Where is all the money going?

[Convict Colony]

[St Marco]

It is an interesting question.

Looking at transfermark our incoming over the past 2 and a half years from players is 16/17 = £64.5m so far. 15/16 = £45m and 14/15 = £106m. Total from transfers = £215.5m

Transfer spend - 14/15 = £81m 15/16 = £47m 16/17 = £22m so far. Total transfer spend = £150m.

 

So from transfer in/out we should have £65m+. That is before taking into account last season we made £85m from domestic/overseas broadcasting and final league position.

 

This season we get £750k per tv game (facility fee) and £47m from the new overseas tv deal. Meaning finishing last place gets you £97m (see below for graph stolen from the tv deal announcement)

 

Now that doesn't take into account our wage bill which is

 

NO# CLUB 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

3 Chelsea £190m £192.7m £215.6m

1 Manchester United £187m £215.8m £203 m

2 Manchester City £216m £205m £193.8m

4 Arsenal £166.4m £180.4m £192m

5 Liverpool £140m £144m £152m

6 Tottenham £112m £100.4m £110.5m

7 Newcastle United £68m £78.3m £75.8m

8 Everton £66m £69.3m £74.7m

9 Stoke City £55m £60.6m £72.3m

10 Sunderland £55m £69.5m £71m

11 West Ham United £60m £63.9m £69.5m

12 Aston Villa £74m £69.3m £65.1m

13 West Bromwich £49m £65.4m £68.5m

14 Southampton £47m £55.2m £59.5m

15 Swansea City £55m £48.1m £51m

16 Crystal Palace £45.7m £54.3m

17 Leicester City £36.6m £48.2m

18 Norwich City £37m

19 Watford £29m

20 Bournemouth £25m

http://www.totalsportek.com/money/english-premier-league-wage-bills-club-by-club/

That doesnt count the loss of some big contracts i.e Osvaldo/Ramirez.

 

So maybe it is agent fees

 

Nope not that then.

 

What I find pretty amazing is with all that cash why do we owe the bank £10m?

[CB Fry]

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?

Almost breathtaking how obvious it is that you were not at the game last night.

[Heisenberg]

Almost breathtaking how obvious it is that you were not at the game last night.

 

Wanna bet? £50?

[Donatello]

It is an interesting question.

Looking at transfermark our incoming over the past 2 and a half years from players is 16/17 = £64.5m so far. 15/16 = £45m and 14/15 = £106m. Total from transfers = £215.5m

Transfer spend - 14/15 = £81m 15/16 = £47m 16/17 = £22m so far. Total transfer spend = £150m.

 

So from transfer in/out we should have £65m+. That is before taking into account last season we made £85m from domestic/overseas broadcasting and final league position.

 

This season we get £750k per tv game (facility fee) and £47m from the new overseas tv deal. Meaning finishing last place gets you £97m (see below for graph stolen from the tv deal announcement)

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2139[/ATTACH]

 

Now that doesn't take into account our wage bill which is

 

NO# CLUB 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16

3 Chelsea £190m £192.7m £215.6m

1 Manchester United £187m £215.8m £203 m

2 Manchester City £216m £205m £193.8m

4 Arsenal £166.4m £180.4m £192m

5 Liverpool £140m £144m £152m

6 Tottenham £112m £100.4m £110.5m

7 Newcastle United £68m £78.3m £75.8m

8 Everton £66m £69.3m £74.7m

9 Stoke City £55m £60.6m £72.3m

10 Sunderland £55m £69.5m £71m

11 West Ham United £60m £63.9m £69.5m

12 Aston Villa £74m £69.3m £65.1m

13 West Bromwich £49m £65.4m £68.5m

14 Southampton £47m £55.2m £59.5m

15 Swansea City £55m £48.1m £51m

16 Crystal Palace £45.7m £54.3m

17 Leicester City £36.6m £48.2m

18 Norwich City £37m

19 Watford £29m

20 Bournemouth £25m

http://www.totalsportek.com/money/english-premier-league-wage-bills-club-by-club/

That doesnt count the loss of some big contracts i.e Osvaldo/Ramirez.

