Sport Republic

[tajjuk]

2 hours ago, The Curse of St Mary's said:

Spot on. Gao just can't take us forward as a club. Fans always strive for more and better which is fine but obviously requires new ownership to achieve that. That being said, we are still paying for past mistakes from even before Gao bought the club. Our struggles of recent years have been a result of poor recruitment and managerial appointments not a direct consequence of Gao owning the club or his decision making. Les Reed, Ralph Krueger and Ross Wilson biggest culprits. 

Exactly Gao didn't buy Carillo for a manager we should have sacked, he didn't buy Hoedt or Lemina who were are still struggling to shift and are weighing down the wage bill, it seems his biggest crime is not throwing money at the previous hierarchy's mistakes. 

[lambtiss]

20 minutes ago, tajjuk said:

Exactly Gao didn't buy Carillo for a manager we should have sacked, he didn't buy Hoedt or Lemina who were are still struggling to shift and are weighing down the wage bill, it seems his biggest crime is not throwing money at the previous hierarchy's mistakes. 

I do feel aggrieved, however, at KL for saying that she needed to sell to someone who was going to take us to the next level. 

[sadoldgit]

2 minutes ago, craig said:

I do feel aggrieved, however, at KL for saying that she needed to sell to someone who was going to take us to the next level. 

Perhaps she believed that he would at the time? It isn’t as if she washed her hands of us and disappeared so has been around to attract flak for her decision.

[stevy777_x]

Gerald Lopez to takeover Bordeaux.

Another one bites the dust...

[lambtiss]

2 hours ago, sadoldgit said:

Perhaps she believed that he would at the time? It isn’t as if she washed her hands of us and disappeared so has been around to attract flak for her decision.

Possible, but his background was highly suspicious to the extent I believe, that the PL changed their rules after he took over to prevent someone of a similar ilk taking over a PL club again. That suggests she was more keen to divest her shares at a considerable profit than in the identity of the new owner.

[Scummer]

17 minutes ago, craig said:

the PL changed their rules after he took over to prevent someone of a similar ilk taking over a PL club again.

Has that ever been confirmed?

[trousers]

25 minutes ago, Scummer said:

Has that ever been confirmed?

https://www.insidersport.com/2019/02/13/the-unenforced-regulation-in-english-football-ownership/

"A Chinese businessman, Gao Jisheng, made a move in recent years to take over Southampton FC in a possible £200 million deal. As it turned out, Gao had admitted to bribery offences but escaped charges because he gave evidence for the prosecution in two separate cases. It was actually Gao’s bid for Southampton that prompted the new rule-change to include the ‘conduct outside the UK that would constitute an offence’ ground rule."

[Miltonaggro]

4 minutes ago, trousers said:

https://www.insidersport.com/2019/02/13/the-unenforced-regulation-in-english-football-ownership/

"A Chinese businessman, Gao Jisheng, made a move in recent years to take over Southampton FC in a possible £200 million deal. As it turned out, Gao had admitted to bribery offences but escaped charges because he gave evidence for the prosecution in two separate cases. It was actually Gao’s bid for Southampton that prompted the new rule-change to include the ‘conduct outside the UK that would constitute an offence’ ground rule."

 

Saints at the forefront of innovation and development again!

[Matthew Le God]

23 hours ago, Matthew Le God said:

You have conflated the spending of Markus and Katharina. Most of the spending came after Markus' death. Plus £4m was paid to Aviva ontop of the initial £13m on promotion to the Premier League.

 

12 hours ago, Daft Kerplunk said:

The money put in the club by KL was also loans that were paid back. 

It was turned into equity.

[SuperSAINT]

Palace supposedly in advanced talks:

 

 

[Dusic]

These US takeovers are usually bad news.

In fact, most takeovers these days don't seem to end well.

What a fairytale ML was.

[HarvSFC]

Indeed, US owners seem to have a trend of being disliked and unsuccessful over here. Glazers and Kroenke the two standouts, while FSG aren't too popular at Liverpool despite the Champions League and Premier League titles. Hicks and Gillett before them were also seen as woeful. Lerner at Aston Villa and Short at Sunderland brought nothing but relegation for the two clubs, while I don't know too much about Swansea's owners, but they were soon relegated after their takeover and are now having to sell any asset they have despite the parachute payments. Eisner down the road also, helping maintain their status as a Mickey Mouse club, keeping them in the third tier.

