Where is all the money going?

[Heisenberg]

Transfer profits this summer = £40 million

2014/15: transfer profit = £24 million

2015/16 TV and position income = £85 million

2014/15 TV and position income = £80 million

Matchday income per season = £18m

Commercial income £8-10m

 

Less Wages circa £70m

 

So where are we stashing all the money?

[adrian lord]

Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs?

[nta786]

'Fat Kat, Wreck it Ralph and Les' juust pocket it lool.

 

My theory is the money is saved in the off chance we have an awful season, ie finish between 14th and 17th.

 

My only worry is if we get relegated we are *****ed.

 

It can't be wages, we are using TV money for that I thought.

 

As for our debt, surely we can't have much left or any now?

[UpweySaint]

Les Reed's barber ... next pointless thread please!

[saint1977]

Transfer profits this summer = £40 million

2014/15: transfer profit = £24 million

2015/16 TV and position income = £85 million

2014/15 TV and position income = £80 million

Matchday income per season = £18m

Commercial income £8-10m

 

Less Wages circa £70m

 

So where are we stashing all the money?

 

Back into the club. Paying off the top drawer training ground, previous transfer fees, signing on fees and bigger wages for all of the new contracts, which we all wanted to see, and there is clearly more in the kitty for 2 more signings before the window shuts.

 

Oh, and we had to write off Osvaldo's contract last season, probably on a compromise deal but still likely to be several million.

 

The Liebherrs aren't Guy Askham - they don't need money from SFC but they are business people. They also wrote off £33m to get us promoted.

[OldNick]

Back into the club. Paying off the top drawer training ground, previous transfer fees, signing on fees and bigger wages for all of the new contracts, which we all wanted to see, and there is clearly more in the kitty for 2 more signings before the window shuts.

 

Oh, and we had to write off Osvaldo's contract last season, probably on a compromise deal but still likely to be several million.

 

The Liebherrs aren't Guy Askham - they don't need money from SFC but they are business people. They also wrote off £33m to get us promoted.

Surely we keep off loading our big wage earenrs each year and replacing with up and coming players who would be on less money

[spyinthesky]

I think it is good to ask the question in a sensible way

 

Let's not forget that without the Leibherrs we would be owned by SISU, some other dodgy outfit of working our way back up through the lower leagues

[Give it to Ron]

I would imagine there's £50m+ available for transfers without sales for the next couple of windows but we'll only spend it if our targets are available. I think they want to make sure they don't block a path for the likes of Hesketh, Reed etc.

 

I'd settle for one big attacking signing and using Hesketh a bit.

 

Scored a cracker today but needs to bulk up a bit

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Cartman]

Making the club a profit, regardless of whether we want to or not. We (and everyone else) aren't allowed to spend much of the new TV money because owners voted to bring in the following rules to ensure a profit (not us, we were one of the few to vote against).

 

Short Term Cost Control

 

E.18. If in any of Contract Years 2016/17, 2017/18 and 2018/19, the sum of a Club’s Player

Services Costs and Image Contract Payments exceeds £67m, £74m or £81m,

respectively, the relevant Club must elect to either: (a) be assessed by the Board on

the ‘Prior Year Basis’ (in which case, Rule E.19 applies); or (b) be assessed by the

Board on the ‘2012/13 Base Year Basis’ (in which case, Rule E.20 applies).

E.19. Where the Club has elected to be assessed on the ‘Prior Year Basis’, the Club must

satisfy the Board of any of the following:

E.19.1. that the sum of the Club’s Player Services Costs and Image Contract

Payments has not increased by more than £7m when compared to the

previous Contract Year; or

E.19.2. that the excess increase, over and above the £7m referred to at Rule E.19.1,

arises as a result of contractual commitments entered into on or before 31

January 2013, and/or has been funded only by Club Own Revenue Uplift as

compared to the previous Contract Year and/or Averaged Three Year

Player Trading Profit; or

E.19.3. that the excess increase, over and above the figures set out in Rule E.18, as

applicable, has been funded only by Club Own Revenue Uplift and/or

Averaged Three Year Player Trading Profit.

