Where is all the money going?

[ENSKIED]

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?

 

Yes, an excellent question WG. Wasn't it Jimmy Hill who helped eradicate the maximum wage which was something like £10 per week? I read somewhere or other about that and how the likes of Stanley Matthews the first superstar footballer sometimes picked up £6-8 if he was lucky.

[Whitey Grandad]

Yes, an excellent question WG. Wasn't it Jimmy Hill who helped eradicate the maximum wage which was something like £10 per week? I read somewhere or other about that and how the likes of Stanley Matthews the first superstar footballer sometimes picked up £6-8 if he was lucky.

 

The players used to get to the ground by bus. My dad played for Enfield Town and they were drawn in the Cup away to Bristol City. Somewhere I still have the written instructions from the club telling him to meet at Paddington Station and not to forget his boots. Sandwiches would be provided

 

It was a different world back then.

[hutch]

I once bumped into the Saints team on a train to Liverpool Street. It would be about 1970, give or take a year or two. They had been playing at Ipswich.

[Give it to Ron]

When we played Dag&Red 4 of their squad caught the tube in as we were on same one and they walked up road in front of us. We recognised Baz Savage with the awful red hair

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Redslo]

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

 

I think they are trying to get them out earlier. The 14/15 ones came out in Early October.

 

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.

 

Especially since, barring negotiations, we also owed Bournemouth 25% of the fee.

 

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

 

Of course, it was taken into account. How could it not be? And the roll over part of your post is nonsense.

 

 

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 am pretty sure you need to look up "surprised" in a dictionary since you obviously have no idea what the word means. Actually you probably don't know what "embarrassing" and "laughing stock" mean either.

 

 

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

 

I approve of this message.

 

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.

 

I wish the people who post things like this would, for once, explain exactly what Southampton is supposed to do differently. We can't make people sign contract extensions. We can't make clubs overpay for people on the last year of the contract. (Actually, maybe we can, but they will still pay less than the player is worth on a longer term contract.) We can't spend money we don't have in violation of Financial Fair Play rules to compete with the richer clubs on salary and transfer fees. So what would you have us do?

[East Kent Saint]

China , apparently , aim to stage the 2030 world cup which is why they are interested in buying into the prem and boosting football in China by spending billions on players etc.

This also applies to Russia where people have been made billionaires by Putin (buying state industries on the cheap and being appointed to lead areas of Russia to make more money via corruption) When Russia got the world cup Putin made pointed comments about people funding it while looking at Abromavich ! So world politics now plays a big part , apart from Murdoch and world domination. A far cry from players taking public transport to the match and fans with rattles etc.

[Redslo]

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?

 

Possibly you should look at the financial reports yourself and/or talk with fans who know what they are talking about. That 50 million, even assuming it is the right number, does not account for fees owed to other clubs such as Bournemouth's share of the Lallana deal. Also, money had to be paid to retire outside debt and for the new training center. Net actual cash flow for 13-14 and 14-15 was basically even and that includes net inflow of 28 million from loans. We are not sitting on profits, they have been used to run the business including increased salaries for the player who signed contract extensions, building the training center, and, if I understand what happened this past season, paying down debt to outside creditors.

 

 

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

 

Good question or at least close to one. I would have to research this to be sure, but I suspect that we are the poorest club that has built significant improvements in recent years. We have a rich owner who wants us to be self-sustaining rather than kicking the maximum allowable of 15 million or so each year. We have no significant foreign following so we cannot generate the kind of overseas income that helps the six richest clubs. Our stadium is smaller than many clubs so we cannot generate as much match day revenue. The big new TV contract should help, but that gives us no advantage of the rest of the league--only the rest of the world. And that advantage may be mitigated some by the uncertain effects of Brexit.

 

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

 

While I cannot prove that this is not true, it was certainly not true as of June 30, 2015. Also, it seems unlikely given everything else we know. but good paranoia.

 

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 ?

