Sport Republic

[Turkish]

5 minutes ago, Chewy said:

But you just agreed with MLG when he said he probably bought us because we had a bigger fan base and better infrastructure than those clubs. I think your word was “exactly.”

Talking if MLG ... not sure they sold us for £200m? Still have 20% don’t they?

And I think their investment was slightly more than the £13m purchase price. We were spending way above league 1 income for those two seasons im sure, and I’d guess at the top end when in the championship, incurring significant operational losses.

And we are the best case scenario example. If I was about to invest tens (probably hundreds) of millions I’d look at more normal timescales than our best case example to decide on the likely outcome.

But it’s not my money, and despite the play-off nightmare and their manager of the time  (forgotten name for the moment ... Billy?) I quite like them as a club so good luck to them.

 

I didn’t say exactly in response to MLG. I responded to MLGs point when he said we were cheaper and a More upside. You’re all over the place 

 

in league one we spent about £4m, Then another £5m or so in the championship, we got all that back and more from the sale of Oxlaide chamberlain. So much for having to spend £100m to go up pal

Edited 8 November, 2020 by Turkish

[egg]

1 minute ago, Turkish said:

I didn’t say exactly in response to MLG. I responded to MLGs point when he said we were cheaper and a More upside. You’re all over the place 

Del, picking up on the comment on the other thread. The point for me is that we're £120m more expensive than Derby. We're established. Spending the extra £120m on Derby may not get anything near as good as we are now. Personally I doubt £120m will get anything near what we have. I'd spend the extra on us if I had, unless I wanted a project to play with. 

On that last point, Derby have huge appeal. Good stadium, fanbase, and the ability to grow it. We're limited by geography. New fans can be drawn in from the east midlands and south yorkshire. Youngsters from Nottingham wanting something better than forest and county can offer may be converted. It'd be a great project with more potential, fan wise, than we can offer. 

[Turkish]

6 minutes ago, egg said:

Del, picking up on the comment on the other thread. The point for me is that we're £120m more expensive than Derby. We're established. Spending the extra £120m on Derby may not get anything near as good as we are now. Personally I doubt £120m will get anything near what we have. I'd spend the extra on us if I had, unless I wanted a project to play with. 

On that last point, Derby have huge appeal. Good stadium, fanbase, and the ability to grow it. We're limited by geography. New fans can be drawn in from the east midlands and south yorkshire. Youngsters from Nottingham wanting something better than forest and county can offer may be converted. It'd be a great project with more potential, fan wise, than we can offer. 

I don’t disagree with any of that, but to take us to the next level and make any significant profit is going to to take a huge investment to turn us into a champions league club with no guarantees that would happen. With derby obviously no guarantees either but your £35m a year turnover business becomes a £150m business if it does. Your investment is worth significantly more. I’d argue it’s much easier and cheaper to get a big championship club to the premier league than a middle sized premier league club to the champions league. The whole discussion started about from a cold business view which is the better option, in my mind business = growth and profit, you’ll get much more of that with Derby.

Edited 8 November, 2020 by Turkish

[Chewy]

11 minutes ago, Turkish said:

I didn’t say exactly in response to MLG. I responded to MLGs point when he said we were cheaper and a More upside. You’re all over the place 

 

in league one we spent about £4m, Then another £5m or so in the championship, we got all that back and more from the sale of Oxlaide chamberlain. So much for having to spend £100m to go up pal

You’re right, you didn’t say exactly. You told MLG “for once you’re right”. And his point was that we had a bigger fan base and better infrastructure. Read your own post!

And your spending analysis of League one is made up of what, exactly?

transfer fees? Have you considered wages, Marchwood upgrade, stadium improvements, off field staff investment, the black box, the black box room, the people watching the black box, Cortese Corteses cutlery, Les Reed, les reeds pr machine, the special pillows the players slept on, the “we march on” signage?

And we were suddenly in profit when we reached the promised land, were we? I thought Cortes was binned for trying to live way beyond our means ... pal, one of us is indeed all over the place.

[Turkish]

6 minutes ago, Chewy said:

You’re right, you didn’t say exactly. You told MLG “for once you’re right”. And his point was that we had a bigger fan base and better infrastructure. Read your own post!

And your spending analysis of League one is made up of what, exactly?

transfer fees? Have you considered wages, Marchwood upgrade, stadium improvements, off field staff investment, the black box, the black box room, the people watching the black box, Cortese Corteses cutlery, Les Reed, les reeds pr machine, the special pillows the players slept on, the “we march on” signage?

