Jump to content

Where is all the money going?

Heisenberg

By Heisenberg,
in The Saints

 Share

Recommended Posts

positivepete

positivepete

Posted
Posted
K

 

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

 

This suggests most clubs, based on results reported in June 2015, including Saints made a profit for the previous year? Only 5 or 6 didn't?

 

If you go back to the Swiss Ramble link, you can see from the P&L account we made a profit after tax, but the nett debt still increased. Our operating cost are negative and player sales keeps the ship afloat (2015 figures)

 

Swiss ramble also noted that

 

"The figures were “impacted by high exceptional costs” of £15 million, comprising £8 million of “onerous and cancelled contracts”, mainly the termination of Dani Osvaldo’s deal, and £7 million of player impairment, presumably including the 25% sell-on fee that Southampton had to pay Bournemouth following Lallana’s sale to Liverpool. This should have been worth £6.25 million, but it has been reported that Bournemouth accepted a reduced fee of £4 million in order to facilitate the move".

 

 

Not to say all that is bad, without seeing the full accounts I would still be confident that the company is solvent. It will be interesting to see how the figures change in 2016 and 2017. Certainly we will have increased our wage bill in pound note terms this season against an increase in income, but we will have to wait 12 months to see the impact of that in the accounts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hutch

hutch

Posted
Posted
So since then we've got a fair chunk of wages off the books - Boruc, Mayuka, Hooiveld, Clyne, Aldeweireld, Schneiderlin, Osvaldo, Ramirez, Davis, Mane, Wanyama, Pelle.

All of those in transfer fees add up to just under £95million brought in.

Added to the wage bill - Cedric, Martina, Clasie, Romeu, Van Dijk, Austin, Redmond, Hoejberg, Pied, McCarthy, Boufal.

Transfer fees combined for those is just over £73million.

 

So a £20million profit, plus to my eyes that should be quite a bit of savings in wages. The next set of accounts should show a reduction in the debt and an even healthier financial state...if not there may be a case to be made for asking Les Reed to clarify what the debt is.

(To me this also shows that we do in fact reinvest a reasonable amount of the money we bring in).

 

Disclaimer - these are estimates from soccerbase. I also left Juanmi out completely seeing as he was signed and sold in the same period.

Why would you want to ask Les Reed? The Chairman made a public statement about it when the last accounts were published. It's on the OS. What more do you think we should have?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hutch

hutch

Posted
Posted
as for not spending as we want to be sustainable etc

 

again, not sure we are the only club who want/do that. yet they spend more out of their pockets than we do

Putting aside the top six, because I don't think anybody is suggesting that we should be competing with them, but over the past five years, how many PL clubs have spent more in the transfer market than Saints?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saint-Fred

Saint-Fred

Posted
Posted
Yes, but Liverpools turnover is much higher than ours, especially commercial revenue. You cannot compare that to our situation.

 

I used him as an example...alright Darren bent..bought by villa for what 16m let go for free? Wolf winkle or whatever he was called Norwich record signing scored three goals or something stupid...alves for boro? Soldado for Spurs, actually there are loads for Spurs, Andy Carroll? Schevchenko, and that's just off the top of my head...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saint_clark

Saint_clark

Posted
Posted
I used him as an example...alright Darren bent..bought by villa for what 16m let go for free? Wolf winkle or whatever he was called Norwich record signing scored three goals or something stupid...alves for boro? Soldado for Spurs, actually there are loads for Spurs, Andy Carroll? Schevchenko, and that's just off the top of my head...

 

How are Villa doing? How have Boro done since they signed Alves? How are Norwich doing? Spurs again they have much more money, Andy Carroll for Liverpool they have much more money, Shevchenko for Chelsea, really?

You've also taken one part of my post which was, as you say, just an example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saint-Fred

Saint-Fred

Posted
Posted
But possibly invest less in their infrastructure, or have been in the Prem longer and have better commercial deals, or haven't had two useless wage-draining former record signings in their squad for the last few years.

 

How are Villa doing? How have Boro done since they signed Alves? How are Norwich doing? Spurs again they have much more money, Andy Carroll for Liverpool they have much more money, Shevchenko for Chelsea, really?

You've also taken one part of my post which was, as you say, just an example.

 

Ok for all your post then..the infrastructure is all been spent by money borrowed from our owner so doesn't relate to other clubs investment surely? Better commercial deals definitely but that isn't hundreds of millions more for the clubs we are talking about (the ones at our level)..been in the league longer? Ok but for example Palace have been here for less time, others have run at a loss so the time in the prem might not have given them significant advantage funds wise? And finally the players again I just gave examples every club has them..Stoke spent 10m on crouch for little return!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Batman

Batman

Posted
Posted
Putting aside the top six, because I don't think anybody is suggesting that we should be competing with them, but over the past five years, how many PL clubs have spent more in the transfer market than Saints?