 

I think this has been greatly overstated. The rules are still in effect. As always, there are ways to dodge them temporarily. See

 

http://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/700174/Chelsea-news-Joao-Mario-FFP-Inter-Milan-medical-underway-Sporting-Lisbon-president

 

I last posted about the changes in the rules last summer on my blog here:

 

http://redsloscf.blogspot.com/2015/07/the-new-financial-fair-play-rules.html

 

I have seen no sign of major changes since then.

 

 

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.

 

Another good question, but not really answerable by us non-billionaires. Clearly, some people, i.e. FSG, bought a big name club believes that their sports expertise would transfer over to football and the FFP rules would allow them to run a successful club that will appreciate in value without dumping in lots of money every year. Others, i.e. Roman Abramovich, wanted to buy and create a winning club because he liked doing that. Clearly, he didn't do it as an investment because he cannot possibly make a profit given what he has already spent. Sheikh Mansour has probably done this for political reasons to make his otherwise appalling government look good.

 

The more interesting development is the large sums spent on Championship clubs hoping to hit a big payday when they get promoted. Of course, if you don't sell right after promotion, the certainty of the big pay day goes down.

 

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.

 

Since you took the trouble to look at the financial statements, why didn't you look at the cash flow part?

 

Is the whole club financed by transfer profits then?

 

Over the past three seasons, the club would have been in trouble financially without transfer profits, but there is nothing wrong with that. They allowed the club to pay improved salaries to retain some players and attract higher quality new players. Also, to pay debts and the cost of the training center.

 

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

 

It would be foolish not to have a plan for relegation but that is not what is limiting spending. And, again, what exactly is it the board should be doing to kick on better than we already have or to show ambition. No one seems to be able to say specifically and instead simply repeats those words. I too am in favor of kicking on and showing ambition. In fact, that is what we have been doing.

[Redslo]

I am not sure why I was inspired to take so much bait tonight, but this ends it.

 

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.

 

When a company operating in a country with competent regulators publishes its audited financials, it is unlikely they are wildly dishonest. On the other hand, if you can provide me with a link to FIFA's financials statements for the past ten years, I would greatly appreciate it.

[OldNick]

Reading the last few posts infers that our business model is rubbish as it is only the transfers that keep us going. Well apart from VVD and Forster there aint much left to sell for decent money.

I wonder how many posters on here are from PR companies. A lot of new names have appeared in the last few weeks/months

[farawaysaint]

I am not sure why I was inspired to take so much bait tonight, but this ends it.

 

 

 

When a company operating in a country with competent regulators publishes its audited financials, it is unlikely they are wildly dishonest. On the other hand, if you can provide me with a link to FIFA's financials statements for the past ten years, I would greatly appreciate it.

 

I figure as long as we trust in God we will be ok

[SuperSAINT]

My incredibly simplistic feeling about our finances is:

 

- We generally spend what we make from sales on new signings.

- The TV money goes into the new contracts & to run the club.

 

I don't see any problems with that. As best I can tell, Cortese's SPEND WITHOUT SELLING policy, whilst it got us promted, saddled us with a ton of debt that we still have now.

 

Our owner wants us to be self sufficient.

[farawaysaint]

My incredibly simplistic feeling about our finances is:

 

- We generally spend what we make from sales on new signings.

- The TV money goes into the new contracts & to run the club.

 

I don't see any problems with that. As best I can tell, Cortese's SPEND WITHOUT SELLING policy, whilst it got us promted, saddled us with a ton of debt that we still have now.

 

Our owner wants us to be self sufficient.

 

I haven't looked at the specifics in a while but I'm pretty sure we are one of the lowest geared teams in the prem.

[Heisenberg]

Reading the last few posts infers that our business model is rubbish as it is only the transfers that keep us going. Well apart from VVD and Forster there aint much left to sell for decent money.

I wonder how many posters on here are from PR companies. A lot of new names have appeared in the last few weeks/months

 

Firstly thank you redslo for your messaured and detailed reply.

 

I am similar to nick here and do wonder why all debts, expenses and stadium / training ground improvements are ALL funded by transfer monies.

 

Last season we received £85 million from TV and merit money and this season this is expected to be closer to £100 million..... If we are using transfer money to operate the club what is happening to this significant income?

