Selling Club

Leicester or even Bournemouth

Swansea? like Leicester, have a major trophy to show for it

 

there you go

Swansea? Not looking very sustainable now, are they? Bournemouth? How much debt do they have and how many players have they developed?

Leicester? Great season last time but not looking good in PL for them.

Try harder with your examples.

 

Genuinely astounds me that so many of our "fans" seem to almost celebrate our selling policy

 

....

 

We will look back on this period as an opportunity missed, unless we change our policy very very soon

I'm not sure that it's a 'policy' as much as the law of the economic jungle. We have to operate within certain constraints, other clubs have more money, players ( and agents ) are self interested.

How do you think the club could change things ? ( Other than the easy cop out of expecting the owner to put in more of her own money ).

Stick to cooking

Has anybody ever cooked food for you? Did you thank them or scoff at them? If not, then I assume you've always cooked your own food? Then if so, the joke's on you.

Has anybody ever cooked food for you? Did you thank them or scoff at them? If not, then I assume you've always cooked your own food? Then if so, the joke's on you.

Why are people taking this seriously? It's a long running forum in-joke.

Why are people taking this seriously? It's a long running forum in-joke.

what is the joke though?

nothing offensive or derogatory about people cooking. I have said many times that those who do at in my field of work have huge respect and something I could never (or want to) do

Whether the epithet annoys our fans or not, we are I think widely seen in the game now to be the archetypal 'Selling Club'. This is the reality of our situation.

Let's face it, it is a pretty neat trick selling good players every summer for a lorry-load of money, and then acquiring equally good replacements at a comparatively bargain basement price. More often than not you get what you pay for in this world. Okay, Uncle Les and his minions have of late performed this remarkably neat trick with notable success, unfortunately this lucrative game is becoming an increasingly hard trick to pull off. For example, few I think will dispute that Nathan Redmond is both a good player, and good value too, in the current transfer market. However, Nathan is perhaps not quite in the same class as Mane was is he? This constant erosion of the squad (along with the additional fixtures we face this season) goes a long way towards explaining why we will struggle I think to match last season's points tally this year.

I predict that if next summer bigger and wealthier clubs than SFC certainly is think that VVD might be the ideal addition to their squads - and why wouldn't they as he's top class - then he'll probably travel that same well-trodden path that so many others have taken before him and depart for 'pastures new' - if that is what he really wants of course. Now as fans it is perfectly natural that we don't much like that outcome, but until the day dawns when our club finds itself under the control of a far wealthier (and more ambitious) owner than Kat Liebherr is, I'm struggling to see what the real-world alternative is here.

I recall that some years ago now I expressed on here the wish that our club might one day find itself occupying much the same position in the Premier League as Everton had long enjoyed - i.e. a stable well run club that finishes comfortably in the upper reaches of the table most seasons. Well despite the difficulties of losing so many good players we are nevertheless pretty damn close to achieving that old ambition of mine now I think. So it would seem rather churlish of me to start complaining about this situation now.

How do you think the club could change things ? ( Other than the easy cop out of expecting the owner to put in more of her own money ).

I have never asked nor really expect Kat to put in her own money, she inherited the club and has no passion for us, I understand that.

However as a fan what I do expect and want is for the club to make available £10-20m each year for player transfers - NOT from Kats pocket and NOT from selling our players first but from the £150-200 million we receive each year (Tv money, gate recipients, commercial income etc)

I have ALSO acknowledged (many times) that every so often we will also have a player that will need to leave - players chased by the football elite (Barcelona, Real, Chelsea, Man U/C) and if we absolutely have to sell then let's take the money (all of it, not 50%) received and add it to the £10-20m that was already available and reinvest in top players

What I object to is net transfer PROFIT of £20-40m this summer and £30-50m in 2014. That's not Kat putting money in - that's the opposite mate

No lets not.

 

Lets agree that I posted a criteria that was unrivaled in world football and you mocked me, but were then unable to come close to another team in the World that has matched us.

 

Let's agree that you are a bit of kn0b, that doesn't actually go to many matches but has lots of opinions that amount to nothing. So much so that you had had to change your user name and then spend 3 months denying it, until you had to come clean.

it is about 12.5m euros for being in the CL groups.

