Summer Transfer Window 2021

[sadoldgit]

1 minute ago, Roo1976 said:

Unless say Watford go £20m final offer then we will see if we are in the running.

We are the only club to make an offer for Armstrong so far apparently. Can’t see JWP going to Villa unless silly money is involved.

[Sir Ralph]

2 hours ago, SuperSAINT said:

 

Imagine losing Vestegaard, Ings and JWP this summer................

Edited 30 July, 2021 by Sir Ralph

[SuperSAINT]

3 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Imagine losing Vestegaard, Ings and JWP this summer................

Right down the spine.

[Uncle Albert]

19 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Imagine losing Vestegaard, Ings and JWP this summer................

Unlikely IMO 

[stevy777_x]

25 minutes ago, SuperSAINT said:

Right down the spine.

Sell JWP and Vestergaard, we badly need some reivestment to refresh and reshape our squad.

[TWar]

34 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Imagine losing Vestegaard, Ings and JWP this summer................

This is why we won't imo. If we weren't losing Vest and Ings this summer (or at best next summer) we might consider big bids for JWP around £50m but I think he won't be for sale even at that as we can't lose all our important players at once, and JWP is our most important by a good margin.

[egg]

37 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

Imagine losing Vestegaard, Ings and JWP this summer................

It would leave gaping holes like Shearer, Ruddock and Horne in 1992.

Personally, I think Vestergaard and Ings are inevitable if sensible offers come in. JWP is possible if a big offer is received. 

[stevy777_x]

15 minutes ago, egg said:

It would leave gaping holes like Shearer, Ruddock and Horne in 1992.

Personally, I think Vestergaard and Ings are inevitable if sensible offers come in. JWP is possible if a big offer is received. 

I look forward to a big bid for JWP. He s replaceable and the money will allow us to get players we have struggled to get thus far.

Sell high buy low.

[egg]

7 minutes ago, stevy777_x said:

I look forward to a big bid for JWP. He s replaceable and the money will allow us to get players we have struggled to get thus far.

Sell high buy low.

I'm not his biggest fan, but I wouldn't want to lose him plus the other two in the same window. 

[TWar]

11 minutes ago, stevy777_x said:

I look forward to a big bid for JWP. He s replaceable and the money will allow us to get players we have struggled to get thus far.

Sell high buy low.

I'm a big proponent of buy low sell high but I don't think this is JWP peak. I back him to have a great season, keep improving, maybe make the England squad, and be a great asset next year at 27 with 3 years left on his contract. There is more growth in him.

[Dellman]

JWP is the heart of the team and what's more he stays fit, he's under rated and would be replaced by an incomer who can't be expected to have the same club loyalty. 

[Sir Ralph]

If you could get  £40 - £50 for JWP, this is a substantial amount. For example (and I know this is a bit Football Manager) but based on press reports you could buy Armstrong £15m, Delaney £10m and Edouard £20m. So if we got that type of money would it be that bad, if we could but quality to replace and expand the squad? I appreciate there are wage considerations in that comparison too.

Edited 30 July, 2021 by Sir Ralph

[Lighthouse]

8 minutes ago, Dellman said:

JWP is the heart of the team and what's more he stays fit, he's under rated and would be replaced by an incomer who can't be expected to have the same club loyalty. 

But if that same money bought a mediocre replacement, a reasonable goalscorer and some cover at fullback, we'd be better as a squad.

[Sir Ralph]

Another thought - Villa paid £33m plus £5m add ons for Buendia (£38m in total). If thats his value, they must at least pay £50m for JWP or our Board will have negotiated badly compared to Delia.

[Baird of the land]

11 minutes ago, Sir Ralph said:

If you could get  £40 - £50 for JWP, this is a substantial amount. For example (and I know this is a bit Football Manager) but based on press reports you could buy Armstrong £15m, Delaney £10m and Edouard £20m. So if we got that type of money would it be that bad, if we could but quality to replace and expand the squad? I appreciate there are wage considerations in that comparison too.

Excluding other important factors and just talking of finances. The instant you accepted that fee(low fee imo), the prices for any replacements would go up x% as teams would know they can get some of that cash, so you’d get less with it.

