Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 66

Thread: Financial Results 2015-2016

  1. #1

  2. #2

    Default

    "The directors are pleased to report another period of positive financial performance, achieving profit for the year, after taxation, of £4.9m, whilst net assets increased to £45.0m.

    Turnover improved significantly to £124.3m (2015: £113.7m) with commercial and match day turnover reaching £31.1m, the former up 21% on the previous year.

    The groupís strategy has been to strengthen and maintain a competitive first-team playing squad in order to compete in multiple competitions, whilst simultaneously strengthening the overall operation of the club, through investment in its non-playing staff and infrastructure.

    The Academy talent pipeline remains strong and there is a continued focus on the principle of developing young players and incorporating them into a successful first-team squad, as witnessed by ten Academy graduates playing first-team football in the 2016/17 season.

    Significant investment has been made in the playing squad, with record transfer fees being paid to help grow the first-team squad and provide greater depth. Furthermore, the club has focused on establishing a core group of players on longer-term contracts.

    The spend on player purchases and increases in player remuneration, offset by the cash inflow from player sales, saw a net cash outflow of £20.1m for the year, with a further net cash outflow of £22.7m forecast for the 2016-17 season.

    Given this level of investment made during the year, the fact that debt levels have not increased correspondingly underlies the sound financial position of the group and is a reflection of its robust financial planning."

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Eastleigh
    Posts
    2,976

    Default

    We have spent more on players than what we have received in the last four years apparently
    hard to believe but it seems o he in b&w

  4. #4

    Default

    Where has all the money gone??? A multitude of mongs can now go crawling back under their rock!

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    John 3:16
    Posts
    2,327

    Default

    Well that's not gonna happen Ewell.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    15,555
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Noodles34 View Post
    We have spent more on players than what we have received in the last four years apparently
    hard to believe but it seems o he in b&w
    I can't see that written in that article, is there a further breakdown provided?

  7. #7

    Default

    Our club is run by no-ambition asset stripping scum who take all the fans for mugs. When is the protest march through town planned for?

  8. #8

    Default

    15/16 results would have included the Osvaldo, Mayuka and Ramirez write offs? Without these youre back to 2014 profits of £35m+

    The group’s strategy has been to strengthen first-team playing squad.... You failed then! definitly weaker playing squad.

  9. #9

    Default

    Ready, steady.... Bite...

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    The Fine City of Southampton
    Posts
    3,390

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sour Mash View Post
    I can't see that written in that article, is there a further breakdown provided?
    Quotes from Gareth Rogers

    http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/1515..._94m_in_squad/

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Heisenberg View Post

    The groupís strategy has been to strengthen first-team playing squad.... You failed then! definitly weaker playing squad.
    Except you believe we will catch Everton and finish seventh, don't you? Which considering the huge increase in matches we've had on multiple fronts, suggests a stronger squad than before. Because you do really think that, don't you?

  12. #12

    Default

    ...and Osvaldo was in the last set of accounts, covered to death on here.

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    South West France
    Posts
    705

    Default

    ... and the Ramirez fee would have been amortised over the four years of his contract, so no loss there either, although there would be income from the loan fee from Boro.

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alehouseboys View Post
    Wonder if those figures came from the club? Worrying if so and suggests we are not getting the high transfer fees reported? In 14-15 we sold Shaw (32m) Lallana (26m) Lovren (22m) Chambers (17m) Lambert (4m) Cork (3m) thats £104m. Yet Rogers says sales was 85m??? Thats a fairly sizeable gap. Would £20m really be agent fees?

    And why illustrate player sales excluding fees and incoming with? Misleading no

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    15,555
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alehouseboys View Post
    Cheers. That suggests that some of the transfer figures reported have been significantly wrong?

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    15,555
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Heisenberg View Post
    Wonder if those figures came from the club? Worrying if so and suggests were are not getting the high transfer fees reported. In 14-15 we sold Shaw (32m) Lallana (26m) Lovren (22m) Chambers (17m) Lambert (4m) Cork (3m) thats £104m. Yet Rogers says sales was 85m??? Thats a fairly sizeable gap. Would £20m really be agent fees?
    Could be some of the fees included significant sums for appearances made, trophies won by new teams etc.

