Jump to content

New Southampton manager to be given a "minimum of a £50m transfer kitty"


Matthew Le God

Recommended Posts

Daily Express claims Ronald Koeman if appointed will get a "minimum of a £50m transfer kitty" plus "the amount available for transfers at Southampton is likely to be increased should any of the club's stars command substantial fees".

 

http://www.express.co.uk/sport/football/479575/Ronald-Koeman-promised-50m-transfer-kitty-as-Saints-close-in-on-Pochettino-replacement

Edited by Matthew Le God
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree, the panic and bed wetting is getting too much, the board have allowed Lambert to go to his boyhood club, turned down offers for Shaw and Lallana and appear to look like appointing a decent replacement for Poch. Let's give them a chance

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This not helpful. £50m implies Lallana and Shaw will be sold.

 

Not helpful at all.... £30m would imply Shaw and Lambert sold.

 

Not good at all if true - Reed must keep our captain.

 

"minimum of a £50m transfer kitty" and "the amount available for transfers at Southampton is likely to be increased should any of the club's stars command substantial fees".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"minimum of a £50m transfer kitty" and "the amount available for transfers at Southampton is likely to be increased should any of the club's stars command substantial fees".

 

But we know that's rubbish. Hope its true, but I can't see it. If it were true we wouldn't have any speculation about our best players staying!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But we know that's rubbish. Hope its true, but I can't see it. If it were true we wouldn't have any speculation about our best players staying!

 

The club has spent £73m on players in the previous two seasons, given the significant increase in TV revenue spending this summer regardless of player sales may have been at a similar or increased level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The club has spent £73m on players in the previous two seasons, given the significant increase in TV revenue spending this summer regardless of player sales may have been at a similar or increased level.

 

Good point - perhaps there is £50m.

 

I just hope Koeman says he's not selling anyone until he has had a chance to assess the team, which won't be until January.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought as the forum is being drown in numerous negative random musing threads, something like this should have its own thread to cheer us all up (if true).

 

Fair point was just noting that it was already being discussed. I'm all for a bit of positive news in this maelstrom of negative news and SWF meltdown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But we know that's rubbish. Hope its true, but I can't see it. If it were true we wouldn't have any speculation about our best players staying!

 

All the media driven, twitter type mega bull**** you mean? That speculation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this is true and we have a 50M kitty without player sales than we are actually more financially unsustainable under the new regime than the former?

 

All very weird.

I thought cortese was 'recklessly spending'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Figure obviously just plucked out the air by the Journo. The rest of the article is just a translation of the Dutch piece and that mentions no figures.

 

We will spend at a max 30m. Probably less as will look to the Academy, rightly or wrongly.

 

Also, once the players have gone, our wage bill will have reduced and I doubt we will be offering as much money to new recruits as some get now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Figure obviously just plucked out the air by the Journo. The rest of the article is just a translation of the Dutch piece and that mentions no figures.

 

Is that not what you've just done here...

 

We will spend at a max 30m. Probably less as will look to the Academy, rightly or wrongly.

 

Also, once the players have gone, our wage bill will have reduced and I doubt we will be offering as much money to new recruits as some get now.

 

Saints spent £37m and £36m in the previous two seasons, after selling lots of players you know think we'll spend less. On what is that based on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats not true, its £22m.

 

Plus any transfers this summer will likely also be done in instalments over a number of years, as is common in football.

 

Ok - so £22m owed this summer. Do you think we'll spend another £50m this summer (fees owed over several years etc.) even if Lallana and Shaw stayed?

 

My guess is the Lallana and Shaw deals cover the £22m this summer and allow some money to be spent on new players. I can't see any 'new' money being spent beyond that.

 

Of course, I'd be delighted to be proven wrong as long as we're spending money we have...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that not what you've just done here...

 

 

 

Saints spent £37m and £36m in the previous two seasons, after selling lots of players you know think we'll spend less. On what is that based on?

 

We've been warned of grave financial difficulties -how Nik Nak was developing the footballing equivalent of a crack habit; and now the board is lighting up and wants to outdo him?

 

Either its bol***ks or its financially sustainable. Very odd.

 

Its the express, I wouldnt believe them if they said night follows day.

Edited by shurlock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that not what you've just done here...

 

 

 

Saints spent £37m and £36m in the previous two seasons, after selling lots of players you know think we'll spend less. On what is that based on?

 

Its probably based on a new board, financial difficulties and that nasty NC overspending dangerously

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I find myself drawn both ways in the debates about our board. However, I'm an optimist when all's said and done and hope that while there may have been some mistakes made by Krueger, Reed and KL they still have chance to turn it all around.