 

Let's not forget also about match day income circa £20 million a year and commercial income £10-15 million a year.

[OldNick]

Firstly thank you redslo for your messaured and detailed reply.

 

I am similar to nick here and do wonder why all debts, expenses and stadium / training ground improvements are ALL funded by transfer monies.

 

Last season we received £85 million from TV and merit money and this season this is expected to be closer to £100 million..... If we are using transfer money to operate the club what is happening to this significant income?

 

Let's not forget also about match day income circa £20 million a year and commercial income £10-15 million a year.

Im not actually saying that, Iam saying that if to stay in profit after all the other revenues have been taken out we still need transfer dealing to be our profit we are in the mire. We cannot rely on having big transfer deals each and every year.

[Sour Mash]

Reading the last few posts infers that our business model is rubbish as it is only the transfers that keep us going. Well apart from VVD and Forster there aint much left to sell for decent money.

I wonder how many posters on here are from PR companies. A lot of new names have appeared in the last few weeks/months

Who do you think are from PR companies?

[OldNick]

Who do you think are from PR companies?

to narrow it down ,its not the ones who question the way the club is being run through lack of investment.

[Sour Mash]

to narrow it down ,its not the ones who question the way the club is being run through lack of investment.

 

Just name them.

[trousers]

I am not sure why I was inspired to take so much bait tonight

 

It happens to the best of us. You're not the first to take a chomp and you won't be the last

[Heisenberg]

It happens to the best of us. You're not the first to take a chomp and you won't be the last

 

forum

ˈfɔːrəm/

noun

1.

a meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged.

 

 

Some interesting discussion going on in this thread and I encourage you to get involved. Be good to hear your views mate.

[trousers]

forum

ˈfɔːrəm/

noun

1.

a meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged.

 

 

Some interesting discussion going on in this thread and I encourage you to get involved. Be good to hear your views mate.

 

Tick

[Saint-Fred]

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/may/25/premier-league-finances-club-by-club-breakdown-david-conn

 

This is interesting wages at 70% of turnover is probably an issue.

Quite a few clubs with no debt...including Man City? Chelsea owe loads, seems Roman is not so generous as some other owners..he wants his money back at some stage!

[shurlock]

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/may/25/premier-league-finances-club-by-club-breakdown-david-conn

 

This is interesting wages at 70% of turnover is probably an issue.

Quite a few clubs with no debt...including Man City? Chelsea owe loads, seems Roman is not so generous as some other owners..he wants his money back at some stage!

 

That figure is misleading as it includes one-off exceptional costs i.e. the cost of onerous and cancelled contracts. Take that out and staffing costs to turnover (%) are in the low 60s. Either way, the next set of accounts will give a more accurate picture of things.

[CB Fry]

you can play with my words if you like..

 

Please could you also point my post where I mentioned PR and Spin?

 

And so you couldn't find references to PR and Spin, lol, and then say you haven't twisted my words

 

 

 

Reading the last few posts infers that our business model is rubbish as it is only the transfers that keep us going. Well apart from VVD and Forster there aint much left to sell for decent money.

I wonder how many posters on here are from PR companies. A lot of new names have appeared in the last few weeks/months

 

to narrow it down ,its not the ones who question the way the club is being run through lack of investment.

Too easy.

[trousers]

A question that occurs to me...

 

If the FFP rules are inherently unfair to well run clubs like us who haven't massively overspent on wages before the rules were brought in (thus keeping our starting financial bar below others who overspent), why haven't the club made more of a song and dance about it in public?

 

Surely a public statement from the club along the lines of "We would like to compete competitively in the transfer market with other clubs of our size but the FFP rules prevent us doing so thus rewarding other clubs for historic overspending on wages etc and penalising us for being historically prudent"

 

Why are we not rattling the football authority cages more that we appear to be doing if the rules are not fit for purpose? The only public display of dissatisfaction over the last 5 years has been when Cortese voted against the rules. I appreciate that the authorities are unlikely to change the rules because little ol' Southampton (bless 'em) are getting a bit upset, but what's the harm in trying to stir up a bit of public debate about it?

