16 November, 2015 (edited) Southampton have only been back in the Premier League for 3 years, there are restrictions on how much you can add to the wage bill year on year but Southampton are quickly catching and overtaking many clubs... [saints are one of the few clubs to have already released 2014/15 account details] That's a dubious chart - thought you would have checked your facts or at least, provided some context before posting. To be clear, that doesn't just refer to player wages but total group wages (everyone from the CEO to the tea lady) -other things being equal, this shouldn't matter if clubs have similarly structured organisations (though perhaps some clubs spend disproportionately more on their Academy or scouting etc). Still it's important to be precise. Where the graph is positively misleading is that it includes one-off exceptional costs (~£8m) -presumably the Osvaldo hit ("the cost of onerous and cancelled contracts from historical player trading") that will have artificially inflated the picture for this year which may lead some -like you- to make dubious extrapolations. Poor job, Mr Wrong. Edited 16 November, 2015 by shurlock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farawaysaint Posted 16 November, 2015 Author Share Posted 16 November, 2015 In terms of player retention, it doesn't matter if Saints are 17th or 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th for wage bill. The ability of the clubs to other large wages will see our best players see a move as good for them financially. The public and media keep bringing up the idea of "selling club", but the number of "non-selling clubs" in world football is tiny! Every club in the Premier League is likely to lose their star player if Barcelona or Real Madrid really wanted them. Under Liebherr ownership Southampton haven't sold our best players to anyone other than Arsenal, Man Utd, Liverpool. If we start losing our best players to Newcastle, Aston Villa, West Ham etc then that would be a concern as it would indicate the quality of our best players has dropped significantly. I doubt Saints will be losing their best players to any English club other than Man City, Man Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal or Liverpool anytime soon. Disagree, Everton for instance do much better in holding on to their good players (I am in no way suggesting they don't lose them.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_emu Posted 16 November, 2015 Share Posted 16 November, 2015 It's hardly surprising we can't hold onto players. "We are seen as a model club. In the ranking of salaries we stand I think fourth from bottom" http://sportwitness.ning.com/forum/topics/southampton-s-koeman-expects-middle-fingers-from-fans-gets-opposi I'm all for sustainability but can this really be true? Are we really ranked 17th in terms of wages paid? I think a lot of clubs would be envious of this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_emu Posted 16 November, 2015 Share Posted 16 November, 2015 That's a dubious chart - thought you would have checked your facts or at least, provided some context before posting. To be clear, that doesn't just refer to player wages but total group wages (everyone from the CEO to the tea lady) -other things being equal, this shouldn't matter if clubs have similarly structured organisations (though perhaps some clubs spend disproportionately more on their Academy or scouting etc). Still it's important to be precise. Where the graph is positively misleading is that it includes one-off exceptional costs -presumably the Osvaldo hit ("the cost of onerous and cancelled contracts from historical player trading") that will have artificially inflated the picture for this year which may lead some -like you- to make dubious extrapolations. Poor job, Mr Wrong. If MLG stands corrected with dignity and grace can the mods make this a sticky please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 16 November, 2015 Share Posted 16 November, 2015 That's a dubious chart - thought you would have checked your facts or at least, provided some context before posting. To be clear, that doesn't just refer to player wages but total group wages (everyone from the CEO to the tea lady) -other things being equal, this shouldn't matter if clubs have similarly structured organisations (though perhaps some clubs spend disproportionately more on their Academy or scouting etc). Still it's important to be precise. Where the graph is positively misleading is that it includes one-off exceptional costs (~£8m) -presumably the Osvaldo hit ("the cost of onerous and cancelled contracts from historical player trading") that will have artificially inflated the picture for this year which may lead some -like you- to make dubious extrapolations. Poor job, Mr Wrong. Excluding the £8.3 million cost of onerous and cancelled contracts, the wage bill rose 15% (£9 million) from £63 million to £72 million, increasing the wages to turnover ratio from 59% to 63%. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 16 November, 2015 Share Posted 16 November, 2015 . The article is apparently wrong -it should read "including" not "excluding". The £71m figures includes the one-hit for onerous and cancelled contracts. Total Group wages, including players, increased from £55.2m in 2014 to £70.8m in 2015, a fee which includes the cost of onerous and cancelled contracts from historical player trading of £8.3m http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/news/article/20151009-southampton-financial-results-2014-15-2735534.aspx (see also the Solent interview with Gareth Rogers http://redsloscf.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/i-transcribed-adam-blackmores-8-october.html) Don't believe everything you read unless its on the OS.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 16 November, 2015 Share Posted 16 November, 2015 The article is apparently wrong -it should read "including" not "excluding". The £71m figures includes the one-hit for onerous and cancelled contracts The OS figures and SR figures are not on the same basis. The SR figure is referenced to an increase from £63m to £72m, not £55m to £71m The chart referenced by MLG is from SR, who has presumably analysed all the clubs on the same basis (whatever that is). The point is one of relativity rather than absolute. I was taught many years ago that the truth of any set of financials isn't in the numbers, it's in the small print. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 16 November, 2015 Share Posted 16 November, 2015 (edited) Southampton have only been back in the Premier League for 3 years, there are restrictions on how much you can add to the wage bill year on year but Southampton are quickly catching and overtaking many clubs... [saints are one of the few clubs to have already released 2014/15 account details] Well, you say that but Saints only overtook Stoke on that list based on everyone's upward trajectory since 2013, and they've just signed a few "name" players like Shaqiri which suggests they could overtake us again. Plus everyone else you're suggesting we've overtaken based on our 2015 figures has already got an upward trajectory ahead of ours - in fact since 2012 we've only even closed the gap on West Ham, Stoke and Villa of the 8 listed, and not overtaken anyone except Stoke (see above). Edited 16 November, 2015 by The9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotty Posted 16 November, 2015 Share Posted 16 November, 2015 (edited) Don't let's turn this into yet another mlg bashing thread. I know he's a pedantic tw*t, but every website needs a pedantic t*at. Edited 16 November, 2015 by scotty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 16 November, 2015 Share Posted 16 November, 2015 Surely squad size, number of home grown in squad, are all relevant Payroll totals alone mean nothing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noodles34 Posted 17 November, 2015 Share Posted 17 November, 2015 Don't let's turn this into yet another mlg bashing thread. I know he's a pedantic tw*t, but every website needs a pedantic t*at. Oh the irony:lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david in sweden Posted 21 November, 2015 Share Posted 21 November, 2015 I'm a great believer in the use of stats. as long as one can read them in the correct manner. contrary to most of the others on the chart, Saints were a relegated side in 2009, and had 3 more seasons at a lower level before we got back into the Prem. A lot of this is also affected by the club's income potential / stadium capacity, etc. Most of the top 5 (listed) have larger arenas than SMS and the FPP rules also now limit what clubs are capable of paying ut in salaries (not a bad thing in itself), as it may hinder future bankruptcies (ala Leeds, Pompey) but it has it downside for us. We may never be in the market to pay £100K /week to anyone, so I guess it 's a situation we must learn to live with. However, give the progess in the last 3 years, I'd say it's " good housekeeping" to have achieved what we have and still stay low on this sort of salaries list. Someone else made the point that the " Gaston / Osvaldo" type deals that go sour also falsely inflate the stats. in terms of good economy. 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