E.20. Where the Club has elected to be assessed on the ‘2012/13 Base Year Basis’, the Club

must satisfy the Board of any of the following:

E.20.1. that the sum of the Club’s Player Services Costs and Image Contract

Payments has not increased by more than £19m (in Contract Year 2016/17),

£26m (in Contract Year 2017/18) or £33m (in Contract Year 2018/19), as

applicable, when compared with Contract Year 2012/13; or

E.20.2. that the excess increase, over and above the figures referred to at Rule

E.20.1, arises as a result of contractual commitments entered into on or

before 31 January 2013, and/or has been funded only by Club Own Revenue

Uplift as compared with the like figures in Contract Year 2012/13 and/or

Averaged Three Year Player Trading Profit.

Guidance

Pursuant to Rules E.18 to E.20, the Board may require further information from the Club including (but not

limited to):

a) confirmation that Club Own Revenue Uplift has been calculated on a like-for-like basis; and

b) satisfactory evidence that revenue included within the calculation of Club Own Revenue Uplift has

not been artificially inflated.

In addition, the Board may adjust a Club Own Revenue Uplift by assessing any revenue within it from

Related Party Transactions to Fair Market Value. As set out in the definition of Club Own Revenue Uplift

(Rule A.1.30), the Board must give the Club the opportunity to make submissions before it does so.

E.21. On or before 1 March in each Season, each Club shall submit Form 3 to the Board.

Guidance

The first reporting via Form 3 under the revised Short Term Cost Control Rules, as adopted for Seasons

2016/17, 2017/18 and 2018/19, will take place in March 2018 in respect of Contract Year 2016/17.

Clubs’ attention is drawn to Rule T.15 with regard to the failure to submit Form 3.

E.22. When requested by the League, the information set out in Form 3 shall be reported

upon by the Club’s auditors and/or its board of directors, in accordance with

procedures specified by the League from time to time.

[wireframebox]

Those transfer fees are Gross rather than Net. Each deal is very complex with money owed to many parties.

 

One aspect that most people overlook is, that unless their is a mutual agreement to cancel a players contract, it needs to be paid in full when a player is sold. So if you sell a player without their consent, you have to pay the player the remaining value of the contract. This is one of the reasons you hear about players handing in a 'written transfer request'. They've essentially rescinded their right to the remainder of their contract in order to aid the completion of the transfer.

 

Basically, Back-of-the-envelope calculations like this are pretty pointless.

[Doctoroncall]

Transfer profits this summer = £40 million

2014/15: transfer profit = £24 million

2015/16 TV and position income = £85 million

2014/15 TV and position income = £80 million

Matchday income per season = £18m

Commercial income £8-10m

 

Less Wages circa £70m

 

So where are we stashing all the money?

 

Since the club have moved to a water meter, it costs the club an absolute fortune watering all the pitches!

[ALWAYS_SFC]

Transfer profits this summer = £40 million

2014/15: transfer profit = £24 million

2015/16 TV and position income = £85 million

2014/15 TV and position income = £80 million

Matchday income per season = £18m

Commercial income £8-10m

 

Less Wages circa £70m

 

So where are we stashing all the money?

 

Personally I would like them to pay you a wedge to f off somewhere else taking you're multiple log ins with you

[Delmary]

Transfer profits this summer = £40 million

2014/15: transfer profit = £24 million

2015/16 TV and position income = £85 million

2014/15 TV and position income = £80 million

Matchday income per season = £18m

Commercial income £8-10m

 

Less Wages circa £70m

 

So where are we stashing all the money?

 

To pay off £60M debt. Simples

[farawaysaint]

This speculation is pointless, accounts are out for two of the years mentioned. Go take a look.

