Saints out to keep stars

Les Reed

Les Reed

First published in Sport Basingstoke Gazette: Photograph of the Author by , Chief Sports Writer

Les Reed has moved to reassure Saints fans that the club’s board will fight to keep hold of their star players and manager.

The Saints director, who is in charge of football operations at St Mary’s, yesterday took the unusual step of addressing the media before Mauricio Pochettino’s scheduled weekly pre-match press conference ahead of today’s game against Everton.

He gave a passionate statement in which he slammed reports that big name players such as Luke Shaw and Adam Lallana were on the verge of agreeing huge money moves away from the club.

Reed insisted Saints hadn’t received a single enquiry for any of their stars. Shaw has long been linked to the likes of Chelsea and Manchester United, with Lallana repeatedly linked with United and Tottenham since breaking into the England international set-up earlier this season.

In addition, teenage full back Calum Chambers has been linked with Arsenal, where Bacary Sagna is out of contract in the summer.

Reed also reassured fans there would be no fire sale of top talent and that Pochettino would rubber-stamp any decisions to buy or sell players, with player recruitment high on their agenda as they plan for the future together.

He also addressed the situation regarding Pochettino’s contract by backing the manager’s stance that talks will take place after the end of the season.

Comments (26)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:05am Sat 26 Apr 14

bigfella777 says...

You did this story yesterday. 3 times
You did this story yesterday. 3 times bigfella777
  • Score: 2

8:22am Sat 26 Apr 14

Seedhouse the Unrepentant says...

bigfella777 wrote:
You did this story yesterday. 3 times
That's because it's the biggest story since Cortese left. We now know the captain may have changed but the course remains the same. All aboard!
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: You did this story yesterday. 3 times[/p][/quote]That's because it's the biggest story since Cortese left. We now know the captain may have changed but the course remains the same. All aboard! Seedhouse the Unrepentant
  • Score: 15

8:47am Sat 26 Apr 14

warrens 76 says...

It is a fact of life well known down the road that you have to balance the books..our ignomy of bankruptcy should never of happened for the pathetic amount involved yet it's that easy to turn the boat over these days..

FFP which is only a trick to keep the big clubs big and stop any new interlopers also has to be atched carefully…

The question is were can we realistically go without breaking the bank…

The stages are first to keep the majority of the talent pool and and add pace and defensive cover in order that this season is a stepping stone not the peak…

Stage two massively expand our almost non existant global marketing …and create full houses for every game even if it's entry for a fiver on early league cup games…build the base support to a demand for 30.000 season tickets.

Stage 3 increase caèpacity to the maximum possible and get the train link approved so as we can counter the traffic issues…park and ride on the M271 with a train link from red bridge, mill brook and so on, the city needs it anyway.

When total revenues bring us within the top six earners the project is technically completed….then we are a permanent force not a yo yo club or a bust one.
It is a fact of life well known down the road that you have to balance the books..our ignomy of bankruptcy should never of happened for the pathetic amount involved yet it's that easy to turn the boat over these days.. FFP which is only a trick to keep the big clubs big and stop any new interlopers also has to be atched carefully… The question is were can we realistically go without breaking the bank… The stages are first to keep the majority of the talent pool and and add pace and defensive cover in order that this season is a stepping stone not the peak… Stage two massively expand our almost non existant global marketing …and create full houses for every game even if it's entry for a fiver on early league cup games…build the base support to a demand for 30.000 season tickets. Stage 3 increase caèpacity to the maximum possible and get the train link approved so as we can counter the traffic issues…park and ride on the M271 with a train link from red bridge, mill brook and so on, the city needs it anyway. When total revenues bring us within the top six earners the project is technically completed….then we are a permanent force not a yo yo club or a bust one. warrens 76
  • Score: 10

9:01am Sat 26 Apr 14

Rising_Son says...

warrens 76 wrote:
It is a fact of life well known down the road that you have to balance the books..our ignomy of bankruptcy should never of happened for the pathetic amount involved yet it's that easy to turn the boat over these days..

FFP which is only a trick to keep the big clubs big and stop any new interlopers also has to be atched carefully…

The question is were can we realistically go without breaking the bank…

The stages are first to keep the majority of the talent pool and and add pace and defensive cover in order that this season is a stepping stone not the peak…

Stage two massively expand our almost non existant global marketing …and create full houses for every game even if it's entry for a fiver on early league cup games…build the base support to a demand for 30.000 season tickets.

Stage 3 increase caèpacity to the maximum possible and get the train link approved so as we can counter the traffic issues…park and ride on the M271 with a train link from red bridge, mill brook and so on, the city needs it anyway.

When total revenues bring us within the top six earners the project is technically completed….then we are a permanent force not a yo yo club or a bust one.
The only things the owner can do to 'invest' in the club is invest in its infrastructure and increase the fan base. The FFP won't allow her to subsidise the team. As you say, it gives those at the top one hell of a built in advantage.
[quote][p][bold]warrens 76[/bold] wrote: It is a fact of life well known down the road that you have to balance the books..our ignomy of bankruptcy should never of happened for the pathetic amount involved yet it's that easy to turn the boat over these days.. FFP which is only a trick to keep the big clubs big and stop any new interlopers also has to be atched carefully… The question is were can we realistically go without breaking the bank… The stages are first to keep the majority of the talent pool and and add pace and defensive cover in order that this season is a stepping stone not the peak… Stage two massively expand our almost non existant global marketing …and create full houses for every game even if it's entry for a fiver on early league cup games…build the base support to a demand for 30.000 season tickets. Stage 3 increase caèpacity to the maximum possible and get the train link approved so as we can counter the traffic issues…park and ride on the M271 with a train link from red bridge, mill brook and so on, the city needs it anyway. When total revenues bring us within the top six earners the project is technically completed….then we are a permanent force not a yo yo club or a bust one.[/p][/quote]The only things the owner can do to 'invest' in the club is invest in its infrastructure and increase the fan base. The FFP won't allow her to subsidise the team. As you say, it gives those at the top one hell of a built in advantage. Rising_Son
  • Score: 3

9:04am Sat 26 Apr 14

Clever Dick says...

Agree with most of what you have say, but not sure if that lot down the road understand that you have to balance the books. Their track record would suggest not.
Agree with most of what you have say, but not sure if that lot down the road understand that you have to balance the books. Their track record would suggest not. Clever Dick
  • Score: 2

9:06am Sat 26 Apr 14

Malcombe says...

I always believed that Southampton Football Club allowed Team Managers to pick and choose the Players to keep and those who can go without any interference from The Board unlike many Clubs, I commented on here this year when rumours started that the Manager and Players would be leaving and someone on here shot me down in flames like I knew it all when what I was saying it is my belief and Les Reed has confirmed it, it is music to the ears to all the Supporters.
It should be an obvious duty of the Manager to have total responsibility for the Players and the Football because he is not being undermined and together with his Staff and Coaches at every level in the Club including Scouts he must be the allowed make the final decision about any Player.

We all know Players do not come cheap with some exceptions and mistake can be made when buying a good Player, he can be world class on the Pitch but an agitator off it particularly in Training but a strong determined ambitious Manager that is Mauricio Potchettino will not allow a happy family to be disrupted by one bad Apple, Mauricio is a very intelligent and we all hope he stays for many years and prove he will achieve the mission he and Cortese started and make the Club a top Club, playing in Europe so it will attract the best Players in the world, once again Thank you Les
I always believed that Southampton Football Club allowed Team Managers to pick and choose the Players to keep and those who can go without any interference from The Board unlike many Clubs, I commented on here this year when rumours started that the Manager and Players would be leaving and someone on here shot me down in flames like I knew it all when what I was saying it is my belief and Les Reed has confirmed it, it is music to the ears to all the Supporters. It should be an obvious duty of the Manager to have total responsibility for the Players and the Football because he is not being undermined and together with his Staff and Coaches at every level in the Club including Scouts he must be the allowed make the final decision about any Player. We all know Players do not come cheap with some exceptions and mistake can be made when buying a good Player, he can be world class on the Pitch but an agitator off it particularly in Training but a strong determined ambitious Manager that is Mauricio Potchettino will not allow a happy family to be disrupted by one bad Apple, Mauricio is a very intelligent and we all hope he stays for many years and prove he will achieve the mission he and Cortese started and make the Club a top Club, playing in Europe so it will attract the best Players in the world, once again Thank you Les Malcombe
  • Score: 5

9:16am Sat 26 Apr 14

BracknellSaint says...

Do love how even after such an emphatic statement yesterday, those rascals at the Daily Mail have two Saints stories today, one that Luke won't sign for Manure until the new manager is announced( but obviously it's a formality...) and that Spurs are coming in for Jay-Rod...oh, and the mirror says Chambers to Arsenal... Becoming amusing now, this anti-Saints thing. Can't believe Cortese still has that power, but funny how it hasn't stopped since he left...
Do love how even after such an emphatic statement yesterday, those rascals at the Daily Mail have two Saints stories today, one that Luke won't sign for Manure until the new manager is announced( but obviously it's a formality...) and that Spurs are coming in for Jay-Rod...oh, and the mirror says Chambers to Arsenal... Becoming amusing now, this anti-Saints thing. Can't believe Cortese still has that power, but funny how it hasn't stopped since he left... BracknellSaint
  • Score: 1

9:24am Sat 26 Apr 14

slugger says...