As for the issue of money, if I understand it correctly we are currently due to pay about £25 in transfer fees and about the same for the training ground developments. However we are also receiving about £80m in payments as our portion of the TV deal money and other reward money. Together with money anticipated next year that means that £50m is well within our means if payments are scheduled correctly.

 

Sent from my C1505 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I'm getting from this thread that some people are happy to believe the media when it comes to player sales, but not when it comes to spending...

 

Sent from my LG-D802 using Tapatalk

 

How about when it appears to fly in the face of what the board has publicly stated :facepalm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I find myself drawn both ways in the debates about our board. However, I'm an optimist when all's said and done and hope that while there may have been some mistakes made by Krueger, Reed and KL they still have chance to turn it all around.

As for the issue of money, if I understand it correctly we are currently due to pay about £25 in transfer fees and about the same for the training ground developments. However we are also receiving about £80m in payments as our portion of the TV deal money and other reward money. Together with money anticipated next year that means that £50m is well within our means if payments are scheduled correctly.

 

Sent from my C1505 using Tapatalk

 

Trying to look at this pragmatically:

 

Last season we lost £7m operationally. Last season included Premier League payments of £44m. Although some of the new contracts were signed before the end of last season the full brunt of them wouldn't be felt until this season. Since last season (and the £7m loss with Premier League income of £44m) the following has happened:

 

Rickie Lambert signed a new deal

Kelvin Davis signed a new deal

Adam Lallana signed a new deal

Morgan Schneiderlin signed a new deal

Luke Shaw signed a new deal

Calum Chambers signed a new deal

 

I will suggest that Lallana, Schneiderlin, and Shaw received significant pay rises. The others less so.

 

We also spent £32m on three players and it would be fair to assume their wages aren't cheap either. The wage bill will be very big for a club of our size.

 

This season we received an extra £40m in Premier League payments (up to around £84m). We also know that £22m of transfer fees are owed in the summer. That would leave £18m for other costs. I can comfortably see most of that gobbled up by the increased wage bill. We trimmed some fringe players in January but I do not see that having a significant impact.

 

I would suggest we will not be making a profit whatsoever for this season. That doesn't stop us buying players of course, however if a spend of £30m on transfer fees each summer (which most of the transfer fee paid in subsequent years) leaves us without a profit each year then exactly how does spending £50m become possible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about when it appears to fly in the face of what the board has publicly stated :facepalm:

 

Point me to any statement that said we aren't going to spend money.

 

Sent from my LG-D802 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"financial difficulties"

 

Take the quote as a whole

 

" Whilst I perceive that we have inherited a difficult situation financially, there are now clear and structured plans in place to progress the Club and avoid a similar situation from occurring again.

 

The continued support of the Ultimate Shareholder cannot be underestimated, and we are grateful to be able to rely on their dedication to helping us flourish as a Club"

 

That sounds like money to spend to me.

 

 

Sent from my LG-D802 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Point me to any statement that said we aren't going to spend money.

 

Sent from my LG-D802 using Tapatalk

 

Who said we aren't going to spend any money :?

 

The question is how much.

 

The board emphasised financial difficulties from day one, how what they inherited was unsustainable - this story claims that we are intending to spend more than what was spent under that previous regime. It doesn't take a genius to work out the seeming contradiction.

 

Oh yeh, its the Express, the darn gospel :facepalm:

Edited by shurlock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take the quote as a whole

 

" Whilst I perceive that we have inherited a difficult situation financially, there are now clear and structured plans in place to progress the Club and avoid a similar situation from occurring again.

 

The continued support of the Ultimate Shareholder cannot be underestimated, and we are grateful to be able to rely on their dedication to helping us flourish as a Club"

 

That sounds like money to spend to me.

 

 

Sent from my LG-D802 using Tapatalk

I thought it was a given that we were 'recklessly' spending under nasty nic

 

within days, the new CEO has come out talking of european football with more talk of spending north of £50m

 

hi, meet ralph, just like nasty nic but with a different accent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take the quote as a whole

 

" Whilst I perceive that we have inherited a difficult situation financially, there are now clear and structured plans in place to progress the Club and avoid a similar situation from occurring again.

 

The continued support of the Ultimate Shareholder cannot be underestimated, and we are grateful to be able to rely on their dedication to helping us flourish as a Club"

 

That sounds like money to spend to me.