 

So maybe it is agent fees

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2140[/ATTACH]

 

Nope not that then.

 

What I find pretty amazing is with all that cash why do we owe the bank £10m?

 

Because we probably don't have all that cash. Cash flow is an entirely different issue to accounting profits (which is what I believe you're referencing).

[SaintRobbie]

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.

 

If that's true (and it isn't) then KL needs to sell the club.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Donatello]

Wanna bet? £50?

 

Take a picture of your ticket

[SaintRobbie]

The money's going to our owner. Need to get her out and get the club sold on to someone to take it to the next level.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dalek2003]

The money's going to our owner. Need to get her out and get the club sold on to someone to take it to the next level.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I would say that the Club priority is solvency over the long term. We have a cash reserve in case we get relegated which is very wise. The only trouble is, that it appears as lack of ambition in the short term.

Basically, and I am not being cynical, finishing 6th or 17th is largely irrelevant as long as we stay up. I would say that this year looks in particular like a mighty gamble, but comforting to know that should we go down we can easily build a new team using relatively cheap buys plus the academy.

We then of course sell on any academy success for a big profit and start the cycle again.

[East Kent Saint]

er accountancy like economics is an art not a science . I would be very surprised if Kat was making money from the club . If you think a simple transfer profit or loss account would tell you how much money the club has then think again . Read the posts about FFP (an oxymoron if there ever was one ) relating to the wage budget and also remember the sudden relaxing of the FFP rules under pressure from the richest clubs.

Would you rather the club was owned by far a east businesses who somehow managed to accumilate billions in their own countries and their own govermments want them to now infiltrate the west by the back door ?

[badgerx16]

The money's going to our owner.

 

Where in the accounts does it show that ?

[Whitey Grandad]

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

 

Clueless.

 

Why do you keep on about net spend? It's not relevant. We sold Lallana for far more than we paid for Mané but that wasn't a net spend. Do you really believe when it says 'a deal worth £30 million (say) that the selling club receives all that money and suddenly has it all sitting in the bank?

 

Please, you've made your view enough times, how about giving it a rest now?

[ENSKIED]

It may be worth attempting to answer the question rasied virtue of a couple of other questions, why are Billionaires many of whom have little to no undertsanding or love for the game whatsoever involved? Have they simply bought into the phenomena that is global football on some charitable concept or other? Hardly, they are in it, as is almost evryone else, to mine the rich gold seam that is football.

[Whitey Grandad]

Because we probably don't have all that cash. Cash flow is an entirely different issue to accounting profits (which is what I believe you're referencing).

 

You have assumed that the headline figures for transfers are the amounts that the club receives. Agents' fees might come out of the figure paid (or collected) but not show up as such separately in the accounts.

 

From The Telegraph in 2002:

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/aston-villa/3039091/Gregory-Ive-done-no-wrong.html)

 

"In May last year, Adam Crozier, then chief executive of the FA, told a private dinner that "agents and hangers-on" had pocketed £7 million of the £9.5 million Angel transfer fee. By then the FA were already looking at this transfer but, according to one insider: "The wall came down and we could find nothing."

Edited 20 August, 2016 by Whitey Grandad

[Heisenberg]

Take a picture of your ticket

 

[ALWAYS_SFC]

The money's going to our owner. Need to get her out and get the club sold on to someone to take it to the next level.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

You had that good cry yet?

[Whitey Grandad]

It may be worth attempting to answer the question rasied virtue of a couple of other questions, why are Billionaires many of whom have little to no undertsanding or love for the game whatsoever involved? Have they simply bought into the phenomena that is global football on some charitable concept or other? Hardly, they are in it, as is almost evryone else, to mine the rich gold seam that is football.

 

Maybe they are the only people who can afford it?

[Whitey Grandad]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2141[/ATTACH]

 

No need, I took you at your word

[St Marco]

Because we probably don't have all that cash. Cash flow is an entirely different issue to accounting profits (which is what I believe you're referencing).

 

What you are suggesting would mean you believe the club has very little month to month actual cash? It is very true that our transfer dealings could be structured in monthly payments over xyz years. That way we don't have much actual cash from the deals up front. But on the other hand our dealings can go the same way. We can buy players on monthly payments too.