[Maya's Dad]

On 18/06/2021 at 00:01, trousers said:

https://www.insidersport.com/2019/02/13/the-unenforced-regulation-in-english-football-ownership/

"A Chinese businessman, Gao Jisheng, made a move in recent years to take over Southampton FC in a possible £200 million deal. As it turned out, Gao had admitted to bribery offences but escaped charges because he gave evidence for the prosecution in two separate cases. It was actually Gao’s bid for Southampton that prompted the new rule-change to include the ‘conduct outside the UK that would constitute an offence’ ground rule."

as somebody who has experience with how business is conducted in china. notwithstanding the fact that gao wasn't ever found to be guilty, these charges of bribery are nothing out of the ordinary at all. in china, the only way private business gets done is if you get the permission from chinese state authorities. in the past the only way you would be able to do that is by showering them with 'gifts and benefits'. recently the chinese government has tred to stamp this out but it still happens a lot and on a very wide scale

[Saint Billy]

2 hours ago, Maya's Dad said:

as somebody who has experience with how business is conducted in china. notwithstanding the fact that gao wasn't ever found to be guilty, these charges of bribery are nothing out of the ordinary at all. in china, the only way private business gets done is if you get the permission from chinese state authorities. in the past the only way you would be able to do that is by showering them with 'gifts and benefits'. recently the chinese government has tred to stamp this out but it still happens a lot and on a very wide scale

Well then, the sooner someone offers Gao a bribe to sell the club the better. 

[Verbal]

On 17/06/2021 at 18:41, Matthew Le God said:

 

It was turned into equity.

Quite - which means KL's investment will be repaid by whoever buys the club or her portion of it - the money does not come out of the club's coffers.  This isn't to say that whoever buys might not force the club to pay it at a later date by converting that equity back into debt. 

[Appy]

12 hours ago, SuperSAINT said:

Palace supposedly in advanced talks:

 

 

Hologram pioneer? 
 

Gao must’ve used him for proof of funds in 2017

[Saint86]

I don't think many of the current issues are on Gao, he let's the club get on with running itself by and large. 

The issues like with the awful transfer policy that saw us destroy our team, saddle us with debts, and sign players like lemina, hoedt, Ely, carillo, etc. For tens of millions and on long contracts. Not only that, but offering long high wage contracts to players like forster, and appointing awful managers like puel and mope.

As far as I am concerned, gao's tenureship got rid of the cancer that was Les Reed, Krueger etc, and has somehow kept us in the prem. We were an utter train wreck of a club in recent seasons thanks to that cabal of utter morons. And being relatively stable in the prem is no small achievement. There are worse things. 

Expecting a rich billionaire to come in, buy a struggling debt laden Premier league team, and poor tens of millions of their own money into it, just isn't realistic. I'm the grand scheme of things, there are far far far worse owners than Gao out there! 

Edited 20 June, 2021 by Saint86

[SuperSAINT]

On the face of it, buying Southampton Football Club would appear to be an interesting proposition.

They have a highly-regarded academy, a 32,000-seat stadium, a manager signed to a long-term deal and a handful of good players at their disposal as they prepare for what will be their 10th Premier League season in a row.

So far, however, all that hasn’t been enough to convince a potential buyer, other than American businessman Joseph DaGrosa, that buying them would be a worthwhile investment.

Throughout the takeover process, The Athletic has strived to keep you up to date with the latest movements regarding the future of your football club. As it stands, there are still two or three interested parties, although they are yet to make the crucial step forward and show serious intent.

Why is this, though?

The Athletic spoke to several industry insiders, all with vast knowledge of the current market, about the impact COVID-19 is having on individuals who have the funds to buy such a football club and whether now is even the right time to purchase a Premier League one.

---

Pivotal to any sale of Southampton is Gao Jisheng, the Chinese businessman who paid between £180 million and £200 million to purchase an 80 per cent stake in the club from Katharina Liebherr in 2017.

Since that initial investment, however, Gao hasn’t put another penny in.

It must also be said that he hasn’t ever taken a penny out, either.
 

