Where is all the money going?

Kat is not taking money from the club in the way some are suggesting on Facebook and Twitter but she is earning a very tidy interest from her loan to us.

I am unable to access that link but you are right about the pocketing being nonsense. MTG's quote from the annual report shows that quite clearly.

Sorry; was Southampton's full accounts for 15/16 on Companies House. This may work better. https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/00053301/filing-history

The players sold weren't being paid? That's crazy...... no wonder they wanted out.

 

remember you also told us we got £38m for Mane....? so that means we got just 20m for Koeman, Pelle, Wanyama, Fonte, Juanmi?

 

Or does your little snippet not really tell the full or any story?

As much as Glasgow is derided....I'm having trouble marrying this with the reported transfer fees too. Any comment, MLG?

Mane ~ £34m

Pelle ~ £12m

Wanyama ~ £10

Fonte ~ £7m

Koeman ~ £2m

Juanmi ~ £2m (unsure of fee)

= £67m. There's a ~£9m shortfall. And since profits on player sales tend to be booked immediately..... And that's overlooking previous years where player sales are lower than reported elsewhere (i.e. SwissRamble) and purchases are higher

Edit: I'm assuming the discrepancy relates to the fact that it's a forecast, and only transfer up to and including the 15/16 season have been booked.

As much as Glasgow is derided....I'm having trouble marrying this with the reported transfer fees too. Any comment, MLG?

 

Mane ~ £34m

Pelle ~ £12m

Wanyama ~ £10

Fonte ~ £7m

Koeman ~ £2m

Juanmi ~ £2m (unsure of fee)

 

= £67m. There's a ~£9m shortfall. And since profits on player sales tend to be booked immediately..... And that's overlooking previous years where player sales are lower than reported elsewhere (i.e. SwissRamble) and purchases are higher

How do sell-on clauses factor into things? Obviously come out of the transfer fee but don't know how they appear on our books so could potentially account for some discrepancy? (Haven't looked at any of the financials myself to see).

As much as Glasgow is derided....I'm having trouble marrying this with the reported transfer fees too. Any comment, MLG?

 

Mane ~ £34m

Pelle ~ £12m

Wanyama ~ £10

Fonte ~ £7m

Koeman ~ £2m

Juanmi ~ £2m (unsure of fee)

 

= £67m. There's a ~£9m shortfall. And since profits on player sales tend to be booked immediately..... And that's overlooking previous years where player sales are lower than reported elsewhere (i.e. SwissRamble) and purchases are higher

Don't believe everything you read in the papers. 'A deal worth up to...' does not equate to that amount in the club's bank accounts.

Agents' fees?

As much as Glasgow is derided....I'm having trouble marrying this with the reported transfer fees too. Any comment, MLG?

 

Mane ~ £34m

Pelle ~ £12m

Wanyama ~ £10

Fonte ~ £7m

Koeman ~ £2m

Juanmi ~ £2m (unsure of fee)

 

= £67m. There's a ~£9m shortfall. And since profits on player sales tend to be booked immediately..... And that's overlooking previous years where player sales are lower than reported elsewhere (i.e. SwissRamble) and purchases are higher

It's a forecast. We don't know when these figures were put together. Could be that it was before the (unexpected) Fonte situation.

It's a forecast. We don't know when these figures were put together. Could be that it was before the (unexpected) Fonte situation.

Yeah, I got there eventually But then there's the discrepancy for the 15/16 year itself - ~£30m....where Schneiderlin was sold for £25m and Clyne for £12.5m(ish). It probably is something to do with the nuances of how it's reported/booked, which I simply don't know enough about.

Maybe this.....

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/transfers/transfer-window-premier-league-revealed-how-a-transfer-deal-really-works-a7837031.html?amp

Yeah, I got there eventually But then there's the discrepancy for the 15/16 year itself - ~£30m....where Schneiderlin was sold for £25m and Clyne for £12.5m(ish). It probably is something to do with the nuances of how it's reported/booked, which I simply don't know enough about.

Think I'm right in saying when the adds on are met, it goes into that years accounts.

So the £34m for Mane will go into the 15/16 accounts as it was before the July 1st cut-off point for the accounts to be filed; if we were to then get £1m if they won the league this season, for example, I think it would go into this years accounts.

I'm fairly sure that is how it works, but happy to be proved wrong.

Think I'm right in saying when the adds on are met, it goes into that years accounts.

 

So the £34m for Mane will go into the 15/16 accounts as it was before the July 1st cut-off point for the accounts to be filed; if we were to then get £1m if they won the league this season, for example, I think it would go into this years accounts.

 

I'm fairly sure that is how it works, but happy to be proved wrong.

That would seem to be correct. You cannot list something as an asset when there is no guarantee of getting it, if ever.

All the financials have shown is we pay more that we think and we sell for less than we are told.