 

Yours thinking out loudly.

[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.

 

I am pretty sure you need to look up "surprised" in a dictionary since you obviously have no idea what the word means. Actually you probably don't know what "embarrassing" and "laughing stock" mean either.

 

You may need to look up sarcasm in the dictionary, but I forgive you as you are American.

[East Kent Saint]

The Prem is run by the Prem for the Prem , FFP was never going to redress the balance between clubs who can spend billions and clubs who can only spend millions.

This is also true of the RU Prem and Test cricket.

Unfortunately they have all sold their souls to Sky and BT etc for money , the result is not many people watch their product anymore even though they are considerably richer .

With the rising cost of a ticket etc , rising average age of fans attending , one wonders how long this can go on. The Rio attendance was pathetic apart from 100m day but the IOC walked away with untaxed millions and paid all their members £700 day spending money along with free travel and hotels . Unfortunately the Paralympians look like they can't even afford to travel to compete !!!

[OldNick]

Too easy.

Oh I didnt realise I was a time lord and any reference in the future was part of it lol.

You are a very sad individual that you have to wait for a post and then in the future when the PR is mentioned you add that to try and prove you are correct.

 

I wonder if you realy do have a mental problem, Wes Tender did have name for it somewhile ago. It was something to do with having to be seen to be right, as though it was a major importance in your life.

As I dont care I will say that yes you were right and I was wrong. I do hope that will ease your distress as my original post must have been at least a week ago.

[positivepete]

A question that occurs to me...

 

If the FFP rules are inherently unfair to well run clubs like us who haven't massively overspent on wages before the rules were brought in (thus keeping our starting financial bar below others who overspent), why haven't the club made more of a song and dance about it in public?

 

Surely a public statement from the club along the lines of "We would like to compete competitively in the transfer market with other clubs of our size but the FFP rules prevent us doing so thus rewarding other clubs for historic overspending on wages etc and penalising us for being historically prudent"

 

Why are we not rattling the football authority cages more that we appear to be doing if the rules are not fit for purpose? The only public display of dissatisfaction over the last 5 years has been when Cortese voted against the rules. I appreciate that the authorities are unlikely to change the rules because little ol' Southampton (bless 'em) are getting a bit upset, but what's the harm in trying to stir up a bit of public debate about it?

 

Yours thinking out loudly.

 

Under the new respect rules that would be deemed a yellow card offence. Complain twice and we would be sent off

[Redslo]

A question that occurs to me...

 

If the FFP rules are inherently unfair to well run clubs like us who haven't massively overspent on wages before the rules were brought in (thus keeping our starting financial bar below others who overspent), why haven't the club made more of a song and dance about it in public?

 

Surely a public statement from the club along the lines of "We would like to compete competitively in the transfer market with other clubs of our size but the FFP rules prevent us doing so thus rewarding other clubs for historic overspending on wages etc and penalising us for being historically prudent"

 

Why are we not rattling the football authority cages more that we appear to be doing if the rules are not fit for purpose? The only public display of dissatisfaction over the last 5 years has been when Cortese voted against the rules. I appreciate that the authorities are unlikely to change the rules because little ol' Southampton (bless 'em) are getting a bit upset, but what's the harm in trying to stir up a bit of public debate about it?

 

Yours thinking out loudly.

 

The FFP rules are not unfair to clubs like us. They are unfair to clubs that are owned by people who want to spend a lot of their own money to improve the club quickly. In other words, if a new Roman Abramovich or Sheikh Mansour arrived on the scene right now and bought Sunderland and wanted to spend 150 to 200 million pounds a year on new signings, FFP would block that. Because in recent years the only way a club could rise out of the middle of the football pack to become a big club was to spend like that, the FFP rules have the effect of locking the current pecking order in place. This doesn't mean that FFP was designed to do that. It was designed to stop clubs from overspending themselves into bankruptcy. Locking the current pecking order in place was just a nice bonus (from the perspective of the current big clubs).

