Can we stomach football for profit

[OldNick]

After the last 10 years of debating the rights and wrongs of the owners wanting to make profits and the CEO's etc getting dividends, would the fans now accept that the club's owners can take a decent profit and that it is not run for football only.

It just seems to me we are going to be cut and shut and only taken on if we can be a juicy investment.

I myself understand some profit should go to shareholders etc but will the wider fanbase now fall in line .

Of course I dearly hope we get a proper benefactor who doesnt look for profit but IMO the way things have gone we are going to get more of the same.

[rpb]

It would make a change form 'football for loss'.

[swannymere]

The vocal part of the fanbase live in dreamland and wouldn't tolerate anybody making money out of the club, especially if they happen to be educated and/or speak properly.[-X

[slickmick]

Sooner or later, this is the way it will go. Football clubs have been living beyond their means for far too long.

[Give it to Ron]

The vocal part of the fanbase live in dreamland and wouldn't tolerate anybody making money out of the club, especially if they happen to be educated and/or speak properly.[-X

 

Well the last bloke we had that had those attributes was a brilliant success wasn't he....especially on his return....oh!

This has nothing to do with class, race or creed just shocking decision making and used as an excuse by some to justify their support for him.

[OldNick]

Well the last bloke we had that had those attributes was a brilliant success wasn't he....especially on his return....oh!

This has nothing to do with class, race or creed just shocking decision making and used as an excuse by some to justify their support for him.

Im trying to look forward not back.We are now at a stage where we have no choice who runs our club (not that I have ever had a choice) .We have to accept that unless we get a football fan who wants to throw some money at us and not have to worry we will have a business first owner/owners again.

This is something the fans will have to come to terms with.

Surely we are not that cursed that we have another ceo that divides us much again.

[Give it to Ron]

Im trying to look forward not back.We are now at a stage where we have no choice who runs our club (not that I have ever had a choice) .We have to accept that unless we get a football fan who wants to throw some money at us and not have to worry we will have a business first owner/owners again.

This is something the fans will have to come to terms with.

Surely we are not that cursed that we have another ceo that divides us much again.

 

Many of us are now hoping for that white knight to save us, we especially need someone with no previous baggage here.

As you say we have never had a choice who owns us as the PLC and the way voting at AGM by the big corporate blocks was carried out we never stood a chance.

Its not the fans fault we are where we are..we didnt sanction any of the loans, transfers, high wages or shocking managerial appointments in the past by ALL parties so I just pray we have a clean slate with someone who can get us solvent and out of this horrible mess.

[alpine_saint]

After the last 10 years of debating the rights and wrongs of the owners wanting to make profits and the CEO's etc getting dividends, would the fans now accept that the club's owners can take a decent profit and that it is not run for football only.

It just seems to me we are going to be cut and shut and only taken on if we can be a juicy investment.

I myself understand some profit should go to shareholders etc but will the wider fanbase now fall in line .

Of course I dearly hope we get a proper benefactor who doesnt look for profit but IMO the way things have gone we are going to get more of the same.

 

Two words : Roman Abrahmovic

[OldNick]

Many of us are now hoping for that white knight to save us, we especially need someone with no previous baggage here.

As you say we have never had a choice who owns us as the PLC and the way voting at AGM by the big corporate blocks was carried out we never stood a chance.

Its not the fans fault we are where we are..we didnt sanction any of the loans, transfers, high wages or shocking managerial appointments in the past by ALL parties so I just pray we have a clean slate with someone who can get us solvent and out of this horrible mess.

we need to led from the land of despair into a feeling of hope. I really do worry we are just going to have more of the same but without the revenue streams that the stadium gave in the summer months and at other times due to conferences etc.

[OldNick]

Two words : Roman Abrahmovic

Hes not buying us is he?

[Gemmel]

After the last 10 years of debating the rights and wrongs of the owners wanting to make profits and the CEO's etc getting dividends, would the fans now accept that the club's owners can take a decent profit and that it is not run for football only.