 

 

you sure we cannot get close to that, given our significant negative net spends over the last couple of summers

Delldays - You are thick as a plank - Negative spends have nothing to do with the FFP.

Funnily enough, that's on the agenda in the Trousers household for tomorrow evening. It's a special pre-Christmas treat from Lady Trousers. Highly recommended for anyone who hasn't tried it.

Tonight's the Night! Enjoy!

what is the joke though?

nothing offensive or derogatory about people cooking. I have said many times that those who do at in my field of work have huge respect and something I could never (or want to) do

Stop lying and get back to your frying pan Casey, the captain will need his dinner soon.

I have never asked nor really expect Kat to put in her own money, she inherited the club and has no passion for us, I understand that.

 

However as a fan what I do expect and want is for the club to make available £10-20m each year for player transfers - NOT from Kats pocket and NOT from selling our players first but from the £150-200 million we receive each year (Tv money, gate recipients, commercial income etc)

 

I have ALSO acknowledged (many times) that every so often we will also have a player that will need to leave - players chased by the football elite (Barcelona, Real, Chelsea, Man U/C) and if we absolutely have to sell then let's take the money (all of it, not 50%) received and add it to the £10-20m that was already available and reinvest in top players

 

What I object to is net transfer PROFIT of £20-40m this summer and £30-50m in 2014. That's not Kat putting money in - that's the opposite mate

The irony is that if she'd waited a bit longer before selling the players, she would have made a lot more money. We often seem to sell players before they reach their peak value so the buying club benefits from getting the best years of their career and can still sell them for a big profit if they want to. It's that policy which makes us look like a club which is overly keen to cash in on its players as soon as we get an offer. Mane, Clyne and Wanyama are improving all the time and already worth a lot more than we sold them for. The ones we retain, like Long and Clasie, are usually the ones whose transfer values are falling. Ultimately, although our scouting has been good in the case of players like Mane and Wanyama, I'm not sure our overall transfer policy is as astute as some people think it is.

The irony is that if she'd waited a bit longer before selling the players, she would have made a lot more money. We often seem to sell players before they reach their peak value so the buying club benefits from getting the best years of their career and can still sell them for a big profit if they want to. It's that policy which makes us look like a club which is overly keen to cash in on its players as soon as we get an offer. Mane, Clyne and Wanyama are improving all the time and already worth a lot more than we sold them for. The ones we retain, like Long and Clasie, are usually the ones whose transfer values are falling. Ultimately, although our scouting has been good in the case of players like Mane and Wanyama, I'm not sure our overall transfer policy is as astute as some people think it is.

Our policy of buying low selling high has been successful and the club gets a lot of praise from the press

We tend to keep quiet about the duff buys

Mayuka probably cost us £5-6m all in

Gaston £15-17m

Osvaldo £20m

List goes on but you get the idea

I think there is a general sense of disappointment when we sell on players who have performed well for us, but there is a fine line when it comes to getting the right deal. Many people moaned at the price we got for VW, but that was reflected in the term of his contract remaining when he left, and explains the contract extensions given this summer. Those contract extensions also increase the cost of the squad considerably, and are funded from the transfer profit.

Also, I think you have to look at each summer differently. The main exodus to Liverpool and Man Utd three seasons ago came from a need to repay debt. Those sales, with the exception of the extraordinary deal for Chambers needed to be made, and I think the prices we got were fair.

The following summer, Clyne had proved he wasn't going to put himself out unless he was sold, and we had an "agreement" with Morgan to let him go that summer. In fact that agreement is one of the reasons we can sign players in the first place, in as much as players would be reluctant to sign for more than two years if we were going to insist that all players see out their contracts.

Come to this summer, and Mane was sold for a huge fee, and I think we may have kept Pelle if he hadn't been offered such a massive salary in China. The money probably hasn't all been re-invested, but then it is always a gamble to give your new coach all the cash in case he isn't very good.

I think our scouting has been pretty good, with far fewer misses than the average club, and we still seem to be selling to CL clubs, and not Palace or West Brom.

I would love us to still have the same stars we have had and sold over the past few years, but that would mean much higher wages, which would look unsustainable based on our income, particularly our poor commercial income. Also, if we didn't sell Lovren, we may well never have got Virgil, so be careful what you wish for.

