Where is all the money going?

[Saint_Ash]

Sky pays for that. No it's not, not if it means you don't improve on pitch.

We have improved on the pitch though over the last few years. The money we get from Sky at the end of the season pays for all the salaries. Ok then.

[Batman]

Don't forget agents fees , Pogba's agent got £20M on top of transfer fee etc . also see Comments in Times today by Palace chairman re mid table clubs who have to recycle players to stay afloat etc.

You will never get the whole story from accounts , it is also pointless to keep saying where is that £20M ? and when that is explained to then say what about the TV money and when ......etc etc

 

every team pays agents fees.

[darren2]

This is 2015 Agent fees...

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/34968159

[eelpie]

To pay off £60M debt. Simples[/quote}

So apart from the Staplewood training ground debt of £30 million, what else raised our debt to £60m?

[MarkSFC]

I refer EVERYONE who is asking "where is all the money going" (which on the face of it sounds accusatory) to the summer of 2009. In very simple terms, as long as our club exists and competes in the Premier League every season the owner can do whatever she wants. I for one will always be grateful to Markus Leibherr and subsequently his daughter for saving the club I love and for the experiences since....

[angelman]

Director's loans also need repaying (maybe).

[Viking Warrior]

Running a football club is not straight forward . There are so many extras we do not think about . Travel costs hotel accommodation non playing staff wages . Support staff such as physios doctors . Ground security . Policing .The club get charged thousands etc etc . Fuel bills etc If it hadn't been for the hooligan element in the 70s attending football and would

be a lot safer and cheaper . Oh I forgot about agent fees.

Some folk on here need to get real . You try running a premier league or championship football club

[Batman]

Running a football club is not straight forward . There are so many extras we do not think about . Travel costs hotel accommodation non playing staff wages . Support staff such as physios doctors . Ground security . Policing .The club get charged thousands etc etc . Fuel bills etc If it hadn't been for the hooligan element in the 70s attending football and would

be a lot safer and cheaper . Oh I forgot about agent fees.

Some folk on here need to get real . You try running a premier league or championship football club

 

isnt that the same for all clubs though?

[Sour Mash]

Running a football club is not straight forward . There are so many extras we do not think about . Travel costs hotel accommodation non playing staff wages . Support staff such as physios doctors . Ground security . Policing .The club get charged thousands etc etc . Fuel bills etc If it hadn't been for the hooligan element in the 70s attending football and would

be a lot safer and cheaper . Oh I forgot about agent fees.

Some folk on here need to get real . You try running a premier league or championship football club

 

What does any of that have to do with this thread?

[Whitey Grandad]

isnt that the same for all clubs though?

 

Why would this be relevant?

[Batman]

Why would this be relevant?

 

because if all clubs have running costs, we are back to the original question as saints are no different

[Fan The Flames]

every team pays agents fees.

 

isnt that the same for all clubs though?

 

The clue is in the title 'where is all the money going', the title isn't 'why do we spend less money on wages and transfer fees then other prem clubs'.

[Batman]

The clue is in the title 'where is all the money going', the title isn't 'why do we spend less money on wages and transfer fees then other prem clubs'.

 

where is the money going that means we have to have regular negative net spends to get by when no other club does

what is it that makes us different?

[Saint-Fred]

Well according to this the money is not going to Ralph or Les...our suits are not paid anything like some of the other clubs!

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/may/25/premier-league-finances-club-by-club-breakdown-david-conn

[Whitey Grandad]

because if all clubs have running costs, we are back to the original question as saints are no different

 

You need to look at the accounts for differences between clubs. There really isn't a lot of difference. Most run at a loss of some sort. We should not be misled by the headline figures for the player sales since these are not often fully paid up front and in cash flow terms there is not a lot of surplus and in any case you need to look at the figures over several years to get a true picture. In a few seasons we have gone from a League One club owing tens of millions to a Premier League club worth over £100 million. That increase has to come from somewhere. Other clubs will not have had to find this increase.

 

The big TV money has yet to kick in, hasn't it?

[Batman]

You need to look at the accounts for differences between clubs. There really isn't a lot of difference. Most run at a loss of some sort. We should not be misled by the headline figures for the player sales since these are not often fully paid up front and in cash flow terms there is not a lot of surplus and in any case you need to look at the figures over several years to get a true picture. In a few seasons we have gone from a League One club owing tens of millions to a Premier League club worth over £100 million. That increase has to come from somewhere. Other clubs will not have had to find this increase.

 

The big TV money has yet to kick in, hasn't it?

 

2 years ago, the 'net debt' was £48m, very middle of the road.

according to the Guardian

[Whitey Grandad]

2 years ago, the 'net debt' was £48m, very middle of the road.

according to the Guardian

 

Did they say what that debt consisted of? In the accounting world there are many possibilities.