It just seems to me we are going to be cut and shut and only taken on if we can be a juicy investment.

I myself understand some profit should go to shareholders etc but will the wider fanbase now fall in line .

Of course I dearly hope we get a proper benefactor who doesnt look for profit but IMO the way things have gone we are going to get more of the same.

 

I'm not sure we have much choice. Any billionaires out there with an affinty for Southampton football club, would have turned up ahead of this mess. The people looking at us now are almost certainly looking for a return and there's nothing wrong with that.

What happened 12 years ago is a very different place to where we are today and indeed football and it's finances are as well. Nothing you and i can do about that, it's just a fact of life.

I would be more than comfortable with a consortium of business people, running it at as a commercial business and thier big return will only be realised by Saints getting back in the Premiership. If between now and whenever (If ever) that date is, as long as the club, put football first, then i don't think we can have any complaints.

[dubai_phil]

The only way we can be bought and have a secure future is to be stable and making a profit.

 

The fundamental difference between Lowe and any new owners would be to understand that a Business MUST invest in order to produce improved profits

 

With a fixed income - ie stadium capacity, broadcasting and 'non matchday" revenue streams, then that profit must come from elsewhere.

 

In our case that means simply "creating footballers to sell"

 

Lowe's problem was that he focused mainly on the latter, and not enough on SECURING the day to day operations of the club. He thought that the academy production line would produce the players to propel us into the upper echelons.

It couldn't and it takes too long to produce enough players.

 

So what we NEED is a BALANCE between the investment in the team and the academy. Investment means profit If it is run by wise leaders. You won't make much money these days running a business using machine tools that you bought in the 1970's, you have to invest in the best and most efficient tools you can afford.

 

Lowe failed to grasp that - he saw the amount of money needed to be spent but didn't understand that careful acquisition of assets (eg Drogba & Adebayor) would bring improved profits. Instead he spent all his money buying cheap second hand 1970's machine tools to bloat out the production line

 

Making a profit and running a club IS possible, it simply needs WISE leadership

 

(and no Not fookin Dennis!)

[jonah]

If between now and whenever (If ever) that date is, as long as the club, put football first, then i don't think we can have any complaints.

 

What does that mean though? It's the exact woolly phrase that Wilde used in his infamous manifesto - it doesn't mean anything and can't really be quantified can it?

[The9]

Well the last bloke we had that had those attributes was a brilliant success wasn't he....especially on his return....oh!

This has nothing to do with class, race or creed just shocking decision making and used as an excuse by some to justify their support for him.

 

I think it's naive to try and claim that a large proportion of the dislike for Wupes didn't stem from his upper-class demeanour.

 

He could have presided over a new stadium, an FA Cup Final, top 8 Premiership finish, European football and seen us in the top 4 at one point and people still would have sniped about him being posh...

 

On a general note, football for profit ? What's that ? Is anyone outside the Prem managing it ?

[Gemmel]

What does that mean though? It's the exact woolly phrase that Wilde used in his infamous manifesto - it doesn't mean anything and can't really be quantified can it?

 

It means or was meant to mean (My view, not wildes), that, everything revolves around the football club, predominatly the first team and any expenditure is on the football side. Stability at management level and no distractions.

 

I perhaps should have put; "As long as the company put the football club first."

[jonah]

It means or was meant to mean (My view, not wildes), that, everything revolves around the football club, predominatly the first team and any expenditure is on the football side.

 

OK, so you'd want to shut down anything that isn't football-related, such as stadium concerts, non-matchday hospitality and corporate events, etc? I can see why people want this focus on football, but I think it's completely wrong to ignore alternative revenue streams which can help fund the football as clubs need every penny they can get to remain competitive - the risk is with revenue streams which may turn out to be a loss, eg. the radio station, although obviously this can be partly classified as football-related since it was supposed to be a service for fans. But does that make the problem the idea itself or the execution of that idea?