You can count the number of "non selling clubs" in the whole World football on the digit of one hand and possibly have some to spare.

The time to worry is not when we sell our best players to some of the world's richest teams, it is when those teams don't want our players... and that doesn't look like happening anytime soon.

Stick to cooking ........what on earth are you on about.

 

 

Seven higher year on year finishes, build out the club infrastructure, qualify for Europe twice and repay the debt (Yes debt) that the club is in, to ultimately achieve this as completely self funded project, whilst at the same time build a squad worth 200 million. As mentioned before, simply incredible and unbelievable and probably unrivaled anywhere in the world.

Keep up the cooking comedy.

Sevilla are probably close to us in what we do as a club.

It's called the cycle of attraction and it's a decent strategy to take.

The choices as I see it are operate like a stoke/wba/Swansea and enjoy mid table with a bit of fluctuation in league position. Wait on Lady Luck to deliver a cup run.

or...

Buy the talent with potential and increase the chances of doing well in the league and cups knowing each year some players will be sold.

Also, the academy has and will continue to be a long standing source of first team players unlike most PL teams.

The irony is that if she'd waited a bit longer before selling the players, she would have made a lot more money. We often seem to sell players before they reach their peak value so the buying club benefits from getting the best years of their career and can still sell them for a big profit if they want to. It's that policy which makes us look like a club which is overly keen to cash in on its players as soon as we get an offer. Mane, Clyne and Wanyama are improving all the time and already worth a lot more than we sold them for. The ones we retain, like Long and Clasie, are usually the ones whose transfer values are falling. Ultimately, although our scouting has been good in the case of players like Mane and Wanyama, I'm not sure our overall transfer policy is as astute as some people think it is.

I tend to agree we are not quite as astute as some think with regard to our selling policy. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we got less for Wanyama than we paid for him, Clyne and Mane were both worth a lot more than what we actually got from Liverpool. The £15m for Pelle was the only one we got far more for than he was probably worth - this largely due to the collapse of the pound against the dollar, between agreeing the fee( in dollars) for him and the transfer actually going through.

It astonishes me how many of our 'fans' think we can stop VvD or whoever from leaving us and moving to Liverpool/Man Utd or whoever. The alternative is to never attract these type of players in the first place and to appoint Tony fûcking Pulis. There is a pecking order in football, it's been around for a while now, I don't like it but that's tough, I accept it as it is. I would suggest that anyone who can't accept this should either support a Chelsea/City/United or find another sport.

It astonishes me how many of our 'fans' think we can stop VvD or whoever from leaving us and moving to Liverpool/Man Utd or whoever. The alternative is to never attract these type of players in the first place and to appoint Tony fûcking Pulis. There is a pecking order in football, it's been around for a while now, I don't like it but that's tough, I accept it as it is. I would suggest that anyone who can't accept this should either support a Chelsea/City/United or find another sport.

Agreed.

The players have all the power. If we try and keep the likes of VVD to his contract and he has a strop about it then what? It'll affect the whole team as well as those who might be on our shopping list. Imagine that, a player as high profile as VVD in a strop and us trying to persuade players to sign. It'd be ****ing suicide.

I tend to agree we are not quite as astute as some think with regard to our selling policy. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we got less for Wanyama than we paid for him, Clyne and Mane were both worth a lot more than what we actually got from Liverpool. The £15m for Pelle was the only one we got far more for than he was probably worth - this largely due to the collapse of the pound against the dollar, between agreeing the fee( in dollars) for him and the transfer actually going through.

We sold Wanyama for about £1m less than we paid, but as he was going into the last year of his contract I don't think we can complain that much. The same applies to Clyne, as I recall, but we made a profit on him.

£20m was a very good price for Lovren, £30m a very good price for Shaw, £32m a good price for Mane. The fact that Mane, Lallana and Lovren are becoming better players under Klopp doesn't mean we could have demanded more for them. He's adding that value, not us.

"If he has a strop...":lol:

If you really think any player other than a few madmen like Osvaldo would be prepared to commit career suicide like that, you are very naive. A more realistic way of looking at is that the more of their team mates you sell, the more you unsettle the remaining players, apart from the few fringe ones who wouldn't have got into the team otherwise.