  17. #17

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    The Garden of Engerland
    Posts
    4,197

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Heisenberg View Post
    The group’s strategy has been to strengthen first-team playing squad.... You failed then! definitly weaker playing squad.
    The forumgencia consensus is a stronger squad, with a slightly weaker first team being a work in progress. So that is as reported then.

  18. #18

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    faraway
    Posts
    5,710

    Default

    ...
    Last edited by farawaysaint; 15-03-2017 at 06:42 AM. Reason: No sleep and cranky

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fan The Flames View Post
    The forumgencia consensus is a stronger squad, with a slightly weaker first team being a work in progress. So that is as reported then.
    So weve been selling players like

    Shaw
    Chambers
    Lallana
    Lovren
    Fonte
    Pelle
    Mane
    Wanyama
    Schneiderlin
    Clyne

    And replacing them with

    Classie
    Austin
    Cuco Martina
    Long
    Pied
    Gardos
    Rodriguez
    Hojbjerg
    Redmond
    Boufal

    And its actually costing us money?

  20. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sour Mash View Post
    Could be some of the fees included significant sums for appearances made, trophies won by new teams etc.
    Not to mention they part of that income that goes to previous clubs in sell on Clauses.

    Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

  21. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Heisenberg View Post
    So weve been selling players like

    Shaw
    Chambers
    Lallana
    Lovren
    Fonte
    Pelle
    Mane
    Wanyama
    Schneiderlin
    Clyne

    And replacing them with

    Classie
    Austin
    Cuco Martina
    Long
    Pied
    Gardos
    Rodriguez
    Hojbjerg
    Redmond
    Boufal

    And its actually costing us money?
    And Bertrand, Tadic, Romeu, Cedric...we spent more than we received because we bought more in than we sold to improve the squad. Look at our strength in depth under Poch just before our first "firesale" and look at it now, infinitely better.

  22. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Heisenberg View Post
    So weve been selling players like

    Shaw
    Chambers
    Lallana
    Lovren
    Fonte
    Pelle
    Mane
    Wanyama
    Schneiderlin
    Clyne

    And replacing them with

    Classie
    Austin
    Cuco Martina
    Long
    Pied
    Gardos
    Rodriguez
    Hojbjerg
    Redmond
    Boufal

    And its actually costing us money?
    Sometimes you just have to stand and applaud.

    A masterpiece.

    2/10.

  23. #23

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    The Garden of Engerland
    Posts
    4,197

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Heisenberg View Post
    So weve been selling players like

    Shaw
    Chambers
    Lallana
    Lovren
    Fonte
    Pelle
    Mane
    Wanyama
    Schneiderlin
    Clyne

    And replacing them with

    Classie
    Austin
    Cuco Martina
    Long
    Pied
    Gardos
    Rodriguez
    Hojbjerg
    Redmond
    Boufal

    And its actually costing us money?
    i appear to have fallen for it and open the door on your pet subject. We will have to agree to disagree, cheers it really has been fun.

  24. Default


  25. #25

    Default

    So the 45 million figure incudes the summer of Osvaldo, Lovren and Wanyama where we had a net spend of 40 million didn't we?

    So as expected, since Cortese left we've spent what we've brought in in transfer money

  26. #26

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    hiding in shadows where I don't belong
    Posts
    31,260

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trousers View Post
    So we only got 30.3 million net for Schneiderlin and Clyne then, doesn't seem much compared to the figures generally bandied about.

  27. Default

    Hopefully we get a sit-down audio interview with Adam Blackmore & Rogers.

  28. #28

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    faraway
    Posts
    5,710

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Window Cleaner View Post
    So we only got 30.3 million net for Schneiderlin and Clyne then, doesn't seem much compared to the figures generally bandied about.
    They wouldn't have recognised contingent consideration. So that's the upfront fee.