 

Stability at management level and no distractions.

 

Well it's a nice thought, but I'm not sure it's very realistic - success brings stability, but "success" is a subjective term in itself.

[Big Bad Bob]

Two words : Roman Abrahmovic

 

Yes, but any money he has put towards Chelsea is in the form of a Director's Loan!

 

heaven help Chelsea should he ever get bored of it..

[Gemmel]

OK, so you'd want to shut down anything that isn't football-related, such as stadium concerts, non-matchday hospitality and corporate events, etc? I can see why people want this focus on football, but I think it's completely wrong to ignore alternative revenue streams which can help fund the football as clubs need every penny they can get to remain competitive - the risk is with revenue streams which may turn out to be a loss, eg. the radio station, although obviously this can be partly classified as football-related since it was supposed to be a service for fans. But does that make the problem the idea itself or the execution of that idea?

Well it's a nice thought, but I'm not sure it's very realistic - success brings stability, but "success" is a subjective term in itself.

 

I don't think we should ignore alternative revenue streams, just not at the detriment of the core business, - a football team.

 

I get the feeling, you are trying to turn this in to a lowe vs Rest of world, conversation. The thead is about whether we could stomach, someone running the club for profit and of course the answer is Yes and apart from anything else, we don't have any choice.

[jonah]

I get the feeling, you are trying to turn this in to a lowe vs Rest of world, conversation. The thead is about whether we could stomach, someone running the club for profit and of course the answer is Yes and apart from anything else, we don't have any choice.

 

Sigh. No it's not, it's about you coming out with a Wilde quote of "football first" which means absolutely nothing - like this:

 

I don't think we should ignore alternative revenue streams, just not at the detriment of the core business, - a football team.

 

What is that supposed to actually mean? How can an alternative revenue stream which helps to fund the football team be "detrimental"?

[Give it to Ron]

I think it's naive to try and claim that a large proportion of the dislike for Wupes didn't stem from his upper-class demeanour.

 

He could have presided over a new stadium, an FA Cup Final, top 8 Premiership finish, European football and seen us in the top 4 at one point and people still would have sniped about him being posh...

 

On a general note, football for profit ? What's that ? Is anyone outside the Prem managing it ?

 

Ok you may believe that but personally I don't and have judged him solely on his performance and decison making here especially after all those successful things you mentioned above.....you forgot the best academy in the country, top class catering....

I have written to him on many occasions and used to really enjoyed his radio slot on The Saint when we owned that and he answered several questions at that time - Ok the Ask Rupert was a total joke but that was due mainly to his serfs ;-)

There are obviously a small few who may but there are always a minority group who go against the grain in all walks of life.

[Give it to Ron]

The trouble with additional revenue streams is in our case we have hardly had any success with them, radio station, insurance were a total failure.

I could not understand why we have not utilised the stadium more for concerts, theatre productions, religous festivals, ice skating.

Edited 21 April, 2009 by Give it to Ron

[Wes Tender]

Sigh. No it's not, it's about you coming out with a Wilde quote of "football first" which means absolutely nothing - like this:

 

What is that supposed to actually mean? How can an alternative revenue stream which helps to fund the football team be "detrimental"?

 

As is often the case with you, Jonah, your comprehension of the written word is sometimes a bit lacking; perhaps that is a problem with those who are more used to dealing with figurework all day.

 

Gemmel did not say that we should ignore all other revenue streams. Neither did he make the comment that a revenue stream that helped fund the football team might be detrimental. These are your mistaken interpretations of what he said.

[OldNick]

Ok you may believe that but personally I don't and have judged him solely on his performance and decison making here especially after all those successful things you mentioned above.....you forgot the best academy in the country, top class catering....

I have written to him on many occasions and used to really enjoyed his radio slot on The Saint when we owned that and he answered several questions at that time - Ok the Ask Rupert was a total joke but that was due mainly to his serfs ;-)

There are obviously a small few who may but there are always a minority group who go against the grain in all walks of life.