[hutch]

Accounts for 15/16 aren't due until March next year.

[stevegrant]

Surely we keep off loading our big wage earenrs each year and replacing with up and coming players who would be on less money

I assume you missed the numerous articles in the last three months where key first-team players (and JWP) signed new long-term contracts? They won't have taken a pay cut to do so...

[Leslie Charteris]

Heisenberg, you are still uncertain?

[SW5 SAINT]

Those transfer fees are Gross rather than Net. Each deal is very complex with money owed to many parties.

 

One aspect that most people overlook is, that unless their is a mutual agreement to cancel a players contract, it needs to be paid in full when a player is sold. So if you sell a player without their consent, you have to pay the player the remaining value of the contract. This is one of the reasons you hear about players handing in a 'written transfer request'. They've essentially rescinded their right to the remainder of their contract in order to aid the completion of the transfer.

 

Basically, Back-of-the-envelope calculations like this are pretty pointless.

 

I think most our player exits pestered to go, just didn't hand in a transfer request. It's extremely unlikely (Osvaldo apart) any of them got their contracts paid up.

[wireframebox]

I think most our player exits pestered to go, just didn't hand in a transfer request. It's extremely unlikely (Osvaldo apart) any of them got their contracts paid up.

 

Osvaldo knew the trick of doing enough to warrant being shipped out, but not enough to get fired. He did it at Roma too.

[Heisenberg]

To pay off £60M debt. Simples

 

Would make sense

[Lighthouse]

Those transfer fees are Gross rather than Net. Each deal is very complex with money owed to many parties.

 

One aspect that most people overlook is, that unless their is a mutual agreement to cancel a players contract, it needs to be paid in full when a player is sold. So if you sell a player without their consent, you have to pay the player the remaining value of the contract. This is one of the reasons you hear about players handing in a 'written transfer request'. They've essentially rescinded their right to the remainder of their contract in order to aid the completion of the transfer.

 

Basically, Back-of-the-envelope calculations like this are pretty pointless.

 

Absolute nonsense. It's up to the player if they want to sign a contract with a new club but the old one doesn't have to pay up their contract.

[Sour Mash]

To pay off £60M debt. Simples

If true, does that mean if we hadn't managed to get so many big sales we'd be in trouble financially?

[Saint_clark]

You can't sell a player without their consent, if they don't want to go then they don't sign a new contract. You're possibly thinking of NFL if they trade a player without their consent although I must confess I'm not even sure that's how it works there.

 

Anyway, the long term contracts a lot of players signed will cost a lot of money (think about it - they've potentially signed away any chance of them or their agent getting a signing on bonus for the next 5/6 years, they'd only do so for a lot of money here and now or through wages). Also I don't think we're going to spend everything we bring in, i.e if we have £50million we'll spend that much. We'll probably keep a good chunk of our incomings as a reserve in case things go tits up, or we could even be saving up for some big investment like ground redevelopment instead of taking out a loan to do it.

[Gemmel]

If true, does that mean if we hadn't managed to get so many big sales we'd be in trouble financially?

 

Scary, that a poster with 15,000 posts (So obviously mad keen) doesn't have smallest grasp of our finances, yet will happily contribute and comment on anything Saints, including purchases and player sales.

 

The "if True" bit can be answered by our last set of accounts, so no need to deal in fiction.

[wireframebox]

Absolute nonsense. It's up to the player if they want to sign a contract with a new club but the old one doesn't have to pay up their contract.

 

This is from I Am The Secret Footballer;

 

And this is where you will find an interesting breed of footballer –the player who regularly changes clubs. Financially, there is a fortune to be made in the Premier League just by moving clubs, and it works like this: as long as a player doesn’t officially ask to leave his current club, he is legally entitled to the remainder of the value of his contract (this is nullified if you hand in a transfer request).

 

If you sign a fixed length contract, it has to be fulfilled, unless both parties agree to nullify it.

