Results 1 to 40 of 40

Thread: Article in Guardian on PL club finances and borrowing inc Saints

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    the metropolis of Southampton
    Posts
    6,518

    Default Article in Guardian on PL club finances and borrowing inc Saints

    https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-g...82406991355552

    In this morning's Guardian - not sure if it is new information or something everyone is aware of, but it seems most PL clubs, including us, borrow heavily against future revenues? I was under the impression the aim of SFC, as things currently are, is to be self sustainable. Perhaps since Gao's takeover we don't borrow any more? I don't know but it's an interesting read and it is frightening how clubs are desperate to stay in the top-flight.

  2. #2

    Default

    Dont think that’s much different to most things - pay on credit card until get wages then pay off in full.
    If we are due the Money in August yet need money for transfers in June/July where is issue?
    Been doing it since loveable old rosey cheeks


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  3. #3

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    stamping on peoples dreams since 2010
    Posts
    29,160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fitzhugh Fella View Post
    https://www.pressreader.com/uk/the-g...82406991355552

    In this morning's Guardian - not sure if it is new information or something everyone is aware of, but it seems most PL clubs, including us, borrow heavily against future revenues? I was under the impression the aim of SFC, as things currently are, is to be self sustainable. Perhaps since Gao's takeover we don't borrow any more? I don't know but it's an interesting read and it is frightening how clubs are desperate to stay in the top-flight.
    With every day that passes our self sustainable model appears to be less and less sustainable

  4. #4

    Default

    Saw this linked on the UI, a long but interesting read. The Don gets quoted on their too.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...-a9330431.html

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fitzhugh Fella View Post
    In this morning's Guardian - not sure if it is new information or something everyone is aware of, but it seems most PL clubs, including us, borrow heavily against future revenues? I was under the impression the aim of SFC, as things currently are, is to be self sustainable. Perhaps since Gao's takeover we don't borrow any more? I don't know but it's an interesting read and it is frightening how clubs are desperate to stay in the top-flight.
    Yeah, seems to be the vast majority of "non-elite" clubs are using this as a form of bridging for cash-flow between payments from the Premier League. The PL could help the clubs out by making the payments more frequent, which would then reduce the reliance on the likes of Macquarie (who we've used for a while now) and reduce interest payments, allowing more of it to stay "in the game" - whether they've any interest in doing that, who knows.

    I'm not overly concerned by it as long as the sums advanced are in line with payments that are due within the same season (as has seemingly always been the case to date), if we - or another club - started borrowing early against earnings from a future season then I'd be much more worried, although I suspect that may cross a boundary in terms of what level of risk the bank would realistically accept.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    stamping on peoples dreams since 2010
    Posts
    29,160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 100%Red&White View Post
    Saw this linked on the UI, a long but interesting read. The Don gets quoted on their too.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...-a9330431.html
    “I had the money to buy players,” Cortese says. “But not the money to keep players.”

    I thought his fans said that no one would ever have left if Cortese had stayed?

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Eastleigh
    Posts
    2,841

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Turkish View Post
    “I had the money to buy players,” Cortese says. “But not the money to keep players.”

    I thought his fans said that no one would ever have left if Cortese had stayed?
    Chamberlain left
    As for no one leaving, you will never know.
    It's a fact (that you do not like) that the players bought into his vision and it is also a fact that pretty much every player rated Poch more than anyone else in respect of coaching and managing, even more than dear old Nigel.
    So, Poch and Cortese, staying together would almost certainly have kept certain players at the club a little longer perhaps. It is probably a fact that some would still have left at the first sniff of a better contract elsewhere.
    It is also a fact that once Reed and Wreck It Ralph took over, we basically sold anything that moved.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    the metropolis of Southampton
    Posts
    6,518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 100%Red&White View Post
    Saw this linked on the UI, a long but interesting read. The Don gets quoted on their too.

    https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...-a9330431.html
    God that was a depressing read

  9. #9

    Default

    Biggest winner from all the additional TV money are the players and agents. Fans pay more than 5-6 years ago and clubs don't make anymore profit than before.