Dont you go on and on about it Ron. i heard you the first time

[Give it to Ron]

Dont you go on and on about it Ron. i heard you the first time

 

Yeah sorry double posted got distracted by bloody work!

[The9]

Ok you may believe that but personally I don't and have judged him solely on his performance and decison making here especially after all those successful things you mentioned above.....you forgot the best academy in the country, top class catering....

I have written to him on many occasions and used to really enjoyed his radio slot on The Saint when we owned that and he answered several questions at that time - Ok the Ask Rupert was a total joke but that was due mainly to his serfs ;-)

There are obviously a small few who may but there are always a minority group who go against the grain in all walks of life.

 

I judged him on his results, it's a results-driven business.

[jonah]

Neither did he make the comment that a revenue stream that helped fund the football team might be detrimental.

 

OK, you'll have to explain this to me again then:

 

I don't think we should ignore alternative revenue streams, just not at the detriment of the core business, - a football team.

 

As Gemmel's personal spokesman on this matter, could you explain that again to me then? If you've got additional revenue streams how do they become "detrimental"?

[hughieslastminutegoal]

OK, so you'd want to shut down anything that isn't football-related, such as stadium concerts, non-matchday hospitality and corporate events, etc? I can see why people want this focus on football, but I think it's completely wrong to ignore alternative revenue streams which can help fund the football as clubs need every penny they can get to remain competitive - the risk is with revenue streams which may turn out to be a loss, eg. the radio station, although obviously this can be partly classified as football-related since it was supposed to be a service for fans. But does that make the problem the idea itself or the execution of that idea?

 

I'm glad to see that at long last you've accepted that it's been the execution of the ideas that has been the problem.

 

The idea was to get some commercial additions to a football stadium - singular failure so far as Stonham was concerned. Had to settle for a radio station and an insurance business - notable failures.

Put your belief in the Academy to produce enough good players to give a successful first team in the CCC- failed.

Have a revolutionary coaching structure - Woodward/Clifford - failed. Dutch duo - failed.

Have a conveyor belt of players to sell on at a big profit - failed - result no better than the majority of other 2nd rung clubs.

Have a business model that requires Premiership survival - failed.

 

Perhaps you could enlighten us all as to who failed on all these counts?

[Wes Tender]

OK, you'll have to explain this to me again then:

 

 

 

As Gemmel's personal spokesman on this matter, could you explain that again to me then? If you've got additional revenue streams how do they become "detrimental"?

 

It seems perfectly clear to me what he was saying and I dare say that applies to most others too. We have had alternative revenue streams before, like the Radio station, that made a loss. I presume that you would accept that to be a detrimental revenue stream? Revenue streams that help fund the football team are of course a different matter and those include the ones you mention like corporate hospitality, concerts, etc.

 

But Gemmel I think, was stating an opinion that the most important part of the business should be the football club and maximum effort should be focussed on running that properly. Don't you agree?

[OldNick]

.

 

Had to settle for a radio station and an insurance business - notable failures.

 

Have a conveyor belt of players to sell on at a big profit - failed - result no better than the majority of other 2nd rung clubs.

QUOTE]

Banging on about the radio station is a nonsense. The radio station was a very good idea. It gave us invisible earnings that is hard to quantify. We had 24/7 advertising over the airwaves, that would have cost far more to get in the npormal commercial way.I agree you wouldnt invest in a radio station in the CCC but at that time we were a forward thinking club with ambitions to combine football and commercial interests. Even now when it is Radio Hants it is bringing in interest in the club and so getting us some small amounts of revenue. Why scoff at the club trying to give us a higher profile in Hampshire at the same time annoying the c### out of the Skates knowing we were in their eyes polluting their airwaves.It was a fantastic idea and sadly relegation stopped it growing and competing against the others in the area.

The acadamy did produce some star players that were sold for big fees, if it wasnt for them we would have ben in administration before now.