 

easy to spend when you receive vast amounts in player sales.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Heisenberg

Heisenberg

Posted
  • Author
Posted

 

Strange that some seem to think the only cost is wages and once that's covered all other revenue is available for transfers! No travel costs, stadium maintenance, food?! We will be spending millions beyond wages, it's a massive business. If wages are 70% then I'd imagine we do need some transfer sale revenue to get by. It's a shame but we are a small club.

 

Small club with big appetites lol

 

We earn nearly £20 million a year from Matchday income and another 12-15m from commercial activities / sponsorships. Think we might be able to cover the food and travel without needing to sell players every single summer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Batman

Batman

Posted
Posted
Small club with big appetites lol

 

We earn nearly £20 million a year from Matchday income and another 12-15m from commercial activities / sponsorships. Think we might be able to cover the food and travel without needing to sell players every single summer?

 

doesnt the food sell? IE, it turns a profit of some sort. (it better do for those prices)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Heisenberg

Heisenberg

Posted
  • Author
Posted
doesnt the food sell? IE, it turns a profit of some sort. (it better do for those prices)

 

If it turns out that we are selling our 3-4 best players every season as the boys remaining are chomping through £10 million worth of chicken each season I'd be a bit a bit plucked off and demand that someone is roasted and fried (I mean fired)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Batman

Batman

Posted
Posted
If it turns out that we are selling our 3-4 best players every season as the boys remaining are chomping through £10 million worth of chicken each season I'd be a bit a bit plucked off and demand that someone is roasted and fried (I mean fired)

 

Selling Pelle ensures a good spread every week at Staplewood

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saint-Fred

Saint-Fred

Posted
Posted

,

If we can't afford it we can't afford it. I hope it is that rather than lack of ambition on the owners part, but I don't have that information.

 

Strange that some seem to think the only cost is wages and once that's covered all other revenue is available for transfers! No travel costs, stadium maintenance, food?! We will be spending millions beyond wages, it's a massive business. If wages are 70% then I'd imagine we do need some transfer sale revenue to get by. It's a shame but we are a small club.

 

Stoke spend more probably because they've been up a lot longer than us. TV money sounds great but it's risen this season. We've been up 4 years and have 1 summer on the mega money. Hopefully in 3 or 4 years we'll be in a much better position to spend. I don't mind the odd sale if we replace well. It's not so much money spent this summer that frustrated me, just being an attacker light. Would have happily sacrificed Clasie for 8m or so to bring in another attacker and/or a stronger DM. Wouldn't have minded Gueye and I think he'd probably be here if Koeman had stayed.

 

Stoke don't spend more than us?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
VectisSaint

VectisSaint

Posted
Posted
Feeding a squad and coaches, travel to games and hotels. Just an example of all the extra costs that add up. Maintenance and development. Insurance. Medical bills. It's never ending really.

 

Expenses £20.9m in 2015. Matchday and commercial £29.6m

Wages and salaries £72.1m, Broadcasting £84.2m

So thats a balance of nearly £21m. Then player sales profit was £44m. Even allowing for Tax (2.9) and Interest (2.7), that's about £60m to the good in 2015.

Questioning where the money is going is not unreasonable. I have no problem with paying off the debt that Katherina has accrued, with the new TV deal coming into effect this season, its difficult to see how even if that was paid off in full we would not be in a healthy position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
sammysaint

sammysaint

Posted
Posted

I do like how the club is running if we can maintain that 8th-6th position, but if we get found out at some point and finish 11th/12th lose more players, I would like a different approach unless of course we finish in the bottom half because we focused on some good cup runs and a cup final that we win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Badger

Badger

Posted
Posted

 

According to that we are paying marginally more than Dortmund. If true, pretty incredible really, that we're paying more than Germany's second largest club who can get 80,000 crowds (even allowing for the fact their ticket prices are more reasonable than ours).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
doddisalegend

doddisalegend

Posted
Posted
Has anyone seen the latest financials?

 

Must be 18 months now since anything was publicly available? Seems odd

 

 

Yes I have Kat spent most of the money from player sells on handbags and cream puffs. While Les and Ralph have used the rest of the money to set up an online pet grooming business...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
doddisalegend

doddisalegend

Posted
Posted
Another £2m!!