What is certain is that the tv money is released periodically and the league money released at the end of the season. Add to that the new sponsorship deals etc.

If we look at the last two financial statements we see we announced profits of £33.5m two years ago. £13m last year and I would expect another profit for the past financial year probably in the same region as the first. I doubt our cash flow is that bad that we need a loan. In fact you can find the answer in the previous statement "the Group’s future debt position has increased due to previous investment commitments. However, through strong financial governance this figure has come in lower than anticipated, and there is a robust plan in place to oversee an on-going reduction of this debt". Question is what was that investment. Training ground perhaps.

[david in sweden]

Scored a cracker today but needs to bulk up a bit. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Hesketh has looked good since he began in the U18s ..and probably before, but although Saints always say..size doesn't matter ..(where have I heard that before?)

 

.......the truth of the matter is, no matter how skilful they are on the ball.....they can't get the better of " the big men" they come up against.

 

I watched our lightweight midfield against Watford and their "muscle men " barged our lads around a lot. The likes of people with the stature of Zlatan or Pogba are always going to get the better of an underweight opponent.

 

I like Hesketh (and even JWP and Clasie) in form, but they need to be able to take knocks and that's not easy for someone giving away 2 stone to a tough opponent.

[Wade Garrett]

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.

 

Is the whole club financed by transfer profits then?

[ALWAYS_SFC]

Is the whole club financed by transfer profits then?

 

Possibly..

[SaintRobbie]

I would say that the Club priority is solvency over the long term. We have a cash reserve in case we get relegated which is very wise. The only trouble is, that it appears as lack of ambition in the short term.

Basically, and I am not being cynical, finishing 6th or 17th is largely irrelevant as long as we stay up. I would say that this year looks in particular like a mighty gamble, but comforting to know that should we go down we can easily build a new team using relatively cheap buys plus the academy.

We then of course sell on any academy success for a big profit and start the cycle again.

 

I want to support a club that pushes for European success.

 

So do our players.

 

I agree with your sentiment but if you invest for relegation you get relegation. If you employ a clueless manager and buy mediocre players you get what you deserve.

 

We need a new owner. We need ambition. We need to kick on. We can. But by god we need a new owner to clear out our stupid boardroom and invest in his own manager and some players.

 

I'm worried..... especially when I read that sort of statement - prudent financial management for when we go down - really!???

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ALWAYS_SFC]

I want to support a club that pushes for European success.

 

So do our players.

 

I agree with your sentiment but if you invest for relegation you get relegation. If you employ a clueless manager and buy mediocre players you get what you deserve.

 

We need a new owner. We need ambition. We need to kick on. We can. But by god we need a new owner to clear out our stupid boardroom and invest in his own manager and some players.

 

I'm worried..... especially when I read that sort of statement - prudent financial management for when we go down - really!???

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Go elsewhere then and be the biggest melt on some other clubs forum and talk bol l oks therr

[The9]

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?

 

Because we're pretty good at gaming the transfer market and lots of people don't bother to work out the cost of actually running a football club beyond the amount the media says has been paid out in transfers.

[Katalinic]

The money's going to our owner. Need to get her out and get the club sold on to someone to take it to the next level.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Try reading the accounts you thick ****.

[Plastic]

I would say that the Club priority is solvency over the long term. We have a cash reserve in case we get relegated which is very wise. The only trouble is, that it appears as lack of ambition in the short term.

Basically, and I am not being cynical, finishing 6th or 17th is largely irrelevant as long as we stay up. I would say that this year looks in particular like a mighty gamble, but comforting to know that should we go down we can easily build a new team using relatively cheap buys plus the academy.

We then of course sell on any academy success for a big profit and start the cycle again.

 

Dalek, for what it's worth, I prefer your gentle pessimism to the fervent rants of Robie and his ilk.

[Katalinic]

Dalek, for what it's worth, I prefer your gentle pessimism to the fervent rants of Robie and his ilk.

 

I'd ban all "characters", they add nothing to the forum.

[Donatello]

You have assumed that the headline figures for transfers are the amounts that the club receives. Agents' fees might come out of the figure paid (or collected) but not show up as such separately in the accounts.