[hughieslastminutegoal]

The acadamy did produce some star players that were sold for big fees, if it wasnt for them we would have ben in administration before now.

 

What? Apart from Bale and Walcott, what have we really made good money from? Baird? Do me a favour - we were very, very lucky. Best and Blackstock? Nearly everyone on here was glad to see the back of them.

Just because Walcotts and Bales can happen once or twice a decade doesn't mean you gamble your future on it, since most clubs at our level do the same from time to time.

 

"Someone" at the club thought they were Midas, and look what happened to his family.

[Tamesaint]

If you've got additional revenue streams how do they become "detrimental"?

 

I would have thought it was quite clear.

 

They become detrimental when they divert excessive management time and resources away from the main business. The main business is the football club - not an insurance company, a mortgage broker , a radio station etc etc

[OldNick]

What? Apart from Bale and Walcott, what have we really made good money from? Baird? Do me a favour - we were very, very lucky. Best and Blackstock? Nearly everyone on here was glad to see the back of them.

Just because Walcotts and Bales can happen once or twice a decade doesn't mean you gamble your future on it, since most clubs at our level do the same from time to time.

 

"Someone" at the club thought they were Midas, and look what happened to his family.

but we dont know how it would have panned out in the long run.If I recall correctly when RL was ousted the first time a few of the better people in the acadamy were off as well. Jennings was head hunted and so was the guy who went to Liverpool but I still feel the concept had we stayed up would have worked well.It was just relegation destroyed the plan. Theo and Bale did save us from admin before now as their fees have propped us up the last 2 seasons.

[derry]

For Gods sake give it a rest, the useless prat is gone, just let's move on, if we are lucky enough to have a club in the future.

[70's Mike]

After the last 10 years of debating the rights and wrongs of the owners wanting to make profits and the CEO's etc getting dividends, would the fans now accept that the club's owners can take a decent profit and that it is not run for football only.

It just seems to me we are going to be cut and shut and only taken on if we can be a juicy investment.

I myself understand some profit should go to shareholders etc but will the wider fanbase now fall in line .

Of course I dearly hope we get a proper benefactor who doesnt look for profit but IMO the way things have gone we are going to get more of the same.

 

depends on your difinition of profit assuming we only have 0ne owner then they will take Directors Fees and their will not be the need for dividends.

i THINK THE DAYS of multiple shareholders at SFC are gone.

[70's Mike]

but we dont know how it would have panned out in the long run.If I recall correctly when RL was ousted the first time a few of the better people in the acadamy were off as well. Jennings was head hunted and so was the guy who went to Liverpool but I still feel the concept had we stayed up would have worked well.It was just relegation destroyed the plan. Theo and Bale did save us from admin before now as their fees have propped us up the last 2 seasons.

 

in theory you may be right Nick , problem is the current academy has no jewels in the crown and the longer we stayed outside the premiership the less liklihood we have of attracting them.

Do not believe the line about "they get a chance at Southampton" attracting kids, the youth football club i am involved with has just seen 3 go to pompey rather than saints because their parents believe , as do all, that their sons are going to be good enough for the premiership rather than league one.

the other issue is will we be able to retain our academy status in a new business or will we just become another centre of excelence

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

All businesses (football is most certainly a business as well as a sport) should make money , who could cogently argue otherwise ?

 

In an perfect world my idea of a well run club would include a Chairman like Bill Kenwright of Everton who runs the club in a competent , stable and financially prudent manner coupled with a Manager like Arsene Wenger who spends his transfer budget responsibly & is actually quite happy to generate a profit when possible in the transfer market . Given the choice I would prefer to support a club like that rather than the Chelsea/Man Utd/Man City's of this world where any success is based on huge debt and/or outside finance .

 

It goes without saying it's been quite a while since the Saints came anywhere near this model but you never know one day .......