[Batman]

Did they say what that debt consisted of? In the accounting world there are many possibilities.

so, why do you reckon we seem to need to operate with a hefty negative net spend every summer when others (much smaller with bigger debts) seemingly do not?

[Bartosz Bialkowski]

so, why do you reckon we seem to need to operate with a hefty negative net spend every summer when others (much smaller with bigger debts) seemingly do not?

 

It is clear that we are simply operating comfortably within our means, whilst other teams are leveraging a greater level of debt with a potentially greater level of investor backing.

 

Im not sure whether to hate it or like it. It's just annoying, all a the other kids have reebok pumps and we're bossing hi-tecs - because we'll grow out of them soon anyway.

[Fan The Flames]

where is the money going that means we have to have regular negative net spends to get by when no other club does

what is it that makes us different?

 

The negative transfer spend is through choice, as we have chooses to increase our wage spend, in line with the theory that your league position correlates with wage expenditure and has a looser correlation with transfer expenditure. Our wages are now the 9th highest in the division, so we are moving capital to revenue and paying decent wages and it's all thanks to Liverpool FC.

[Whitey Grandad]

so, why do you reckon we seem to need to operate with a hefty negative net spend every summer when others (much smaller with bigger debts) seemingly do not?

 

Net spend on its own is not particularly relevant. A club might sign a player who is out or near the end of contract for a low figure but then choose to pay higher wages instead.

[Pilchards]

I expect we are still owed money by so many clubs.

Take Liverpool for example, they purchased Lallana for X amount. They pay a down payment of 12m and will pay the rest over 3 years.

I expect Manchester United owe us a fair amount too for Shaw and Spider.

[shurlock]

Net spend on its own is not particularly relevant. A club might sign a player who is out or near the end of contract for a low figure but then choose to pay higher wages instead.

 

Not quite. It's also fair to assume that every club signs players in this way i.e. free transfers are randomly distributed, so the effects largely wash out and thus can be ignored without too much loss of accuracy.

Edited 3 September, 2016 by shurlock

[hutch]

2 years ago, the 'net debt' was £48m, very middle of the road.

according to the Guardian

And one year ago it was £65m. Did you overlook that for any particular reason?

[david in sweden]

Net spend on its own is not particularly relevant.

A club might sign a player who is out or near the end of contract for a low figure but then choose to pay higher wages instead.

An excellent point that many overlook, Whitey.

 

It's fairly obvious that with the prospect of having Wanyama and Pelle " walk away for nothing " next summer, we did well to re-coup around £24 million on their deals.

 

What would have happened had we sold... Forster, van Dijk, Bertrand, Tadic or Long?...who would have been their replacements ...and how much would they have cost?

 

As it was, giving existing players new/longer contracst has kept the bulk of the team intact for a second season, and a better foundation for an ever-changing squad.

[Plastic]

And one year ago it was £65m. Did you overlook that for any particular reason?

 

Hang on, how the hell has our debt increased year on year? Believe 3 years ago it was in the region of £30m?

Surely this indicates that, even with our yearly sales, our business model is not sustainable? I thought the whole point was that we were reducing our debt.

Haven't read the reports so a view from someone who has would be appreciated.

[Batman]

Hang on, how the hell has our debt increased year on year? Believe 3 years ago it was in the region of £30m?

Surely this indicates that, even with our yearly sales, our business model is not sustainable? I thought the whole point was that we were reducing our debt.

Haven't read the reports so a view from someone who has would be appreciated.

 

basically, it is going up £15m-20m every 12 months.

despite being middle of the road wages and a significant minus net spend for the last 2-3 summers

 

I think Les Reed needs to explain this immediately otherwise we could go pop

[70's Mike]

at least the money is not going on a radio station, insurance company or to barry the briefcase

[SFCMatt]

I think the increase is to do with new training facilities isn't it?

What's worrying is why the debt from pre Katarina and Ralph days hasn't started to decrease despite 3 years of minus net spend.

No other club in Premier League history as far as i can see has ever done that, certainly not since the bumper pay deals came in.

[Heisenberg]

basically, it is going up £15m-20m every 12 months.

despite being middle of the road wages and a significant minus net spend for the last 2-3 summers

 

I think Les Reed needs to explain this immediately otherwise we could go pop

 

Earlier in this thread I was told to "look at the accounts" and that our transfer profits were paying off our debt?

 

Are we now saying this isn't the case and actually our debt keeps going up?

 

Generating more questions than answers this thread is.

[Window Cleaner]

I have no idea, perhaps there's less money than some like to think. We'll have to wait and see what the accounts say come springtime.

[Dalek2003]

If the club has a 'reserve' and we can maintain our PL status then it could be argued that it is worth the risk to limit our investment.