 

A lot of the compensation a club asks for (transfer fee) is to cover the cost of paying up the player's remaining contract.

 

It's not as black and white as FIFA would have you believe.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lighthouse]

This is from I Am The Secret Footballer;

 

And this is where you will find an interesting breed of footballer –the player who regularly changes clubs. Financially, there is a fortune to be made in the Premier League just by moving clubs, and it works like this: as long as a player doesn’t officially ask to leave his current club, he is legally entitled to the remainder of the value of his contract (this is nullified if you hand in a transfer request).

 

If you sign a fixed length contract, it has to be fulfilled, unless both parties agree to nullify it.

 

A lot of the compensation a club asks for (transfer fee) is to cover the cost of paying up the player's remaining contract.

 

It's not as black and white as FIFA would have you believe.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

This has got to be a wind up. If you sign a contract with another club then you're agreeing to terminate your current contract. What you're thinking of is the suggestion that we can kick a player out who wants to stay and doesn't have a buyer. Then we would have to pay up his contract.

 

The idea that we had to pay the likes of Lallana and Lovren millions of pounds so they could bugger off to Liverpool is laughable.

[S-Clarke]

This has got to be a wind up. If you sign a contract with another club then you're agreeing to terminate your current contract. What you're thinking of is the suggestion that we can kick a player out who wants to stay and doesn't have a buyer. Then we would have to pay up his contract.

 

The idea that we had to pay the likes of Lallana and Lovren millions of pounds so they could bugger off to Liverpool is laughable.

 

I believe there's such a thing as a 'loyalty' payment. This is made null and void if said player hands in an official transfer request.

[Batman]

This has got to be a wind up. If you sign a contract with another club then you're agreeing to terminate your current contract. What you're thinking of is the suggestion that we can kick a player out who wants to stay and doesn't have a buyer. Then we would have to pay up his contract.

 

The idea that we had to pay the likes of Lallana and Lovren millions of pounds so they could bugger off to Liverpool is laughable.

 

Unless a player officially puts in a transfer request, they are entitled to their loyalty bonus with the original club. Usually that mean almost, if not full basic wage of their current deal.

 

Sure that probably gets negotiated and maybe factored into the asking price etc

 

As for Lallana etc. We had the choice to say. Not for sale

[Lighthouse]

I believe there's such a thing as a 'loyalty' payment. This is made null and void if said player hands in an official transfer request.

 

Thats a separate issue. The nuances of different contracts will vary from player to player and yes, there probably are clauses on transfer requests and invalidating certain bonuses.

[Heisenberg]

 

The idea that we had to pay the likes of Lallana and Lovren millions of pounds so they could bugger off to Liverpool is laughable.

 

I'd imagine this is all part of any agreement when we sell players and very much part of the "gentleman's agreement" we hear a lot. Agreement is very much if a level 1 club (Barcelona, Real or Bayern) of level 2 (Man u, Man c, Arsenal, Liverpool, Chelsea) offer a transfer fee acceptable we will allow you to leave but you will need to agree to forfiet your remaining contract here

 

On the basis that most players move on to bigger clubs and double maybe triple wages they'd be happy to oblige

 

The issue is more with players you can't shift - Gaston, Osvaldo, Mayuka

[Lighthouse]

Gaston we loaned out so that Hull and Boro could pay a percentage of his wages till his contract expired.

Osvaldo we would have compromised with and paid up some of his contract to bugger off.

Mayuka signed for another club. We probably had to pay the difference in wages for 3 years, assuming he took a pay cut.

 

There is no way on Earth we sold Lallana for £26m and gave him £12.5m of it.

