Jump to content

The "Return of Theo Walcott" thread

Bad Wolf

By Bad Wolf,
in The Saints

 Share

Recommended Posts

angelman

angelman

Posted
Posted (edited)
You do realise how much sky give us every year right?

 

You do realise that EFC have a turnover that is at least 40% more than ours. Then look at their wage bill and profit compared to ours. If you think that we have equal financial clout as EFC then fine, we'll just have to disagree and leave it at that.

Edited by angelman
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saint-Fred

Saint-Fred

Posted
Posted
No, not a lot has changed since 1992. Everton were a much richer club than us then, and still are now. Or maybe you are advocating spending like Leeds did - that ended well for them, didn't it?

 

revenue wise they are not much bigger than us currently (ignore the bigger club or not debate)..the difference is their owner wants to pump money into the club and ours doesn't. Sometimes it's just down to shear luck who decides to buy your club!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saint-Fred

Saint-Fred

Posted
Posted
You do realise that EFC have a turnover that is at least 40% more than ours. Then look at their wage bill and profit compared to ours. If you think that we have equal financial clout as EFC then fine, we'll just have to disagree and leave it at that.

 

Can you link me to this as I am not sure this is correct but happy to be corrected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
angelman

angelman

Posted
Posted
revenue wise they are not much bigger than us currently (ignore the bigger club or not debate)..the difference is their owner wants to pump money into the club and ours doesn't. Sometimes it's just down to shear luck who decides to buy your club!

 

Their turnover was 41% more than ours.

Their profit was 500% more than ours.

Their wage bill was 15% more than ours .

All from 2016/17 season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
angelman

angelman

Posted
Posted
Can you link me to this as I am not sure this is correct but happy to be corrected.

 

http://www.evertonfc.com/news/2017/12/22/everton-posts-record-turnover-and-30m-post-tax-profit

https://southamptonfc.com/news/2017-03-15/st-marys-football-group-limited-201516-financial-results

 

Correction that this is for the 2015/16 season the last available

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saint-Fred

Saint-Fred

Posted
Posted
Really?

 

Turnover - £171.3m vs £124.3m (sorry not 40%, 37.8%)

Profit - £30m vs £5m

Wages £106m vs £92m

 

Of course I might be wrong so you can surely correct anything.

 

TBF they have done really well to increase turnover by £50m in a single season.

We WERE about level with them and it seems, somehow, they suddenly jumped £50m in revenue more than they had ever done before....Ralph needs to get up there and learn how to do "commercial" properly!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
madruss

madruss

Posted
Posted
TBF they have done really well to increase turnover by £50m in a single season.

We WERE about level with them and it seems, somehow, they suddenly jumped £50m in revenue more than they had ever done before....Ralph needs to get up there and learn how to do "commercial" properly!

They sold some Belgian chap for a couple of quid. That must have helped turnover a little

 

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
madruss

madruss

Posted
Posted
Wrong season's figures.

 

Our commercial arm isn't as active as it could be. Hasn't ever been that effective.

I stand corrected! It was supposedly Ralph's job to improve the commercial side of things, so I guess we shouldn't really be surprised at the outcome.

 

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saint-Fred

Saint-Fred

Posted
Posted
That does indeed seem to be the case.

 

Anyway, if you were Walcott, who would you sign for (ignoring any perceived emotional connection).

 

Where they pay the most...therefore Everton

 

Our results will be interesting as we were level on turnover in 15/16 so if they have jumped "mainly due to the new larger sky deal" then you can assume our turnover increased too...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Badger

Badger

Posted
Posted
Not fussed. Besides the nostalgia of him returning which would have lifted the fans, his injury record is pretty poor and would rather see us spend the bulk of our funds on a targetman and creative no10

 

Not sure Walcott would have been the answer, especially as MP sets the team up, but he is definitely a step up on anyone we currently have. As for where we spend our funds I'd like to see it spent on quality that will improve the team, not just some average journeyman who Pelligrino happens to know, or the 4th best option from Les' list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hypochondriac

hypochondriac

Posted
Posted
Not sure Walcott would have been the answer, especially as MP sets the team up, but he is definitely a step up on anyone we currently have. As for where we spend our funds I'd like to see it spent on quality that will improve the team, not just some average journeyman who Pelligrino happens to know, or the 4th best option from Les' list.
Yeah but that's not particularly likely given our situation. I would have thought that Walcott was about the best we could muster. Let's just hope we can bring this lump in up top and someone else with some pace for attack and then see if we can scrape to the end of the season.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Saint-Fred

Saint-Fred

Posted
Posted
He probably wasn’t ever coming tbh

 

100% this...it was never a real option..at best his agent strung us along to get the best deal from Everton...at worst it was just media spin the club allowed to happen as it suited.