Deja vu .
Deja vu . slugger
  • Score: 2

9:27am Sat 26 Apr 14

TEqH 83 says...

We can become the top club that the players all want to play for. They can take us there! Yes, we need reinforcements to reach the next level but the foundations are there for all to see and we'll retain most, if not all, of our assets because, let's not forget, we are owned by a billionaire! The youngsters have time on their side and the promise of regular games. Surely Mauricio sees the current young and improving side as his baby now? After all, it's him who has bravely nurtured the kids through into the side. I'm sick of the rumours, it's about staying positive now - we're in the best shape for years and we're no longer the club that's just keeping it's head above water. There's absolutely no reason why we won't keep going from strength to strength.

COYR
We can become the top club that the players all want to play for. They can take us there! Yes, we need reinforcements to reach the next level but the foundations are there for all to see and we'll retain most, if not all, of our assets because, let's not forget, we are owned by a billionaire! The youngsters have time on their side and the promise of regular games. Surely Mauricio sees the current young and improving side as his baby now? After all, it's him who has bravely nurtured the kids through into the side. I'm sick of the rumours, it's about staying positive now - we're in the best shape for years and we're no longer the club that's just keeping it's head above water. There's absolutely no reason why we won't keep going from strength to strength. COYR TEqH 83
  • Score: 2

9:30am Sat 26 Apr 14

BracknellSaint says...

slugger wrote:
Deja vu .
Again?
[quote][p][bold]slugger[/bold] wrote: Deja vu .[/p][/quote]Again? BracknellSaint
  • Score: 2

9:39am Sat 26 Apr 14

Epsom Saint says...

I can't even see a mention in the press today about Les Reed's statement. It's like the press only want to believe the made up rumours that they keep reporting.
I can't even see a mention in the press today about Les Reed's statement. It's like the press only want to believe the made up rumours that they keep reporting. Epsom Saint
  • Score: 3

9:44am Sat 26 Apr 14

OSPREYSAINT says...

bigfella777 wrote:
You did this story yesterday. 3 times
... and still some doubters didn't believe him!
[quote][p][bold]bigfella777[/bold] wrote: You did this story yesterday. 3 times[/p][/quote]... and still some doubters didn't believe him! OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: -1

10:02am Sat 26 Apr 14

Redslo says...

Rising_Son wrote:
warrens 76 wrote:
It is a fact of life well known down the road that you have to balance the books..our ignomy of bankruptcy should never of happened for the pathetic amount involved yet it's that easy to turn the boat over these days..

FFP which is only a trick to keep the big clubs big and stop any new interlopers also has to be atched carefully…

The question is were can we realistically go without breaking the bank…

The stages are first to keep the majority of the talent pool and and add pace and defensive cover in order that this season is a stepping stone not the peak…

Stage two massively expand our almost non existant global marketing …and create full houses for every game even if it's entry for a fiver on early league cup games…build the base support to a demand for 30.000 season tickets.

Stage 3 increase caèpacity to the maximum possible and get the train link approved so as we can counter the traffic issues…park and ride on the M271 with a train link from red bridge, mill brook and so on, the city needs it anyway.

When total revenues bring us within the top six earners the project is technically completed….then we are a permanent force not a yo yo club or a bust one.
The only things the owner can do to 'invest' in the club is invest in its infrastructure and increase the fan base. The FFP won't allow her to subsidise the team. As you say, it gives those at the top one hell of a built in advantage.
The situation is more complicated than that. The ownership of the Saints has a great deal of flexibility to invest--if they wish to spend the money. I am relying on the recent financial report on the official web page for this comment. I have not investigated the details of the reports myself. I have used the information found on the Financial Fair Play Explained website extensively.

There are two different financial fair play rules that could matter (baring relegation)--UEFA and the BPL. UEFA can be safely ignored for now because it will only come into play when the Saints qualify for European competition and it appears that it does not apply in the first year that you qualify--in other words Hull and Liverpool can pay in Europe next year no matter what their losses.

The BPL rules allow teams to lose up to 105 million pounds over three years. Clearly, Southampton is in no danger of doing that. The loss is limited to 15 million pounds over three years if the owner does not kick in the rest as equity. That is where the potential problem lies. How much does ownership want to kick in?

Also, the youth program and the physical plant stuff does not count against the loss limit. I assume both amounts are substantial for Southampton.
The monies still owed for past transfer fees is a cash flow problem but not a financial fair play issue since transfer fees have to be amortized over the life of the player's contract anyway. (Thus if Osvaldo is sold for a significant loss this summer that could be a cash flow plus but a financial fair play negative.)

Wages can be up to 52 million pounds year with no restrictions. Increases above that amount are limited to 4 million pounds a year plus any commercial revenue increases. Thus, improved commercial revenue is critical not to balance the books but to allow an increased payroll. The report states that the payroll for last season was 47.1 million pounds. With all the long term contracts signed in the past year we must be pushing these limits.

This does not mean that Southampton can spend crazy money and compete with City, Chelsea, MU, Arsenal, or Liverpool directly for specific players. But if youth players are retained significant improvement is still possible if the ownership wishes to keep investing. The question is what does Katharina Liebherr want to do and how much money does she have to do it with.

Even moderate future investment can allow continued growth. She can go crazy and probably kick in 40 million pounds a year without violating BPL financial fair play. But if she wants to take out some dividends players must be sold.
[quote][p][bold]Rising_Son[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]warrens 76[/bold] wrote: It is a fact of life well known down the road that you have to balance the books..our ignomy of bankruptcy should never of happened for the pathetic amount involved yet it's that easy to turn the boat over these days.. FFP which is only a trick to keep the big clubs big and stop any new interlopers also has to be atched carefully… The question is were can we realistically go without breaking the bank… The stages are first to keep the majority of the talent pool and and add pace and defensive cover in order that this season is a stepping stone not the peak… Stage two massively expand our almost non existant global marketing …and create full houses for every game even if it's entry for a fiver on early league cup games…build the base support to a demand for 30.000 season tickets. Stage 3 increase caèpacity to the maximum possible and get the train link approved so as we can counter the traffic issues…park and ride on the M271 with a train link from red bridge, mill brook and so on, the city needs it anyway. When total revenues bring us within the top six earners the project is technically completed….then we are a permanent force not a yo yo club or a bust one.[/p][/quote]The only things the owner can do to 'invest' in the club is invest in its infrastructure and increase the fan base. The FFP won't allow her to subsidise the team. As you say, it gives those at the top one hell of a built in advantage.[/p][/quote]The situation is more complicated than that. The ownership of the Saints has a great deal of flexibility to invest--if they wish to spend the money. I am relying on the recent financial report on the official web page for this comment. I have not investigated the details of the reports myself. I have used the information found on the Financial Fair Play Explained website extensively. There are two different financial fair play rules that could matter (baring relegation)--UEFA and the BPL. UEFA can be safely ignored for now because it will only come into play when the Saints qualify for European competition and it appears that it does not apply in the first year that you qualify--in other words Hull and Liverpool can pay in Europe next year no matter what their losses. The BPL rules allow teams to lose up to 105 million pounds over three years. Clearly, Southampton is in no danger of doing that. The loss is limited to 15 million pounds over three years if the owner does not kick in the rest as equity. That is where the potential problem lies. How much does ownership want to kick in? Also, the youth program and the physical plant stuff does not count against the loss limit. I assume both amounts are substantial for Southampton. The monies still owed for past transfer fees is a cash flow problem but not a financial fair play issue since transfer fees have to be amortized over the life of the player's contract anyway. (Thus if Osvaldo is sold for a significant loss this summer that could be a cash flow plus but a financial fair play negative.) Wages can be up to 52 million pounds year with no restrictions. Increases above that amount are limited to 4 million pounds a year plus any commercial revenue increases. Thus, improved commercial revenue is critical not to balance the books but to allow an increased payroll. The report states that the payroll for last season was 47.1 million pounds. With all the long term contracts signed in the past year we must be pushing these limits. This does not mean that Southampton can spend crazy money and compete with City, Chelsea, MU, Arsenal, or Liverpool directly for specific players. But if youth players are retained significant improvement is still possible if the ownership wishes to keep investing. The question is what does Katharina Liebherr want to do and how much money does she have to do it with. Even moderate future investment can allow continued growth. She can go crazy and probably kick in 40 million pounds a year without violating BPL financial fair play. But if she wants to take out some dividends players must be sold. Redslo
  • Score: 12

10:10am Sat 26 Apr 14

george chivers says...

Redslo wrote:
Rising_Son wrote:
warrens 76 wrote:
It is a fact of life well known down the road that you have to balance the books..our ignomy of bankruptcy should never of happened for the pathetic amount involved yet it's that easy to turn the boat over these days..

FFP which is only a trick to keep the big clubs big and stop any new interlopers also has to be atched carefully…

The question is were can we realistically go without breaking the bank…

The stages are first to keep the majority of the talent pool and and add pace and defensive cover in order that this season is a stepping stone not the peak…

Stage two massively expand our almost non existant global marketing …and create full houses for every game even if it's entry for a fiver on early league cup games…build the base support to a demand for 30.000 season tickets.

Stage 3 increase caèpacity to the maximum possible and get the train link approved so as we can counter the traffic issues…park and ride on the M271 with a train link from red bridge, mill brook and so on, the city needs it anyway.