To get through the pandemic, Southampton’s hierarchy had to turn to MSD Capital to secure a £78.8 million loan; with the interest at 9.14 per cent, repayments will cost them £7.2 million a year.

The loan doesn’t need to be paid back until 2025, and The Athletic has learned that it includes a clause that could see the club borrow an extra £20 million if they needed to boost their working capital.

While you may think a loan of this size would put investors off, one potential buyer said that securing the extra funding was a shrewd — and necessary — move.

Southampton’s latest set of accounts don’t make for pretty reading, and you can expect the next lot to look bleak, too. The fact they went a whole calendar year without supporters at St Mary’s — bar two home games last December where a small number were allowed in — was a big factor.

But that isn’t a hidden secret, and investors will know many football clubs have been recording substantial losses since the first lockdown began in March 2020.Yet, Southampton have been on the market since 2019, so the financial impact of COVID-19 can’t be the only reason they are still searching for a buyer.

“There are two types of investors (in football). Firstly, the ones who were already interested in buying a football club pre-pandemic, as they believed in the further growth of the industry and continued to explore such opportunities,” Andrea Sartori, KPMG’s global head of sports, tells The Athletic. “A good example of this is the Friedkin Group who started negotiating the acquisition of AS Roma well before the health crisis and most likely at different conditions than the ones that were ultimately agreed.

“And then you have those opportunistic players rather (more) interested in providing debt and other financing instruments to help clubs get over liquidity issues.”

The reason Gao is crucial to the sale of Southampton is that, ultimately, he is the one who has to accept an offer for his shares. If he thinks they are worth X and someone offers only Y, it’s his right to say no.

A lot has been said about the fact Gao will want to try to save face in China and not be seen to have lost a significant portion of his sizable investment. But one source points out this isn’t the case.

“If you look at Chinese investors in football clubs over the past few years, there aren’t many people remaining,” they said. “Those people (Chinese football club owners) are the pioneers. The Chinese sports market is not mature. It’s still at the beginning period.

“China needed people like them to do this, to show people: we tried, but we also may fail. There is no saving-face point about it. It’s just a normal business decision.”

---

Another factor worth considering is whether the Premier League has finally peaked in terms of its domestic broadcast deals.

Investors used to see the multi-billion deals between England’s top division and broadcasters such as Sky Sports and BT Sport grow whenever the contracts ran out. But the latest agreementsremain worth roughly the same for 2022-25 as the ones from 2019-2022.

Asked whether this stagnation could lead to potential buyers thinking twice about the Premier League’s strength, Sartori added: “Every sector will eventually slow down and become less attractive to investors, so it’s not only the Premier League.

“Overall, the media market of the Premier League at international level is so much stronger in comparison to any other league. In consideration of the existing gap between the Premier League and other leagues, which is partially justifiable with the product’s quality, in my opinion, it’s hard to expect a significant growth of the Premier League at international level over the next few years.”

Another industry insider, who works with interested individuals and parties on takeovers, also mentioned the Premier League’s latest broadcast deal.

“The attraction over the years has been the value and exponential growth of its media rights,” they said. “External investors outside of Europe used to look at it (Premier League clubs) and see excess capital.

“I’ve been involved in conversations between clubs and buyers over the past six to 12 months, and when they see the state of cash flow and the numbers involved in buying and running a football club, they start to think twice.”

---

The most recent Premier League takeover involved American businessman Alan Pace’s ALK Capital and Burnley, yet that deal last December was leveraged and meant the Turf Moor side went from having around £80 million in the bank to being in debt.

Supporters are naturally uneasy about the possibility of an owner buying their club using borrowed money. But this is what Gao did when he purchased Southampton, although he borrowed money against assets he owned in China, which meant Southampton would be protected if he went bust.

“Your Jack Walker-type owners (the local-lad steel magnate whose wealth helped make Blackburn Rovers champions in the late 1990s) are gone,” explained a source. “You have got people who have made their money through private equity or investment funds.

“All of a sudden, they are coming in with a different mindset.

“They are coming in with a three-to-five-year plan which requires an exit in the fifth year, and if you buy a club outside of the Big Six, you have to factor in relegation. That can wipe out all of their value. It changes the way they look at things.”

Asked whether a rise in leveraged takeovers is a concern, Sartori said: “The financial structure described in the acquisition of Burnley is very, very typical of private equity in any sector of the economy.