 

Should we need to bolster the team in January we could do so and if the very worst happens and we get relegated we can rebuild the squad without being in debt.

 

The trouble is, in the short term it shows lack of ambition, which to some extent is true. But, after previous experiences becoming sustainable and staying out of debt is as much a priority as our league position IMO.

[Crab Lungs]

basically, it is going up £15m-20m every 12 months.

despite being middle of the road wages and a significant minus net spend for the last 2-3 summers

 

I think Les Reed needs to explain this immediately otherwise we could go pop

 

I thought Cortese was the one who was running up the huge debts and Ralph and Kat were all about sustainability ???

[positivepete]

I have no idea, perhaps there's less money than some like to think. We'll have to wait and see what the accounts say come springtime.

 

The Swiss Ramble blog is a good place to start

 

http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/southampton-with-or-without-you.html

 

One year old, so a new post may be out soon

[Saint-Fred]

If the club has a 'reserve' and we can maintain our PL status then it could be argued that it is worth the risk to limit our investment.

 

Should we need to bolster the team in January we could do so and if the very worst happens and we get relegated we can rebuild the squad without being in debt.

 

The trouble is, in the short term it shows lack of ambition, which to some extent is true. But, after previous experiences becoming sustainable and staying out of debt is as much a priority as our league position IMO.

 

If we are putting money aside for relegation it's shows a distinct lack of belief in the Southampton way surely? I thought we were looking for champions league not championship?

Storing money for a raining day is fine but if it's at the expense of today then it becomes a self fulfilling prophesy?

That's what the parachute payments are for?

Also if we are paying off the debt to Katrina surely we don't need a back up contingency fund..surely she can bung us another loan? What else is the benefit in a billionaire owner? I am not advocating her funding the club just the contingency fund which hopefully is never needed and even then if it is needed will protect her investment?

[Dalek2003]

basically, it is going up £15m-20m every 12 months.

despite being middle of the road wages and a significant minus net spend for the last 2-3 summers

 

I think Les Reed needs to explain this immediately otherwise we could go pop

 

That must be the case for other clubs as well. If that is the case then a lot of clubs spending heavy are taking a massive gamble with their future should they get relegated.

 

Interesting that my local club Norwich also keep their spending in check and bounce back from relegation in good shape.

[Saint_clark]

I find it very hard to believe our debt is increasing that much when we own all our assets and our wage bill is comparatively low. Bit of scaremongering going on me thinks.

[Dalek2003]

If we are putting money aside for relegation it's shows a distinct lack of belief in the Southampton way surely? I thought we were looking for champions league not championship?

Storing money for a raining day is fine but if it's at the expense of today then it becomes a self fulfilling prophesy?

That's what the parachute payments are for?

Also if we are paying off the debt to Katrina surely we don't need a back up contingency fund..surely she can bung us another loan? What else is the benefit in a billionaire owner? I am not advocating her funding the club just the contingency fund which hopefully is never needed and even then if it is needed will protect her investment?

 

Do you insure your car or house ? IMO the principle is the same. The longevity of SFC needs to prevail and before Marus rescued us we were in great peril. I expect when he came along he made that point and we have stuck with it ever since. Supporting SFC will always be a bit of a roller coaster and we have to be realistic about the Club. We are a good medium sized club that will occasionally dip into the second league. Although hard to to take, if we are in a good financial position it lessens the trauma and allows us to rebuild in a sensible and sustainable way. We can then start on another upward cycle.

We must start seeing the bigger picture and the long term, unlike many clubs who put themselves in peril because of the fear of relegation. If we can plan for relegation we can see it as an opportunity to rebuild and stop fearing it.

[hutch]

I'm pretty sure we'll see a noticeable reduction in the debt last year when the figures come out.

[Saint-Fred]

K

That must be the case for other clubs as well. If that is the case then a lot of clubs spending heavy are taking a massive gamble with their future should they get relegated.

 

Interesting that my local club Norwich also keep their spending in check and bounce back from relegation in good shape.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/may/25/premier-league-finances-club-by-club-breakdown-david-conn

 

This suggests most clubs, based on results reported in June 2015, including Saints made a profit for the previous year? Only 5 or 6 didn't?

[Saint-Fred]

Do you insure your car or house ? IMO the principle is the same. The longevity of SFC needs to prevail and before Marus rescued us we were in great peril. I expect when he came along he made that point and we have stuck with it ever since. Supporting SFC will always be a bit of a roller coaster and we have to be realistic about the Club. We are a good medium sized club that will occasionally dip into the second league. Although hard to to take, if we are in a good financial position it lessens the trauma and allows us to rebuild in a sensible and sustainable way. We can then start on another upward cycle.