When total revenues bring us within the top six earners the project is technically completed….then we are a permanent force not a yo yo club or a bust one.
The only things the owner can do to 'invest' in the club is invest in its infrastructure and increase the fan base. The FFP won't allow her to subsidise the team. As you say, it gives those at the top one hell of a built in advantage.
The situation is more complicated than that. The ownership of the Saints has a great deal of flexibility to invest--if they wish to spend the money. I am relying on the recent financial report on the official web page for this comment. I have not investigated the details of the reports myself. I have used the information found on the Financial Fair Play Explained website extensively.

There are two different financial fair play rules that could matter (baring relegation)--UEFA and the BPL. UEFA can be safely ignored for now because it will only come into play when the Saints qualify for European competition and it appears that it does not apply in the first year that you qualify--in other words Hull and Liverpool can pay in Europe next year no matter what their losses.

The BPL rules allow teams to lose up to 105 million pounds over three years. Clearly, Southampton is in no danger of doing that. The loss is limited to 15 million pounds over three years if the owner does not kick in the rest as equity. That is where the potential problem lies. How much does ownership want to kick in?

Also, the youth program and the physical plant stuff does not count against the loss limit. I assume both amounts are substantial for Southampton.
The monies still owed for past transfer fees is a cash flow problem but not a financial fair play issue since transfer fees have to be amortized over the life of the player's contract anyway. (Thus if Osvaldo is sold for a significant loss this summer that could be a cash flow plus but a financial fair play negative.)

Wages can be up to 52 million pounds year with no restrictions. Increases above that amount are limited to 4 million pounds a year plus any commercial revenue increases. Thus, improved commercial revenue is critical not to balance the books but to allow an increased payroll. The report states that the payroll for last season was 47.1 million pounds. With all the long term contracts signed in the past year we must be pushing these limits.

This does not mean that Southampton can spend crazy money and compete with City, Chelsea, MU, Arsenal, or Liverpool directly for specific players. But if youth players are retained significant improvement is still possible if the ownership wishes to keep investing. The question is what does Katharina Liebherr want to do and how much money does she have to do it with.

Even moderate future investment can allow continued growth. She can go crazy and probably kick in 40 million pounds a year without violating BPL financial fair play. But if she wants to take out some dividends players must be sold.
Thank you, a diamond of a post in a sea of mediocrity.
[quote][p][bold]Redslo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rising_Son[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]warrens 76[/bold] wrote: It is a fact of life well known down the road that you have to balance the books..our ignomy of bankruptcy should never of happened for the pathetic amount involved yet it's that easy to turn the boat over these days.. FFP which is only a trick to keep the big clubs big and stop any new interlopers also has to be atched carefully… The question is were can we realistically go without breaking the bank… The stages are first to keep the majority of the talent pool and and add pace and defensive cover in order that this season is a stepping stone not the peak… Stage two massively expand our almost non existant global marketing …and create full houses for every game even if it's entry for a fiver on early league cup games…build the base support to a demand for 30.000 season tickets. Stage 3 increase caèpacity to the maximum possible and get the train link approved so as we can counter the traffic issues…park and ride on the M271 with a train link from red bridge, mill brook and so on, the city needs it anyway. When total revenues bring us within the top six earners the project is technically completed….then we are a permanent force not a yo yo club or a bust one.[/p][/quote]The only things the owner can do to 'invest' in the club is invest in its infrastructure and increase the fan base. The FFP won't allow her to subsidise the team. As you say, it gives those at the top one hell of a built in advantage.[/p][/quote]The situation is more complicated than that. The ownership of the Saints has a great deal of flexibility to invest--if they wish to spend the money. I am relying on the recent financial report on the official web page for this comment. I have not investigated the details of the reports myself. I have used the information found on the Financial Fair Play Explained website extensively. There are two different financial fair play rules that could matter (baring relegation)--UEFA and the BPL. UEFA can be safely ignored for now because it will only come into play when the Saints qualify for European competition and it appears that it does not apply in the first year that you qualify--in other words Hull and Liverpool can pay in Europe next year no matter what their losses. The BPL rules allow teams to lose up to 105 million pounds over three years. Clearly, Southampton is in no danger of doing that. The loss is limited to 15 million pounds over three years if the owner does not kick in the rest as equity. That is where the potential problem lies. How much does ownership want to kick in? Also, the youth program and the physical plant stuff does not count against the loss limit. I assume both amounts are substantial for Southampton. The monies still owed for past transfer fees is a cash flow problem but not a financial fair play issue since transfer fees have to be amortized over the life of the player's contract anyway. (Thus if Osvaldo is sold for a significant loss this summer that could be a cash flow plus but a financial fair play negative.) Wages can be up to 52 million pounds year with no restrictions. Increases above that amount are limited to 4 million pounds a year plus any commercial revenue increases. Thus, improved commercial revenue is critical not to balance the books but to allow an increased payroll. The report states that the payroll for last season was 47.1 million pounds. With all the long term contracts signed in the past year we must be pushing these limits. This does not mean that Southampton can spend crazy money and compete with City, Chelsea, MU, Arsenal, or Liverpool directly for specific players. But if youth players are retained significant improvement is still possible if the ownership wishes to keep investing. The question is what does Katharina Liebherr want to do and how much money does she have to do it with. Even moderate future investment can allow continued growth. She can go crazy and probably kick in 40 million pounds a year without violating BPL financial fair play. But if she wants to take out some dividends players must be sold.[/p][/quote]Thank you, a diamond of a post in a sea of mediocrity. george chivers
  • Score: 10

10:18am Sat 26 Apr 14

cotswoldsaint says...

Epsom Saint wrote:
I can't even see a mention in the press today about Les Reed's statement. It's like the press only want to believe the made up rumours that they keep reporting.
Agree. Just read the Telegraph and nothing on Reed's statement. Instead, a story about Chambers going to Arsenal. It's a similar situation in most of the national papers on an almost daily basis, which is presumably what prompted Les Reed to act. The so-called journalists who write this stuff ( most of whom are probably still wet behind the ears, never went to a football match until dragged along by their uni chums, and now conveniently 'support' one of the 'big' clubs they continually champion) are only interested in their metropolitan, elitist and narrow view of the game. The thought that a club of Saints' size having the audacity to 'think big' and challenge the established order is anathema to them; all right for the occasional, patronising 'haven't they done well' story but not serious contenders, surely? Well, let's hope Les and the board are true to their word, hang on to our stars, including the manager, strengthen the squad where needed, and press on to mount an even stronger challenge next season. That should put the wind up a few commentators, not that they'll admit they got it wrong. COYS!
[quote][p][bold]Epsom Saint[/bold] wrote: I can't even see a mention in the press today about Les Reed's statement. It's like the press only want to believe the made up rumours that they keep reporting.[/p][/quote]Agree. Just read the Telegraph and nothing on Reed's statement. Instead, a story about Chambers going to Arsenal. It's a similar situation in most of the national papers on an almost daily basis, which is presumably what prompted Les Reed to act. The so-called journalists who write this stuff ( most of whom are probably still wet behind the ears, never went to a football match until dragged along by their uni chums, and now conveniently 'support' one of the 'big' clubs they continually champion) are only interested in their metropolitan, elitist and narrow view of the game. The thought that a club of Saints' size having the audacity to 'think big' and challenge the established order is anathema to them; all right for the occasional, patronising 'haven't they done well' story but not serious contenders, surely? Well, let's hope Les and the board are true to their word, hang on to our stars, including the manager, strengthen the squad where needed, and press on to mount an even stronger challenge next season. That should put the wind up a few commentators, not that they'll admit they got it wrong. COYS! cotswoldsaint
  • Score: 8

10:18am Sat 26 Apr 14

slugger says...

Redslo wrote:
Rising_Son wrote:
warrens 76 wrote:
It is a fact of life well known down the road that you have to balance the books..our ignomy of bankruptcy should never of happened for the pathetic amount involved yet it's that easy to turn the boat over these days..

FFP which is only a trick to keep the big clubs big and stop any new interlopers also has to be atched carefully…

The question is were can we realistically go without breaking the bank…

The stages are first to keep the majority of the talent pool and and add pace and defensive cover in order that this season is a stepping stone not the peak…

Stage two massively expand our almost non existant global marketing …and create full houses for every game even if it's entry for a fiver on early league cup games…build the base support to a demand for 30.000 season tickets.

Stage 3 increase caèpacity to the maximum possible and get the train link approved so as we can counter the traffic issues…park and ride on the M271 with a train link from red bridge, mill brook and so on, the city needs it anyway.

When total revenues bring us within the top six earners the project is technically completed….then we are a permanent force not a yo yo club or a bust one.
The only things the owner can do to 'invest' in the club is invest in its infrastructure and increase the fan base. The FFP won't allow her to subsidise the team. As you say, it gives those at the top one hell of a built in advantage.
The situation is more complicated than that. The ownership of the Saints has a great deal of flexibility to invest--if they wish to spend the money. I am relying on the recent financial report on the official web page for this comment. I have not investigated the details of the reports myself. I have used the information found on the Financial Fair Play Explained website extensively.

There are two different financial fair play rules that could matter (baring relegation)--UEFA and the BPL. UEFA can be safely ignored for now because it will only come into play when the Saints qualify for European competition and it appears that it does not apply in the first year that you qualify--in other words Hull and Liverpool can pay in Europe next year no matter what their losses.