  29. #29

    Default

    It includes wages FFS. We have spent less on transfer fees than we received but wages are higher so we have net out in the red on these numbers by 45M. Wages are covered by broadcast fees and commercial income however so we made a profit of 4.5M last year. Basically, the club is spinning a bit but it's put us in a sound financial situation, most of the players who have left wanted to leave anyway and the wage bill would probably be higher if we matched Liverpool / Spurs / Man U wages to keep them here, so all in all it looks like good management for a medium sized club to me. Well done Gaz, 7/10. Miss out on 3 for not buying cover for VVD and letting Fonte go costing us a Wembley win you ****ers.

  30. #30

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    18,339

    Default

    The fees received column is net of sell-on payments so won't reflect the actual transfer values. We must have paid a reasonable sell-on whack for Lallana, Lovren, Wanyama and Mane, I would have thought. Maybe Schneiderlin too, considering how little we paid for him in the first place!

  31. #31

    Default

    For all Heisenberg's posturing, it is a bit of a concern that we apparently didn't sell our players for as much as we thought. Most of the time fans were ok with the sales because we at least seemed to be getting a decent chunk of cash.

    Or, if so22saint is correct, is the whole paradigm of transfer fees misleading? When we hear figures of £25m and £30m, are they always inclusive of wages? And therefore, even if we are getting a few £m less than expected for players, is that acceptable because the entire transfer market is also constantly overstated, in every single report and rumour?

  32. #32

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    18,339

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mrfahaji View Post
    For all Heisenberg's posturing, it is a bit of a concern that we apparently didn't sell our players for as much as we thought. Most of the time fans were ok with the sales because we at least seemed to be getting a decent chunk of cash.

    Or, if so22saint is correct, is the whole paradigm of transfer fees misleading? When we hear figures of £25m and £30m, are they always inclusive of wages? And therefore, even if we are getting a few £m less than expected for players, is that acceptable because the entire transfer market is also constantly overstated, in every single report and rumour?
    No, of course they aren't inclusive of wages. He's talking ********.

    The column shows actual money received. So not contingent payments that might form part of the overall value of the transfer and not sell-on fees to other clubs. Logically, it must be less than the sum of the individual transfer values.

  33. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by benjii View Post
    No, of course they aren't inclusive of wages. He's talking ********.

    The column shows actual money received. So not contingent payments that might form part of the overall value of the transfer and not sell-on fees to other clubs. Logically, it must be less than the sum of the individual transfer values.
    I only saw your post after posting mine, that would make more sense. Hopefully anyway, else it's very disappointing!

  34. #34

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    18,339

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mrfahaji View Post
    I only saw your post after posting mine, that would make more sense. Hopefully anyway, else it's very disappointing!
    I should also note, those figures in the quoted table are reflective of cash-flow. So if a fee is to be paid in instalments you will only see the instalments actually paid (and so, again, you would expect the figures to be less than the full transfer value). The remaining instalments should show as assets on the balance sheet, not in the P&L.

  35. #35

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    WHAT?! The "land of the free?" Whoever told you that is your enemy!
    Posts
    18,741

    Default

    One thing I've noticed when transfer fees are reported in the press is that no two sources ever seem to give the same transfer fee. Even when two clubs report what they paid/sold a player for they quite often seem to give different fees I guess with bonuses/clauses and sell on fees it is easy to spin what a club sold or bought a player for?

  36. #36

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Locks Heath ex Townhill
    Posts
    8,354

    Default

    So its good bye VVD to balance he transfer budget

  37. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 70's Mike View Post
    So its good bye VVD to balance he transfer budget
    No, because despite spending more on transfers than we receive we still made a profit overall.
    Incredible that after years of misinformed "we should be spending these big fees we receive FFS!" We get the proof that we HAVE been, and people spin it into a negative thing.

  38. #38

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Guildford
    Posts
    1,608

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 70's Mike View Post
    So its good bye VVD to balance he transfer budget
    I'm assuming this post has some (very deadpan) humour attached. It's clearly stated that we made a profit of £4.9M so there's no need to sell anyone balance the books.