 

From The Telegraph in 2002:

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/aston-villa/3039091/Gregory-Ive-done-no-wrong.html)

 

"In May last year, Adam Crozier, then chief executive of the FA, told a private dinner that "agents and hangers-on" had pocketed £7 million of the £9.5 million Angel transfer fee. By then the FA were already looking at this transfer but, according to one insider: "The wall came down and we could find nothing."

 

I haven't assumed anything.

[Donatello]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2141[/ATTACH]

 

Fair play (not that *I* particularly cared (at all, in fact )...but people were calling you out on it on multiple threads, so it was a suggestion to put it to bed.

[Roger]

Think Marcus was fab for the club. Cortese was too although not his money but had drive even though he was the pits of a man. These guys now lovely people but i think time has come to sell club to someone else if we want to push on. The policies they are adopting I fear will leave us a lot lower than we were last season.

[Whitey Grandad]

I haven't assumed anything.

 

Ok. What were your sources for the figures you gave?

[sadoldgit]

Think Marcus was fab for the club. Cortese was too although not his money but had drive even though he was the pits of a man. These guys now lovely people but i think time has come to sell club to someone else if we want to push on. The policies they are adopting I fear will leave us a lot lower than we were last season.

 

The same people that were here when we reached our highest finish ever in the Premiership?

[S-Clarke]

The saying ''Be careful what you wish for'' springs to mind.

[Donatello]

Ok. What were your sources for the figures you gave?

 

Yeeeeeaaaah, I think you're quoting the wrong person.

[Heisenberg]

The same people that were here when we reached our highest finish ever in the Premiership?

 

You should always be careful of what you wish for, but perhaps Kat and Leslie have taken us as far as they can....?

 

Perhaps we need a change to move us to the next level?

 

Stick or twist.... It's a tough choice. Stick and we could join Sunderland and WBA as your average Premiership club, hope for a good cup run once in a while. Or twist and go for it.

 

We are a 3 on the dice just now - roll it again and we might roll a 1, but we might roll a 6!!!

[Katalinic]

The same people that were here when we reached our highest finish ever in the Premiership?

 

Exactly, and we are 2 games into the new season. It is pathetic how impatient and entitled some posters on this forum are.

[Whitey Grandad]

Yeeeeeaaaah, I think you're quoting the wrong person.

 

Fair enough, this is all getting a bit confusing at this time on a Saturday night

[Roger]

The saying ''Be careful what you wish for'' springs to mind.

 

Change the record mate. Just don't think the board can do any wrong do you. Think we deserve better.

[Roger]

The same people that were here when we reached our highest finish ever in the Premiership?

 

Boring. I think it was more to do with a brilliant manager than a board that sold about 13 of the best players.

[TwoPints]

The money's going to our owner. Need to get her out and get the club sold on to someone to take it to the next level.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, the last thing we need is an owner that's brought stability to the club and our highest Premier league finish. No one wants that... sack the board. Let's get some Far Eastern owners in with money, we could change our name Southampton Tigers and only wear a lucky red kit. Actually, if you don't mind, I think I'll stick with the owners we have thank you very much.

 

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

[shirleysfc]

Yeah, the last thing we need is an owner that's brought stability to the club and our highest Premier league finish. No one wants that... sack the board. Let's get some Far Eastern owners in with money, we could change our name Southampton Tigers and only wear a lucky red kit. Actually, if you don't mind, I think I'll stick with the owners we have thank you very much.

 

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

 

But Rog says we DESERVE better...

[Roger]

But Rog says we DESERVE better...

 

Match of the day Phil Neville says we won't finish top half. Must be lovely being you just watching when I make a comment for you to pipe up.

[Heisenberg]

But Rog says we DESERVE better...

 

Oh G's another poster that just posts about other posters but zero opinion or chat on SFC

 

Yawn

[petts]

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?

This reminds me of when I was working with a surgeon once. He was off to Brazil for some sort of convention, and I said to him that was nice and was his wife going with him, to which he replied "why would I take a burger to a steak restaurant!!"

 

Anyway, for what it's worth I think we are the new arsenal.

[shirleysfc]

Oh G's another poster that just posts about other posters but zero opinion or chat on SFC

 

Yawn

 

Yawn indeed Glasgow. You nailed that one. Post something pointless about net profit/loss again. ZZZ.

 

No pretending to be ITK this year? That was one of your better routines.

[ENSKIED]

Maybe they are the only people who can afford it?

 

Yes because the billionaires have bought the game, now they are the only one's who indeed "can afford it", but that still doesn't answer the question "why?" So let's ask this question, are they billionaires because they lose money or because they acquire it? Obviously the latter? If that is indeed the correct answer then we have a good to very strong notion why the billionaires have bought into the game, which in its turn brings us back to the orginal question - where is all the money going?

[Whitey Grandad]

Yes because the billionaires have bought the game, now they are the only one's who indeed "can afford it", but that still doesn't answer the question "why?" So let's ask this question, are they billionaires because they lose money or because they acquire it? Obviously the latter? If that is indeed the correct answer then we have a good to very strong notion why the billionaires have bought into the game, which in its turn brings us back to the orginal question - where is all the money going?

 

For the answer to your question, take a look at the accounts. We haven't paid Corporation Tax for some time because previous losses have been offset against any profits (IIRC)

[ENSKIED]

For the answer to your question, take a look at the accounts. We haven't paid Corporation Tax for some time because previous losses have been offset against any profits (IIRC)

 

That's highly selective, nowhere in this debate WG, for my part at least, have I used the term Saints. This for me isn't merely about The Saints per se, it is about the Global Phenomena that is football and what may be going on in terms of the immense amounts of money generated, which of course will have ramifications on The Saints. As for accounts they will always tell you what those who produce them want them too, the only crime is getting caught, FIFA themslves in the form of Sepp Blatter et al, EUFA in the shape of Platini and of course they are the ruling bodies! Abramovich, Shinawatra, Hicks and Gillette, Messi along with Alladyce, Neymar, Juventus, Barca etc. etc. the thing is when it comes to the clubs themselves billionaires can hold off most law suites to such an extent getting them through courts can be a mammoth and very lengthy expensive task, which they often "bank" on [pun intended] though some do get caught but of course by no means all. For them it's all about the money honey and any prestige they can milk, that's why the billionaires are involved. Stan Kroenke's statement summed it all up when he said " I didn't buy Arsenal to win trophies," their fans went ape over that, but in a sense at least he's honest in that he's a super rich American with no real love for the game other than the money that is in it and potentially in it.

[Whitey Grandad]

That's highly selective, nowhere in this debate WG, for my part at least, have I used the term Saints. This for me isn't merely about The Saints per se, it is about the Global Phenomena that is football and what may be going on in terms of the immense amounts of money generated, which of course will have ramifications on The Saints. As for accounts they will always tell you what those who produce them want them too, the only crime is getting caught, FIFA themslves in the form of Sepp Blatter et al, EUFA in the shape of Platini and of course they are the ruling bodies! Abramovich, Shinawatra, Hicks and Gillette, Messi along with Alladyce, Neymar, Juventus, Barca etc. etc. the thing is when it comes to the clubs themselves billionaires can hold off most law suites to such an extent getting them through courts can be a mammoth and very lengthy expensive task, which they often "bank" on [pun intended] though some do get caught but of course by no means all. For them it's all about the money honey and any prestige they can milk, that's why the billionaires are involved. Stan Kroenke's statement summed it all up when he said " I didn't buy Arsenal to win trophies," their fans went ape over that, but in a sense at least he's honest in that he's a super rich American with no real love for the game other than the money that is in it and potentially in it.

 

My apologies Enskied. From the number of other posts referring to our supposed glut of income I wrongly assumed that you were continuing the theme.

 

Yes, there's a hell of a lot of money slushing around but as long as the punters worldwide continue to keep coughing up the spondoolicks I can't see an end to it. I know that the players and their agents do very well out of it all.

 

A question was raised a few years ago about the old days of football back in the 50s and 60s. The players were paid pocket money yet there were regularly crowds of over 50,000 packed into rudimentary stadiums. Where did the money go then?