“But when such principles are applied to sporting organisations, and not necessarily just football clubs, it is seen as more of a risk. Understandably from the supporters’ perspective, it is difficult to accept the fact that there are investors buying a club with a high level of leverage.”

---

Many supporters realise that fresh investment into Southampton is crucial for more reasons than simply boosting the playing squad.

In Gao, who can’t speak English, they haven’t had a vocal leader at the helm of their club, with the businessman opting to remain silent in China. The communication is left to the likes of Martin Semmens, the chief executive, and Toby Steele, the club’s managing director.

But fans care about what their owners are doing — and what they plan to do with their club.

Although many supporters feel a new buyer is needed at St Mary’s sooner rather than later, the impact of COVID-19, the failed Super League coup, the stagnating domestic Premier League broadcast deals and uncertainty of how the football world will recover post-pandemic in the coming months and years could mean it may still be a while before a takeover gets done.

[JRM]

Yes to summarise, unless Gao is prepared to take a big loss and sell for a low price it's very unlikely we'll see a new owner in the next year or two. 

[JustinSFC]

^^^
I can't quote the whole entire thing but this is where I've always struggled since day 1.

If this is true, why buy us?

Just to sit on it?

" 

Since that initial investment, however, Gao hasn’t put another penny in.

It must also be said that he hasn’t ever taken a penny out, either."

 

[JRM]

5 minutes ago, JustinSFC said:

^^^
I can't quote the whole entire thing but this is where I've always struggled since day 1.

If this is true, why buy us?

Just to sit on it?

" 

Since that initial investment, however, Gao hasn’t put another penny in.

It must also be said that he hasn’t ever taken a penny out, either."

 

There is a suggestion ownership of the club was to help Gao get in with the football mad leader in China , who knows. There's also the possibility he can sit on the ownership with putting money in or out and just let the value of the asset increase (bit like investing in property) but in this case he's timed it badly and if anything the value of the asset has decreased with no sign the TV deals are going to grow. The ESL is also a big risk to the value of other premier league clubs.  

[JustinSFC]

13 minutes ago, JRM said:

There's also the possibility he can sit on the ownership with putting money in or out and just let the value of the asset increase (bit like investing in property) but in this case he's timed it badly and if anything the value of the asset has decreased with no sign the TV deals are going to grow.
 

I would understand that if he hadn't paid £220m for an 80% acquisition.

The Athletic saying he paid £180m to £200m I think that's inaccurate as iirc reports at the time said £220m.

That's top dollar for 80%.

That's not even a full buyout.

Even pre-pandemic, how much was he expecting to make on that when PL clubs aren't a particularly profitable investment unless you're prepared to pour money in first?

Then there was the whole sponsorship from "LD SPORTS".

[Ex Lion Tamer]

1 minute ago, JustinSFC said:

I would understand that if he hadn't paid £220m for an 80% acquisition.

The Athletic saying he paid £180m to £200m I think that's inaccurate as iirc reports at the time said £220m.

That's top dollar for 80%.

That's not even a full buyout.

Even pre-pandemic, how much was he expecting to make on that when PL clubs aren't a particularly profitable investment unless you're prepared to pour money in first?

Then there was the whole sponsorship from "LD SPORTS".

As I understand he didn't buy the club to make a profit. He did it because the Chinese government was encouraging it and he wanted to get in their good books so he could get favourable treatment for other business deals back home. Then the Chinese government changed its mind and he got left up the creek.

LD Sports was a sham and the only thing where you can strongly criticise him IMO

[Saint_lambden]

11 minutes ago, Ex Lion Tamer said:

As I understand he didn't buy the club to make a profit. He did it because the Chinese government was encouraging it and he wanted to get in their good books so he could get favourable treatment for other business deals back home. Then the Chinese government changed its mind and he got left up the creek.

It's this basically and is as much as Martin Semmens said at the Fans' Forum. I think we were clearly 'picked' by Gao because he had connections to the city through Sunseeker but once he bought us (or not long after), it wasn't what the original investment was intended to be and he wanted out. Those running the club like Semmens and Co denied Gao wanted to sell for quite a long time up until recently but it's clear that has been the stance for a while. 