[Sir Ralph]

2 minutes ago, Baird of the land said:

Excluding other important factors and just talking of finances. The instant you accepted that fee(low fee imo), the prices for any replacements would go up x% as teams would know they can get some of that cash, so you’d get less with it.

Fair point 

[DT]

Ward Prowse ‘a doubt’ for today’s game. Uh huh. 

[Matthew Le God]

1 minute ago, DT said:

Ward Prowse ‘a doubt’ for today’s game. Uh huh. 

He missed the Cardiff game for the same reason. Which came before the Villa bid. He is still at the training camping South Wales and went to the Cardiff match.

[Saint_clark]

Be a shame if he's injured for the start of the season breaking his appearances streak.

[Turkish]

15 minutes ago, DT said:

Ward Prowse ‘a doubt’ for today’s game. Uh huh. 

He’s on strike

[egg]

14 hours ago, Sir Ralph said:

Another thought - Villa paid £33m plus £5m add ons for Buendia (£38m in total). If thats his value, they must at least pay £50m for JWP or our Board will have negotiated badly compared to Delia.

 

14 hours ago, Baird of the land said:

Excluding other important factors and just talking of finances. The instant you accepted that fee(low fee imo), the prices for any replacements would go up x% as teams would know they can get some of that cash, so you’d get less with it.

I think we all need to accept that there'll be a big sale at some point without any reinvestment of the funds...there's no other source of capital to clear down the loan. 

[TWar]

29 minutes ago, egg said:

 

I think we all need to accept that there'll be a big sale at some point without any reinvestment of the funds...there's no other source of capital to clear down the loan. 

The loan doesn't need to be paid for 5 years (4 years now) and will be paid off with ticket sales/TV money. Semmens said repeatedly the loan will not be paid back with transfer budget and is not due any time soon so people need to stop worrying about it.

[egg]

Just now, TWar said:

The loan doesn't need to be paid for 5 years (4 years now) and will be paid off with ticket sales/TV money. Semmens said repeatedly the loan will not be paid back with transfer budget and is not due any time soon so people need to stop worrying about it.

I keep hearing this. It's wrong. The interest on the loan is about 10% pa, and to say that the 'TV money' will be set aside for anything is a fallacy. According to people on here, the TV money will pay wages, buy players, and now it'll apparently be saved up to pay a loan in 4 years. The mind boggles.

All businesses, and households, have a total income. From that they pay everything. The 'TV money' isn't earmarked for anything. It goes in the income pot which isn't big enough to meet our outgoings - read the accounts.

Whether you like to hear it or not, we're screwed financially and need injections of capital to keep going. The loan was last year...it'll need repayment (and the interest serviced) and we'll have the ongoing shortfall to address. Gao ain't got the dollars, tinpot bookmaker sponsors won't address it, continuous loans isn't the solution. Sales are the only solution sadly.

 

[tajjuk]

19 minutes ago, egg said:

It goes in the income pot which isn't

That would suggest the club has not been running at a loss for years, which iirc it hasn't, the only issue is covid and the lack of gate receipts/match day income. 

We've also quite heavily reduced the wage bill this summer, possibly as much as £250 - 300k a week compared to the last few years.  Also as far as I have seen we haven't actually spent the loan, multiple times it's been said it's there as a contingency because of the uncertainty around covid and the drop in match day revenue with no idea how long that might have gone on for. 

So your post makes no sense, we need to sell to pay off a loan we haven't spent and to cover our losses that going forward we won't have? 

[Suhari]

1 hour ago, Turkish said:

He’s on strike

#trusttheprocess

 

[egg]

9 minutes ago, tajjuk said:

That would suggest the club has not been running at a loss for years, which iirc it hasn't, the only issue is covid and the lack of gate receipts/match day income. 

We've also quite heavily reduced the wage bill this summer, possibly as much as £250 - 300k a week compared to the last few years.  Also as far as I have seen we haven't actually spent the loan, multiple times it's been said it's there as a contingency because of the uncertainty around covid and the drop in match day revenue with no idea how long that might have gone on for. 