    All that's changed is the ridiculous player wages.

    Scary to think that on average first team players at SFC now get c£80k PW or c£4 million a year in wages.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Gotham City
    Posts
    29,571

    Default

    does this mean we wont be signing anyone in the summer?

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Batman View Post
    does this mean we wont be signing anyone in the summer?
    Unless Gao digs deep (builds club debt) we would probably need to sell a few first. I think we have roughly broken even on transfers past 4 years.

    Lemina, Carrillo, Hoedt, Moi, Boufal, FF, Vesty.... should raise a few millions to spend.

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Gotham City
    Posts
    29,571

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Heisenberg View Post
    Unless Gao digs deep (builds club debt) we would probably need to sell a few first. I think we have roughly broken even on transfers past 4 years.

    Lemina, Carrillo, Hoedt, Moi, Boufal, FF, Vesty.... should raise a few millions to spend.
    Who could we sell, before we buy on top of that?
    I am thinking Ings and/or JwP could allow us to being in a couple of loans....

  13. #13

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    stamping on peoples dreams since 2010
    Posts
    29,160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Batman View Post
    Who could we sell, before we buy on top of that?
    I am thinking Ings and/or JwP could allow us to being in a couple of loans....
    Hojbjerg, Bertrand we should also be able to sell.

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Gotham City
    Posts
    29,571

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Turkish View Post
    Hojbjerg, Bertrand we should also be able to sell.
    Something will have to give to cover ‘Longy’ on his £3m a year salary

  15. #15

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    stamping on peoples dreams since 2010
    Posts
    29,160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Batman View Post
    Something will have to give to cover ‘Longy’ on his £3m a year salary
    Don’t forget that unlike every other club we will need to pay Longys agent a fee for extending the deal, probably a bonus to Longy and then there are NI contributions to factor in. Big chunk of the summer budget gone there already

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Turkish View Post
    With every day that passes our self sustainable model appears to be less and less sustainable
    I don't see how it means the club isn't sustainable. PL TV money is paid for in instalments, this helps with cash flow. Doesn't make the club unsustainable as the money is still coming to them and the loan is repaid.

  17. #17

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    stamping on peoples dreams since 2010
    Posts
    29,160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Matthew Le God View Post
    I don't see how it means the club isn't sustainable. PL TV money is paid for in instalments, this helps with cash flow. Doesn't make the club unsustainable as the money is still coming to them and the loan is repaid.
    In isolation it doesn’t but factor in the wage bill, half a dozen players we can’t sell, inability to improve the squad without sales, it doesn’t quite paint the picture of the wonderful utopia of a brilliantly well run club you and the other cheerleaders like to make out it is

  18. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Turkish View Post
    In isolation it doesn’t but factor in the wage bill, half a dozen players we can’t sell, inability to improve the squad without sales, it doesn’t quite paint the picture of the wonderful utopia of a brilliantly well run club you and the other cheerleaders like to make out it is
    I've not said that. I hope Gao sells up asap.

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Turkish View Post
    In isolation it doesn’t but factor in the wage bill, half a dozen players we can’t sell, inability to improve the squad without sales, it doesn’t quite paint the picture of the wonderful utopia of a brilliantly well run club you and the other cheerleaders like to make out it is
    The people responsible are no longer there are they? The club wasn't well run, now we don't know if it is or not. And what do you mean by "Don’t forget that unlike every other club we will need to pay Longys agent a fee for extending the deal", agents always get paid when their client signs a new contract, at this club and at all the others.

  20. #20

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    stamping on peoples dreams since 2010
    Posts
    29,160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cartman View Post
    The people responsible are no longer there are they? The club wasn't well run, now we don't know if it is or not. And what do you mean by "Don’t forget that unlike every other club we will need to pay Longys agent a fee for extending the deal", agents always get paid when their client signs a new contract, at this club and at all the others.

    Some of them are, it’s only Kruger, Wilson and Reed who have gone

    As for my other points bonuses, agents fees and NI contributions have long been used by some as an excuse as to why we need to make a profit from transfers

  21. #21

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    In the doghouse...again
    Posts
    3,391

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Turkish View Post
    In isolation it doesn’t but factor in the wage bill, half a dozen players we can’t sell, inability to improve the squad without sales, it doesn’t quite paint the picture of the wonderful utopia of a brilliantly well run club you and the other cheerleaders like to make out it is
    Assuming Gao stays, and given the reality of our finances (lots of crap players who's values are less then we paid on expensive contracts, an operating loss in our last published accounts etc) how should the club be run?

    The options seem to be :
    A) carry on wheeling and dealing whilst trying to shed the donkeys, or
    B) borrow to build, or
    C) something else - if so what?

    What's the solution?

  22. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cartman View Post
    The people responsible are no longer there are they?
    Quote Originally Posted by Turkish View Post
    Some of them are, it’s only Kruger, Wilson and Reed who have gone
    All the key major decision makers on the football side of the club then!

  23. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by egg View Post
    Assuming Gao stays, and given the reality of our finances (lots of crap players who's values are less then we paid on expensive contracts, an operating loss in our last published accounts etc) how should the club be run?

    The options seem to be :
    A) carry on wheeling and dealing whilst trying to shed the donkeys, or
    B) borrow to build, or
    C) something else - if so what?

    What's the solution?
    C) Have an owner who puts money into the club in the form of loans converted to equity, just like most of our close rivals do.

  24. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by verlaine1979 View Post
    C) Have an owner who puts money into the club in the form of loans converted to equity, just like most of our close rivals do.
    That doesn't work with the scenario egg gave of... "Assuming Gao stays"

  25. #25

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    stamping on peoples dreams since 2010
    Posts
    29,160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by egg View Post
    Assuming Gao stays, and given the reality of our finances (lots of crap players who's values are less then we paid on expensive contracts, an operating loss in our last published accounts etc) how should the club be run?

    The options seem to be :
    A) carry on wheeling and dealing whilst trying to shed the donkeys, or
    B) borrow to build, or
    C) something else - if so what?

    What's the solution?
    A bit of a and b short term. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a bit of short term, manageable debt. We’ve already shifted c£400k off the weekly wage bill since the start of last year, adding a generous £120k to it. I’m not counting loans as we don’t know what percentage we are paying or what other clubs are paying but given we’ve got 2 in and 5 out worst case we’d be neutral unless we’ve done a ridiculously bad deal. So see what we can shift, then a bit of short term debt if need be to give Ralph the 4-5 quality players in the model he needs (assuming no other first team player go) and there you go, two years time provided we don’t royally balls up Reed style you’re back to having a decent squad full of players we can sell and we’re back to our proper sustainable model with a much lower wage bill which anyone who isn’t completely deluded and mental would agree is the perfect model for a club like saints.

  26. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Matthew Le God View Post
    That doesn't work with the scenario egg gave of... "Assuming Gao stays"
    Well, at least it sounds like we're all in agreement that our owner is substantially poorer than the league average, and we got sold up the river.

  27. #27

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    In the doghouse...again
    Posts
    3,391

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by verlaine1979 View Post
    C) Have an owner who puts money into the club in the form of loans converted to equity, just like most of our close rivals do.
    That's cheating!! Assuming Gao stays that ain't gonna happen.

  28. #28

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    In the doghouse...again
    Posts
    3,391

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by verlaine1979 View Post
    Well, at least it sounds like we're all in agreement that our owner is substantially poorer than the league average, and we got sold up the river.
    On that we do agree.

  29. #29

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    The Garden of Engerland
    Posts
    4,130

    Default

    There aren't hoards of cheerleaders claiming we are a well run club, rather the opposite. People believe that we have been run badly for many years and understand that it is difficult to turn it around with out racking up a lot of debt. We first have to shift some **** to give us the headroom to manoeuvre. Being realistic isn't being an apologist.

  30. #30

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    The Garden of Engerland
    Posts
    4,130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by verlaine1979 View Post
    Well, at least it sounds like we're all in agreement that our owner is substantially poorer than the league average, and we got sold up the river.
    It was all sales fluff nonsense from Kat, only believed by the naive. Taking us to the next level had more chance of being ******** as it had of being true.

  31. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fan The Flames View Post
    It was all sales fluff nonsense from Kat, only believed by the naive. Taking us to the next level had more chance of being ******** as it had of being true.
    Of course - anyone looking at Lander's value as a company could see that Gao had only ever been small time and was getting smaller, long before the sale went through.

    The implication being, though, that you can't actually trust anything the club tells you about our strategy or long-term direction.

  32. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fitzhugh Fella View Post
    God that was a depressing read
    Yep depressing and pretty much shows how pointless the whole thing is.

  33. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tajjuk View Post
    Yep depressing and pretty much shows how pointless the whole thing is.
    Really? It just looks like a bit of financial parasitism. The clubs are just electing to pay a fee in order to get their money up front from transfers and broadcasting. Some dodgy bank makes a good margin, but that's what dodgy banks do. It's all so specifically secured against guaranteed future incomes that it barely qualifies as debt.

  34. #34

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    London
    Posts
    22,742

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fan The Flames View Post
    There aren't hoards of cheerleaders claiming we are a well run club, rather the opposite. People believe that we have been run badly for many years and understand that it is difficult to turn it around with out racking up a lot of debt. We first have to shift some **** to give us the headroom to manoeuvre. Being realistic isn't being an apologist.
    That's a bit to sensible I'm afraid. We need less of this and far more of the Turkish and Batman show dominating every single thread.

  35. #35

    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Bristol
    Posts
    3,218
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Turkish View Post
    In isolation it doesn’t but factor in the wage bill, half a dozen players we can’t sell, inability to improve the squad without sales, it doesn’t quite paint the picture of the wonderful utopia of a brilliantly well run club you and the other cheerleaders like to make out it is
    Les Reed and co basically sold us down a river. Have to hope Ralph sticks around, because without him I would really fear for the club.

  36. #36

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    stamping on peoples dreams since 2010
    Posts
    29,160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saint86 View Post
    Les Reed and co basically sold us down a river. Have to hope Ralph sticks around, because without him I would really fear for the club.
    Ross “transfer guru” Wilson has a lot to answer for.

  37. #37

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    After moving around Kent, Surrey and Sussex have now settled on the edge of Romney Marsh
    Posts
    13,892

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by verlaine1979 View Post
    Well, at least it sounds like we're all in agreement that our owner is substantially poorer than the league average, and we got sold up the river.
    Apparently Gao is the 9th richest owner in the Prem.

  38. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sadoldgit View Post
    Apparently Gao is the 9th richest owner in the Prem.
    No chance. According to Forbes, there are 393 Chinese nationals with wealth of a billion dollars or more. Gao isn't on the list, which makes sense as the whole of Lander (which he doesn't even own any more) was only worth about £500m the last time I checked.

  39. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by verlaine1979 View Post
    Really? It just looks like a bit of financial parasitism. The clubs are just electing to pay a fee in order to get their money up front from transfers and broadcasting. Some dodgy bank makes a good margin, but that's what dodgy banks do. It's all so specifically secured against guaranteed future incomes that it barely qualifies as debt.
    The other article, not the first one.

  40. #40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tajjuk View Post
    The other article, not the first one.
    Ah right, yes, just went back and read it. Depressing as hell.

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
  •