The BPL rules allow teams to lose up to 105 million pounds over three years. Clearly, Southampton is in no danger of doing that. The loss is limited to 15 million pounds over three years if the owner does not kick in the rest as equity. That is where the potential problem lies. How much does ownership want to kick in?

Also, the youth program and the physical plant stuff does not count against the loss limit. I assume both amounts are substantial for Southampton.
The monies still owed for past transfer fees is a cash flow problem but not a financial fair play issue since transfer fees have to be amortized over the life of the player's contract anyway. (Thus if Osvaldo is sold for a significant loss this summer that could be a cash flow plus but a financial fair play negative.)

Wages can be up to 52 million pounds year with no restrictions. Increases above that amount are limited to 4 million pounds a year plus any commercial revenue increases. Thus, improved commercial revenue is critical not to balance the books but to allow an increased payroll. The report states that the payroll for last season was 47.1 million pounds. With all the long term contracts signed in the past year we must be pushing these limits.

This does not mean that Southampton can spend crazy money and compete with City, Chelsea, MU, Arsenal, or Liverpool directly for specific players. But if youth players are retained significant improvement is still possible if the ownership wishes to keep investing. The question is what does Katharina Liebherr want to do and how much money does she have to do it with.

Even moderate future investment can allow continued growth. She can go crazy and probably kick in 40 million pounds a year without violating BPL financial fair play. But if she wants to take out some dividends players must be sold.
Even I understood that , top post !
[quote][p][bold]Redslo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rising_Son[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]warrens 76[/bold] wrote: It is a fact of life well known down the road that you have to balance the books..our ignomy of bankruptcy should never of happened for the pathetic amount involved yet it's that easy to turn the boat over these days.. FFP which is only a trick to keep the big clubs big and stop any new interlopers also has to be atched carefully… The question is were can we realistically go without breaking the bank… The stages are first to keep the majority of the talent pool and and add pace and defensive cover in order that this season is a stepping stone not the peak… Stage two massively expand our almost non existant global marketing …and create full houses for every game even if it's entry for a fiver on early league cup games…build the base support to a demand for 30.000 season tickets. Stage 3 increase caèpacity to the maximum possible and get the train link approved so as we can counter the traffic issues…park and ride on the M271 with a train link from red bridge, mill brook and so on, the city needs it anyway. When total revenues bring us within the top six earners the project is technically completed….then we are a permanent force not a yo yo club or a bust one.[/p][/quote]The only things the owner can do to 'invest' in the club is invest in its infrastructure and increase the fan base. The FFP won't allow her to subsidise the team. As you say, it gives those at the top one hell of a built in advantage.[/p][/quote]The situation is more complicated than that. The ownership of the Saints has a great deal of flexibility to invest--if they wish to spend the money. I am relying on the recent financial report on the official web page for this comment. I have not investigated the details of the reports myself. I have used the information found on the Financial Fair Play Explained website extensively. There are two different financial fair play rules that could matter (baring relegation)--UEFA and the BPL. UEFA can be safely ignored for now because it will only come into play when the Saints qualify for European competition and it appears that it does not apply in the first year that you qualify--in other words Hull and Liverpool can pay in Europe next year no matter what their losses. The BPL rules allow teams to lose up to 105 million pounds over three years. Clearly, Southampton is in no danger of doing that. The loss is limited to 15 million pounds over three years if the owner does not kick in the rest as equity. That is where the potential problem lies. How much does ownership want to kick in? Also, the youth program and the physical plant stuff does not count against the loss limit. I assume both amounts are substantial for Southampton. The monies still owed for past transfer fees is a cash flow problem but not a financial fair play issue since transfer fees have to be amortized over the life of the player's contract anyway. (Thus if Osvaldo is sold for a significant loss this summer that could be a cash flow plus but a financial fair play negative.) Wages can be up to 52 million pounds year with no restrictions. Increases above that amount are limited to 4 million pounds a year plus any commercial revenue increases. Thus, improved commercial revenue is critical not to balance the books but to allow an increased payroll. The report states that the payroll for last season was 47.1 million pounds. With all the long term contracts signed in the past year we must be pushing these limits. This does not mean that Southampton can spend crazy money and compete with City, Chelsea, MU, Arsenal, or Liverpool directly for specific players. But if youth players are retained significant improvement is still possible if the ownership wishes to keep investing. The question is what does Katharina Liebherr want to do and how much money does she have to do it with. Even moderate future investment can allow continued growth. She can go crazy and probably kick in 40 million pounds a year without violating BPL financial fair play. But if she wants to take out some dividends players must be sold.[/p][/quote]Even I understood that , top post ! slugger
  • Score: 2

10:18am Sat 26 Apr 14

Prit says...

Redslo wrote:
Rising_Son wrote:
warrens 76 wrote: It is a fact of life well known down the road that you have to balance the books..our ignomy of bankruptcy should never of happened for the pathetic amount involved yet it's that easy to turn the boat over these days.. FFP which is only a trick to keep the big clubs big and stop any new interlopers also has to be atched carefully… The question is were can we realistically go without breaking the bank… The stages are first to keep the majority of the talent pool and and add pace and defensive cover in order that this season is a stepping stone not the peak… Stage two massively expand our almost non existant global marketing …and create full houses for every game even if it's entry for a fiver on early league cup games…build the base support to a demand for 30.000 season tickets. Stage 3 increase caèpacity to the maximum possible and get the train link approved so as we can counter the traffic issues…park and ride on the M271 with a train link from red bridge, mill brook and so on, the city needs it anyway. When total revenues bring us within the top six earners the project is technically completed….then we are a permanent force not a yo yo club or a bust one.
The only things the owner can do to 'invest' in the club is invest in its infrastructure and increase the fan base. The FFP won't allow her to subsidise the team. As you say, it gives those at the top one hell of a built in advantage.
The situation is more complicated than that. The ownership of the Saints has a great deal of flexibility to invest--if they wish to spend the money. I am relying on the recent financial report on the official web page for this comment. I have not investigated the details of the reports myself. I have used the information found on the Financial Fair Play Explained website extensively. There are two different financial fair play rules that could matter (baring relegation)--UEFA and the BPL. UEFA can be safely ignored for now because it will only come into play when the Saints qualify for European competition and it appears that it does not apply in the first year that you qualify--in other words Hull and Liverpool can pay in Europe next year no matter what their losses. The BPL rules allow teams to lose up to 105 million pounds over three years. Clearly, Southampton is in no danger of doing that. The loss is limited to 15 million pounds over three years if the owner does not kick in the rest as equity. That is where the potential problem lies. How much does ownership want to kick in? Also, the youth program and the physical plant stuff does not count against the loss limit. I assume both amounts are substantial for Southampton. The monies still owed for past transfer fees is a cash flow problem but not a financial fair play issue since transfer fees have to be amortized over the life of the player's contract anyway. (Thus if Osvaldo is sold for a significant loss this summer that could be a cash flow plus but a financial fair play negative.) Wages can be up to 52 million pounds year with no restrictions. Increases above that amount are limited to 4 million pounds a year plus any commercial revenue increases. Thus, improved commercial revenue is critical not to balance the books but to allow an increased payroll. The report states that the payroll for last season was 47.1 million pounds. With all the long term contracts signed in the past year we must be pushing these limits. This does not mean that Southampton can spend crazy money and compete with City, Chelsea, MU, Arsenal, or Liverpool directly for specific players. But if youth players are retained significant improvement is still possible if the ownership wishes to keep investing. The question is what does Katharina Liebherr want to do and how much money does she have to do it with. Even moderate future investment can allow continued growth. She can go crazy and probably kick in 40 million pounds a year without violating BPL financial fair play. But if she wants to take out some dividends players must be sold.
A very well researched and detailed post. Well done that person !
[quote][p][bold]Redslo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rising_Son[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]warrens 76[/bold] wrote: It is a fact of life well known down the road that you have to balance the books..our ignomy of bankruptcy should never of happened for the pathetic amount involved yet it's that easy to turn the boat over these days.. FFP which is only a trick to keep the big clubs big and stop any new interlopers also has to be atched carefully… The question is were can we realistically go without breaking the bank… The stages are first to keep the majority of the talent pool and and add pace and defensive cover in order that this season is a stepping stone not the peak… Stage two massively expand our almost non existant global marketing …and create full houses for every game even if it's entry for a fiver on early league cup games…build the base support to a demand for 30.000 season tickets. Stage 3 increase caèpacity to the maximum possible and get the train link approved so as we can counter the traffic issues…park and ride on the M271 with a train link from red bridge, mill brook and so on, the city needs it anyway. When total revenues bring us within the top six earners the project is technically completed….then we are a permanent force not a yo yo club or a bust one.[/p][/quote]The only things the owner can do to 'invest' in the club is invest in its infrastructure and increase the fan base. The FFP won't allow her to subsidise the team. As you say, it gives those at the top one hell of a built in advantage.[/p][/quote]The situation is more complicated than that. The ownership of the Saints has a great deal of flexibility to invest--if they wish to spend the money. I am relying on the recent financial report on the official web page for this comment. I have not investigated the details of the reports myself. I have used the information found on the Financial Fair Play Explained website extensively. There are two different financial fair play rules that could matter (baring relegation)--UEFA and the BPL. UEFA can be safely ignored for now because it will only come into play when the Saints qualify for European competition and it appears that it does not apply in the first year that you qualify--in other words Hull and Liverpool can pay in Europe next year no matter what their losses. The BPL rules allow teams to lose up to 105 million pounds over three years. Clearly, Southampton is in no danger of doing that. The loss is limited to 15 million pounds over three years if the owner does not kick in the rest as equity. That is where the potential problem lies. How much does ownership want to kick in? Also, the youth program and the physical plant stuff does not count against the loss limit. I assume both amounts are substantial for Southampton. The monies still owed for past transfer fees is a cash flow problem but not a financial fair play issue since transfer fees have to be amortized over the life of the player's contract anyway. (Thus if Osvaldo is sold for a significant loss this summer that could be a cash flow plus but a financial fair play negative.) Wages can be up to 52 million pounds year with no restrictions. Increases above that amount are limited to 4 million pounds a year plus any commercial revenue increases. Thus, improved commercial revenue is critical not to balance the books but to allow an increased payroll. The report states that the payroll for last season was 47.1 million pounds. With all the long term contracts signed in the past year we must be pushing these limits. This does not mean that Southampton can spend crazy money and compete with City, Chelsea, MU, Arsenal, or Liverpool directly for specific players. But if youth players are retained significant improvement is still possible if the ownership wishes to keep investing. The question is what does Katharina Liebherr want to do and how much money does she have to do it with. Even moderate future investment can allow continued growth. She can go crazy and probably kick in 40 million pounds a year without violating BPL financial fair play. But if she wants to take out some dividends players must be sold.[/p][/quote]A very well researched and detailed post. Well done that person ! Prit
  • Score: 5