 

The only way things can change is if the system undergoes a major overhaul and adopts a North American style league with true revenue sharing and a hard (or nearly hard) salary cap. However, that cannot work if you have a relegation/promotion based system especially one with multiple competitions. If Manchester City were told that they couldn't spend more than 150 million a year on player salary they would rightfully ask how they can possibly be expected to compete in the Champions League. Plus, any such system would effectively force the owners of the richer clubs (especially Manchester United) to take out a few hundred million a year in profit. The Glazers would be heart broken.

 

This would change if the European Super League comes into existence. Presumably, they would pick 20 to 24 clubs to permanently join the league and impose some kind revenue sharing and salary cap. If they were smart, they would grab clubs from beyond the five biggest countries but who knows what would happen.

 

You may need to look up sarcasm in the dictionary, but I forgive you as you are American.

 

As an American, I have the current experience of hearing a Presidential candidate say the most ridiculous things which he plainly means and then later claim that he was being sarcastic (but not too sarcastic). This, along with some of the comments in this thread which struck me as both seriously meant and nonsensical may have caused me to misjudge your comment. That being said, I did wonder as I was typing my response whether your comment might not have been seriously intended. I decided to go ahead because even if you didn't seriously intended the comment, some people here would agree with it or at least the laughing stock part of it and so a response was not entirely out of line.

 

The Prem is run by the Prem for the Prem , FFP was never going to redress the balance between clubs who can spend billions and clubs who can only spend millions.

This is also true of the RU Prem and Test cricket.

Unfortunately they have all sold their souls to Sky and BT etc for money , the result is not many people watch their product anymore even though they are considerably richer .

With the rising cost of a ticket etc , rising average age of fans attending , one wonders how long this can go on. The Rio attendance was pathetic apart from 100m day but the IOC walked away with untaxed millions and paid all their members £700 day spending money along with free travel and hotels . Unfortunately the Paralympians look like they can't even afford to travel to compete !!!

 

I have never understood why people think that sporting leagues have sold their soul when they sell the rights to broadcast their games to media entities for lots of money. That lets more people watch the games. The idea that, somehow, fewer people are watching the Premier League now that it is more widely available to be watched is just nonsense.

 

I also don't understand many of the complaints about rising ticket prices. If prices didn't rise, there would simply be longer and longer waiting lists for tickets and more of an incentive for the current holders of tickets to resell them for a profit. The fact that a person has been a Southampton season ticket holder for thirty years should certainly give him a priority on buying a season ticket next year but there is no reason it should entitled him to get the ticket for 1000 pounds if someone else is willing to pay 2000 pounds for it.

 

On the other hand, governments should not be using tax dollars to help privately owned sports clubs build expensive new stadiums and the contractual terms that FIFA and the IOC insist upon putting in their World Cup and Olympic deals are unconscionable. They border on extortion and it would be nice to see a government address that. Maybe if Los Angeles gets the 2024 Olympics the US justice department might do something. Certainly, no one else is so inclined.

 

That being said, there is nothing wrong with a country that can afford it deciding to hold the Olympics if they recognize in advance that it will not be a profitable endeavor. I like the Olympics and would like it to continue, but it would be nice if it were run by a less corrupt organization.

[East Kent Saint]

The point is sport used to be on terestrial television for anyone to see , you did not have to subscribe to exclusive services. By signing their sport up this means that alot of people who used to watch Rugby , cricket etc on a regular basis now don't .

We even remember the Saints home games being shown all season on southern soccer , on sunday afternoons !!!

Yes football now has a global audience but I think alot of people in this country do not have the same interest in cricket or rugby as we do not see it on TV on a regular basis.

This of course is just sport evolving but alot of us used to like the coverage we used to get !

Ticket prices mean , as I said , that the average age of people watching live prem matches has gone up ie the youngsters can't afford it.

We did think of seeing the Patriots when we were in the USA but were put off by the $175 ticket price !!!

[baggytrousers]

My incredibly simplistic feeling about our finances is:

 

- We generally spend what we make from sales on new signings.

- The TV money goes into the new contracts & to run the club.