 

http://dailym.ai/2kXhCfv

 

Kat's very happy she has her eyes on these

 

3.-tanzanite-sandal-stuart-weitzman-theworldmostexpensive.blogspot.com_1.jpg

 

Stuart Weitzman’s claim to expensive shoe fame doesn’t stop with the Rita Hayworth Heels. He is also the creator of another million-dollar pair, $ 2 million to be exact. The*Tanzanite Heels from Stuart Weitzman*is made out of silver leather as well as a platinum framing decked in tanzanite gems and diamonds. The heels’ front straps have 28 carats of diamonds, while the ankle bracelets are adorned with just under 200 carats of tanzanite gems as well as 16 carats of various gems. However, the heels of this pair, with 595 diamond carats, are the real show-stoppers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nordic Saint

Nordic Saint

Posted
Posted
Any sign of the new report?

 

That one for 2014/15 concludes "producing a total of £44 million of profits before tax in the last two years." Taking into account transfer dealings and the greatly increased Premier League income, we must have made a considerably bigger profit in the last 2 years. Yet, the club is being forced to take out loans. So, if some of the club's profits are being paid into the owner's account, how would we find out? Would it appear publicly somewhere as 'dividends' to share holders?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dublin Saint

Dublin Saint

Posted
Posted
Kat's very happy she has her eyes on these

 

3.-tanzanite-sandal-stuart-weitzman-theworldmostexpensive.blogspot.com_1.jpg

 

Stuart Weitzman’s claim to expensive shoe fame doesn’t stop with the Rita Hayworth Heels. He is also the creator of another million-dollar pair, $ 2 million to be exact. The*Tanzanite Heels from Stuart Weitzman*is made out of silver leather as well as a platinum framing decked in tanzanite gems and diamonds. The heels’ front straps have 28 carats of diamonds, while the ankle bracelets are adorned with just under 200 carats of tanzanite gems as well as 16 carats of various gems. However, the heels of this pair, with 595 diamond carats, are the real show-stoppers.

 

They look more like Les Reeds tbh

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Heisenberg

Heisenberg

Posted
  • Author
Posted
That one for 2014/15 concludes "producing a total of £44 million of profits before tax in the last two years." Taking into account transfer dealings and the greatly increased Premier League income, we must have made a considerably bigger profit in the last 2 years. Yet, the club is being forced to take out loans. So, if some of the club's profits are being paid into the owner's account, how would we find out? Would it appear publicly somewhere as 'dividends' to share holders?

 

Guess we will have a slightly better idea next time we see some financials.

 

Slightly odd that weve seen nothing for almost 18 months?

 

Expecting some decent profits again

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Batman

Batman

Posted
Posted
Guess we will have a slightly better idea next time we see some financials.

 

Slightly odd that weve seen nothing for almost 18 months?

 

Expecting some decent profits again

Remember the claim that we would have an era of transparency when cortese left

 

 

Another fib by nawty Les Reed

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 5 months later...
OldNick

OldNick

Posted
Posted
That one for 2014/15 concludes "producing a total of £44 million of profits before tax in the last two years." Taking into account transfer dealings and the greatly increased Premier League income, we must have made a considerably bigger profit in the last 2 years. Yet, the club is being forced to take out loans. So, if some of the club's profits are being paid into the owner's account, how would we find out? Would it appear publicly somewhere as 'dividends' to share holders?
when NC was at the club I thought we had loans at a Virgin Island holding co? Would it not be too far fetched that this company belonged to the owner and the loans got a fantastic rate of interest applied to them. Thus reducing the clubs profits but also giving the owner a great return. Billionaires, I doubt take massive loans out on their assets and pay 3rd parties big interest repayments. All conjecture of course but these people have the best tax advisors there are and know how to get the best returns and also tax advantage
Link to comment
Share on other sites
benjii

benjii

Posted
Posted
when NC was at the club I thought we had loans at a Virgin Island holding co? Would it not be too far fetched that this company belonged to the owner and the loans got a fantastic rate of interest applied to them. Thus reducing the clubs profits but also giving the owner a great return. Billionaires, I doubt take massive loans out on their assets and pay 3rd parties big interest repayments. All conjecture of course but these people have the best tax advisors there are and know how to get the best returns and also tax advantage

 

Yes, it would be too far fetched.

 

There was no "Virgin Island holding co". There was a company in BVI called Vibrac, which lent money to a number of English clubs, including us.

 

No one knows who owns it, so it could be Kat, but that would seem more than a little unlikely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldNick

OldNick

Posted
Posted
Yes, it would be too far fetched.

 

There was no "Virgin Island holding co". There was a company in BVI called Vibrac, which lent money to a number of English clubs, including us.

 

No one knows who owns it, so it could be Kat, but that would seem more than a little unlikely.