10:38am Sat 26 Apr 14

Rising_Son says...

Redslo wrote:
Rising_Son wrote:
warrens 76 wrote:
It is a fact of life well known down the road that you have to balance the books..our ignomy of bankruptcy should never of happened for the pathetic amount involved yet it's that easy to turn the boat over these days..

FFP which is only a trick to keep the big clubs big and stop any new interlopers also has to be atched carefully…

The question is were can we realistically go without breaking the bank…

The stages are first to keep the majority of the talent pool and and add pace and defensive cover in order that this season is a stepping stone not the peak…

Stage two massively expand our almost non existant global marketing …and create full houses for every game even if it's entry for a fiver on early league cup games…build the base support to a demand for 30.000 season tickets.

Stage 3 increase caèpacity to the maximum possible and get the train link approved so as we can counter the traffic issues…park and ride on the M271 with a train link from red bridge, mill brook and so on, the city needs it anyway.

When total revenues bring us within the top six earners the project is technically completed….then we are a permanent force not a yo yo club or a bust one.
The only things the owner can do to 'invest' in the club is invest in its infrastructure and increase the fan base. The FFP won't allow her to subsidise the team. As you say, it gives those at the top one hell of a built in advantage.
The situation is more complicated than that. The ownership of the Saints has a great deal of flexibility to invest--if they wish to spend the money. I am relying on the recent financial report on the official web page for this comment. I have not investigated the details of the reports myself. I have used the information found on the Financial Fair Play Explained website extensively.

There are two different financial fair play rules that could matter (baring relegation)--UEFA and the BPL. UEFA can be safely ignored for now because it will only come into play when the Saints qualify for European competition and it appears that it does not apply in the first year that you qualify--in other words Hull and Liverpool can pay in Europe next year no matter what their losses.

The BPL rules allow teams to lose up to 105 million pounds over three years. Clearly, Southampton is in no danger of doing that. The loss is limited to 15 million pounds over three years if the owner does not kick in the rest as equity. That is where the potential problem lies. How much does ownership want to kick in?

Also, the youth program and the physical plant stuff does not count against the loss limit. I assume both amounts are substantial for Southampton.
The monies still owed for past transfer fees is a cash flow problem but not a financial fair play issue since transfer fees have to be amortized over the life of the player's contract anyway. (Thus if Osvaldo is sold for a significant loss this summer that could be a cash flow plus but a financial fair play negative.)

Wages can be up to 52 million pounds year with no restrictions. Increases above that amount are limited to 4 million pounds a year plus any commercial revenue increases. Thus, improved commercial revenue is critical not to balance the books but to allow an increased payroll. The report states that the payroll for last season was 47.1 million pounds. With all the long term contracts signed in the past year we must be pushing these limits.

This does not mean that Southampton can spend crazy money and compete with City, Chelsea, MU, Arsenal, or Liverpool directly for specific players. But if youth players are retained significant improvement is still possible if the ownership wishes to keep investing. The question is what does Katharina Liebherr want to do and how much money does she have to do it with.

Even moderate future investment can allow continued growth. She can go crazy and probably kick in 40 million pounds a year without violating BPL financial fair play. But if she wants to take out some dividends players must be sold.
Thanks for that.
[quote][p][bold]Redslo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rising_Son[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]warrens 76[/bold] wrote: It is a fact of life well known down the road that you have to balance the books..our ignomy of bankruptcy should never of happened for the pathetic amount involved yet it's that easy to turn the boat over these days.. FFP which is only a trick to keep the big clubs big and stop any new interlopers also has to be atched carefully… The question is were can we realistically go without breaking the bank… The stages are first to keep the majority of the talent pool and and add pace and defensive cover in order that this season is a stepping stone not the peak… Stage two massively expand our almost non existant global marketing …and create full houses for every game even if it's entry for a fiver on early league cup games…build the base support to a demand for 30.000 season tickets. Stage 3 increase caèpacity to the maximum possible and get the train link approved so as we can counter the traffic issues…park and ride on the M271 with a train link from red bridge, mill brook and so on, the city needs it anyway. When total revenues bring us within the top six earners the project is technically completed….then we are a permanent force not a yo yo club or a bust one.[/p][/quote]The only things the owner can do to 'invest' in the club is invest in its infrastructure and increase the fan base. The FFP won't allow her to subsidise the team. As you say, it gives those at the top one hell of a built in advantage.[/p][/quote]The situation is more complicated than that. The ownership of the Saints has a great deal of flexibility to invest--if they wish to spend the money. I am relying on the recent financial report on the official web page for this comment. I have not investigated the details of the reports myself. I have used the information found on the Financial Fair Play Explained website extensively. There are two different financial fair play rules that could matter (baring relegation)--UEFA and the BPL. UEFA can be safely ignored for now because it will only come into play when the Saints qualify for European competition and it appears that it does not apply in the first year that you qualify--in other words Hull and Liverpool can pay in Europe next year no matter what their losses. The BPL rules allow teams to lose up to 105 million pounds over three years. Clearly, Southampton is in no danger of doing that. The loss is limited to 15 million pounds over three years if the owner does not kick in the rest as equity. That is where the potential problem lies. How much does ownership want to kick in? Also, the youth program and the physical plant stuff does not count against the loss limit. I assume both amounts are substantial for Southampton. The monies still owed for past transfer fees is a cash flow problem but not a financial fair play issue since transfer fees have to be amortized over the life of the player's contract anyway. (Thus if Osvaldo is sold for a significant loss this summer that could be a cash flow plus but a financial fair play negative.) Wages can be up to 52 million pounds year with no restrictions. Increases above that amount are limited to 4 million pounds a year plus any commercial revenue increases. Thus, improved commercial revenue is critical not to balance the books but to allow an increased payroll. The report states that the payroll for last season was 47.1 million pounds. With all the long term contracts signed in the past year we must be pushing these limits. This does not mean that Southampton can spend crazy money and compete with City, Chelsea, MU, Arsenal, or Liverpool directly for specific players. But if youth players are retained significant improvement is still possible if the ownership wishes to keep investing. The question is what does Katharina Liebherr want to do and how much money does she have to do it with. Even moderate future investment can allow continued growth. She can go crazy and probably kick in 40 million pounds a year without violating BPL financial fair play. But if she wants to take out some dividends players must be sold.[/p][/quote]Thanks for that. Rising_Son
  • Score: 2

10:51am Sat 26 Apr 14

BracknellSaint says...

george chivers wrote:
Redslo wrote:
Rising_Son wrote:
warrens 76 wrote:
It is a fact of life well known down the road that you have to balance the books..our ignomy of bankruptcy should never of happened for the pathetic amount involved yet it's that easy to turn the boat over these days..

FFP which is only a trick to keep the big clubs big and stop any new interlopers also has to be atched carefully…

The question is were can we realistically go without breaking the bank…

The stages are first to keep the majority of the talent pool and and add pace and defensive cover in order that this season is a stepping stone not the peak…

Stage two massively expand our almost non existant global marketing …and create full houses for every game even if it's entry for a fiver on early league cup games…build the base support to a demand for 30.000 season tickets.

Stage 3 increase caèpacity to the maximum possible and get the train link approved so as we can counter the traffic issues…park and ride on the M271 with a train link from red bridge, mill brook and so on, the city needs it anyway.

When total revenues bring us within the top six earners the project is technically completed….then we are a permanent force not a yo yo club or a bust one.
The only things the owner can do to 'invest' in the club is invest in its infrastructure and increase the fan base. The FFP won't allow her to subsidise the team. As you say, it gives those at the top one hell of a built in advantage.
The situation is more complicated than that. The ownership of the Saints has a great deal of flexibility to invest--if they wish to spend the money. I am relying on the recent financial report on the official web page for this comment. I have not investigated the details of the reports myself. I have used the information found on the Financial Fair Play Explained website extensively.

