Matthew Le God Posted 1 June, 2014 Share Posted 1 June, 2014 (edited) 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 1 June, 2014 by Matthew Le God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toadhall Saint Posted 1 June, 2014 Share Posted 1 June, 2014 Already being done on the MP thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cellone Posted 1 June, 2014 Share Posted 1 June, 2014 What for? Next years sell off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 1 June, 2014 Author Share Posted 1 June, 2014 Already being done on the MP thread 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). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeShmoe Posted 1 June, 2014 Share Posted 1 June, 2014 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 More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 1 June, 2014 Share Posted 1 June, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popyto Posted 1 June, 2014 Share Posted 1 June, 2014 Can't be true according to the mirror the other day we are broke! I have to be honest I have no idea what to believe any more, the optimist in me wants to believe there's some good news coming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 1 June, 2014 Author Share Posted 1 June, 2014 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 More sharing options...
Bewildered Posted 1 June, 2014 Share Posted 1 June, 2014 Let's hope it is true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolan Posted 1 June, 2014 Share Posted 1 June, 2014 Adam Blackmore said something similar on twitter the other day. A decent Kitty plus any money from sales. Sent from my LG-D802 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 1 June, 2014 Share Posted 1 June, 2014 "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 More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 1 June, 2014 Author Share Posted 1 June, 2014 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 More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 1 June, 2014 Share Posted 1 June, 2014 Looking like these clowns couldn't run an asset strip to save their lives. Useless. Pull your fingers out and get on with the fire sale we've been promised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Block34 Posted 1 June, 2014 Share Posted 1 June, 2014 For sure the only clowns here are you lot - even when the board play hard ball you find fault with it. Happiest when you're moaning eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 1 June, 2014 Share Posted 1 June, 2014 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 More sharing options...
Dalek2003 Posted 1 June, 2014 Share Posted 1 June, 2014 As I have said previously, the bedwetters and doom mongers might end up with a lot of egg on their faces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 1 June, 2014 Share Posted 1 June, 2014 As I have said previously, the bedwetters and doom mongers might end up with a lot of egg on their faces. We could afford Glen Hoddle as boot boy with that sort of money Dalek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toadhall Saint Posted 1 June, 2014 Share Posted 1 June, 2014 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 More sharing options...
JoeShmoe Posted 1 June, 2014 Share Posted 1 June, 2014 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 More sharing options...
Coxford_lou Posted 1 June, 2014 Share Posted 1 June, 2014 Looking like these clowns couldn't run an asset strip to save their lives. Useless. Pull your fingers out and get on with the fire sale we've been promised. HA! Brilliant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dig Dig Posted 1 June, 2014 Share Posted 1 June, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 1 June, 2014 Share Posted 1 June, 2014 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 More sharing options...
Saint Charlie Posted 1 June, 2014 Share Posted 1 June, 2014 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 More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 1 June, 2014 Share Posted 1 June, 2014 I thought cortese was 'recklessly spending'? Anyone-But-Cortese Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 1 June, 2014 Author Share Posted 1 June, 2014 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 More sharing options...
Lallana's Left Peg Posted 1 June, 2014 Share Posted 1 June, 2014 We spent £37 and £36m in the previous two seasons, after selling lots of players you know think we'll spend less. I do, with £27m owed this summer for players already at the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 1 June, 2014 Author Share Posted 1 June, 2014 I do' date=' with £27m owed this summer for players already at the club.[/quote'] 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lallana's Left Peg Posted 1 June, 2014 Share Posted 1 June, 2014 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 More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 1 June, 2014 Share Posted 1 June, 2014 (edited) 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 1 June, 2014 by shurlock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 1 June, 2014 Share Posted 1 June, 2014 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 More sharing options...
SaintJackoInHurworth Posted 1 June, 2014 Share Posted 1 June, 2014 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 More sharing options...
Nolan Posted 1 June, 2014 Share Posted 1 June, 2014 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 1 June, 2014 Share Posted 1 June, 2014 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lallana's Left Peg Posted 1 June, 2014 Share Posted 1 June, 2014 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 More sharing options...
Nolan Posted 1 June, 2014 Share Posted 1 June, 2014 How about when it appears to fly in the face of what the board has publicly stated 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 More sharing options...
Batman Posted 1 June, 2014 Share Posted 1 June, 2014 Point me to any statement that said we aren't going to spend money. Sent from my LG-D802 using Tapatalk "financial difficulties" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolan Posted 1 June, 2014 Share Posted 1 June, 2014 "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 More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 1 June, 2014 Share Posted 1 June, 2014 (edited) 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 Edited 1 June, 2014 by shurlock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted 1 June, 2014 Share Posted 1 June, 2014 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 More sharing options...
Saint Charlie Posted 1 June, 2014 Share Posted 1 June, 2014 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 More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 1 June, 2014 Share Posted 1 June, 2014 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 More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 1 June, 2014 Author Share Posted 1 June, 2014 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 More sharing options...
sotonist Posted 1 June, 2014 Share Posted 1 June, 2014 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 More sharing options...
TheCholulaKid Posted 1 June, 2014 Share Posted 1 June, 2014 I have a problem with this...... You surprise me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpturner Posted 1 June, 2014 Share Posted 1 June, 2014 So we really need to keep any player sales (Shaw and/or Lallana or anyone else) a secret from the football world and we'll be sorted! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 1 June, 2014 Share Posted 1 June, 2014 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 More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 1 June, 2014 Share Posted 1 June, 2014 You surprise me! Did you read the rest of the post, FFS ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Kint Posted 1 June, 2014 Share Posted 1 June, 2014 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 More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 1 June, 2014 Share Posted 1 June, 2014 (edited) 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 1 June, 2014 by alpine_saint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 1 June, 2014 Author Share Posted 1 June, 2014 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 More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now