But was a Virgin Isles company
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Heisenberg

Heisenberg

Posted
  • Author
Posted

The players sold weren't being paid? That's crazy...... no wonder they wanted out.

 

remember you also told us we got £38m for Mane....? so that means we got just 20m for Koeman, Pelle, Wanyama, Fonte, Juanmi?

 

Or does your little snippet not really tell the full or any story?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GGalpin

GGalpin

Posted
Posted
I don't think we'll spend much until VVD goes, I can see it now, and even then I can still see some of his fee being pocketed.

 

Page 5 of this proves pocketing of fees is absolute horse manure. https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/document-api-images-prod/docs/1U0-4rjpc38ozHYZcRGpwRJM-g4SSbhsqOKFMCaBcF0/application-pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIAJQVLOI4HHXAG3HPA&Expires=1500310544&Signature=3Zzdu4bBsB85GOrK4ARKH5Mof1I%3D&x-amz-security-token=FQoDYXdzEEcaDJnSwToST8aYQm84ySK3A0QDMM0EujuGpsLmFsTfsvNi4Ak0dLGggNjgXFQo1TcgJgNC34XDRakwIaDMcqrFtCpHzbjldppC0cGdimYW%2Bx3O807TI4GscH9UK1aZFJ9AoSrbVdwcHBL%2FY49X2%2Bw%2BwGzc3oOhpS%2FPb0KEsS9%2B727nigr04jA%2FlaBydj2MrL61cViXee1t6PTr%2Fqbb6KGnTrRM1voUKbQIj0gUiXb862wJGnbZbCvuDUPizks%2BD7Zg1C%2BHAlHxZQDmnwVXRt%2B27zmnwx2iAAVrhVzVZxY9cQTJsYF3Xs9svOUFpaWLuYukbSXvqfZ5md9grlqMeOFB%2BrgddTEl09UyUgRwF2%2FE8m2Oh0Tsr7fh3v29zua92eXKCJfEhpMRiufKktoCqfu4tPi30ei3Xk33TJ5jh3ktTzA6v2xEFM1r7bxiFfmOpFx26rN9KCX5gJ1MrsDGH7IM7ox6q%2FhIER4jX3igCYuwl5DvotIv0niPDtnKw9wBNf%2FMuu20C%2F%2FsbubOKGYNeszsvfKIpDcCBBw3E3VaxH7PcNy9vQXtpI9X9370ZGsTHjhhecG0XZtHczfmuDjNERhLc4aGL6uX1zkoroizywU%3D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Redslo

Redslo

Posted
Posted
Page 5 of this proves pocketing of fees is absolute horse manure. https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/document-api-images-prod/docs/1U0-4rjpc38ozHYZcRGpwRJM-g4SSbhsqOKFMCaBcF0/application-pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIAJQVLOI4HHXAG3HPA&Expires=1500310544&Signature=3Zzdu4bBsB85GOrK4ARKH5Mof1I%3D&x-amz-security-token=FQoDYXdzEEcaDJnSwToST8aYQm84ySK3A0QDMM0EujuGpsLmFsTfsvNi4Ak0dLGggNjgXFQo1TcgJgNC34XDRakwIaDMcqrFtCpHzbjldppC0cGdimYW%2Bx3O807TI4GscH9UK1aZFJ9AoSrbVdwcHBL%2FY49X2%2Bw%2BwGzc3oOhpS%2FPb0KEsS9%2B727nigr04jA%2FlaBydj2MrL61cViXee1t6PTr%2Fqbb6KGnTrRM1voUKbQIj0gUiXb862wJGnbZbCvuDUPizks%2BD7Zg1C%2BHAlHxZQDmnwVXRt%2B27zmnwx2iAAVrhVzVZxY9cQTJsYF3Xs9svOUFpaWLuYukbSXvqfZ5md9grlqMeOFB%2BrgddTEl09UyUgRwF2%2FE8m2Oh0Tsr7fh3v29zua92eXKCJfEhpMRiufKktoCqfu4tPi30ei3Xk33TJ5jh3ktTzA6v2xEFM1r7bxiFfmOpFx26rN9KCX5gJ1MrsDGH7IM7ox6q%2FhIER4jX3igCYuwl5DvotIv0niPDtnKw9wBNf%2FMuu20C%2F%2FsbubOKGYNeszsvfKIpDcCBBw3E3VaxH7PcNy9vQXtpI9X9370ZGsTHjhhecG0XZtHczfmuDjNERhLc4aGL6uX1zkoroizywU%3D

 

I am unable to access that link but you are right about the pocketing being nonsense. MTG's quote from the annual report shows that quite clearly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...