Edited 22 June, 2021 by Saint_lambden

[Dusic]

The club has been ripe for a sale for probably two years, perhaps longer - and nobdy credible has come forward.

Suggests to me that in order for something to happen it would take either

a.) Gao reducing the asking price

b.) Events (relegation) forcing Gao to reduce the asking price

This will rumble on for ages yet.

[benjii]

On 20/06/2021 at 14:02, Verbal said:

Quite - which means KL's investment will be repaid by whoever buys the club or her portion of it - the money does not come out of the club's coffers.  This isn't to say that whoever buys might not force the club to pay it at a later date by converting that equity back into debt. 

She converted it to equity when she owned 100%, I recall. Therefore didn't gain anything as a result.

To the extent that the money improved the value of the club then, yeah, in theory she would get more back down the line but that's very tenuous in a business as viccisitudinous as football.

For all intents and purposes she wrote the debt off.

Edited 22 June, 2021 by benjii

[Wurzel]

I agree with some of the comments above, there are far worse potential owners out there than Gao. As above, he hasn't put a penny in but hasn't taken a penny out, which is really how it should be. And he hasn't interferred in the day to day running of the club.

The one thing I don't get is the apparent total failure to cash in on the Chinese market. Ignoring the dodgy non-existent sponsor (wonder if we'll ever hear the true story about that) there doesn't seem to be a queue of Chinese companies trying to get themselves linked with us, and I've not seen any reports of, for instance, increased shirts sales in China. It would have cost  Gao millions to get us to the level where results won the pitch would start bringing in extra millions (i.e CL qualification) but I'd have thought it would have been relatively easy - and free - to increase our prescense in China with a bit of Gao inspired publicity/promotion, and with it extra commercial income and/or retail sails. Obviously not to the same income levels CL qualification would bring but it could have been enough to make a difference. I wonder if the average Chinese football fan is even aware that "one of their own" actually owns this EPL club.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

10 minutes ago, Wurzel said:

I agree with some of the comments above, there are far worse potential owners out there than Gao. As above, he hasn't put a penny in but hasn't taken a penny out, which is really how it should be. And he hasn't interferred in the day to day running of the club.

The one thing I don't get is the apparent total failure to cash in on the Chinese market. Ignoring the dodgy non-existent sponsor (wonder if we'll ever hear the true story about that) there doesn't seem to be a queue of Chinese companies trying to get themselves linked with us, and I've not seen any reports of, for instance, increased shirts sales in China. It would have cost  Gao millions to get us to the level where results won the pitch would start bringing in extra millions (i.e CL qualification) but I'd have thought it would have been relatively easy - and free - to increase our prescense in China with a bit of Gao inspired publicity/promotion, and with it extra commercial income and/or retail sails. Obviously not to the same income levels CL qualification would bring but it could have been enough to make a difference. I wonder if the average Chinese football fan is even aware that "one of their own" actually owns this EPL club.

Pure speculation but if the Chinese government is now discouraging its wealthy businesspeople from getting involved in football, it wouldn't be a good look for him to be touting the club's commercial wares around the country

[Depressed of Shirley]

1 hour ago, Wurzel said:

I agree with some of the comments above, there are far worse potential owners out there than Gao. As above, he hasn't put a penny in but hasn't taken a penny out, which is really how it should be. And he hasn't interferred in the day to day running of the club.

The one thing I don't get is the apparent total failure to cash in on the Chinese market. Ignoring the dodgy non-existent sponsor (wonder if we'll ever hear the true story about that) there doesn't seem to be a queue of Chinese companies trying to get themselves linked with us, and I've not seen any reports of, for instance, increased shirts sales in China. It would have cost  Gao millions to get us to the level where results won the pitch would start bringing in extra millions (i.e CL qualification) but I'd have thought it would have been relatively easy - and free - to increase our prescense in China with a bit of Gao inspired publicity/promotion, and with it extra commercial income and/or retail sails. Obviously not to the same income levels CL qualification would bring but it could have been enough to make a difference. I wonder if the average Chinese football fan is even aware that "one of their own" actually owns this EPL club.

Wasn't that part of the reason for pre-season tours to China? I think the issue is the Chinese government doesn't seem keen to allow Premier League football to be promoted at all, hence the ending of the TV contract.