 

I don't see any problems with that. As best I can tell, Cortese's SPEND WITHOUT SELLING policy, whilst it got us promted, saddled us with a ton of debt that we still have now.

 

Our owner wants us to be self sufficient.

 

According to the Guardian our total transfer dealings for the last 3 seasons are :

 

players in £120.85m, players out £169.5m

 

That leaves a £49m difference at the moment but presumably that will narrow with the two anticipated signings before the window closes.

 

Question is where did all the TV money go ?

 

Well, it's pretty well known that Cortese left us with a £50m black hole, plus Staplewood development has cost £40m, plus we've re-signed 7 players on improved deals this summer.

 

Now the assumption is that these new contracts were reasonably substantial upgrades as the club have been keen to keep the majority of our key players so I would assume that the wage bill has risen significantly this summer.

 

Taking all these factors into account I'd be surprised if, assuming we sign another two players before the window closes, there will be a significant difference between money in and out over the last 3 seasons other than to cover off the Cortese debt and balance the books so we can build with confidence moving forward.

[hutch]

Question is where did all the TV money go ?

 

It's been posted before, but here it is again.

 

The last available figures are for 2014/15

 

TV income was £83m. Wages alone were just over £80m

[Whitey Grandad]

According to the Guardian our total transfer dealings for the last 3 seasons are :

 

players in £120.85m, players out £169.5m

 

That leaves a £49m difference at the moment but presumably that will narrow with the two anticipated signings before the window closes.

 

Question is where did all the TV money go ?

 

Well, it's pretty well known that Cortese left us with a £50m black hole, plus Staplewood development has cost £40m, plus we've re-signed 7 players on improved deals this summer.

 

Now the assumption is that these new contracts were reasonably substantial upgrades as the club have been keen to keep the majority of our key players so I would assume that the wage bill has risen significantly this summer.

 

Taking all these factors into account I'd be surprised if, assuming we sign another two players before the window closes, there will be a significant difference between money in and out over the last 3 seasons other than to cover off the Cortese debt and balance the books so we can build with confidence moving forward.

 

All very good points. Let's not forget that the club has gone in a very few years from bankrupt to an upper Premier League establishment and that involves a large increase of capital value which has to come from somewhere.

[Heisenberg]

It's been posted before, but here it is again.

 

The last available figures are for 2014/15

 

TV income was £83m. Wages alone were just over £80m

 

OK great so TV monies is fully covering the wages. Great news.

 

So where is all the commercial money (£20m a year) and transfer profits (£50m over last 3 years) going?

[Whitey Grandad]

OK great so TV monies is fully covering the wages. Great news.

 

So where is all the commercial money (£20m a year) and transfer profits (£50m over last 3 years) going?

I posted this on another thread:

 

There's a summary of all the clubs and their financial situations here:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/may/25/premier-league-finances-club-by-club-breakdown-david-conn

(These figures are to May/June 2015)

 

Saints paid 70% of their turnover as wages. TV money is the most significant income.

[baggytrousers]

OK great so TV monies is fully covering the wages. Great news.

 

So where is all the commercial money (£20m a year) and transfer profits (£50m over last 3 years) going?

 

50m debt from Cortese years and 40m on Staplewood

[Heisenberg]

50m debt from Cortese years and 40m on Staplewood

 

Ok so our debt is now cleared and staplewood fully paid off? Boooom

[pluto]

Where is all the money going?

 

in the players pockets.

[Lets B Avenue]

Maybe (Gulp!!) we pay our taxes.

[Heisenberg]

Another £20-25m that will no doubt just vanish?

 

At what stage do we start to seriously question this? Do we wait for relegation?

 

Perhaps we are saving for something special? Bit of transparency from the club would be good.

[angelman]

Glasgow, as you started the thread and are still conjecturing, I have to ask whether you have contacted the club to ask?? If not, why not?

[Heisenberg]

Glasgow, as you started the thread and are still conjecturing, I have to ask whether you have contacted the club to ask?? If not, why not?