And we were suddenly in profit when we reached the promised land, were we? I thought Cortes was binned for trying to live way beyond our means ... pal, one of us is indeed all over the place.

I know what I said mate it’s you that keeps misquoting me.

staplewood opened in 2014, we’d been a premier league club for 3 years by then, it cost £40m due to Corteses helmet like behavior, it was budgeted for £15m, but hey let’s pretend all that was paid for whilst we were in league one shall we and despite making a profit from transfers during our time in league one and the championship let’s pretend we didn’t to get to this mythical £100m every club has to spend to get promoted.

[Chewy]

16 minutes ago, Turkish said:

I don’t disagree with any of that, but to take us to the next level and make any significant profit is going to to take a huge investment to turn us into a champions league club with no guarantees that would happen. With derby obviously no guarantees either but your £35m a year turnover business becomes a £150m business if it does. Your investment is worth significantly more. I’d argue it’s much easier and cheaper to get a big championship club to the premier league than a middle sized premier league club to the champions league. The whole discussion started about from a cold business view which is the better option, in my mind business = growth and profit, you’ll get much more of that with Derby.

I actually agree with most of that until the final line. Premier league doesn’t equal Operating profit as I think we and most clubs prove. Growth is the only benefit, but when the required spend outweighs the saving, it’s simple maths.

My estimation of Derby’s required spend (wages and fees) together with the period of spending this without receiving the improved premier league income is imho way more than the difference in purchase price. And promotion is far less likely than our relegation. On the balance of risk v reward, the rewards are potentially there but are quite remote, the required spend enormous so the risk is too great.

i can accept others will reach a different conclusion. It is not, however, a no-brainer. 
Now in better news for everyone I’m out for the rest of the day so feel free to tear holes ...

Edited 8 November, 2020 by Chewy
Typi

[verlaine1979]

9 hours ago, Chewy said:

I actually agree with most of that until the final line. Premier league doesn’t equal Operating profit as I think we and most clubs prove. Growth is the only benefit, but when the required spend outweighs the saving, it’s simple maths.

My estimation of Derby’s required spend (wages and fees) together with the period of spending this without receiving the improved premier league income is imho way more than the difference in purchase price. And promotion is far less likely than our relegation. On the balance of risk v reward, the rewards are potentially there but are quite remote, the required spend enormous so the risk is too great.

i can accept others will reach a different conclusion. It is not, however, a no-brainer. 
Now in better news for everyone I’m out for the rest of the day so feel free to tear holes ...

You're just way off in your estimate of how much teams have to spend to get promoted. For instance, in the five years prior to promotion, Leeds made a net transfer profit of over £14m.

In contrast, Wolves spent pretty big after their takeover, but their pre-promotion transfer outlay was still under £60m net, and 1/3 of that was buying Neves who is now worth around £50m just by himself.

If anyone is spending anything close to £100m to get promoted, they are the outlier, not the likes of Sheff Utd.

[StDunko]

1 hour ago, verlaine1979 said:

You're just way off in your estimate of how much teams have to spend to get promoted. For instance, in the five years prior to promotion, Leeds made a net transfer profit of over £14m.

In contrast, Wolves spent pretty big after their takeover, but their pre-promotion transfer outlay was still under £60m net, and 1/3 of that was buying Neves who is now worth around £50m just by himself.

If anyone is spending anything close to £100m to get promoted, they are the outlier, not the likes of Sheff Utd.

You can't just consider transfer fees, what about the increase in wages?

[verlaine1979]

1 hour ago, StDunko said:

You can't just consider transfer fees, what about the increase in wages?

Why would a club breaking even or making transfer profits find itself with a vastly elevated wage bill compared to the rest of the league? As I've said, Wolves spent a large amount of money to get promoted in the two years after their takeover, but they appear to be the exception rather than the rule.

[Roo1976]

Seems to be all quite on the takeover front...............uuuummmmmmmmmmmm

[skintsaint]

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/54956962

 

Maybe these were the American investors but went elsewhere? 😄

[the saint in winchester]

Can't imagine WST were looking for £200M. A tenner to buy with the £2M they have committed to spend on players.

[SaintBobby]

The book “Soccernomics” makes a good case that it’s pretty much impossible to make a profit out of football. There are exceptions, of course, the Liebherrs bring one (obviously had the advantage of buying us at such a low ebb - I think Aviva got stuffed on the stadium mortgage, if I recall?).