When you look at the squad we coulda had vs the squad we have and then see it cost us money you cant help but feel very let down.

That would seem to be correct. You cannot list something as an asset when there is no guarantee of getting it, if ever.

Correct. We also don't show the full transfer value when we sell, we only book the instalments paid in the financial year (most sales are made in instalments, very few transfers are paid in full in one payment). Conversely when we buy we show the full amount in the year in which we buy, whether we pay in instalments or not. This is "standard" accounting practice for football clubs, and makes it look like we have received less that we would think and paid more than we think. All the nonsense some on here write about net spend is just that, and unless they have access to the detail of the books, nothing much can be deduced from a single year's balance sheet, only over a period of several years can our net spend be accurately calculated.

Correct. We also don't show the full transfer value when we sell, we only book the instalments paid in the financial year (most sales are made in instalments, very few transfers are paid in full in one payment). Conversely when we buy we show the full amount in the year in which we buy, whether we pay in instalments or not. This is "standard" accounting practice for football clubs, and makes it look like we have received less that we would think and paid more than we think. All the nonsense some on here write about net spend is just that, and unless they have access to the detail of the books, nothing much can be deduced from a single year's balance sheet, only over a period of several years can our net spend be accurately calculated.

By your logic, the accounts would exaggerate (upwards) our net spend in any one year.

Correct. We also don't show the full transfer value when we sell, we only book the instalments paid in the financial year (most sales are made in instalments, very few transfers are paid in full in one payment). Conversely when we buy we show the full amount in the year in which we buy, whether we pay in instalments or not. This is "standard" accounting practice for football clubs, and makes it look like we have received less that we would think and paid more than we think. All the nonsense some on here write about net spend is just that, and unless they have access to the detail of the books, nothing much can be deduced from a single year's balance sheet, only over a period of several years can our net spend be accurately calculated.

Aren't players contracts amortised over the length of the contract? In other words, if we buy a player for,say, £20m on a 4 year contract then their value on the balance sheet will be reduced by £5m a year.

Correct. We also don't show the full transfer value when we sell, we only book the instalments paid in the financial year (most sales are made in instalments, very few transfers are paid in full in one payment). Conversely when we buy we show the full amount in the year in which we buy, whether we pay in instalments or not. This is "standard" accounting practice for football clubs, and makes it look like we have received less that we would think and paid more than we think. All the nonsense some on here write about net spend is just that, and unless they have access to the detail of the books, nothing much can be deduced from a single year's balance sheet, only over a period of several years can our net spend be accurately calculated.

It's the complete reverse of what you've said (as Whitney Grandad has alluded to). Sales are booked immediately in full, and purchases are spread over the length on the contract.

Aren't players contracts amortised over the length of the contract? In other words, if we buy a player for,say, £20m on a 4 year contract then their value on the balance sheet will be reduced by £5m a year.

That is exactly as I understand it.

I wouldn't go there. In Glasgow a balance sheet is something to stop you falling out of bed when you're ****ed.

Here we go again......

Same **** different day.

This club

I don't think we'll spend much until VVD goes, I can see it now, and even then I can still see some of his fee being pocketed.

You sir are very astute.

Here we go again......

 

Same **** different day.

 

This club

This poster..

Bumping for attention and club bashing again

That would seem to be correct. You cannot list something as an asset when there is no guarantee of getting it, if ever.

You need to register that this exists though? I think it either goes in as asset with zero value, or you put it in at a discounted rate, based on the likelihood of you receiving it. (E.g. 10% of £1m = £100k asset). Should this not materialise [they sell mane before he plays enough games etc], you just do an impairment? You can measure it how you want, as long as you can justify to your Board and to your auditors that you have followed accounting principles and prepared a true and fair reflection etc

Haven't Kat and Gao's 'innovative' accounting techniques already attracted some interest in both Germany and China?

https://www.90min.com/posts/5107050-german-tax-inquiry-could-force-southampton-owner-katharina-liebherr-to-sell-club

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/3422978/premier-league-blocked-gao-jisheng-200m-southampton/

When you revist some of the garbage they put out it really is an insult to fans.

Sell player(s) for X

Sign Player for(s) Y

X-Y = transfer profit / loss to me.

But not these guys, they want to massage the numbers and the niave fans take it hook line and sinker..

The SFC way seems to be ...

Sell player(s) for X

Sign Player for(s) Y

Give new player(s) Z wage

Give agent ABC

Give Les his cut = D

Transfer profit = X - Y - Z - ABC - D

It's almost like every player we sell was working for free.

When you revist some of the garbage they put out it really is an insult to fans.

 

Sell player(s) for X

 

Sign Player for(s) Y

 

X-Y = transfer profit / loss to me.

 

But not these guys, they want to massage the numbers and the niave fans take it hook line and sinker..

 

 

The SFC way seems to be ...

