Panorama 1997 - The Money Game

Could we approach the BBC to produce an update of this programme, championing our plight and who ruined our club??

Email panorama@bbc.co.uk folks....

---

SOUTHAMPTON

Steve Bradshaw

When Southampton Football Club was founded a

century ago it’s fans and owners assumed being a

director was a labour of love. It’s shares were valued

at a nominal pound each, but nobody dreamt they could

be a valuable investment.

A hundred years on the club was still a private

company but as TV and city money flooded into the

game and as football clubs began to consider floating

on the stock market, the real value of shares in

Southampton was harder to estimate.

Caption: Steve Bradshaw V/O

STILLS SEQUENCE In the nineties the directors of Southampton included a

close knit group of local businessmen, accountants

Guy Askham and Mike Richards, builder Brian Hunt

and solicitors Ian Gordan and Keith Wiseman, all these

directors held shares in the club and were happy to

obtain more, even though they insisted the shares

should still only be valued at a pound each. A five

percent stake in the club of two thousand five hundred

shares was held by George Bowyer, in nineteen ninety

one he faced bankruptcy. His shares were sold by an

insolvency practitioner who ran the club and was told

he would only get a pound each for them. Mr Bowyer

had thought they were worth much more, the shares

were bought by Andrew Hill, senior partner in a

Southampton property company.

Caption: George Bowyer

GEORGE BOWYER I do not see that they had to be sold at face value. If

that’s the case, then they’re valuing the whole club

then at about fifty thousand pounds which is ludicrous

in nineteen ninety one. And secondly they did not

have to sell them to Mr Andrew Hill, I mean my family

could have bought them in or what have you.

Steve Bradshaw

But Mr Hill didn’t hold on to George Bowyer’s shares.

George Bowyer

I then learned that Mr Hill then sells that pocket of two

thousand five hundred shares to five directors, they

being Mr Askham, Mr Richards, Mr Wiseman, Mr

Gordan and Mr Hunt who each bought five hundred

shares for five hundred pounds and I seriously believe

that they knew that they were getting shares at a

ludicrously cheap price.

Steve Bradshaw

Early this year the Club floated on the stock market by

the unusual device of merging with a retirement home

company. Each of the Southampton Directors’ one

pound shares were turned into three hundred and

twenty in the larger company, the share price increased

to one pound fifty when it floated.

Caption:

SKILLS SEQUENCE Steve Bradshaw V/O

The value of the director’s holdings had soared. Mr

Askham’s original three thousand five hundred pound

stake increased to one and a half million pounds. Mr

Richards two thousand six hundred and fifty pound

stake to just over a million pounds. And Mr Gordan’s,

and Mr Hunt’s and Mr Wiseman’s by the same

amount. Together they had bought their one quarter

stake for little more than fourteen thousand pounds, it

was now worth over six million pounds. Although

they argue the value of shares has since fallen and

there are restrictions on when directors can sell.

Caption: Guy Askham

GUY ASKHAM I would point out that I can’t sell the shares for a

Director, Southampton FC, ... period of up to six years and therefore it’s a long time

...1971-97 away before I can ever take the cash.

South Today Presenter

But still I mean it’s still worth a lot when you finally

do, you’ve got to admit a lot more than you put in.

Caption:

BBC South Today’ Guy Askham

21st February 1997 Yes it is, and there’s no way of denying that and I

would not deny it, it’s not what I wanted to achieve,

what we’re trying to achieve is taking this club

forward.

Steve Bradshaw

But the Club’s manager complained that while the

directors had made big fortunes, Southampton’s new

chairman had released too little money to spend on

players. In June Mr Souness resigned.

Caption: Graeme Souness

Graem Souness I would found it impossible to work with the people

2nd June 1997 who are now in charge of the club and that’s the

bottom line. They see the future very differently to the

way I see it.

Steve Bradshaw

One of the Southampton directors who profited was

Keith Wiseman, Mr Wiseman is also chairman of the

Football Association, whose own rules were so simply

and legally bypassed.