Aren’t wages 107% of turnover for an average club in the Championship? 
 

If your aim is simply to make money, football isn’t a good option. Or, at the very least, it’s a very high risk option.

 

[Dusic]

On the latest TSP Semmens basically said most of the rumours are rubbish but acknowledged that something could happen before too long.

Not an exciting answer, but probably accurate.

Either way, lets hope he (Semmens) remains involved.

[SuperSAINT]

 

[trousers]

Any significance in this? (This is the company that was set up to facilitate the purchase of SFC by Markus back in 2009)

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/06951749/filing-history

 

Edited 25 November, 2020 by trousers

[John D]

Will be because the confirmation statement is now 3 months late

 

[trousers]

10 minutes ago, John D said:

Will be because the confirmation statement is now 3 months late

 

Cheers John. Is that in itself significant? I've no idea how important a cog this DMWSL 612  'ghost company' is in the ownership chain. It was obviously a key entity when Markus took over but does it play any part in the overall organisation of 'Southampton Football Club Ltd' these days?

[trousers]

Confirmation statement sorted.... 'DMWSL 612 Ltd' lives to fight another day! (still no idea what significance this company has on SFC these days, if any)

[Turkish]

Hypos current ITK status ❌

[John D]

On 25/11/2020 at 11:08, trousers said:

Cheers John. Is that in itself significant? I've no idea how important a cog this DMWSL 612  'ghost company' is in the ownership chain. It was obviously a key entity when Markus took over but does it play any part in the overall organisation of 'Southampton Football Club Ltd' these days?

Don't think it is connected to Southampton anymore - ownership passed from the St Mary's Group to Katerina L a couple of years ago.  

[SaintsLoyal]

On 25/11/2020 at 10:45, trousers said:

Any significance in this? (This is the company that was set up to facilitate the purchase of SFC by Markus back in 2009)

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/06951749/filing-history

 

 

Got it down as DMWSL 613 which was renamed St Marys football group

[John Boy Saint]

There was a bit in the Daily Snail today saying Gao was playing hard ball on the asking price to the point of upping it based on our good start, they were saying about the loan he took out as the Chinese had tightened the strings on monies being invested outside China being tightened. Apparently the septics aren’t happy with point of view this based on a few good results - which is hardly a surprise as they are having to secure a loan to cover the purchase price.

Surprised that Andy Oldknow hasn’t emerged from the woodwork to find a buyer.

[Nordic Saint]

1 hour ago, John Boy Saint said:

There was a bit in the Daily Snail today saying Gao was playing hard ball on the asking price to the point of upping it based on our good start, they were saying about the loan he took out as the Chinese had tightened the strings on monies being invested outside China being tightened. Apparently the septics aren’t happy with point of view this based on a few good results - which is hardly a surprise as they are having to secure a loan to cover the purchase price.

Surprised that Andy Oldknow hasn’t emerged from the woodwork to find a buyer.

 

A takeover of Southampton Football Club by American businessman Joseph DaGrosa has reportedly been delayed after the team’s strong Premier League form.

According to a report from the Daily Mail (Saturday 28th November 2020, pg 123), current owner Jisheng Gao is using the impressive showings of Ralph Hasenhuttl and his players to raise the asking price for a potential buyout.

Southampton: Saints takeover reportedly delayed by current owner Gao (saintsmarching.com)

[Mowgli]

Can't say I'm unhappy about this news.  Stability has been a key factor to our success.  Really don't want to see any risk introduced with a new owner who wants to make his or her 'mark' on the club.  Say what you like about Gao - he does let the club run without interference.

[Convict Colony]

9 hours ago, Nordic Saint said:

 

A takeover of Southampton Football Club by American businessman Joseph DaGrosa has reportedly been delayed after the team’s strong Premier League form.

According to a report from the Daily Mail (Saturday 28th November 2020, pg 123), current owner Jisheng Gao is using the impressive showings of Ralph Hasenhuttl and his players to raise the asking price for a potential buyout.

Southampton: Saints takeover reportedly delayed by current owner Gao (saintsmarching.com)

Reckon its Da grosa looking to save face after not having the money and our price not coming down

[Dusic]

44 minutes ago, Convict Colony said:

Reckon its Da grosa looking to save face after not having the money and our price not coming down

Most likely. And everything would suggest its a lucky escape.

[trousers]

10 hours ago, Nordic Saint said:

 

A takeover of Southampton Football Club by American businessman Joseph DaGrosa has reportedly been delayed after the team’s strong Premier League form.