 

Yes I have asked (via email) no reply

[trousers]

Chomp chomp chomp

[wild-saint]

Yes I have asked (via email) no reply

Have you requested a full set of accounts and had a review as this give you some insight into money in /out of the business and whether significant dividends are being paid. I am aware that money can be hidden / assets disposed of and written off against tax within accounts but its a starting place to some of your questions

[david in sweden]

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?

 

 

it's probably a fair question, and perhaps not easy one to answer.....but here goes.

 

I note that you lumped 2 seasons TV income into your initial figs. so if we take one year at a time, the most recent results show a total income of £114 million.

 

of this just £18 million comes from filling SMS with 30,000 people every home game (not so much, eh?) Thankfully £84 mill. TV money is there to make it all run.

 

The wage bill is approx. 70% of total income, (c £80 million) and there are undoubtedly other costs on top of that like travel ....(planes, buses, hotels etc).

 

Transfer money looks a good profit if you compare sales v. buys, but (I'm sure I read somewhere) that Cortese borrowed money to fund the disasterous Gaston /Osvaldo deals which in fees + wages would have set us back about £50 million ...with nothing to show for after their departures.

 

£84 million debt quoted may well include some of those deals (?) plus the ongoing development costs at Staplewood (often quoted as £30 million) ...with more to come.

 

The highest paid "club official" (Ralph / Les ?) was paid c. £375,000 (per year) = £ 7000 /week (some of the U21 's must be above that )...so no-one's making a packet.

 

Although we've had good Prem. seasons, no matter how well we do on the pitch, we'll never be able to compete with the top six (financially-speaking).

Edited 2 September, 2016 by david in sweden

[darren2]

MY understanding was that the Osvaldo and Gaston wages also put a big dent into finances. Cortese was on 1.5 million per year and Staplewood cost £30 million and the purchase of the Stadium (Which I understood was sold separate to the club. The finances for all of this were loaned to the club by the owners. This money is now being paid back so that the club is not in the situation that Portsmouth were in where they needed to repay the debt but couldnt

[Saint_Ash]

Another £20-25m that will no doubt just vanish?

 

At what stage do we start to seriously question this? Do we wait for relegation?

 

Perhaps we are saving for something special? Bit of transparency from the club would be good.

New improved contracts for the players that have had improved deals lately. Have you checked out the latest accounts? Is it not good to have reserves?

[Roger]

New improved contracts for the players that have had improved deals lately. Have you checked out the latest accounts? Is it not good to have reserves?

 

Sky pays for that. No it's not, not if it means you don't improve on pitch.

[Whitey Grandad]

it's probably a fair question, and perhaps not easy one to answer.....but here goes.

 

I note that you lumped 2 seasons TV income into your initial figs. so if we take one year at a time, the most recent results show a total income of £114 million.

 

of this just £18 million comes from filling SMS with 30,000 people every home game (not so much, eh?) Thankfully £84 mill. TV money is there to make it all run.

 

The wage bill is approx. 70% of total income, (c £80 million) and there are undoubtedly other costs on top of that like travel ....(planes, buses, hotels etc).

 

Transfer money looks a good profit if you compare sales v. buys, but (I'm sure I read somewhere) that Cortese borrowed money to fund the disasterous Gaston /Osvaldo deals which in fees + wages would have set us back about £50 million ...with nothing to show for after their departures.

 

£84 million debt quoted may well include some of those deals (?) plus the ongoing development costs at Staplewood (often quoted as £30 million) ...with more to come.

 

The highest paid "club official" (Ralph / Les ?) was paid c. £375,000 (per year) = £ 7000 /week (some of the U21 's must be above that )...so no-one's making a packet.

 

Although we've had good Prem. seasons, no matter how well we do on the pitch, we'll never be able to compete with the top six (financially-speaking).

 

Is that wages figure of £80million or so just players' wages?

[East Kent Saint]

Don't forget agents fees , Pogba's agent got £20M on top of transfer fee etc . also see Comments in Times today by Palace chairman re mid table clubs who have to recycle players to stay afloat etc.

You will never get the whole story from accounts , it is also pointless to keep saying where is that £20M ? and when that is explained to then say what about the TV money and when ......etc etc