  39. #39

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    hiding in shadows where I don't belong
    Posts
    31,260

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by benjii View Post
    The fees received column is net of sell-on payments so won't reflect the actual transfer values. We must have paid a reasonable sell-on whack for Lallana, Lovren, Wanyama and Mane, I would have thought. Maybe Schneiderlin too, considering how little we paid for him in the first place!
    RC Strasbourg went bust a long time ago. the entity that sold us Morgan hasn't existed for these last 6 or 7 years. The one that's almost back to where it was before is entirely different so I doubt that we had to pay any sell on fee in that case. The difference being between us and the defunct R C Strasbourg is that they went bust in their totality, with us it was just the parent company.
    Last edited by Window Cleaner; 15-03-2017 at 10:26 AM.

  40. #40

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    18,339

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Window Cleaner View Post
    RC Strasbourg went bust a long time ago. the entity that sold us Morgan hasn't existed for these last 6 or 7 years. The one that's almost back to where it was before is entirely different so I doubt that we had to pay any sell on fee in that case. The difference being between us and the defunct R C Strasbourg is that they went bust in their totality, with us it was just the parent company.
    Ah, right. I didn't know they had gone bust. Or "buuust" as the French say. Thanks.

  41. #41

    Default

    In 99% of transfers the reported sum includes add on's (bonus for winning cups/leagues, qualifying for Europe, sell on fee's ect)...

    Is it not possible that we have based financials on a worse case scenario i.e we get no add on for sales and purchases we pay all add on's agreed. Would also increase the transfer net spend....

  42. #42

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    hiding in shadows where I don't belong
    Posts
    31,260

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by benjii View Post
    Ah, right. I didn't know they had gone bust. Or "buuust" as the French say. Thanks.
    Yep even worse than Pompey, they only had amateur status from about 2010 to 2013.

  43. #43

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    100 miles south-east of Newport
    Posts
    28,793
    Blog Entries
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SKD View Post
    In 99% of transfers the reported sum includes add on's (bonus for winning cups/leagues, qualifying for Europe, sell on fee's ect)...

    Is it not possible that we have based financials on a worst case scenario i.e we get no add on for sales and purchases we pay all add ons agreed. Would also increase the transfer net spend....
    To be more accurate, the reported figure from the selling club usually includes all add-ons, the reported figure from the buying club none of them. It's been quite a while since Saints actually announced a transfer fee, hasn't it?

    The figures are then muddied even more by reporting of the payments in instalments and the value of players on the books confused by amortization over the duration of the contract. Plus for some reason hardly anyone whinging about how little we've spent on players includes all of the new contracts signed by existing players at higher wage rates.

    All of which makes it a bit more tricky to see what's actually happening than anyone who just wants to spout off about it will be prepared to invest in learning anything about it.

  44. #44

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    100 miles south-east of Newport
    Posts
    28,793
    Blog Entries
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Window Cleaner View Post
    Yep even worse than Pompey, they only had amateur status from about 2010 to 2013.
    As an aside, Evian have also gone under in the past year or so, since we played them in a pre-season friendly not too long ago. Shame, as their weird pink and navy kits with the alps on were interesting and they had a decent run in the Coupe de France recently as well.

  45. #45

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Locks Heath ex Townhill
    Posts
    8,354

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alanh View Post
    I'm assuming this post has some (very deadpan) humour attached. It's clearly stated that we made a profit of £4.9M so there's no need to sell anyone balance the books.
    profit and cash are not the same thing

  46. #46

    Default

    Heisenberg hasn't been as active recently, but his WUM efforts in this thread are pitiful at best

  47. #47

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Stuck in the middle with me
    Posts
    5,718

    Default

    If the selling club received what the buying club paid, the world would be full of hungry ex-agents.

  48. #48

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wokingham, Berkshire
    Posts
    8,371

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CB Fry View Post
    Sometimes you just have to stand and applaud.

    A masterpiece.

    2/10.
    Your rather boring picking up of him is just as tedious.

  49. #49

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Guildford
    Posts
    1,608

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 70's Mike View Post
    profit and cash are not the same thing
    I'm pretty sure most financially literate people understand that, but I don't get the point you are trying to make. Was your original post about selling VVD serious?

  50. #50

    Default

    It seems to indicate that we have been selling players for considerably less than has been bandied about and buying them for more. But any accounts which show a profit have to be considered OK. I'd guessed the profit would be greater but the discrepancies in the reported transfer fees would explain that.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •