Redslo

While it is theoretically possible that there is something wrong with Southampton's financials, this guy's reasons for concern do not seem valid. He claims that Southampton reported "a large cash profit" and then questions why a loan would have been necessary. In fact, Southampton reported a large paper profit. Many expenses would have been paid in cash, but those costs, for accounting purposes would have been amortized or depreciated over a number of years. On the other hand, profits from player sales may have been booked when made but the money might not come in until later. The training facility, for example, undoubtedly resulted in millions of pounds of cash spent in 2013-2014, but that cost would have to be depreciated over many years--in effect artificially shifting the profit into the year the cash was spent. Loans may very well have been necessary to cover the expenses when they occurred. Also, as I stated before, given the FFP rules, it may make sense to characterize a transaction as a loan from the owner even if she plans to convert it into equity later because the FFP rules only allow a limited amount of such conversions to offset losses in any given year. Better to hold off on the conversion to a year where there are losses to offset rather than do it in a year where a profit is shown. I cannot speak to whether Blick is biased against current management due to his association with prior management.

I was mistaken. In the last three years the reports were published in the first week of April.

I just posted "I Make Predictions (Round 31)"

New work permit rules in effect May 1 as I understand it. New homegrown player rules haven't been approved yet.

As long as we are making predictions, I predict you are wrong. The FFP rules in the Football League are now tied into the rules for the Premier League and I just do not think they are going to let them go away so easily. The FL could afford to defend the rules particularly if they use the solidarity payments from the Premier League. But we shall see. I find it difficult to visualize the 1% of the Newcastle fans who would prefer their current owner. Or is 1% of Newcastle's fan base mentally ill? That probably explains it. Link doesn't work. Could you provide links. If the 4% refers to training or solidarity payments I am not asking for a link for that. One of the missing slots was for a non-home grown player. They were cut from 25 to 21 players and from 8 to 5 homegrown players. http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/european/uefa-sanctions-against-manchester-city-for-breaching-ffp-watered-down-9529251.html

I am glad some one is getting to enjoy FM this year. Other than using it for my blog, I have not had time to play it what with work, life, blogging, and the world of warcraft expansion (done with it now) in that order.

With the new work permit rules, I don't think any English club can sign Calleri unless they pay at least 10 million pounds for him.

Getting relegated to the conference has to be the most miserable experience for a fan. I wonder how the QPR fans are going to deal with it if their owner doesn't cough up the 50 million.

Barcelona is under a transfer embargo this summer.

Wouldn't Dinamo Zagreb have received a small percentage of the transfer fee for being the club that trained him.

Bet they were pleasantly surprised.

Under FFP loans that can be converted to equity in the future actually have some value because owners are limited in the amount of equity contributions they can make each year. So if the club needed 20 million to assist cash flow in September, it would make sense to wait until June to figure out how much could or should be converted to equity given the financial results for the year and the FFP rules.

Or that part of the fee was due in future years just like some of our past transfer fees paid were not due immediately.

Still makes more sense then them wanting Johnson.

I understand. We are comparing 2012-2013 with 2013-2014. The currents season's financial results are a year away from being announced. Most of the increase in gross receipts between 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 will be due to finishing 8 instead of 14 and to the much larger TV contract. That part of our income will not grow much at all during this season since our league position will only increase from 1 to 4 places and I don't think we were on national TV more than the minimum amount.

The BBC and the Echo report that our salary spend went from £41.4 million in 2012-2013 to £55.2 million in 2013-2014. However, the £41.4 was not the actual salary cost in 2012-2013 because social security and other pension costs must be counted too. That total was £47.1 million for 2012-2013. It is not clear whether the media knows this. As result, it is not clear (at least to me) whether the £55.2 should be compared to the £41.4 or the £47.1. If the later, the growth in salaries is significantly less. If the former, our actual salary costs last season would be significantly higher--around £62.8 by straight extrapolation. According to the Echo we have increased permanent staff by 52 which would mean that those people cost an average of either £302K per year or £156 per year. Even allowing for the fact that some employees received raises and some of our new players were well paid, the lower figure seems much more likely. But maybe not--Alderweireld's salary would account for around £60K of the difference all by itself. We shall see shortly.

In my googling to find more information about the financials, I ran across this (now) interestingly, ironic blog post: http://oxfordstudent.com/2014/07/30/what-on-earth-is-going-on-at-southampton-fc/

I am puzzled as to what it is you (and the other people complaining about this) want (other than the elimination of the profanity filter). You want tickets to watch Southampton FC to be priced at a low enough price that all the fans can afford them, but you also want them available to you when you decide you want to go to a game. You should realize that these on contradictory goals. If the tickets are cheap they sell out soon. If there were really cheap enough, the whole stadium would sell out with season tickets. Also, a 5 pound across the board ticket increase will bring in nearly 2.9 million pounds which is more than most of our players earn in a year. Despite the big TV contracts, ticket income is important to improving the club (particularly since it can be used to increase the salary cap, unlike TV money).

No, the season after that.

Why do you believe these are through April 2014. Southampton's fiscal year runs through June and last year those results were published at the end of March. http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/26813363

It would not be enough. They would each need their own back up. Buy 17. (we already have five of the backups.)

He just signed a long term deal here and he has already had the experience of sitting on a bench at a big club. I doubt he will be so easily seduced.

So what happened? Did the Echo break a news embargo? These numbers would move Southampton from 25th on the Deloitte Money List to 21st. It also means that my January 2015 guess at Southampton's earnings last year (108 million pounds) was more accurate that Deloitte's guess. That should worry Deloitte since I did only a little research and they did a lot. http://redsloscf.blogspot.com/2015/01/financial-fair-play-friend-or-foe.html Does anyone know when the actual financials are going to be officially published?

There's the problem. England's team is still traveling by boat. That's no way to maintain fitness.

Certainly, for two more years. In the USA, NBC has done a much better job of publicizing Premier League games than FOX did before them. Our good performances during the past two years has undoubtedly made a significant difference in making new fans here.