[Wade Garrett]

What we need is a sports-mad multi-billionaire with more money than he could spend in 100 lifetimes and a connection to the area.

At the end of the day, you can’t take your dough with you.  Go for the challenge and enjoy the ride.

[JRM]

14 minutes ago, Depressed of Shirley said:

Wasn't that part of the reason for pre-season tours to China? I think the issue is the Chinese government doesn't seem keen to allow Premier League football to be promoted at all, hence the ending of the TV contract.

It's very complicated, Chinese investment pulled from the Premier league around the same time as UK Govt pulled out of Huawei deal, lots of politics involved. 

[Nordic Saint]

3 hours ago, benjii said:

She converted it to equity when she owned 100%, I recall. Therefore didn't gain anything as a result.

To the extent that the money improved the value of the club then, yeah, in theory she would get more back down the line but that's very tenuous in a business as viccisitudinous as football.

For all intents and purposes she wrote the debt off.

That's odd because it was reported at the time that the club had to pay back a loan with interest to Kat before Gao's takeover could go through.

[JustinSFC]

1 hour ago, Wade Garrett said:

What we need is a sports-mad multi-billionaire with more money than he could spend in 100 lifetimes and a connection to the area.

At the end of the day, you can’t take your dough with you.  Go for the challenge and enjoy the ride.

That's Jim Ratcliffe then.

He's been mentioned on here already.

But if that was genuine and there was anything in it, he wouldn't piss about, he'd just put the money down.

Gao's asking price is a drop in the bucket to him.
 

[stevy777_x]

2 hours ago, Wade Garrett said:

What we need is a sports-mad multi-billionaire with more money than he could spend in 100 lifetimes and a connection to the area.

At the end of the day, you can’t take your dough with you.  Go for the challenge and enjoy the ride.

Don t worry i intend to make a fortune in crypto currency.

See you in 10 years.

[Tamesaint]

Just an idea ....

Are we looking at this the wrong way? Semmens at the supporters evening talked about "investment". I, and I think most people, assume that this means a new owner buying 100% of the club but is it possible that someone could be interested in a minority interest -say acquiring 29% in return for their "investment" in the club.

Minority interests are often held by investors in non football businesses and in Kat we already have one minority shareholder. Could we end up with another?

 

[Badger]

2 hours ago, Tamesaint said:

Just an idea ....

Are we looking at this the wrong way? Semmens at the supporters evening talked about "investment". I, and I think most people, assume that this means a new owner buying 100% of the club but is it possible that someone could be interested in a minority interest -say acquiring 29% in return for their "investment" in the club.

Minority interests are often held by investors in non football businesses and in Kat we already have one minority shareholder. Could we end up with another?

 

Interesting point, but what would a minority investor gain from this and motivation be ? Putting money in whilst hamstrung by Gao in pushing the club forward. 

Unless it was a 'gradual' takeover, but that would rule out the serious buyer we're probably hoping for.

From fan point of view a triumvirate of Gao/KL/AN Other would be a concern, remember the last time we had the three wise men at the helm (Wilde, Lowe and Crouch - with apologies to Crouch for putting him in that bracket with the other two) ?

[Charlie Wayman]

20 minutes ago, Badger said:

Interesting point, but what would a minority investor gain from this and motivation be ? Putting money in whilst hamstrung by Gao in pushing the club forward. 

Unless it was a 'gradual' takeover, but that would rule out the serious buyer we're probably hoping for.

From fan point of view a triumvirate of Gao/KL/AN Other would be a concern, remember the last time we had the three wise men at the helm (Wilde, Lowe and Crouch - with apologies to Crouch for putting him in that bracket with the other two) ?

Hands off Leon Crouch, he was a true Saints through and through, not particularly deep pockets but he did what he could financially, his money kept us going at one stage. RIP

[Snopper]

1 hour ago, Charlie Wayman said:

Hands off Leon Crouch, he was a true Saints through and through, not particularly deep pockets but he did what he could financially, his money kept us going at one stage. RIP

Hear hear !!!!!

[Saint Garrett]

8 hours ago, Tamesaint said:

Just an idea ....

Are we looking at this the wrong way? Semmens at the supporters evening talked about "investment". I, and I think most people, assume that this means a new owner buying 100% of the club but is it possible that someone could be interested in a minority interest -say acquiring 29% in return for their "investment" in the club.