Caption: Richard Chorley

RICHARD CHORLEY I think the most worrying element of this whole sad

Southampton Independent story is the fact that Keith Wiseman, the Chairman of

Supporters Association the FA is a director of Southampton Football Club.

Now for a massive investment of two thousand pounds

in all of his years as a director, that man then sees

hundreds and hundreds of thousands of pounds of

profit when the club is floated, if people who run the

FA and those type of authorities. If those top people

can indulge in exercises like this I think that’s very

worrying for the future of football.

good idea imo

Pointless. Our current plight has nothing to do with us becoming a plc. In fact post 97 we improved our league position from being a perennial relegtion candiate to a top 10 team under Hoddle and WGS, built a stadium fitting of football in the 21st Century and reached a Cup final.

It's pointless trying to pin the blame for relgation on any one person, relegation is a fact of life in football and happens to three Prem teams every season. Take a look at the CCC table just about every club there has been relegted from the Prem at some point and in its history only two clubs apart from the Big 4 (Villa and Spurs have been PL everpresents. Relegation was always going to happen at some stage to a club of our size not bankrolled by a billionaire.

We are where we are now for one reason and one reason only, the HUGE disparity in TV revenue money from the Prem to the CCC. This means that any club relegation loses about 80% of its total revenue overnight. This means any and every established Prem club that gets relegated is going to struggle to avoid administration in subsequent years. Take a look at Leeds, Forest, Norwich, Charlton, etc. They all faced or are facing exactly the same problems as us but amazingly Lowe cannot be blamed for their fate.

IMHO, the only way to resolve this would be to have a PL2 and more evenly share the tv revenue between the two leagues. Ideally the big 4 could be kicked out to compete in a European Super League too and then we would have some competition as to who would win the PL each season....

Pointless. Our current plight has nothing to do with us becoming a plc. In fact post 97 we improved our league position from being a perennial relegtion candiate to a top 10 team under Hoddle and WGS, built a stadium fitting of football in the 21st Century and reached a Cup final.

 

It's pointless trying to pin the blame for relgation on any one person, relegation is a fact of life in football and happens to three Prem teams every season. Take a look at the CCC table just about every club there has been relegted from the Prem at some point and in its history only two clubs apart from the Big 4 (Villa and Spurs have been PL everpresents. Relegation was always going to happen at some stage to a club of our size not bankrolled by a billionaire.

 

We are where we are now for one reason and one reason only, the HUGE disparity in TV revenue money from the Prem to the CCC. This means that any club relegation loses about 80% of its total revenue overnight. This means any and every established Prem club that gets relegated is going to struggle to avoid administration in subsequent years. Take a look at Leeds, Forest, Norwich, Charlton, etc. They all faced or are facing exactly the same problems as us but amazingly Lowe cannot be blamed for their fate.

 

IMHO, the only way to resolve this would be to have a PL2 and more evenly share the tv revenue between the two leagues. Ideally the big 4 could be kicked out to compete in a European Super League too and then we would have some competition as to who would win the PL each season....

This is just about the most balanced post I have read on this site in many, many months. It is all true. Other clubs are in similar situations and Lowe hasn't been anywhere near them. Also very true is that we are just as much a part of the relegation process as any other team, but I think our long survival, much against the odds and impossible without MLT, has given many people an inflated opinion of our real standing.

Another thing to consider. Football has been going for many years and has year on year become a business where revenue being brought in is so important to a club to survive and further flourish. Maybe a portion of blame should be pointed in the direction of those that got us banned from European football for so long and those that ensured all seater stadium was introduced, whoever they were.

This is just about the most balanced post I have read on this site in many, many months. It is all true. Other clubs are in similar situations and Lowe hasn't been anywhere near them. Also very true is that we are just as much a part of the relegation process as any other team, but I think our long survival, much against the odds and impossible without MLT, has given many people an inflated opinion of our real standing.

 

Another thing to consider. Football has been going for many years and has year on year become a business where revenue being brought in is so important to a club to survive and further flourish. Maybe a portion of blame should be pointed in the direction of those that got us banned from European football for so long and those that ensured all seater stadium was introduced, whoever they were.

Yes I agree with you

If a team is relegated from the prem, how are the parachute payments structured????

Pointless. Our current plight has nothing to do with us becoming a plc. In fact post 97 we improved our league position from being a perennial relegtion candiate to a top 10 team under Hoddle and WGS, built a stadium fitting of football in the 21st Century and reached a Cup final.

 

It's pointless trying to pin the blame for relgation on any one person, relegation is a fact of life in football and happens to three Prem teams every season. Take a look at the CCC table just about every club there has been relegted from the Prem at some point and in its history only two clubs apart from the Big 4 (Villa and Spurs have been PL everpresents. Relegation was always going to happen at some stage to a club of our size not bankrolled by a billionaire.

 

We are where we are now for one reason and one reason only, the HUGE disparity in TV revenue money from the Prem to the CCC. This means that any club relegation loses about 80% of its total revenue overnight. This means any and every established Prem club that gets relegated is going to struggle to avoid administration in subsequent years. Take a look at Leeds, Forest, Norwich, Charlton, etc. They all faced or are facing exactly the same problems as us but amazingly Lowe cannot be blamed for their fate.

 

IMHO, the only way to resolve this would be to have a PL2 and more evenly share the tv revenue between the two leagues. Ideally the big 4 could be kicked out to compete in a European Super League too and then we would have some competition as to who would win the PL each season....

There's a lot of truth on there and I've posted many times saying that Lowe did well 1997-2003. What I do disagree with is that PLC status has had nothing to do with the current rot - the tangled web Askham left has made moving forward very hard and has left 3 people who cannot stand each other locked in to a bad situation whilst Askham and Wiseman cleaned up years ago. Nevertheless, football is in a very false period at the moment and I rue the day Ambramovich wheeled his dirty roubles into save Chelsea as this was a bad tipping point. PL greed had just about kept the lid on at that point and there were elements of meritocracy.

It may be pointless, but let us not forget where the poison started. Right there; and it was never more evident in George Bowyer's need to sell his shares. To me, what was done to him was twisted and disgusting.

If a team is relegated from the prem, how are the parachute payments structured????

The parachute payments help but by no means can compensate for losing most of a club's tv revenue.

In fact it could be argued they do more harm than good as the injection of funds allows a relegated team to go for a sh it or bust gamble in trying to get promoted in the first two seasons in the CCC but if this gamble fails they club is in even more trouble than before. This is exactly what we did in giving Burley 8m+ in our playoff season. That gamble failed which made things even worse for us.

If a team is relegated from the prem, how are the parachute payments structured????

When we were relegated, it was within the last TV rights deal, which was obviously worth significantly less than the current one. As such, all relegated teams received £6.7m per year for two years, after which they're on their own. The figure is now about £11m per year.

The idea of it is a fairly sound one, insomuch that it provides a bit of cash above what they would normally bring in at the lower level so that clubs don't have to immediately slash £25m from their cost base - it can then be done on a more gradual basis, which in theory maintains a little bit more stability.

Unfortunately, as once_bitterne rightly points out, most clubs see this as a set of chips to throw on red or black and continue paying Premier League wages for the duration of the parachute payment period, and then worry about cutting costs later.

The parachute payments would be a useful bridge for the gaping chasm between the Premier League and the Championship if the clubs receiving them used them in the right way. Very few clubs have done so, in my opinion.

 

Unfortunately, as once_bitterne rightly points out, most clubs see this as a set of chips to throw on red or black and continue paying Premier League wages for the duration of the parachute payment period, and then worry about cutting costs later.

 

The parachute payments would be a useful bridge for the gaping chasm between the Premier League and the Championship if the clubs receiving them used them in the right way. Very few clubs have done so, in my opinion.

I agree. Unfortunately fan pressure does not help clubs. Fans established Prem teams who get relegated want to see effort made to get straight back up. If a chairman took the decision to be careful with this cash and use it to secure the future of club from administration and not on some high priced players he will on a hiding to nothing from the fans.

I agree. Unfortunately fan pressure does not help clubs. Fans established Prem teams who get relegated want to see effort made to get straight back up. If a chairman took the decision to be careful with this cash and use it to secure the future of club from administration and not on some high priced players he will on a hiding to nothing from the fans.

I do agree that there's been a major drop in the patience and tolerance level of supporters up and down the country.

It's now pretty common for a new manager to be sacked after 12/13 games because the risk and outcome of not turning around a bad run of form is so stark, and because many fans, players and chairmen have often decided that they simply don't like a manager after 4 or 5 games and make things increasingly difficult for them, until the position becomes untenable.

If a team gets relegated and doesn't use the parachute money to attempt to get back up, the club's accused of lacking ambition, rather than looking at the bigger picture and ensuring the club is still in a position to survive over the next few years.

Pointless. Our current plight has nothing to do with us becoming a plc. In fact post 97 we improved our league position from being a perennial relegtion candiate to a top 10 team under Hoddle and WGS, built a stadium fitting of football in the 21st Century and reached a Cup final.

 

It's pointless trying to pin the blame for relgation on any one person, relegation is a fact of life in football and happens to three Prem teams every season. Take a look at the CCC table just about every club there has been relegted from the Prem at some point and in its history only two clubs apart from the Big 4 (Villa and Spurs have been PL everpresents. Relegation was always going to happen at some stage to a club of our size not bankrolled by a billionaire.

 

We are where we are now for one reason and one reason only, the HUGE disparity in TV revenue money from the Prem to the CCC. This means that any club relegation loses about 80% of its total revenue overnight. This means any and every established Prem club that gets relegated is going to struggle to avoid administration in subsequent years. Take a look at Leeds, Forest, Norwich, Charlton, etc. They all faced or are facing exactly the same problems as us but amazingly Lowe cannot be blamed for their fate.

 

IMHO, the only way to resolve this would be to have a PL2 and more evenly share the tv revenue between the two leagues. Ideally the big 4 could be kicked out to compete in a European Super League too and then we would have some competition as to who would win the PL each season....

True to a point.

So yes we were likely to go down, but why that season, what went wrong and will we learn from the mistakes for the future? (a rhetorical question!)

TV money is a massive reason why we are where we are. But given the cards we were dealt, we haven't played them as well as we might.

Where as i accept 'we are where we are' and we have to deal with that, aspiring for the best for the club is not a bad thing.

It may be pointless, but let us not forget where the poison started. Right there; and it was never more evident in George Bowyer's need to sell his shares. To me, what was done to him was twisted and disgusting.

Indeed. And it is a fact often overlooked in the history of this football club.

Lowe didn't stitch Bowyer up, but it appears that the others (many who now support Lowe and keep him in his job) did.

They sold this club down the river.

 

If a team gets relegated and doesn't use the parachute money to attempt to get back up, the club's accused of lacking ambition, rather than looking at the bigger picture and ensuring the club is still in a position to survive over the next few years.

But surely we have failed on both counts Steve???

It's all very well talking about the TV money as some kind of panacea but the fact of the matter is that many Prem clubs are deep in the kaka and getting deeper by the day. The TV money isn't going to answer all their prayers.

Leeds has been viewed as a bit of an exception, which in many ways it was, so the available lessons were never really learned. If we were to go into administration we may well see other (and bigger) clubs follow quite quickly as debt holders start to panic about the ability of current management to meet obligations. This is how the world started to fall apart for companies in the financial sector.

Panorama's interest will not be in us so much as in the possibility that we could be the first of many.

 

The parachute payments would be a useful bridge for the gaping chasm between the Premier League and the Championship if the clubs receiving them used them in the right way. Very few clubs have done so, in my opinion.

IMO, This year has seen two clubs buck a trend and actually use the parachute payments in the right way, By these I mean Birmingham and Reading, they're both competing at the top

Pointless. Our current plight has nothing to do with us becoming a plc. In fact post 97 we improved our league position from being a perennial relegtion candiate to a top 10 team under Hoddle and WGS, built a stadium fitting of football in the 21st Century and reached a Cup final.

You make some interesting points, but I have to dispell this myth that we were a top 10 side.....

1997 = 17th

1998 = 12th

1999 = 17th

2000 = 15th

2001 = 10th

2002 = 11th

2003 = 8th

2004 = 12th

2005 = 20th

In those 9 seasons we finished 8th once and 10th once, so we were definately not a top 10 side only finishing in the top 10 twice. In 5 of those seasons we finished 15th or below, so a lower to mid table side would be a more accurate description.

We also finished twice inside the top 10 in the previous 9 years (88-96), so were we a top 10 side then?

We certainly were in the 8 seasons to 1988 with 5 top 10 finishes.

Not quite on subject, but bear with me: Larry Ellison (the 14th richest man in the world according to Forbes magazine back in August, CEO of Oracle), sailed into Auckland today on his superyacht. I thought I would look him up on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Ellison), and after listing his career, wives (4 at last count), and interests - especially sailing, I fell off my chair when I read:

"Sports

Ellison has been rebuffed in his attempts to buy the Golden State Warriors and the San Francisco 49ers. He is now pursuing ownership of a potential future NFL franchise in Los Angeles as well as a possible investment into British soccer team Southampton FC.[citation needed]"

In Wikipedia world presumably "citation needed" means that the source is unattributed; even so, this could be the start of a great rumour. Who was that other American computer software chappie who wanted to buy Saints for no other reason than it would be a good place to park his boat? Anyway, I'm looking forward to us putting in a bid for Kaka, Hampshire is so much more congenial than Manchester. If I bump into the great man over the next few days I shall quiz him on his knowledge of past Saints greats, to see if he is "a fit and proper person" to take over our club.

You make some interesting points, but I have to dispell this myth that we were a top 10 side.....

I have to agree.

9 seasons prior to Lowe 87/88 - 95/96 - Average position 13.8

9 seaons with Lowe 97/98 - 05/06 - Average position 15.2

Lowe did many good things for this Club, and during the first part of his tenure he and others were responsible for dragging this Club into the 21st Century, I actually think we skipped the 20th century altogether when we were at The Dell!!! (and he was well lauded and paid for those results).

He of course lost his way in the latter part of that tenure (which is why I have a problem with our relegation) and he has failed to show this time around that he has regained his touch.

I fully accept relegation is a part of the meritocracy of football, but that doesn't mean you overlook problems, issues and mistakes that may have contributed to it.

Indeed, by ignoring those problems, issues and mistakes and by just putting it down to an "it had to happen" mentality, there is every chance of repeating those mistakes.

And of course our main problem was surrounding the appointment and retention of managers/Head Coaches. Of course there were other issues (injuries, loss of form, outside influences), but IMHO the mistakes with the single most important person at the Club were the decisive factor.

And when you fast forward to this season, it would appear that the lessons of those mistakes still have not be learnt. Once again we have an inexperienced, underperforming Head Coach who is in all likelihood going to have to be removed after placing on us in the relegation zone (just as Wigley did).

Some good points about the inherent problems of modern day football, particularly te fall out form the Premier League, but I didn't here us moaning that much when we were eating at the top table!!!

I think it will have to take something major to happen to correct the inequalities and inadequacies of the current footballing period, but I just can't see that happening as there are too many I'm all right Jack's running football.

When we were relegated, it was within the last TV rights deal, which was obviously worth significantly less than the current one. As such, all relegated teams received £6.7m per year for two years, after which they're on their own. The figure is now about £11m per year.

 

The idea of it is a fairly sound one, insomuch that it provides a bit of cash above what they would normally bring in at the lower level so that clubs don't have to immediately slash £25m from their cost base - it can then be done on a more gradual basis, which in theory maintains a little bit more stability.

 

Unfortunately, as once_bitterne rightly points out, most clubs see this as a set of chips to throw on red or black and continue paying Premier League wages for the duration of the parachute payment period, and then worry about cutting costs later.

 

The parachute payments would be a useful bridge for the gaping chasm between the Premier League and the Championship if the clubs receiving them used them in the right way. Very few clubs have done so, in my opinion.

Here's a question for you Steve.

A club gets relegated and therefore is entitled to two years parachute payment - but they go straight back up in their first season - do they still get that 2nd year parachute payment despite being back in the Prem? I asked LC and LM but neither knew.