 

Sent from my LG-D802 using Tapatalk

 

Key is the quote above the bold one. If you have overspent how do you prevent that from happening again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a problem with this......

 

A new manager gets a min. 50m transfer kitty - great. The PR figtback has started (belatedly).

 

This increases if we sell any players for substantial fees. OK, lets say we get 30m for Shaw and 30m for Lallana (22.5m in reality). So lets say the new manager can spen half of that, taking the kitty to 75m - great, sounds wonderful.

 

The MAIN problem is, every club and every f**ker agent is going to know that, so we have to pay double for the players we want (which are going to be Toms, Dicks and Harrys, because we are not competitive for silverware). In effect, we will end up with a weaker squad. And apart from needing to replace RL, AL, and LS (at the least), we need a couple of extra players to identify last season's weaknesses (GK, CB, striker)

 

Moral of the story for me - do a better job of holding on to what you've got and build from there.

 

IF this strategy is going to work, the managerial appointment HAS to be someone with a big name and widely respected in football, so he can attract players. Otherwise this is going to be a Dixon & Speedie-sized disaster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a problem with this......

 

A new manager gets a min. 50m transfer kitty - great. The PR figtback has started (belatedly).

 

This increases if we sell any players for substantial fees. OK, lets say we get 30m for Shaw and 30m for Lallana (22.5m in reality). So lets say the new manager can spen half of that, taking the kitty to 75m - great, sounds wonderful.

 

The MAIN problem is, every club and every f**ker agent is going to know that, so we have to pay double for the players we want (which are going to be Toms, Dicks and Harrys, because we are not competitive for silverware). In effect, we will end up with a weaker squad. And apart from needing to replace RL, AL, and LS (at the least), we need a couple of extra players to identify last season's weaknesses (GK, CB, striker)

 

Moral of the story for me - do a better job of holding on to what you've got and build from there.

 

IF this strategy is going to work, the managerial appointment HAS to be someone with a big name and widely respected in football, so he can attract players. Otherwise this is going to be a Dixon & Speedie-sized disaster.

 

How do you keep hold of players capable of playing at Champions League competing level, if you aren't Champions League competing level yourself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take the quote as a whole

 

" Whilst I perceive that we have inherited a difficult situation financially, there are now clear and structured plans in place to progress the Club and avoid a similar situation from occurring again.

 

The continued support of the Ultimate Shareholder cannot be underestimated, and we are grateful to be able to rely on their dedication to helping us flourish as a Club"

 

That sounds like money to spend to me.

 

 

Sent from my LG-D802 using Tapatalk

has anyone thought that the difficult financial situation might be ffp? cortese embarking on a reckless spending spree without generating revenue to match it, which might have left us in trouble for reasons other than insolvency.

 

maybe veho has a rich new shareholder and our sponsorship deal is better than we thought ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you keep hold of players capable of playing at Champions League competing level, if you aren't Champions League competing level yourself?

 

You try for a start....

 

Our players seemed fairly happy with NC and Mopo's vision. Maybe thats what missing now, along with all the accusations of a communications blackout between management and players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you keep hold of players capable of playing at Champions League competing level, if you aren't Champions League competing level yourself?

 

You hold them to their contracts which have 4 years remaining... Lallana is 26, what's he really going to do if we refuse to sell him? Sulk for 4 years and let his career end? He'll be disappointed for a couple of weeks, and then he'll get over it and prove to other clubs they were wrong not to meet our valuation of him. It's the only thing he can do

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You hold them to their contracts which have 4 years remaining... Lallana is 26, what's he really going to do if we refuse to sell him? Sulk for 4 years and let his career end? He'll be disappointed for a couple of weeks, and then he'll get over it and prove to other clubs they were wrong not to meet our valuation of him. It's the only thing he can do

 

Thats a great post. If our own fans think we should just bend over and take it from behind, we cannot moan that the tabloids and the bigger clubs think the same.

 

I dont give a sh*t RLs childhood club came in for him. He had a contract with us. F**k the sentimental bullsh*t, there is too much money involved.

Edited by alpine_saint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You hold them to their contracts which have 4 years remaining... Lallana is 26, what's he really going to do if we refuse to sell him? Sulk for 4 years and let his career end? He'll be disappointed for a couple of weeks, and then he'll get over it and prove to other clubs they were wrong not to meet our valuation of him. It's the only thing he can do

 

Thats a great post. If our own fans think we should just bend over and take it from behind, we cannot moan that the tabloids and the bigger clubs think the same.

 

In an ideal world that is what should happen, but there are not many examples of clubs doing that and it working out for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...