Minority interests are often held by investors in non football businesses and in Kat we already have one minority shareholder. Could we end up with another?

 

Maybe we should go to the Dragons Den and ask for some investment.

[Turkish]

8 hours ago, Saint Garrett said:

Maybe we should go to the Dragons Den and ask for some investment.

So you’re asking for a £200m investment, your P&L shows that you’ve got years of multi million pound losses, you’re in tens of millions of debt, a wage bill that is 70% of turnover, a load of useless staff that you can’t get rid of on big wages, declining income from crowds and the tv deal with a fickle customer base who are always moaning. You’re deluded, I’m out. 

Edited 23 June, 2021 by Turkish

[hypochondriac]

8 hours ago, Charlie Wayman said:

Hands off Leon Crouch, he was a true Saints through and through, not particularly deep pockets but he did what he could financially, his money kept us going at one stage. RIP

And he gave me £50 when I was collecting outside the ground for charity so he's a legend in my eyes. 

[Badger]

8 hours ago, Charlie Wayman said:

Hands off Leon Crouch, he was a true Saints through and through, not particularly deep pockets but he did what he could financially, his money kept us going at one stage. RIP

 

Hence the comment with apologies to Crouch for putting him in that bracket with the other two.

[killer fan]

Need this more than ever now 

[Matthew Le God]

2 minutes ago, killer fan said:

Need this more than ever now 

It would make little difference to Ings or Vestergaard staying or going. They want to play for European challenging teams.

Edited 5 July, 2021 by Matthew Le God

[S-Clarke]

4 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

It would make little difference to Ings or Vestergaard staying or going. They want to play for bigger clubs.

Not disagreeing with that, but it would give us more flexibility in being able to plan and evolve before their departures. Or build a more competitive squad that wouldn't feel Ings departure as much as this one would.

The overriding fact under Gao is that we cannot do anything until player x goes, you cannot run a club like that over a long period of time. I don't care what anyone says. That's not sustainable in my eyes, it's entirely unsustainable because you just get left well behind over a long period. It's like a slow death.

I want my club to be sustainable in a way that enables us to grow. I don't want to be a City or a Chelsea for example, I just want to know that my club is able to go and improve midfield or centre back in a transfer window if they feel they need to. But they can't without calculating who they have to sell first to make that happen.

Edited 5 July, 2021 by S-Clarke

[stevy777_x]

21 minutes ago, S-Clarke said:

Not disagreeing with that, but it would give us more flexibility in being able to plan and evolve before their departures. Or build a more competitive squad that wouldn't feel Ings departure as much as this one would.

The overriding fact under Gao is that we cannot do anything until player x goes, you cannot run a club like that over a long period of time. I don't care what anyone says. That's not sustainable in my eyes, it's entirely unsustainable because you just get left well behind over a long period. It's like a slow death.

I want my club to be sustainable in a way that enables us to grow. I don't want to be a City or a Chelsea for example, I just want to know that my club is able to go and improve midfield or centre back in a transfer window if they feel they need to. But they can't without calculating who they have to sell first to make that happen.

We shouldn t be in that position given we have cashflow through the loan we took.

[S-Clarke]

4 minutes ago, stevy777_x said:

We shouldn t be in that position given we have cashflow through the loan we took.

That loan wasn't just taken out for player trading, there's a lot more to a club than that. There are a lot of other bills which we also have to self generate funds for too, usually comes from gate receipts etc but obviously that dipped.

That loan, more than anything, is to have to cover the operational costs over the forthcoming years.

Edited 5 July, 2021 by S-Clarke

[MarkSFC]

3 minutes ago, S-Clarke said:

That loan wasn't just taken out for player trading, there's a lot more to a club than that. There are a lot of other costs which we also have to self generate too, usually comes from gate receipts etc but obviously that dipped.

That loan, more than anything, is to have to cover the operational costs over the forthcoming years.

Not forgetting the £111m from Premier League...

[verlaine1979]

32 minutes ago, MarkSFC said:

Not forgetting the £111m from Premier League...

Our wage bill is higher than our cut of the TV rights.

[MarkSFC]

1 minute ago, verlaine1979 said:

Our wage bill is higher than our cut of the TV rights.

Link? Thought it was 80-90m