Once Bitterne makes some valid points. Listening to the Burnley v Spurs game last night it struck me how it is virtually impossibe these days to nurture and build a good young side under a talented young manager because as soon as you get any good a mega rich club like Spurs will come riding over the hill to poach either the manager or any player that is half decent. Prem clubs seem to plunder just for the hell of it - after all they can always loan these players out or shove them in the reserves and use them for the odd inconsequential European fixture.

Look at Wigan and that Palacious (or whatever his name is) half a good season and HR throws £15m at him. Look at Heskey already discarded by the elite once, he then picks up his career at Wigan and was probably grateful they were interested but now he's going back to the club that once turned his back on him.

I am surprised Villa haven't forked out £10 m on Crouch this January having once let him go to us for peanuts.

Here's a question for you Steve.

A club gets relegated and therefore is entitled to two years parachute payment - but they go straight back up in their first season - do they still get that 2nd year parachute payment despite being back in the Prem? I asked LC and LM but neither knew.

 

Once Bitterne makes some valid points. Listening to the Burnley v Spurs game last night it struck me how it is virtually impossibe these days to nurture and build a good young side under a talented young manager because as soon as you get any good a mega rich club like Spurs will come riding over the hill to poach either the manager or any player that is half decent. Prem clubs seem to plunder just for the hell of it - after all they can always loan these players out or shove them in the reserves and use them for the odd inconsequential European fixture.

 

Look at Wigan and that Palacious (or whatever his name is) half a good season and HR throws £15m at him. Look at Heskey already discarded by the elite once, he then picks up his career at Wigan and was probably grateful they were interested but now he's going back to the club that once turned his back on him.

 

I am surprised Villa haven't forked out £10 m on Crouch this January having once let him go to us for peanuts.

Yes the point you are making is very valid

Wigan with £14m are now looking at Steve Hunt at Reading which is not going to please Mr Coppell and harm their promotion prospects

Not quite on subject, but bear with me: Larry Ellison (the 14th richest man in the world according to Forbes magazine back in August, CEO of Oracle), sailed into Auckland today on his superyacht. I thought I would look him up on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Ellison), and after listing his career, wives (4 at last count), and interests - especially sailing, I fell off my chair when I read:

 

"Sports

Ellison has been rebuffed in his attempts to buy the Golden State Warriors and the San Francisco 49ers. He is now pursuing ownership of a potential future NFL franchise in Los Angeles as well as a possible investment into British soccer team Southampton FC.[citation needed]"

 

In Wikipedia world presumably "citation needed" means that the source is unattributed; even so, this could be the start of a great rumour. Who was that other American computer software chappie who wanted to buy Saints for no other reason than it would be a good place to park his boat? Anyway, I'm looking forward to us putting in a bid for Kaka, Hampshire is so much more congenial than Manchester. If I bump into the great man over the next few days I shall quiz him on his knowledge of past Saints greats, to see if he is "a fit and proper person" to take over our club.

There are two good reasons why he would be a fit and proper person to take over Saints that immediately spring to mind. Firstly he is stinking rich. Secondly, he is not Rupert Lowe.

It may be pointless, but let us not forget where the poison started. Right there; and it was never more evident in George Bowyer's need to sell his shares. To me, what was done to him was twisted and disgusting.

I don't blame Lowe for happened to George Bowyer but I do blame grubby men like Askham, Richards, Wiseman et al. The fact Askham is STILL involved actually sickens me. It's very rare I say something this severe but we're stuck with Askham until he finally drops off of his perch.

Who reckons the grubby men mentioned above wanted a similar payout from Paul Allen who then scarpered along with any chance of us being good again?

Who reckons the grubby men mentioned above wanted a similar payout from Paul Allen who then scarpered along with any chance of us being good again?

You can bet your bottom dollar the weasels at the club wanted their filthy hands greased handsomely by anyone who would come sniffing. That is they sole (or more appriately souless) aim, to make money out of SFC, and as much of it as they possibly can. They have ruined the club for all Sotonians for ever.