We must start seeing the bigger picture and the long term, unlike many clubs who put themselves in peril because of the fear of relegation. If we can plan for relegation we can see it as an opportunity to rebuild and stop fearing it.

 

I don't personally believe that is what is happening. I don't believe we are stashing money away for relegation. We do spend money, 30 odd million this year, 150 odd million in the three years before that.. Yes we got a lot in but loads has been invested in the first team squad.

Anyway If we went down selling Forster, Bertrand, VVD, Tadic , Boufal etc will fund a championship team for years!

[Dalek2003]

K

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/may/25/premier-league-finances-club-by-club-breakdown-david-conn

 

This suggests most clubs, based on results reported in June 2015, including Saints made a profit for the previous year? Only 5 or 6 didn't?

 

Interesting. I still think though that SFC nearly went to the wall before Markus saved us. From the little I know about Markus, he did not buy the club as some sort of 'flash' status symbol like some owners but was genuinely excited about building a sustainable club for the long term. Also, a club that would invest in youth and have one of the best acadamy in Europe.

I would imagine that this is installed into the club ethos and we have remained true to it. I also believe that Katarina is staying true to her fathers wishes and so she should.

OK, we might not always finish 6th, but in the long term I think the future has a better long term future following a prudent and sensible plan than the model followed by certain clubs who are now playing in the Fouth division.

[Saint_clark]

K

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/may/25/premier-league-finances-club-by-club-breakdown-david-conn

 

This suggests most clubs, based on results reported in June 2015, including Saints made a profit for the previous year? Only 5 or 6 didn't?

 

So since then we've got a fair chunk of wages off the books - Boruc, Mayuka, Hooiveld, Clyne, Aldeweireld, Schneiderlin, Osvaldo, Ramirez, Davis, Mane, Wanyama, Pelle.

All of those in transfer fees add up to just under £95million brought in.

Added to the wage bill - Cedric, Martina, Clasie, Romeu, Van Dijk, Austin, Redmond, Hoejberg, Pied, McCarthy, Boufal.

Transfer fees combined for those is just over £73million.

 

So a £20million profit, plus to my eyes that should be quite a bit of savings in wages. The next set of accounts should show a reduction in the debt and an even healthier financial state...if not there may be a case to be made for asking Les Reed to clarify what the debt is.

(To me this also shows that we do in fact reinvest a reasonable amount of the money we bring in).

 

Disclaimer - these are estimates from soccerbase. I also left Juanmi out completely seeing as he was signed and sold in the same period.

[Batman]

as for not spending as we want to be sustainable etc

 

again, not sure we are the only club who want/do that. yet they spend more out of their pockets than we do

[Saint_clark]

as for not spending as we want to be sustainable etc

 

again, not sure we are the only club who want/do that. yet they spend more out of their pockets than we do

 

But possibly invest less in their infrastructure, or have been in the Prem longer and have better commercial deals, or haven't had two useless wage-draining former record signings in their squad for the last few years.

[Saint-Fred]

as for not spending as we want to be sustainable etc

 

again, not sure we are the only club who want/do that. yet they spend more out of their pockets than we do

 

In recent years we have spent a lot more than the Stokes and Palaces etc on the squad. Perhaps we haven't spent more just because the players we want weren't available so we chose not to spend it on just anyone?

[Batman]

In recent years we have spent a lot more than the Stokes and Palaces etc on the squad. Perhaps we haven't spent more just because the players we want weren't available so we chose not to spend it on just anyone?

 

nets spends.?

[Saint-Fred]

But possibly invest less in their infrastructure, or have been in the Prem longer and have better commercial deals, or haven't had two useless wage-draining former record signings in their squad for the last few years.

 

All clubs have had those type of players (sometimes also record signings) not just us...Most high profile recently has to be Ballotelli!

[Saint_clark]

nets spends.?

 

As I posted above if you add up all the transfer fees since the last set of accounts we've reinvested (roughly) £70million of (roughly) £95million brought in.

One of our biggest complaints as fans is that players are able to kick up a fuss and leave whenever they want...the club have done their best to address this by paying extra money to tie players down to 5/6 year contracts. Yes players can still kick up a fuss, but unless we get what we want (which will be extortionate in this market with contracts that long) they won't be going anywhere for at least 3/4 years when their contracts are about to expire and we'd accept less - so it's in the players interests to continue playing to the best of their abilities if we decide we haven't got a fair offer.

 

Personally, I would never want to see Saints spend as much or more than they brought in.

[Saint-Fred]

nets spends.?

 

Personally net spend is not relevant but even if it is...what do we spend the money on? Sisoko was 30m Benteke 30m Mane 34m....it seems we either spend 30m on a player to improve the team or we get a player who might not be any better than we have already, so why bother?