There are two different financial fair play rules that could matter (baring relegation)--UEFA and the BPL. UEFA can be safely ignored for now because it will only come into play when the Saints qualify for European competition and it appears that it does not apply in the first year that you qualify--in other words Hull and Liverpool can pay in Europe next year no matter what their losses.

The BPL rules allow teams to lose up to 105 million pounds over three years. Clearly, Southampton is in no danger of doing that. The loss is limited to 15 million pounds over three years if the owner does not kick in the rest as equity. That is where the potential problem lies. How much does ownership want to kick in?

Also, the youth program and the physical plant stuff does not count against the loss limit. I assume both amounts are substantial for Southampton.
The monies still owed for past transfer fees is a cash flow problem but not a financial fair play issue since transfer fees have to be amortized over the life of the player's contract anyway. (Thus if Osvaldo is sold for a significant loss this summer that could be a cash flow plus but a financial fair play negative.)

Wages can be up to 52 million pounds year with no restrictions. Increases above that amount are limited to 4 million pounds a year plus any commercial revenue increases. Thus, improved commercial revenue is critical not to balance the books but to allow an increased payroll. The report states that the payroll for last season was 47.1 million pounds. With all the long term contracts signed in the past year we must be pushing these limits.

This does not mean that Southampton can spend crazy money and compete with City, Chelsea, MU, Arsenal, or Liverpool directly for specific players. But if youth players are retained significant improvement is still possible if the ownership wishes to keep investing. The question is what does Katharina Liebherr want to do and how much money does she have to do it with.

Even moderate future investment can allow continued growth. She can go crazy and probably kick in 40 million pounds a year without violating BPL financial fair play. But if she wants to take out some dividends players must be sold.
Thank you, a diamond of a post in a sea of mediocrity.
Second that!
[quote][p][bold]george chivers[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Redslo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rising_Son[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]warrens 76[/bold] wrote: It is a fact of life well known down the road that you have to balance the books..our ignomy of bankruptcy should never of happened for the pathetic amount involved yet it's that easy to turn the boat over these days.. FFP which is only a trick to keep the big clubs big and stop any new interlopers also has to be atched carefully… The question is were can we realistically go without breaking the bank… The stages are first to keep the majority of the talent pool and and add pace and defensive cover in order that this season is a stepping stone not the peak… Stage two massively expand our almost non existant global marketing …and create full houses for every game even if it's entry for a fiver on early league cup games…build the base support to a demand for 30.000 season tickets. Stage 3 increase caèpacity to the maximum possible and get the train link approved so as we can counter the traffic issues…park and ride on the M271 with a train link from red bridge, mill brook and so on, the city needs it anyway. When total revenues bring us within the top six earners the project is technically completed….then we are a permanent force not a yo yo club or a bust one.[/p][/quote]The only things the owner can do to 'invest' in the club is invest in its infrastructure and increase the fan base. The FFP won't allow her to subsidise the team. As you say, it gives those at the top one hell of a built in advantage.[/p][/quote]The situation is more complicated than that. The ownership of the Saints has a great deal of flexibility to invest--if they wish to spend the money. I am relying on the recent financial report on the official web page for this comment. I have not investigated the details of the reports myself. I have used the information found on the Financial Fair Play Explained website extensively. There are two different financial fair play rules that could matter (baring relegation)--UEFA and the BPL. UEFA can be safely ignored for now because it will only come into play when the Saints qualify for European competition and it appears that it does not apply in the first year that you qualify--in other words Hull and Liverpool can pay in Europe next year no matter what their losses. The BPL rules allow teams to lose up to 105 million pounds over three years. Clearly, Southampton is in no danger of doing that. The loss is limited to 15 million pounds over three years if the owner does not kick in the rest as equity. That is where the potential problem lies. How much does ownership want to kick in? Also, the youth program and the physical plant stuff does not count against the loss limit. I assume both amounts are substantial for Southampton. The monies still owed for past transfer fees is a cash flow problem but not a financial fair play issue since transfer fees have to be amortized over the life of the player's contract anyway. (Thus if Osvaldo is sold for a significant loss this summer that could be a cash flow plus but a financial fair play negative.) Wages can be up to 52 million pounds year with no restrictions. Increases above that amount are limited to 4 million pounds a year plus any commercial revenue increases. Thus, improved commercial revenue is critical not to balance the books but to allow an increased payroll. The report states that the payroll for last season was 47.1 million pounds. With all the long term contracts signed in the past year we must be pushing these limits. This does not mean that Southampton can spend crazy money and compete with City, Chelsea, MU, Arsenal, or Liverpool directly for specific players. But if youth players are retained significant improvement is still possible if the ownership wishes to keep investing. The question is what does Katharina Liebherr want to do and how much money does she have to do it with. Even moderate future investment can allow continued growth. She can go crazy and probably kick in 40 million pounds a year without violating BPL financial fair play. But if she wants to take out some dividends players must be sold.[/p][/quote]Thank you, a diamond of a post in a sea of mediocrity.[/p][/quote]Second that! BracknellSaint
  • Score: 0

10:51am Sat 26 Apr 14

jls217 says...