So your post makes no sense, we need to sell to pay off a loan we haven't spent and to cover our losses that going forward we won't have? 

Have you read our accounts, and the very helpful summary someone posted recently? If you haven't, I'd recommend it. The explanation is all there. 

The simple explanation is that we spend more than we generate before player trading. Please explain where that shortfall is coming from if it's not the loan. 

No business can consistently spend more than it earns. Its a simple concept. 

[igsey]

37 minutes ago, egg said:

I keep hearing this. It's wrong. The interest on the loan is about 10% pa, and to say that the 'TV money' will be set aside for anything is a fallacy. According to people on here, the TV money will pay wages, buy players, and now it'll apparently be saved up to pay a loan in 4 years. The mind boggles.

All businesses, and households, have a total income. From that they pay everything. The 'TV money' isn't earmarked for anything. It goes in the income pot which isn't big enough to meet our outgoings - read the accounts.

Whether you like to hear it or not, we're screwed financially and need injections of capital to keep going. The loan was last year...it'll need repayment (and the interest serviced) and we'll have the ongoing shortfall to address. Gao ain't got the dollars, tinpot bookmaker sponsors won't address it, continuous loans isn't the solution. Sales are the only solution sadly.

 

I'm going to go ahead and guess the club has more qualified accountants than you, I'm sure they will have been sensible in taking out a loan like this.

Also the comparison with household finances is misguided as I'm sure you're aware. Many businesses run at a loss including lots of football clubs. We're not going to go hungry if our numbers aren't in the black at the end of the month.

[egg]

5 minutes ago, igsey said:

I'm going to go ahead and guess the club has more qualified accountants than you, I'm sure they will have been sensible in taking out a loan like this.

Also the comparison with household finances is misguided as I'm sure you're aware. Many businesses run at a loss including lots of football clubs. We're not going to go hungry if our numbers aren't in the black at the end of the month.

I have no issue with the clubs financial people, I know one of them. Very bright guy. However, the issue is the fans who think that the 'TV money' will pay the wages, service the loans interest, buy players, run the club, etc. Fortunately the clubs accounts people understand that more money going out than is coming in doesn't work, hence the loan. These people will also understand that to be unsustainable. 

If people want to delude themselves that we can sell and spend all that money on new players, that's a matter for them. The reality though is that we cannot afford to do that. 

[northam soul]

And to think we went into administration for owing what 3.5 million.

The club always says that what we receive in transfers we spend but we will definitely need extra to service this loan

[tajjuk]

29 minutes ago, egg said:

Have you read our accounts, and the very helpful summary someone posted recently? If you haven't, I'd recommend it. The explanation is all there. 

The simple explanation is that we spend more than we generate before player trading. Please explain where that shortfall is coming from if it's not the loan. 

No business can consistently spend more than it earns. Its a simple concept. 

The accounts show we have spent the loan do they? The accounts for a period impacted by Covid? Yeh it's pretty irrelevant because it's already been said that the accounting period will be extended over a longer period anyway, so we won't get a true picture for a while. Are the accounts covering the wages now saved with the expensive flops of the books? Nope.

But as someone above said, are you an accountant? do you have in depth knowledge of football finances and accounting? No, but you seem to think you can make blanket and final statements on very little. 

 

Edited 31 July, 2021 by tajjuk

[egg]

3 minutes ago, tajjuk said:

The accounts show we have spent the loan do they? The accounts for a period impacted by Covid? Yeh it's pretty irrelevant because it's already been said that the accounting period will be extended over a longer period anyway, so we won't get a true picture for a while. Are the accounts covering the wages now saved with the expensive flops of the books? Nope.

But as someone above said, are you an accountant? do you have in depth knowledge of football finances and accounting? No, but you seem to think you can make blanket and final statements on very little. 

 

Read the accounts mate. What am I and what I do is irrelevant, although I look at and consider account's of businesses every day. 

If it puts a spring in your step to believe that our club is on secure financial footing and can reinvest all its player sales monies on new ones, and that the 'TV money' is all we need, then I'm pleased for you. I'll continue to be realistic. 