This deal was so far out of our normal parameters that it was never Realistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Donatello

Donatello

Posted
Posted (edited)
Wrong season's figures.

 

Our commercial arm isn't as active as it could be. Hasn't ever been that effective.

 

As Saint Fred has alluded to, you're comparing apples and oranges.

 

From the article you linked....

 

"Everton has posted record turnover and a post-tax profit of more than £30m. Turnover for the year amounted to £171.3m, almost £50m more than the previous highest recorded in 2014/15, a season in which the Club reached the last 16 of the UEFA Europa League.

 

Broadcast revenues accounted for most of the increase in turnover, with 2016/17 the first year of a record-breaking £5bn TV rights deal for the Premier League. "

 

Their broadcast revenue went from ~£82m to ~£132m. There's your +£50m right there. Ours will supposedly go from £80m-£85m to ~£127m. When we publish our accounts for the same year, the turnover will be comparable, give or take £10m (speculation).

 

So, yeah, no offense, but this...

 

Their turnover was 41% more than ours.

Their profit was 500% more than ours.

Their wage bill was 15% more than ours .

All from 2016/17 season.

 

...is b*llocks :p (although I have no idea about their wage bill, and I canny be bothered to look)

Edited by Donatello
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DT

DT

Posted
Posted

Re Theo I suspect we tried JUST enough to make it look like we wanted to sign him, knowing full well that we wouldn't, thus placating the fans and wasting time so fans wouldn't guess we haven't a pot to pee in. Terrible times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shurlock

shurlock

Posted
Posted
Nope but would be confident it would not be 100k

 

Who knows. With the new TV money, the day we hand out 100K pw contracts is closer than people think. Bournemouth, Palace and Leicester have already breached that threshold. Gabbi is already on 80K pw -and it’s not difficult to justify paying Walcott more given his track record in the league and our immediate needs. It’s very possible that we didn’t match Everton’s offer; but it’s not totally far-fetched either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
S-Clarke

S-Clarke

Posted
Posted
Some of our lot are sticking their noses up at someone who has scored 1 in 4 across their career at a top 4 club over 12 years. With the predicament we're in! Mental.

 

It's the classic case of ''oh he's being sold, he's **** anyway'' ''oh we've missed out, he was too expensive anyway, better value in europe''. When the reality is for £20m there isn't a single player out their with his pedigree, attributes or experience in this league to get. Probably a choice of the player, but given the position we were in 2 seasons ago (finished 6th) we really could have had the pick of proper talent, but we decided to sell it all instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Turkish

Turkish

Posted
Posted

£20m is the new £10m The fact of the matter is Walcott is a proven Premier league player and could come in and do a job straight away rather than signing a foreigner who will need to time to adapt to a new country and a new league. That is what we need and that costs money.

 

Regardless of any of that anyway he was clearly our number one target, we made the rare decision to go public on it, stating two or three times via the clubs favoured journalists that we were in for him and confident he'd sign. He didn't, so we've missed out and Reed has failed to bring in a player we considered our most important signing. Time is ticking and this window is fast becoming as shambolic as last January.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SKD

SKD

Posted
Posted
£20m is the new £10m The fact of the matter is Walcott is a proven Premier league player and could come in and do a job straight away rather than signing a foreigner who will need to time to adapt to a new country and a new league. That is what we need and that costs money.

 

Regardless of any of that anyway he was clearly our number one target, we made the rare decision to go public on it, stating two or three times via the clubs favoured journalists that we were in for him and confident he'd sign. He didn't, so we've missed out and Reed has failed to bring in a player we considered our most important signing. Time is ticking and this window is fast becoming as shambolic as last January.

 

I'm just waiting for a token loan offer for Nathan Dyer on deadline day

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SKD

SKD

Posted
Posted
It's the classic case of ''oh he's being sold, he's **** anyway'' ''oh we've missed out, he was too expensive anyway, better value in europe''. When the reality is for £20m there isn't a single player out their with his pedigree, attributes or experience in this league to get. Probably a choice of the player, but given the position we were in 2 seasons ago (finished 6th) we really could have had the pick of proper talent, but we decided to sell it all instead.