[um pahars]

It seems perfectly clear to me what he was saying and I dare say that applies to most others too. We have had alternative revenue streams before, like the Radio station, that made a loss. I presume that you would accept that to be a detrimental revenue stream? Revenue streams that help fund the football team are of course a different matter and those include the ones you mention like corporate hospitality, concerts, etc.

 

But Gemmel I think, was stating an opinion that the most important part of the business should be the football club and maximum effort should be focussed on running that properly. Don't you agree?

 

I would also argue that these alternative revenue streams may become detrimental if they absorb too much time, effort, other resources and finally money away from the core business.

 

I don't think anyone has a problem with ancillary revenues contributing to the bottom line, nor trading off of the Football Club (e.g. exploiting the supporter base - in the nicest sense of the term), but the overiding focus of the Club should be in achieving success on the pitch. IMHO everything else derives from that success.

 

Nickh, the radio business was not a sensible decision and it was never intended to be a loss making enterprise in the way you suggest (i.e a subsidised way of reaching out to the supporters).

 

It was always envisaged it would stand on it's own two feet "We believe we can build substantial capital value going forward" and "We believe the radio station will become a significant revenue generator for the Club" and "we remain confident that this business will become a contributor to Club revenues" (only problem, as Sir Alan would point out, was that they forgot to look at the costs!!!!!!!).

 

Given the sums involved in the original purchase and the ongoing losses, it may have been cheaper to ring all of it's listeners up on a personal basis.

[dubai_phil]

in theory you may be right Nick , problem is the current academy has no jewels in the crown and the longer we stayed outside the premiership the less liklihood we have of attracting them.

Do not believe the line about "they get a chance at Southampton" attracting kids, the youth football club i am involved with has just seen 3 go to pompey rather than saints because their parents believe , as do all, that their sons are going to be good enough for the premiership rather than league one.

the other issue is will we be able to retain our academy status in a new business or will we just become another centre of excelence

 

 

Well............. looking on the bright side

 

Maybe now we will be able to pick up some discards from the PL academies who go on to be absolute jewels for us in the lower leagues, oh how the mighty have fallen

[benjii]

.

 

Had to settle for a radio station and an insurance business - notable failures.

 

Have a conveyor belt of players to sell on at a big profit - failed - result no better than the majority of other 2nd rung clubs.

QUOTE]

Banging on about the radio station is a nonsense. The radio station was a very good idea. It gave us invisible earnings that is hard to quantify. We had 24/7 advertising over the airwaves, that would have cost far more to get in the npormal commercial way.I agree you wouldnt invest in a radio station in the CCC but at that time we were a forward thinking club with ambitions to combine football and commercial interests. Even now when it is Radio Hants it is bringing in interest in the club and so getting us some small amounts of revenue. Why scoff at the club trying to give us a higher profile in Hampshire at the same time annoying the c### out of the Skates knowing we were in their eyes polluting their airwaves.It was a fantastic idea and sadly relegation stopped it growing and competing against the others in the area.

The acadamy did produce some star players that were sold for big fees, if it wasnt for them we would have ben in administration before now.

 

If the radio business was that wonderful we wouldn't have sold it for a pittance.

 

Back to the original question:

 

Yes.

[70's Mike]

Well............. looking on the bright side

 

Maybe now we will be able to pick up some discards from the PL academies who go on to be absolute jewels for us in the lower leagues, oh how the mighty have fallen

 

Sorry just stating it as i see it

lets hope whoever vets the PL rejects does a better job than whoever did it this season

[OldNick]

 

If the radio business was that wonderful we wouldn't have sold it for a pittance.

 

Back to the original question:

 

Yes.

Well the saint radio was only of any use to SFC, bloody Man u didnt need it.it was specific to our area and gave us a great advertising medium. It was advertising merchandising, the club web site and ticket info across the souths airwaves and so its had invisible earnings for the club other local radio stations could not use.

Do you think Kellogs say well the advert didnt earn us anything so cut it. No they could see that by having an adverty sales improved of their goods elsewhere.