According to a report from the Daily Mail (Saturday 28th November 2020, pg 123), current owner Jisheng Gao is using the impressive showings of Ralph Hasenhuttl and his players to raise the asking price for a potential buyout.

Southampton: Saints takeover reportedly delayed by current owner Gao (saintsmarching.com)

What does the author know about DaGrosa that led him to this conclusion...?

 

 

Everything I've read about him would lead me to conclude we'd be 'lucky' if he doesn't gain control of the club. It's almost as if the article was written by DaGrosa himself... (Don't be ridiculous Trousers. That could never happen. No-sir-eee..)

 

Edited 29 November, 2020 by trousers

[Avenue_Saint]

On or off the pitch, previous experiences show us the value of partnerships.

 

A big factor for Ralph feeling settled here has to be Martin Semmens. He has made clear reference to this on multiple occasions, thus far. As was the case for Poch with Cortese.

 

With a potential takeover are we at risk of new owners bringing in their own guy(s)?
 

Do we really want to rock the boat when we have such a good thing with Ralph and the forward thinking trajectory the club find ourselves on right now? He has proved that this current successful model isn’t relative to owner ploughing money in to the club.

 

I like Gao for one very important reason. He doesn’t appear to take money out of the club. Kat clearly did and we all carried on looking up to her and smiling. Dutifully, from ear to ear.

This DaGrossa guy can do one.

 

 

[S-Clarke]

There has always been too much chat from DaGrossa and about DaGrossa, and absolutely no action.

Usually the hallmarks of total charlatans.

[egg]

41 minutes ago, Avenue_Saint said:

On or off the pitch, previous experiences show us the value of partnerships.

 

A big factor for Ralph feeling settled here has to be Martin Semmens. He has made clear reference to this on multiple occasions, thus far. As was the case for Poch with Cortese.

 

With a potential takeover are we at risk of new owners bringing in their own guy(s)?
 

Do we really want to rock the boat when we have such a good thing with Ralph and the forward thinking trajectory the club find ourselves on right now? He has proved that this current successful model isn’t relative to owner ploughing money in to the club.

 

I like Gao for one very important reason. He doesn’t appear to take money out of the club. Kat clearly did and we all carried on looking up to her and smiling. Dutifully, from ear to ear.

This DaGrossa guy can do one.

 

 

Agreed. In addition to that, I like that Gao stays out of the limelight and gets on with it quietly. On his watch we've hired Ralph, Semmens, Crocker and ditched Reed and the hockey man. Whilst he's pumped in his own cash, it's obvious from the accounts that we've spent as much as we can. 

I'm happy as we are. 

[Turkish]

Had the tied of feeling turned on Goa? Seems the fans are a lot more accepting than they were even a year ago. 

[Delmary]

Unfortunately, the club and Gao will eventually struggle to service our increasing debt burden, unless significant player sales take place, or via external takeover investment. It’s a different situation. The club’s options are limited.

[egg]

3 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Had the tied of feeling turned on Goa? Seems the fans are a lot more accepting than they were even a year ago. 

I can't speak for others Del, but so far as I could see the only actual criticism people were making was a) that he can’t / won't throw cash at the club, and b) that he doesn't make public statements / noise. There's also idiots that assume he's a crook / money launderer.

[Wade Garrett]

5 hours ago, Turkish said:

Had the tied of feeling turned on Goa? Seems the fans are a lot more accepting than they were even a year ago. 

All depends on how we’re doing on the pitch!

[trousers]

[farawaysaint]

1 hour ago, trousers said:

Just lining up to a more normal year end, pretty standard for a newly incorporated Co. 

Edited 2 December, 2020 by farawaysaint

[Delmary]

An interesting fact. The Co-owner of LA FC https://www.lafc.com/club/ownership/

is also the co-founder of Ares Capital, the financial backers of Kapital Football Group.

 

[Roo1976]

Not the same people that are about to take over Burnley then?https://www.lafc.com/club/ownership/

 

Edited 29 December, 2020 by Roo1976

[Medrurkin]

On 08/11/2020 at 10:57, egg said:

Del, picking up on the comment on the other thread. The point for me is that we're £120m more expensive than Derby. We're established. Spending the extra £120m on Derby may not get anything near as good as we are now. Personally I doubt £120m will get anything near what we have. I'd spend the extra on us if I had, unless I wanted a project to play with. 