 

Yep - the start of the end. We had an excellent chance to push on instead the owner just wanted to continue milking the £'s and at board room level they just wanted to appease her.

 

We lost our manager and 3 best players (Wanyama, Pelle & Mane) and went for the cheap option who had 'potential'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OldNick

OldNick

Posted
Posted
£20m is the new £10m The fact of the matter is Walcott is a proven Premier league player and could come in and do a job straight away rather than signing a foreigner who will need to time to adapt to a new country and a new league. That is what we need and that costs money.

 

Regardless of any of that anyway he was clearly our number one target, we made the rare decision to go public on it, stating two or three times via the clubs favoured journalists that we were in for him and confident he'd sign. He didn't, so we've missed out and Reed has failed to bring in a player we considered our most important signing. Time is ticking and this window is fast becoming as shambolic as last January.

Good post
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Minsk

Minsk

Posted
Posted
It's the classic case of ''oh he's being sold, he's **** anyway'' ''oh we've missed out, he was too expensive anyway, better value in europe''. When the reality is for £20m there isn't a single player out their with his pedigree, attributes or experience in this league to get. Probably a choice of the player, but given the position we were in 2 seasons ago (finished 6th) we really could have had the pick of proper talent, but we decided to sell it all instead.

 

This...

 

£20m is the new £10m The fact of the matter is Walcott is a proven Premier league player and could come in and do a job straight away rather than signing a foreigner who will need to time to adapt to a new country and a new league. That is what we need and that costs money.

 

Regardless of any of that anyway he was clearly our number one target, we made the rare decision to go public on it, stating two or three times via the clubs favoured journalists that we were in for him and confident he'd sign. He didn't, so we've missed out and Reed has failed to bring in a player we considered our most important signing. Time is ticking and this window is fast becoming as shambolic as last January.

 

And most certainly this!

 

I'm just waiting for a token loan offer for Nathan Dyer on deadline day

 

This thought also crossed my mind. To be honest, I really wouldn't be surprised if we did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ashby Saint

Ashby Saint

Posted
Posted
£20m is the new £10m The fact of the matter is Walcott is a proven Premier league player and could come in and do a job straight away rather than signing a foreigner who will need to time to adapt to a new country and a new league. That is what we need and that costs money.

 

Regardless of any of that anyway he was clearly our number one target, we made the rare decision to go public on it, stating two or three times via the clubs favoured journalists that we were in for him and confident he'd sign. He didn't, so we've missed out and Reed has failed to bring in a player we considered our most important signing. Time is ticking and this window is fast becoming as shambolic as last January.

 

I think your right in what you say. You either subscribe to the absurd business logic in spiralling prices and wages in the Premier league (plenty of clubs will) or you decide that's just too rich for you. Maybe the board have decided the latter, which is up to them and the owner as its his money, but if that is the case then they need to be honest with the fans. If they came out and said "we are just not prepared to pay these silly prices because it is unaffordable longterm for a club our size" then everyone can manage their expectations. Relegation likely, Championship football for the foreseeable future - which I don't think is that bad. Its the fact that a deluded Les thinks you can still win without paying these ridiculous fees and wages, which it is clearly apparent that you can not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Graffito

Graffito

Posted
Posted
£20m is the new £10m The fact of the matter is Walcott is a proven Premier league player and could come in and do a job straight away rather than signing a foreigner who will need to time to adapt to a new country and a new league. That is what we need and that costs money.

 

Regardless of any of that anyway he was clearly our number one target, we made the rare decision to go public on it, stating two or three times via the clubs favoured journalists that we were in for him and confident he'd sign. He didn't, so we've missed out and Reed has failed to bring in a player we considered our most important signing. Time is ticking and this window is fast becoming as shambolic as last January.

 

I think you're right. In January, in our predicament, we need someone who is oven ready. In the summer then maybe look abroad for the value buys. Add in Walcotts pace, and goals, which we lack, and I think there's a case for going all out to get him. Maybe we did and he just doesn't think he'll make his case for the WC in the current Saints team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
doddisalegend

doddisalegend

Posted
Posted

 

 

What's really annoying looking at the stats is Austin has a much better minutes played to goals scored record in the PL than Walcott (not criticising Walcott). If Austin could actually stay fit (and managers actually played him) all season we probably wouldn't be where we are right now.

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...