 

 

Sell player(s) for X

 

Sign Player for(s) Y

 

Give new player(s) Z wage

 

Give agent ABC

 

Give Les his cut = D

 

Transfer profit = X - Y - Z - ABC - D

 

It's almost like every player we sell was working for free.

:-D

When you revist some of the garbage Heisenberg puts out it really is an insult to fans.

FIFY.

FIFY.

Stick to replica shirts mate

 

The SFC way seems to be ...

 

 

Sell player(s) for X

 

Sign Player for(s) Y

 

Give new player(s) Z wage

 

Give agent ABC

 

Give Les his cut = D

 

Transfer profit = X - Y - Z - ABC - D

.

You clearly aren'ta business man. Deducting sale and purchase costs, and tax where applicable, is exactly how you assess profit on a transaction. To be accurate in football deal terms, one would use your formula but ignore z (wages don't count) and substitute a deduction of any signing on fees and/or loyalty or other bonus to the outgoing player. I'll bow to your inside knowledge that Les gets a cut.

So why do we include incoming wages but ignore outgoing?

Why mix the two things unless it's to give the cheap perception that we spend what we receive

So why do we include incoming wages but ignore outgoing?

 

Why mix the two things unless it's to give the cheap perception that we spend what we receive

Because usually when a player's sold their wages are no longer on the books.

When we buy a player we need to consider the whole package, purchase fee and wages included. It's possible to 'snap up' a player nearing the end of their contract on a very low fee but that can be offset by the higher wages that they expect.

Because usually when a player's sold their wages are no longer on the books.

 

When we buy a player we need to consider the whole package, purchase fee and wages included. It's possible to 'snap up' a player nearing the end of their contract on a very low fee but that can be offset by the higher wages that they expect.

And the "signing on fee". Cheaper the transfer the more they expect. No such thing as a free transfer, well not unless the signee is totally crap anyway.

And the "signing on fee". Cheaper the transfer the more they expect. No such thing as a free transfer, well not unless the signee is totally crap anyway.

We seem to buy players who fail both those criteria.

Hopefully hughes signing means club have backed his ambition.

Let's just hope he has big ambition and wakes things up.

It's all going to the top 6 now that 8 turkeys have voted with them to increase their share of the overseas rights.

It's all going to the top 6 now that 8 turkeys have voted with them to increase their share of the overseas rights.

Not strictly true.

https://www.premierleague.com/news/707720

Not strictly true.

 

https://www.premierleague.com/news/707720

With the top 6 unlikely to finish anywhere but in the top 6 from now on, it does smack a bit of rich getting richer. However now more than ever is the time to be in the Premier League, financially more than anything, and why we were lucky to escape relegation.

an incentive to finish higher. fair and makes sense. hopefully another wake up call for the muppet boys that run our club

an incentive to finish higher. fair and makes sense. hopefully another wake up call for the muppet boys that run our club

Disagree, this is the distribution of TV money and should be seen differently from reward for league placings which already exists (approx £2.2 mil per place) !

The 'big 6' maintain that it is them alone who create the interest but ignore the fact that without the other teams there would be no league !

It is greed heaped on greed and guarantees only one thing - the gap will become wider !

IMHO it is neither fair nor sensible !

Disagree, this is the distribution of TV money and should be seen differently from reward for league placings which already exists (approx £2.2 mil per place) !

The 'big 6' maintain that it is them alone who create the interest but ignore the fact that without the other teams there would be no league !

It is greed heaped on greed and guarantees only one thing - the gap will become wider !

IMHO it is neither fair nor sensible !

Yep. I would say this news is the beginning of the end in terms of football as I know/love, but in truth that was in 1992. We are just hurtling towards the abyss a lot quicker now.

Time to start asking questions again.....

Time to start asking questions again.....

In the transfer pot for this summer. End of.

In the transfer pot for this summer. End of.

Which summer?

Time to start asking questions again.....

Insurance bets have been losing a lot lately. You must be skint.

0001 bite_count = bite_count + 1

0002 goto 0001

(Something about opinions and judging others... Blah blah blah.... Tick)

In the transfer pot for this summer. End of.

That what people said last January.

That what people said last January.

In fact people were going on about how it was the summer of the massive overhaul. When we barely got anyone in those same people then praised the club for their prudence and for being well run. Mental.

How many big earners left on permanent deals?

How many big earners left on permanent deals?

Ings, Bertrand, Boufal and Romeu are the top 4 left

Ings, Bertrand, Boufal and Romeu are the top 4 left

If it was unclear, the point was how many high earners left the club on perm deals in the summer. Seems reasonable that they should if we're to bring in more high earning players on perm deals.

Goa’s pushovers.

Ha!! I've not seen one person support Gao. Just a number of people who are realistic in the face of many who aren't.

I'm just so pumped that Kevin Danso is still here.