On that last point, Derby have huge appeal. Good stadium, fanbase, and the ability to grow it. We're limited by geography. New fans can be drawn in from the east midlands and south yorkshire. Youngsters from Nottingham wanting something better than forest and county can offer may be converted. It'd be a great project with more potential, fan wise, than we can offer. 

Relative fan base size is hardly relevant in the PL where gate and merchandising income maybe adds around 10% of total income for most clubs. Look at the massive disparity in ST prices across PL clubs. Owners don't deliberately keep prices down for the benefit of the fans, it is to maximise gate revenue over the season by getting more punters in. Unless clubs have serial big time successes on the pitch (like the so called top 6), there are simply not enough fans who want to pay the high price for access. Clubs like Derby, Leeds, Nottingham Forest are only attractive if they can be bought very cheaply, have a decent stadium and there is a good prospect of getting into the PL and staying there with half decent football.

Sunderland are doing the League One experience for the second time in recent history, despite having high gate turnouts and ST sales. Ellis Short, a US billionaire took a bath on his investment there, as after a few years of clinging onto PL survival, they slipped and plunged. Most of these investors do not care about football, they care about making money, so very soon stop putting money into the club. They all think they will use the "develop young talent and sell it high" approach, which even Southampton have found difficult to produce in recent years. Short made most of his money by trading distressed debt, a very ugly industry. I believe the prospective Southampton buyer has been in that arena too, though it has largely been billed as "Capital Investment Consulting".

[SuperSAINT]

Maybe the Burnley takeover isn’t so great... 

Edited 8 January, 2021 by SuperSAINT

[trousers]

1 hour ago, SuperSAINT said:

Maybe the Burnley takeover isn’t so great... 

https://www.saintsweb.co.uk/topic/58117-registration-of-charge-macquarie-bank-vs-msd-holdings/

 

Edited 8 January, 2021 by trousers

[igsey]

MSD Capital are doing great business off football clubs it seems.

[Pamplemousse]

Hmmm, it'll be interesting to see how that pans out.

I think if DaGrosa was serious it would be done by now.

Given how well we're doing this season, either Gao no longer wants to sell (understandable) or people are waiting until the economy stabilises.

[Roo1976]

Or the asking price has shot up.

Edited 8 January, 2021 by Roo1976

[stevy777_x]

22 minutes ago, Roo1976 said:

Or the asking price has shot up.

Exactly what i said 2 months ago

[John Boy Saint]

46 minutes ago, Roo1976 said:

Or the asking price has shot up.

Or maybe they are uncomfortable with the thought of DaGrosa having to do what the Burnley lot are having to do, especially if Kat is in the mix, as her Dad wouldn’t be having any of that.

[stevy777_x]

Just now, John Boy Saint said:

Or maybe they are uncomfortable with the thought of DaGrosa having to do what the Burnley lot are having to do, especially if Kat is in the mix, as her Dad wouldn’t be having any of that.

And the fact of selling it to someone who has zero dosh is also ok?

[John Boy Saint]

1 minute ago, stevy777_x said:

And the fact of selling it to someone who has zero dosh is also ok?

Who says he had no dosh, Chinese government slapped a ban on Chinese money they couldn’t control going out of the country willy nilly - so he had to go round the houses to get it out. Which looks a bit shonky all round.

[Jeremy]

How are seats allocated for away team supporters at St Marys (does anybody know)? Also, anybody know how much revenue is brought into Souhhampton when you host an away team?  I'm involved in organising a cycling event over here (NZ) where we get public funds on account of the assumption that the event attracts publicity for Palmerston North (and possibly short- or long-term revenue for local business from visitors). This may seem a bit daft but what about public/private owernship of the Club: joint venture with a big noter financier and perhaps the Southampton City Council (or whatever it is called) owning half (if the business plan numbers stack up) and public ownership either as debentures or publicly listed shares (or combiantion of both)? I think Barcelona sort of operates along these principles. Maybe then you would have more funds available to get one or two really big marquee players and also develop your academy and develop the local talent. Also, you might get better local buy-in and grass roots support that better identifies with the team.

The current policy with the All Blacks (NZ national rugby team) is you can't get selected unless you play in the domestic competiton. One of the reasons, I assume, is that the NZRU want player commitment to wearing the jersey based on more traditional values; you want to be selected you commit to playing in our domestic competition first and then earn the right to be considered for selection if you're good enough. This is different to the commodification corporate structure that now dominates so much global professional sport and which isn't necessarily the correct approach.

In my opinion of course.

Edited 9 January, 2021 by Jeremy