"If he has a strop...":lol:

 

If you really think any player other than a few madmen like Osvaldo would be prepared to commit career suicide like that, you are very naive. A more realistic way of looking at is that the more of their team mates you sell, the more you unsettle the remaining players, apart from the few fringe ones who wouldn't have got into the team otherwise.

Has happened many times when you can see that a player isn't giving his all and is trying to force the hand of the club management.

Do you think "the big six" will continue to fork out for Saints players that fail to improve/make the first team or even the first team bench after being transfered ?

I have never asked nor really expect Kat to put in her own money, she inherited the club and has no passion for us, I understand that.

 

However as a fan what I do expect and want is for the club to make available £10-20m each year for player transfers - NOT from Kats pocket and NOT from selling our players first but from the £150-200 million we receive each year (Tv money, gate recipients, commercial income etc)

 

I have ALSO acknowledged (many times) that every so often we will also have a player that will need to leave - players chased by the football elite (Barcelona, Real, Chelsea, Man U/C) and if we absolutely have to sell then let's take the money (all of it, not 50%) received and add it to the £10-20m that was already available and reinvest in top players

 

What I object to is net transfer PROFIT of £20-40m this summer and £30-50m in 2014. That's not Kat putting money in - that's the opposite mate

Taking your logic of spending all of the money that we get from a transfer (ignoring staged payment schedules and performance related payments) means that we have to either try to buy players of a similar value to those we sell, or buy a number of players whose value adds up to the income from transfers. This strategy surely leaves us open to either stockpiling players or blocking the pathway to the first team for players from the academy. We use our Black Box to plan a long way ahead and as an example your could say that we wanted Bouffal to replace Mane. Puel says that we had tracked him for ages and we broke our transfer record for him. Hopefully he'll turn into a very good player for us, but he wouldn't be any better if we paid another £15M for him to make him, so why spend the money if you don't have to? If he turns out to be Gaston Mk2 at least we have some money in reserve to buy a replacement if necessary.

I have never asked nor really expect Kat to put in her own money, she inherited the club and has no passion for us, I understand that.

 

However as a fan what I do expect and want is for the club to make available £10-20m each year for player transfers - NOT from Kats pocket and NOT from selling our players first but from the £150-200 million we receive each year (Tv money, gate recipients, commercial income etc)

 

I have ALSO acknowledged (many times) that every so often we will also have a player that will need to leave - players chased by the football elite (Barcelona, Real, Chelsea, Man U/C) and if we absolutely have to sell then let's take the money (all of it, not 50%) received and add it to the £10-20m that was already available and reinvest in top players

 

What I object to is net transfer PROFIT of £20-40m this summer and £30-50m in 2014. That's not Kat putting money in - that's the opposite mate

It's hard to argue with that and everyone knows it. SFC is run to make a profit. That is our ambition. 17th minimum, anything else a bonus and keeps the fans happy.

Give me a comparable example ..................

Cherries are going to surpass us.

Cherries are going to surpass us.

yeah, but their team does not begin with the letter S or play at St Mary's. Not a good comparison in world football

yeah, but their team does not begin with the letter So play at St Mary's. Not a good comparison in world football

Lol

yeah, but their team does not begin with the letter S or play at St Mary's. Not a good comparison in world football

Just out of interest, why did you do the 180?

Back in your Delldays era, you were what you'd call a "club apologist". I particularly remember you using cherry picked stats to defend George Burley. Something like "ONLY 2 defeats in 13" when we'd drawn 10 of those 13 games. What was it the broke the camels back. Who ****ed on your strawberries?

Just out of interest, why did you do the 180?

 

Back in your Delldays era, you were what you'd call a "club apologist". I particularly remember you using cherry picked stats to defend George Burley. Something like "ONLY 2 defeats in 13" when we'd drawn 10 of those 13 games. What was it the broke the camels back. Who ****ed on your strawberries?

I doubt I defended George Burley. I got banned for slating him with another poster who defended him (glasgow saint in his former guise)

thought burley was a terrible manager

Agreed.

 

The players have all the power. If we try and keep the likes of VVD to his contract and he has a strop about it then what? It'll affect the whole team as well as those who might be on our shopping list. Imagine that, a player as high profile as VVD in a strop and us trying to persuade players to sign. It'd be ****ing suicide.