[S-Clarke]

I don't think we're up financial shit creek per-say, I just think we're struggling as are most clubs with the huge losses.

I'd say the difference between Leeds, Villa and Everton to an extent is is that they have ownership to offset those losses slightly. We don't even have that. We have an owner with no ability to offset any of our losses, so we have no external investment what so ever bar TV Money, sponsorships and player trading. Those external payments have to service everything from stadium upkeep, staplewood costs, day to day business costs etc. 

For a club of our size...the only way we can really operate at this level is to have shit hot scouting and shit hot coaching, we cannot afford to make big mistakes and big gambles with transfers. Our ideal model means you can buy a player for £10m - sell him in 2 years for £50m etc. or Develop young players for 'free' and sell them for multi million pounds. We're not a massive club and without ownership investment then this is the model we have to follow in order to be 'successful' - but 3 or 4 horrific transfer windows have totally killed us dead. We cannot move.

We just need to bide our time and see where we are in a couple of years, if our scouting has improved them we may be able to sell a Diallo, Salisu or Perrud for those big, big fees that will allow us to compete more. And we may even have new ownership, which is more important than some realise.

Edited 31 July, 2021 by S-Clarke

[FarehamSaintJames]

10 minutes ago, S-Clarke said:

I don't think we're up financial shit creek per-say, I just think we're struggling as are most clubs with the huge losses.

I'd say the difference between Leeds, Villa and Everton to an extent is is that they have ownership to offset those losses slightly. We don't even have that. We have an owner with no ability to offset any of our losses, so we have no external investment what so ever bar TV Money, sponsorships and player trading. Those external payments have to service everything from stadium upkeep, staplewood costs, day to day business costs etc. 

For a club of our size...the only way we can really operate at this level is to have shit hot scouting and shit hot coaching, we cannot afford to make big mistakes and big gambles with transfers. Our ideal model means you can buy a player for £10m - sell him in 2 years for £50m etc. or Develop young players for 'free' and sell them for multi million pounds. We're not a massive club and without ownership investment then this is the model we have to follow in order to be 'successful' - but 3 or 4 horrific transfer windows have totally killed us dead. We cannot move.

We just need to bide our time and see where we are in a couple of years, if our scouting has improved them we may be able to sell a Diallo, Salisu or Perrud for those big, big fees that will allow us to compete more. And we may even have new ownership, which is more important than some realise.

Our opportunity to take the next step as per was when we finished sixth.

We choked when paying out on some contracts, should’ve just paid Koeman the extra money. Hindsight and all that.

[SuperSAINT]

 

[JRM]

1 hour ago, egg said:

I keep hearing this. It's wrong. The interest on the loan is about 10% pa, and to say that the 'TV money' will be set aside for anything is a fallacy. According to people on here, the TV money will pay wages, buy players, and now it'll apparently be saved up to pay a loan in 4 years. The mind boggles.

All businesses, and households, have a total income. From that they pay everything. The 'TV money' isn't earmarked for anything. It goes in the income pot which isn't big enough to meet our outgoings - read the accounts.

Whether you like to hear it or not, we're screwed financially and need injections of capital to keep going. The loan was last year...it'll need repayment (and the interest serviced) and we'll have the ongoing shortfall to address. Gao ain't got the dollars, tinpot bookmaker sponsors won't address it, continuous loans isn't the solution. Sales are the only solution sadly.

 

I think you're right, our income only just  covers the wages, not much left for paying off a loan or new signings. 

[S-Clarke]

8 minutes ago, FarehamSaintJames said:

Our opportunity to take the next step as per was when we finished sixth.

We choked when paying out on some contracts, should’ve just paid Koeman the extra money. Hindsight and all that.

I don't think it was just a case of us needing to pay Koeman the money, the club as a whole got full of it's self. Believed it's own hype, got carried away on the black box train. Thought we could unearth the next super star manager etc etc.

We did have the ability in those days to spend decent money on players because we hadn't previously saddled ourselves with crap (And we had lots of good players already here who we were able to sell for big money). Sadly we then went on a campaign of messing up every.single.major transfer we made in that period. Boufal - failed, given away on a free. Hoedt - failed, given away on a free. Carillo - failed, given away on a free. Just there alone is around 45-50m of player we paid for...and didn't see a penny return financially or even on the pitch. That's what's killed us.