[wessex saint]

My understanding ( and I may well be wrong) is that lallana and lovren did not officially put in a transfer request, they just kicked up a fuss through the media. They therefore were still entitled to 'loyalty ' bonuses I.e they were financially rewarded when they left us. I would like to think that it was taken into account in the negotiations with Liverpool but to be honest, the way we roll over every time someone sniffs Around one of our players , I wouldn't be surprised if we just paid it up

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Sidney Fudpucker the 3rd]

It's being tucked away for a rainy day. It's all part of a 'Bigger Plan' that will see us become a regular top 6 team, competing in Europe every season and challenging for silverware.

[Patrick Bateman]

Transfer profits this summer = £40 million

2014/15: transfer profit = £24 million

2015/16 TV and position income = £85 million

2014/15 TV and position income = £80 million

Matchday income per season = £18m

Commercial income £8-10m

 

Less Wages circa £70m

 

So where are we stashing all the money?

 

Up your ar$e, now bore off.

[Fan The Flames]

I wouldn't be surprised if we actually paid these bigger clubs to take our favourite players and still paying a percentage their wages now to play against us. It's embarrassing we are a laughing stock.

[CB Fry]

I wouldn't be surprised if we actually paid these bigger clubs to take our favourite players and still paying a percentage their wages now to play against us. It's embarrassing we are a laughing stock.

I think the club are definitely doing this. Also, they're poisoning the water supply near several local primary schools.

[Batman]

I blame BREXIT

[southamptonfc]

Transfer profits this summer = £40 million

2014/15: transfer profit = £24 million

2015/16 TV and position income = £85 million

2014/15 TV and position income = £80 million

Matchday income per season = £18m

Commercial income £8-10m

 

Less Wages circa £70m

 

So where are we stashing all the money?

 

Why don't you just read the financial report?

[sammysaint]

It gets to a point where we need to start asking questions as this is not how you run a football club looking to push on each year, IMO we got lucky with Koeman he brought him 2-3 players he knew of as cheap replacements and we did really well, now the club think we can do this every summer and one year we will get caught out, however I hope the caught out year is we finish say 11th/12th which could be this season as we lack depth for the 4 competitions, I could be wrong and we keep Fonte and make a major signing on transfer deadline day.

 

I hope Jay Rod and Austin can stay fit as they will help us stay in the top 8 as lets be honest that has to be the aim, City,Utd,Arsenal,Liverpool,Chelsea and Spurs will be the top 6, everyone else is fighting for 7th and hoping that secures a EL spot.

[ALWAYS_SFC]

I wouldn't be surprised if we actually paid these bigger clubs to take our favourite players and still paying a percentage their wages now to play against us. It's embarrassing we are a laughing stock.

 

Is that serious...surely not...

[Heisenberg]

Lot of discussion on the forum about Net transfer spend and it's importance.

 

Chatting with a few Saints fans last night and seems there is a growing frustration with our fans towards the board, regards this subject. (Lost) Opportunity was mentioned alot and "selling steak and buying Tesco value burgers" another phrase I remember.

 

We are 20th in the net spend table and sitting on transfer profits in excess of £50 million from last 3 summers.

 

Why?

[sotonjoe]

Lot of discussion on the forum about Net transfer spend and it's importance.

 

Chatting with a few Saints fans last night and seems there is a growing frustration with our fans towards the board, regards this subject. (Lost) Opportunity was mentioned alot and "selling steak and buying Tesco value burgers" another phrase I remember.

 

We are 20th in the net spend table and sitting on transfer profits in excess of £50 million from last 3 summers.

 

Why?

 

Hasnt the thread already answered the question?

 

combination of paying for training ground, expensive player flops, money owed in loans ( that bizarre offshore loan Cortese took out, money put in as loan by Katharina etc).

 

Given the circumstances, I wouldn't expect to see a (significantly?) positive net spend, and the owners are perfectly entitled to balance the books if that is how they wish to run the club.

[whelk]

Lot of discussion on the forum about Net transfer spend and it's importance.

 

Chatting with a few Saints fans last night and seems there is a growing frustration with our fans towards the board, regards this subject. (Lost) Opportunity was mentioned alot and "selling steak and buying Tesco value burgers" another phrase I remember.