I certainly agree that there is a risk in holding players to their contracts. I think that the best we will be able to do with VVD is hold him to one more year with the promise of a departure in 18-19, similar to Morgan or even Ronaldo at Man U. West Brom kept Berahino to his contract and he has disintegrated. Not literally but you know what I mean.

I doubt I defended George Burley. I got banned for slating him with another poster who defended him (glasgow saint in his former guise)

thought burley was a terrible manager

Maybe it was him then. Hard to remember, you fellas with your alt accounts and frequent name changes, it's so hard to keep up.

So apologies for my poor memory.

Glasgow, what made you do that 180 then LOL or are you just a contrarian?

Maybe it was him then. Hard to remember, you fellas with your alt accounts and frequent name changes, it's so hard to keep up.

 

So apologies for my poor memory.

 

Glasgow, what made you do that 180 then LOL or are you just a contrarian?

Im probably the most consistent poster on here to be fair

Praise when praise is merited but dont be afraid to question and challenge when appropriate either

Some posters on here would defend everything the club does and says - be a boring forum if we all agreed all the time

Im probably the most consistent poster on here to be fair

 

Consistently wrong though eh? That Burley stance was laughable.

 

How do you think the club could change things ? ( Other than the easy cop out of expecting the owner to put in more of her own money ).

.... but that's how it used to happen, do you not remember? People like Leon Crouch put their own money into our club to keep it going not to become rich as he was already that but because SFC was a passion for him as it is for us and so it was for Marcus Liebherr.

Now we seem to be in a different ball game where his daughter sees the club only as a cash cow for personal gain rather than a passion. Has greed overtaken altruism? I'll leave others to pass judgement on that.

Why does Kat either have to put money in or take money out? Is it that difficult to imagine the club being run to break even, a sustainable non profit basically.

.... but that's how it used to happen, do you not remember? People like Leon Crouch put their own money into our club to keep it going not to become rich as he was already that but because SFC was a passion for him as it is for us and so it was for Marcus Liebherr.

 

Now we seem to be in a different ball game where his daughter sees the club only as a cash cow for personal gain rather than a passion. Has greed overtaken altruism? I'll leave others to pass judgement on that.

There's drivel and then there's drivel.

Why does Kat either have to put money in or take money out? Is it that difficult to imagine the club being run to break even, a sustainable non profit basically.

PBT in 14/15 was £18m (33.5m year before) so Kat clearly doesn't want a non profit business

2015/16 years financials have been suspiciously quiet

Nothing better than to witness a constant stream of players coming and going not to mention managers. I really do look forward to watching players settling in over a period of months and also having to adapt to yet another managers new philosophy.

 

Who needs stability or consistency when you have fans still celebrating getting back into the premiership and being content enough with that.

Amen

"We'll sell who you want , we'll sell who you want get your cheque book out and we'll sell who you want!"

For all the good she has done, If Markus was here, the club wouldn't be run the way his daughter is overseeing.

NO.... with their Champions league revenue, we cant get close.

Actually, we can compete with them on wages even with their one time Champions league revenue bonus. What we can't do is compete with a club that makes the champions league regularly, has a world wide fan base to generate more money, and appears on TV a lot more than we do.

An interesting question is whether Leicester structured their new contracts this summer wisely so as not to face a problem next year without champions league revenue.

it is about 12.5m euros for being in the CL groups.

 

 

you sure we cannot get close to that, given our significant negative net spends over the last couple of summers

Characterizing our past couple of years as negative net spends ignores costs other than transfer fees. You have the luxury of doing that but the club doesn't.

Delldays - You are thick as a plank - Negative spends have nothing to do with the FFP.

I hate to disagree with you for disagreeing with the person I just disagreed with, but FFP is not our limiting factor right now. The current owner clearly wants the club to be self-sufficient. FFP would allow the owner to kick in 8 million pounds a year or so and fully fund the youth academy, charitable and community development spending, and capital spending out of her own pocket. She doesn't want to do that and I don't blame her.

If we really dare to dream, then our model should be Atletico Madrid. They'll never be able to compete financially with Barca and Real, but they are serious players in European football.

 

Our biggest challenge is that there are too many mega-rich clubs in the Premier league and that means it's hard to qualify for the Champions League in the first place to get access to the money that gets you to the next level. Will be interesting to see how wisely Leicester invest their financial bonanza.