Things have improved since in relation to Diallo, KWP, Ings, Adams etc...but significant damage was done in those proceeding years by Reed and co who really should be held accountable for gross negligence.

I've always felt that Ralph is the right man but at the wrong time. Just think of the money we handed Mark Hughes, Puel, Pellegrino and look at the constraints a much better manager has to operate under. It's very frustrating. But again, that's all mistakes of the past.

Edited 31 July, 2021 by S-Clarke

[Badger]

3 hours ago, Matthew Le God said:

He missed the Cardiff game for the same reason. Which came before the Villa bid. He is still at the training camping South Wales and went to the Cardiff match.

Not sure you can read too much into this, the Cardiff match was before the story of the Villa bid was leaked, or made it to the press/media, but we don't really know when the (presumably first) bid was made. It's still quite possible that there have been some rumblings/discussions in the background involving JWP/ his agent and the club.

The other unknown in all this is anything in JWP's contract regarding releasing him, or notifying of any bids.

[Badger]

38 minutes ago, SuperSAINT said:

 

Ralph relying on the recruitment team getting deals done. Having options we're interested in is a long way from getting the deals signed and sealed.

Anyone know who is responsible for closing deals now ? An area we seem to fall short in for whatever reason.

[DT]

39 minutes ago, Badger said:

Not sure you can read too much into this, the Cardiff match was before the story of the Villa bid was leaked, or made it to the press/media, but we don't really know when the (presumably first) bid was made. It's still quite possible that there have been some rumblings/discussions in the background involving JWP/ his agent and the club.

The other unknown in all this is anything in JWP's contract regarding releasing him, or notifying of any bids.

I suspect they will be saying to him he would have played at the euros if he was at Villa. And they’d probably be right. Also, bags more money, and we’re broke. I reckon he’s off. Big loss. (If so)

[woodsaint1]

20 minutes ago, DT said:

I suspect they will be saying to him he would have played at the euros if he was at Villa. And they’d probably be right. Also, bags more money, and we’re broke. I reckon he’s off. Big loss. (If so)

I cant see him going anywhere for anything less than £50m, and I cant see Villa stumping up that much imo

[Hodgey]

Back to the £79m loan - nobody knows exactly where the club are financially as any company can skew accounts with accruals etc. What we do know is we took out a £79m loan at 9 pc - so interest alone in 5 yrs is £42.5m. Clearly no sane person who didn’t need that cash for something wouldn’t take it out. We also know the club made a £76m loss last year and £34m the year before, they made a £29m profit the year before that due to VVD transfer. So yes COVID had a big effect but according to accounts we have made consistent losses the last few years save for the VVD year.

Now it could be that some of that loan is earmarked for player investment and not servicing outgoings / debt but the facts above dispute that. I guess we will see post this window but it suggests we need to have made savings / new income streams of £35m a year + £7.5m a year debt interest to break even.

It all looks precarious and short term to me - ie keep the club afloat and in the Prem league until someone buys us who can at least clear that £79m loan. That’s not a dig at the club btw - many similar clubs are in the same boat, but it is reality. If we go down then bankruptcy is a very real prospect so stakes are high.

Successfull player trading over the next few years is crucial

[Lee On Solent Saint]

31 minutes ago, DT said:

I suspect they will be saying to him he would have played at the euros if he was at Villa. And they’d probably be right. Also, bags more money, and we’re broke. I reckon he’s off. Big loss. (If so)

Not sure that playing for Villa would have made any difference. Watkins didn't get selected and he had a decent season. Probably more deserving than Calvert Lewin.

[Badger]

1 minute ago, woodsaint1 said:

I cant see him going anywhere for anything less than £50m, and I cant see Villa stumping up that much imo

Might depend on any agreement we have with him for bids over a specified amount.