Prit wrote:
Redslo wrote:
Rising_Son wrote:
warrens 76 wrote: It is a fact of life well known down the road that you have to balance the books..our ignomy of bankruptcy should never of happened for the pathetic amount involved yet it's that easy to turn the boat over these days.. FFP which is only a trick to keep the big clubs big and stop any new interlopers also has to be atched carefully… The question is were can we realistically go without breaking the bank… The stages are first to keep the majority of the talent pool and and add pace and defensive cover in order that this season is a stepping stone not the peak… Stage two massively expand our almost non existant global marketing …and create full houses for every game even if it's entry for a fiver on early league cup games…build the base support to a demand for 30.000 season tickets. Stage 3 increase caèpacity to the maximum possible and get the train link approved so as we can counter the traffic issues…park and ride on the M271 with a train link from red bridge, mill brook and so on, the city needs it anyway. When total revenues bring us within the top six earners the project is technically completed….then we are a permanent force not a yo yo club or a bust one.
The only things the owner can do to 'invest' in the club is invest in its infrastructure and increase the fan base. The FFP won't allow her to subsidise the team. As you say, it gives those at the top one hell of a built in advantage.
The situation is more complicated than that. The ownership of the Saints has a great deal of flexibility to invest--if they wish to spend the money. I am relying on the recent financial report on the official web page for this comment. I have not investigated the details of the reports myself. I have used the information found on the Financial Fair Play Explained website extensively. There are two different financial fair play rules that could matter (baring relegation)--UEFA and the BPL. UEFA can be safely ignored for now because it will only come into play when the Saints qualify for European competition and it appears that it does not apply in the first year that you qualify--in other words Hull and Liverpool can pay in Europe next year no matter what their losses. The BPL rules allow teams to lose up to 105 million pounds over three years. Clearly, Southampton is in no danger of doing that. The loss is limited to 15 million pounds over three years if the owner does not kick in the rest as equity. That is where the potential problem lies. How much does ownership want to kick in? Also, the youth program and the physical plant stuff does not count against the loss limit. I assume both amounts are substantial for Southampton. The monies still owed for past transfer fees is a cash flow problem but not a financial fair play issue since transfer fees have to be amortized over the life of the player's contract anyway. (Thus if Osvaldo is sold for a significant loss this summer that could be a cash flow plus but a financial fair play negative.) Wages can be up to 52 million pounds year with no restrictions. Increases above that amount are limited to 4 million pounds a year plus any commercial revenue increases. Thus, improved commercial revenue is critical not to balance the books but to allow an increased payroll. The report states that the payroll for last season was 47.1 million pounds. With all the long term contracts signed in the past year we must be pushing these limits. This does not mean that Southampton can spend crazy money and compete with City, Chelsea, MU, Arsenal, or Liverpool directly for specific players. But if youth players are retained significant improvement is still possible if the ownership wishes to keep investing. The question is what does Katharina Liebherr want to do and how much money does she have to do it with. Even moderate future investment can allow continued growth. She can go crazy and probably kick in 40 million pounds a year without violating BPL financial fair play. But if she wants to take out some dividends players must be sold.
A very well researched and detailed post. Well done that person !
Thanks for making that simple and readable, even a simple old bugger like me can grasp it. A question or two arises from it. It would take a greater mind than mine to work out all of the complexities so if anyone can add to this I'd appreciate it.
Do we really need to feel as though we can go out and compete on a pound for pound basis with the clubs who are already being used to possibly (and I choose my wording here carefully) launder ill gotten gains or possibly dodge taxes in their homelands? I'm not convinced we do. Sooner or later these giants in the industry are going to start faltering and there will be tears. If Saints are governed with a modicum of old fashioned common sense we would weather any storm. (Been down there once - do not want it again)
Would there be a legal problem with for example instead of an individual or a large corporation owning a football club - North Chindton Rovers instead owned wholly the Likehair engineering and banking corporation, so all shares in those interests could be transferred to the football club - would it be true to think that then there would be no limit on what the football club spent because it directly owned all the other interests? Perhaps there is someone out there who knows the legalities of this.
IF it is indeed true there is no plans to sell off anyone unnecessarily and we can keep this squad together for say five years, with what is following on the conveyor belt of our youth policy we do not need enormous figures injected surely. It only requires the manager to see where the team needs shoring up, identifying a player or two to fill that requirement and then discussing it with Les whether he is affordable or not. If that were done season after season within that five years we too would be having 11 u-21 stars out on loan to top clubs throughout Europe.
[quote][p][bold]Prit[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Redslo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rising_Son[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]warrens 76[/bold] wrote: It is a fact of life well known down the road that you have to balance the books..our ignomy of bankruptcy should never of happened for the pathetic amount involved yet it's that easy to turn the boat over these days.. FFP which is only a trick to keep the big clubs big and stop any new interlopers also has to be atched carefully… The question is were can we realistically go without breaking the bank… The stages are first to keep the majority of the talent pool and and add pace and defensive cover in order that this season is a stepping stone not the peak… Stage two massively expand our almost non existant global marketing …and create full houses for every game even if it's entry for a fiver on early league cup games…build the base support to a demand for 30.000 season tickets. Stage 3 increase caèpacity to the maximum possible and get the train link approved so as we can counter the traffic issues…park and ride on the M271 with a train link from red bridge, mill brook and so on, the city needs it anyway. When total revenues bring us within the top six earners the project is technically completed….then we are a permanent force not a yo yo club or a bust one.[/p][/quote]The only things the owner can do to 'invest' in the club is invest in its infrastructure and increase the fan base. The FFP won't allow her to subsidise the team. As you say, it gives those at the top one hell of a built in advantage.[/p][/quote]The situation is more complicated than that. The ownership of the Saints has a great deal of flexibility to invest--if they wish to spend the money. I am relying on the recent financial report on the official web page for this comment. I have not investigated the details of the reports myself. I have used the information found on the Financial Fair Play Explained website extensively. There are two different financial fair play rules that could matter (baring relegation)--UEFA and the BPL. UEFA can be safely ignored for now because it will only come into play when the Saints qualify for European competition and it appears that it does not apply in the first year that you qualify--in other words Hull and Liverpool can pay in Europe next year no matter what their losses. The BPL rules allow teams to lose up to 105 million pounds over three years. Clearly, Southampton is in no danger of doing that. The loss is limited to 15 million pounds over three years if the owner does not kick in the rest as equity. That is where the potential problem lies. How much does ownership want to kick in? Also, the youth program and the physical plant stuff does not count against the loss limit. I assume both amounts are substantial for Southampton. The monies still owed for past transfer fees is a cash flow problem but not a financial fair play issue since transfer fees have to be amortized over the life of the player's contract anyway. (Thus if Osvaldo is sold for a significant loss this summer that could be a cash flow plus but a financial fair play negative.) Wages can be up to 52 million pounds year with no restrictions. Increases above that amount are limited to 4 million pounds a year plus any commercial revenue increases. Thus, improved commercial revenue is critical not to balance the books but to allow an increased payroll. The report states that the payroll for last season was 47.1 million pounds. With all the long term contracts signed in the past year we must be pushing these limits. This does not mean that Southampton can spend crazy money and compete with City, Chelsea, MU, Arsenal, or Liverpool directly for specific players. But if youth players are retained significant improvement is still possible if the ownership wishes to keep investing. The question is what does Katharina Liebherr want to do and how much money does she have to do it with. Even moderate future investment can allow continued growth. She can go crazy and probably kick in 40 million pounds a year without violating BPL financial fair play. But if she wants to take out some dividends players must be sold.[/p][/quote]A very well researched and detailed post. Well done that person ![/p][/quote]Thanks for making that simple and readable, even a simple old bugger like me can grasp it. A question or two arises from it. It would take a greater mind than mine to work out all of the complexities so if anyone can add to this I'd appreciate it. Do we really need to feel as though we can go out and compete on a pound for pound basis with the clubs who are already being used to possibly (and I choose my wording here carefully) launder ill gotten gains or possibly dodge taxes in their homelands? I'm not convinced we do. Sooner or later these giants in the industry are going to start faltering and there will be tears. If Saints are governed with a modicum of old fashioned common sense we would weather any storm. (Been down there once - do not want it again) Would there be a legal problem with for example instead of an individual or a large corporation owning a football club - North Chindton Rovers instead owned wholly the Likehair engineering and banking corporation, so all shares in those interests could be transferred to the football club - would it be true to think that then there would be no limit on what the football club spent because it directly owned all the other interests? Perhaps there is someone out there who knows the legalities of this. IF it is indeed true there is no plans to sell off anyone unnecessarily and we can keep this squad together for say five years, with what is following on the conveyor belt of our youth policy we do not need enormous figures injected surely. It only requires the manager to see where the team needs shoring up, identifying a player or two to fill that requirement and then discussing it with Les whether he is affordable or not. If that were done season after season within that five years we too would be having 11 u-21 stars out on loan to top clubs throughout Europe. jls217
  • Score: 0

11:06am Sat 26 Apr 14

jls217 says...

Many years back Saints had an "Arrangement" with Fiorentina re players and it was mooted at that time that the Italian club, which was in dire straits financially and hit by corruption and scandal, might become a feeder club for Saints. I think we even got one or two young hopefuls from them (The name Sarli seems to ring a bell as being one of them).
Then it all seemed to go silent - Can anyone remember this and spread some light on it please?

Somebody on here mentioned world wide marketing. Fantastic if it's feasible. Saints are not exactly a household name outside of the human end of Hampshire. This may change a little if we get 3 players in the England squad and one or two more in other squads for the world cup.
I would be tempted to look at the possibilities of Saints owning a couple of foreign clubs. For example Newells old boys where Poch was discovered is in dire straits and could be a great gateway to South American raw talent for Saints as well as a source of income for Newells and Saints - the spin off of course is that Newells could become a force to be reckoned with in Argentina with a couple of Saints players working there to complete their football education. I would be tempted to take over an Indian club to do likewise and possibly one in N. Africa - the French just keep finding dozens of young good uns from there that only seem to find their way to English clubs once they've established a name for themselves (and a price tag to match). Am I talking crap or is this a potentially good and workable idea?
Many years back Saints had an "Arrangement" with Fiorentina re players and it was mooted at that time that the Italian club, which was in dire straits financially and hit by corruption and scandal, might become a feeder club for Saints. I think we even got one or two young hopefuls from them (The name Sarli seems to ring a bell as being one of them). Then it all seemed to go silent - Can anyone remember this and spread some light on it please? Somebody on here mentioned world wide marketing. Fantastic if it's feasible. Saints are not exactly a household name outside of the human end of Hampshire. This may change a little if we get 3 players in the England squad and one or two more in other squads for the world cup. I would be tempted to look at the possibilities of Saints owning a couple of foreign clubs. For example Newells old boys where Poch was discovered is in dire straits and could be a great gateway to South American raw talent for Saints as well as a source of income for Newells and Saints - the spin off of course is that Newells could become a force to be reckoned with in Argentina with a couple of Saints players working there to complete their football education. I would be tempted to take over an Indian club to do likewise and possibly one in N. Africa - the French just keep finding dozens of young good uns from there that only seem to find their way to English clubs once they've established a name for themselves (and a price tag to match). Am I talking crap or is this a potentially good and workable idea? jls217
  • Score: 1

11:20am Sat 26 Apr 14

george chivers says...