 

What we have instead of course is the academy and the players and then the money it produces... so IF we continue going about it the right way I'm optimistic that we can win some trophies in the coming years. Exciting times (and I say that after we've just lost three nil to Palace).

This is a sensible post.

Why are people taking this seriously? It's a long running forum in-joke.

If a bit overcooked.

I have never asked nor really expect Kat to put in her own money, she inherited the club and has no passion for us, I understand that.

 

However as a fan what I do expect and want is for the club to make available £10-20m each year for player transfers - NOT from Kats pocket and NOT from selling our players first but from the £150-200 million we receive each year (Tv money, gate recipients, commercial income etc)

 

I have ALSO acknowledged (many times) that every so often we will also have a player that will need to leave - players chased by the football elite (Barcelona, Real, Chelsea, Man U/C) and if we absolutely have to sell then let's take the money (all of it, not 50%) received and add it to the £10-20m that was already available and reinvest in top players

 

What I object to is net transfer PROFIT of £20-40m this summer and £30-50m in 2014. That's not Kat putting money in - that's the opposite mate

I apologize for responding to one of your posts.

You don't know what you are talking about. She has not, so far, taken money out of the club. The transfer profits have remained in the club to fund things like capital spending and increased salaries. For the year ending 2014 our turnover was 106 million. For 2015, it was 114 million. There is no 150 to 200 million per year available. (Admittedly, with the new TV contracts the number will be higher for 2017. 2016 hasn't been reported yet to my knowledge.) If you think the club should be able to spare 20m out of 150m then, presumably, you recognize that is a negative 16m out of 114m. In other words, the club is doing about what you think it should be doing given the actual financial resources available.

It's hard to argue with that and everyone knows it. SFC is run to make a profit. That is our ambition. 17th minimum, anything else a bonus and keeps the fans happy.

No it is run to break even. The profit will come when the club is sold or, maybe not at all, if Liebherr decides to stay on indefinitely. New owners, particularly ones like the ones looking at us now, who have less money that Liebherr would be a much bigger risk. They might actually want to take money out or they might want to spend money neither they nor the club really has to try to buy our way into the Champions League.

I certainly agree that there is a risk in holding players to their contracts. I think that the best we will be able to do with VVD is hold him to one more year with the promise of a departure in 18-19, similar to Morgan or even Ronaldo at Man U. West Brom kept Berahino to his contract and he has disintegrated. Not literally but you know what I mean.

I am slightly more optimistic about hanging onto VVD because the new six year contract makes no sense if he was going to be sold this summer and makes very little sense if he is going to be sold in 2018.

For all the good she has done, If Markus was here, the club wouldn't be run the way his daughter is overseeing.

Probably true, but would it be run better or worse?

yeah, but their team does not begin with the letter S or play at St Mary's. Not a good comparison in world football

Total nonsense, Can you really embarrass yourself even more on this thread?

You had the criteria , you mocked it and were then challenged and challenged to provide a comparable example. You didn't and can't and you resort to this.

Give up cooking - move on to washing up.

I can just imagine how many posters had a hard on when they saw the title of this thread. And yes not to be let down all the usual cnts spouting their usual sh1te.

Easily pleased. I suppose your idea of a good time is lying on your back with your feet and arms in the air having your tummy tickled!

So what are your practical and plausible methods of retaining our players if they want to go?

So what are your practical and plausible methods of retaining our players if they want to go?

Funny how that question never gets answered...

So what are your practical and plausible methods of retaining our players if they want to go?

Top players are motivated by two things - money & medals

We offered Fonte £80k recently so that appears to be our upper limit.....

Wanyama left us for Spurs for reported 70k pw so wages wasn't and isn't always the issue, what we don't offer is ambition and a genuine opportunity for players to compete for the title or champions league

Catch-22

Bournemouth and Swansea aren't in Europe and haven't got squads worth over £200million, nor did they have 7 years of consecutive improvement.

Leicester was an absolute fluke, a one in a million, and you know it. Pray tell, what did they do summer before last that we can copy? Have a squad of players that had barely escaped relegation and nobody wanted, then go back to 90s style kick and rush football? Fantastic.

Even Ranieri is now saying "they had luck" last season when comparing the two. Tell us something we didn't know.