Even without any clauses though this is Saints we're talking of, not sure if the current set up (Semmens, Crocker, whoever) have the resolve to brazen it out and get a good deal. In my view it should be upwards of £50m given the likely transfer market this summer and amounts touted (someone else made a good point about Buendia at £33m) but suspect Saints board will cave in at £35/40m leaving little time to replace.

[miserableoldgit]

https://www.hampshirelive.news/sport/football/transfer-news/manchester-city-transfer-southampton-defender-5722567

[ErwinK1961]

16 minutes ago, Badger said:

Might depend on any agreement we have with him for bids over a specified amount.

Even without any clauses though this is Saints we're talking of, not sure if the current set up (Semmens, Crocker, whoever) have the resolve to brazen it out and get a good deal. In my view it should be upwards of £50m given the likely transfer market this summer and amounts touted (someone else made a good point about Buendia at £33m) but suspect Saints board will cave in at £35/40m leaving little time to replace.

Can I ask what that is based on? Not seen much evidence of that so far. I would say we've generally been pretty good at getting good fees for players dating back to Les Reed's days.

[Diabolus Ex Machina]

3 hours ago, egg said:

Have you read our accounts, and the very helpful summary someone posted recently? If you haven't, I'd recommend it. The explanation is all there. 

The simple explanation is that we spend more than we generate before player trading. Please explain where that shortfall is coming from if it's not the loan. 

No business can consistently spend more than it earns. Its a simple concept. 

Actually the accounts say we normally make a slight profit before player trading most seasons - the exception being last year due to the impact of covid which will also presumably be the case with the next set of accounts where I would expect to see another loss. The reason we have had such exceptionally large losses the last couple of years though is because we have also had a large negative net spend on player trading (-£32.8m in 2018/19 and -£49.7m in 2019/20).

We don't know how the loan is being used currently or how much of it and again will have to wait for the next set of accounts early next year. If there's a large amount of it left and we're happy that incomes will improve with fans back in stadiums we may pay a bulk sum off to reduce repayments. How we deal with the rest of the repayments remains to be seen, player sales is a possibility but not the only one. There may be other refinancing options or what I suspect more is we will try and kick the can down the road until we can get a new owner and then pass it onto them which we then pay back to them interest free over a longer period.

Considering our two biggest sources of losses are wages (which we've been reducing getting rid of some of the deadwood) and player amortisation (basically the money wasted from having players under contract but not used - also something we've dealt with by getting rid of the likes of Lemina, Gunn & Hoedt and bringing Mo back into the fold), I think the expected losses won't be as bad as many think they will.

I don't think we're under any sort of financial danger in the near future though I also don't expect the whole situation to be resolved until we get new ownership. Just don't expect us to make any expensive signings as that is what will really put us into a hole financially.

[Roo1976]

On 30/07/2021 at 18:42, egg said:

I'm not his biggest fan, but I wouldn't want to lose him plus the other two in the same window. 

If we have suitable players lined up then its going to be inevitable surely. But then you cant quite tell whats really going on in the background can we.

[Chez]

9 hours ago, TWar said:

The loan doesn't need to be paid for 5 years (4 years now) and will be paid off with ticket sales/TV money. Semmens said repeatedly the loan will not be paid back with transfer budget and is not due any time soon so people need to stop worrying about it.

in five years time, unless we have made payments it will be well over £100m. Imagine going down with that millstone round our neck.

No matter how you put it, the budget (wages and transfer fees) is less if you have to pay £10m??? each year on repayments that you didn't before. 

[Chez]

7 minutes ago, Roo1976 said:

If we have suitable players lined up then its going to be inevitable surely. But then you cant quite tell whats really going on in the background can we.

the fact we are linked to midfielders but keep saying we are not signing one, suggests we will play hard ball with Villa over JWP, but eventually sell, probably two minutes after announcing a new midfielder.

[Lighthouse]

6 minutes ago, Chez said:

in five years time, unless we have made payments it will be well over £100m. Imagine going down with that millstone round our neck.

No matter how you put it, the budget (wages and transfer fees) is less if you have to pay £10m??? each year on repayments that you didn't before. 

£10m a year is nothing these days. Hoedt, Lemina and Bertrand must have been on roughly that, combined.