 

We are 20th in the net spend table and sitting on transfer profits in excess of £50 million from last 3 summers.

 

Why?

 

FFS that steak and burgers comment. Did the chap who said it then purr and smile smugly. Juanmi was steak and hojberg is a value burger undoubtedly.

[Heisenberg]

Hasnt the thread already answered the question?

 

combination of paying for training ground, expensive player flops, money owed in loans ( that bizarre offshore loan Cortese took out, money put in as loan by Katharina etc).

 

Given the circumstances, I wouldn't expect to see a (significantly?) positive net spend, and the owners are perfectly entitled to balance the books if that is how they wish to run the club.

 

Are we the only premiership club with loans and stadium / training ground improvements and could we not cover those costs with the millions we receive from TV?

 

Bottom of the net transfer spend...... Bottom

[Saint-Fred]

Lot of discussion on the forum about Net transfer spend and it's importance.

 

Chatting with a few Saints fans last night and seems there is a growing frustration with our fans towards the board, regards this subject. (Lost) Opportunity was mentioned alot and "selling steak and buying Tesco value burgers" another phrase I remember.

 

We are 20th in the net spend table and sitting on transfer profits in excess of £50 million from last 3 summers.

 

Why?

 

I believe the board believe their own hype. They believe they have hit a magic formula where investment is funded by transfers and everything is rosy in the garden, profit, top 6 finishes etc etc...

Problem is of last years "cheaper than we sold" signings - only one was good enough to hold down a position in the team.

If it's the same this year the first team will be seriously weakened.

The ITK feedback suggests we had a player lined up but wouldn't pay what the selling club wanted.. That's ok if our record of getting signings in cheap were going straight into the team but last year suggests the cheaper option may not be the quality we need.

However the board may be right we will wait and see!

[Heisenberg]

I believe the board believe their own hype. They believe they have hit a magic formula where investment is funded by transfers and everything is rosy in the garden, profit, top 6 finishes etc etc...

Problem is of last years "cheaper than we sold" signings - only one was good enough to hold down a position in the team.

If it's the same this year the first team will be seriously weakened.

The ITK feedback suggests we had a player lined up but wouldn't pay what the selling club wanted.. That's ok if our record of getting signings in cheap were going straight into the team but last year suggests the cheaper option may not be the quality we need.

However the board may be right we will wait and see!

 

LOL just posted something very similar on another thread. Reed is definitely believing his own hype

 

Head, nail, hitting, the, on, the

[Dalek2003]

I believe the board believe their own hype. They believe they have hit a magic formula where investment is funded by transfers and everything is rosy in the garden, profit, top 6 finishes etc etc...

Problem is of last years "cheaper than we sold" signings - only one was good enough to hold down a position in the team.

If it's the same this year the first team will be seriously weakened.

The ITK feedback suggests we had a player lined up but wouldn't pay what the selling club wanted.. That's ok if our record of getting signings in cheap were going straight into the team but last year suggests the cheaper option may not be the quality we need.

However the board may be right we will wait and see!

 

I echo this very good post. I would say in defence of the Board that they are keeping money in reserve for the worst case scenario, relegation. That we do not do a QPR and can come back up comfortably aka the Norwich City way.

[Katalinic]

 

Chatting with a few Saints fans last night and seems there is a growing frustration with our fans towards the board, regards this subject. (Lost) Opportunity was mentioned alot and "selling steak and buying Tesco value burgers" another phrase I remember.

 

 

Didn't happen.

[S-Clarke]

Didn't happen.

 

I did in his head though. In his mind he was there last night, but we all know he wasn't.

[James]

There were a lot of frustrated fans standing around me in the away end last night.

 

Pretty common view was we need at least two more and the vast majority I chatted to on our (seven and a half hour!) coach journey thought we'd missed the opportunity to use our European status to attract players.