jls217 wrote:
Prit wrote:
Redslo wrote:
Rising_Son wrote:
warrens 76 wrote: It is a fact of life well known down the road that you have to balance the books..our ignomy of bankruptcy should never of happened for the pathetic amount involved yet it's that easy to turn the boat over these days.. FFP which is only a trick to keep the big clubs big and stop any new interlopers also has to be atched carefully… The question is were can we realistically go without breaking the bank… The stages are first to keep the majority of the talent pool and and add pace and defensive cover in order that this season is a stepping stone not the peak… Stage two massively expand our almost non existant global marketing …and create full houses for every game even if it's entry for a fiver on early league cup games…build the base support to a demand for 30.000 season tickets. Stage 3 increase caèpacity to the maximum possible and get the train link approved so as we can counter the traffic issues…park and ride on the M271 with a train link from red bridge, mill brook and so on, the city needs it anyway. When total revenues bring us within the top six earners the project is technically completed….then we are a permanent force not a yo yo club or a bust one.
The only things the owner can do to 'invest' in the club is invest in its infrastructure and increase the fan base. The FFP won't allow her to subsidise the team. As you say, it gives those at the top one hell of a built in advantage.
The situation is more complicated than that. The ownership of the Saints has a great deal of flexibility to invest--if they wish to spend the money. I am relying on the recent financial report on the official web page for this comment. I have not investigated the details of the reports myself. I have used the information found on the Financial Fair Play Explained website extensively. There are two different financial fair play rules that could matter (baring relegation)--UEFA and the BPL. UEFA can be safely ignored for now because it will only come into play when the Saints qualify for European competition and it appears that it does not apply in the first year that you qualify--in other words Hull and Liverpool can pay in Europe next year no matter what their losses. The BPL rules allow teams to lose up to 105 million pounds over three years. Clearly, Southampton is in no danger of doing that. The loss is limited to 15 million pounds over three years if the owner does not kick in the rest as equity. That is where the potential problem lies. How much does ownership want to kick in? Also, the youth program and the physical plant stuff does not count against the loss limit. I assume both amounts are substantial for Southampton. The monies still owed for past transfer fees is a cash flow problem but not a financial fair play issue since transfer fees have to be amortized over the life of the player's contract anyway. (Thus if Osvaldo is sold for a significant loss this summer that could be a cash flow plus but a financial fair play negative.) Wages can be up to 52 million pounds year with no restrictions. Increases above that amount are limited to 4 million pounds a year plus any commercial revenue increases. Thus, improved commercial revenue is critical not to balance the books but to allow an increased payroll. The report states that the payroll for last season was 47.1 million pounds. With all the long term contracts signed in the past year we must be pushing these limits. This does not mean that Southampton can spend crazy money and compete with City, Chelsea, MU, Arsenal, or Liverpool directly for specific players. But if youth players are retained significant improvement is still possible if the ownership wishes to keep investing. The question is what does Katharina Liebherr want to do and how much money does she have to do it with. Even moderate future investment can allow continued growth. She can go crazy and probably kick in 40 million pounds a year without violating BPL financial fair play. But if she wants to take out some dividends players must be sold.
A very well researched and detailed post. Well done that person !
Thanks for making that simple and readable, even a simple old bugger like me can grasp it. A question or two arises from it. It would take a greater mind than mine to work out all of the complexities so if anyone can add to this I'd appreciate it.
Do we really need to feel as though we can go out and compete on a pound for pound basis with the clubs who are already being used to possibly (and I choose my wording here carefully) launder ill gotten gains or possibly dodge taxes in their homelands? I'm not convinced we do. Sooner or later these giants in the industry are going to start faltering and there will be tears. If Saints are governed with a modicum of old fashioned common sense we would weather any storm. (Been down there once - do not want it again)
Would there be a legal problem with for example instead of an individual or a large corporation owning a football club - North Chindton Rovers instead owned wholly the Likehair engineering and banking corporation, so all shares in those interests could be transferred to the football club - would it be true to think that then there would be no limit on what the football club spent because it directly owned all the other interests? Perhaps there is someone out there who knows the legalities of this.
IF it is indeed true there is no plans to sell off anyone unnecessarily and we can keep this squad together for say five years, with what is following on the conveyor belt of our youth policy we do not need enormous figures injected surely. It only requires the manager to see where the team needs shoring up, identifying a player or two to fill that requirement and then discussing it with Les whether he is affordable or not. If that were done season after season within that five years we too would be having 11 u-21 stars out on loan to top clubs throughout Europe.
All that is fine and I admire the moral part of your post. Your North Chindton Rovers example does seem very artificial and devious to me. And you do have to consider whether the players want to stay or not and the influence of the agents over he players. And the size of our stadium and the attraction of playing Champions league home games in large stadiums rather than average sized one.

Although the club has no plans to sell off the best players that is no reason to assume they won't leave if they want to. The agents will manipulate the situation so they can both make money out of it. Size matters in football and we are not big enough to become a big club. Sadly.
[quote][p][bold]jls217[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Prit[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Redslo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rising_Son[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]warrens 76[/bold] wrote: It is a fact of life well known down the road that you have to balance the books..our ignomy of bankruptcy should never of happened for the pathetic amount involved yet it's that easy to turn the boat over these days.. FFP which is only a trick to keep the big clubs big and stop any new interlopers also has to be atched carefully… The question is were can we realistically go without breaking the bank… The stages are first to keep the majority of the talent pool and and add pace and defensive cover in order that this season is a stepping stone not the peak… Stage two massively expand our almost non existant global marketing …and create full houses for every game even if it's entry for a fiver on early league cup games…build the base support to a demand for 30.000 season tickets. Stage 3 increase caèpacity to the maximum possible and get the train link approved so as we can counter the traffic issues…park and ride on the M271 with a train link from red bridge, mill brook and so on, the city needs it anyway. When total revenues bring us within the top six earners the project is technically completed….then we are a permanent force not a yo yo club or a bust one.[/p][/quote]The only things the owner can do to 'invest' in the club is invest in its infrastructure and increase the fan base. The FFP won't allow her to subsidise the team. As you say, it gives those at the top one hell of a built in advantage.[/p][/quote]The situation is more complicated than that. The ownership of the Saints has a great deal of flexibility to invest--if they wish to spend the money. I am relying on the recent financial report on the official web page for this comment. I have not investigated the details of the reports myself. I have used the information found on the Financial Fair Play Explained website extensively. There are two different financial fair play rules that could matter (baring relegation)--UEFA and the BPL. UEFA can be safely ignored for now because it will only come into play when the Saints qualify for European competition and it appears that it does not apply in the first year that you qualify--in other words Hull and Liverpool can pay in Europe next year no matter what their losses. The BPL rules allow teams to lose up to 105 million pounds over three years. Clearly, Southampton is in no danger of doing that. The loss is limited to 15 million pounds over three years if the owner does not kick in the rest as equity. That is where the potential problem lies. How much does ownership want to kick in? Also, the youth program and the physical plant stuff does not count against the loss limit. I assume both amounts are substantial for Southampton. The monies still owed for past transfer fees is a cash flow problem but not a financial fair play issue since transfer fees have to be amortized over the life of the player's contract anyway. (Thus if Osvaldo is sold for a significant loss this summer that could be a cash flow plus but a financial fair play negative.) Wages can be up to 52 million pounds year with no restrictions. Increases above that amount are limited to 4 million pounds a year plus any commercial revenue increases. Thus, improved commercial revenue is critical not to balance the books but to allow an increased payroll. The report states that the payroll for last season was 47.1 million pounds. With all the long term contracts signed in the past year we must be pushing these limits. This does not mean that Southampton can spend crazy money and compete with City, Chelsea, MU, Arsenal, or Liverpool directly for specific players. But if youth players are retained significant improvement is still possible if the ownership wishes to keep investing. The question is what does Katharina Liebherr want to do and how much money does she have to do it with. Even moderate future investment can allow continued growth. She can go crazy and probably kick in 40 million pounds a year without violating BPL financial fair play. But if she wants to take out some dividends players must be sold.[/p][/quote]A very well researched and detailed post. Well done that person ![/p][/quote]Thanks for making that simple and readable, even a simple old bugger like me can grasp it. A question or two arises from it. It would take a greater mind than mine to work out all of the complexities so if anyone can add to this I'd appreciate it. Do we really need to feel as though we can go out and compete on a pound for pound basis with the clubs who are already being used to possibly (and I choose my wording here carefully) launder ill gotten gains or possibly dodge taxes in their homelands? I'm not convinced we do. Sooner or later these giants in the industry are going to start faltering and there will be tears. If Saints are governed with a modicum of old fashioned common sense we would weather any storm. (Been down there once - do not want it again) Would there be a legal problem with for example instead of an individual or a large corporation owning a football club - North Chindton Rovers instead owned wholly the Likehair engineering and banking corporation, so all shares in those interests could be transferred to the football club - would it be true to think that then there would be no limit on what the football club spent because it directly owned all the other interests? Perhaps there is someone out there who knows the legalities of this. IF it is indeed true there is no plans to sell off anyone unnecessarily and we can keep this squad together for say five years, with what is following on the conveyor belt of our youth policy we do not need enormous figures injected surely. It only requires the manager to see where the team needs shoring up, identifying a player or two to fill that requirement and then discussing it with Les whether he is affordable or not. If that were done season after season within that five years we too would be having 11 u-21 stars out on loan to top clubs throughout Europe.[/p][/quote]All that is fine and I admire the moral part of your post. Your North Chindton Rovers example does seem very artificial and devious to me. And you do have to consider whether the players want to stay or not and the influence of the agents over he players. And the size of our stadium and the attraction of playing Champions league home games in large stadiums rather than average sized one. Although the club has no plans to sell off the best players that is no reason to assume they won't leave if they want to. The agents will manipulate the situation so they can both make money out of it. Size matters in football and we are not big enough to become a big club. Sadly. george chivers
  • Score: -1

11:50am Sat 26 Apr 14

el caballo santos101 says...

Redslo wrote:
Rising_Son wrote:
warrens 76 wrote:
It is a fact of life well known down the road that you have to balance the books..our ignomy of bankruptcy should never of happened for the pathetic amount involved yet it's that easy to turn the boat over these days..

FFP which is only a trick to keep the big clubs big and stop any new interlopers also has to be atched carefully…

The question is were can we realistically go without breaking the bank…

The stages are first to keep the majority of the talent pool and and add pace and defensive cover in order that this season is a stepping stone not the peak…

Stage two massively expand our almost non existant global marketing …and create full houses for every game even if it's entry for a fiver on early league cup games…build the base support to a demand for 30.000 season tickets.

Stage 3 increase caèpacity to the maximum possible and get the train link approved so as we can counter the traffic issues…park and ride on the M271 with a train link from red bridge, mill brook and so on, the city needs it anyway.

When total revenues bring us within the top six earners the project is technically completed….then we are a permanent force not a yo yo club or a bust one.
The only things the owner can do to 'invest' in the club is invest in its infrastructure and increase the fan base. The FFP won't allow her to subsidise the team. As you say, it gives those at the top one hell of a built in advantage.
The situation is more complicated than that. The ownership of the Saints has a great deal of flexibility to invest--if they wish to spend the money. I am relying on the recent financial report on the official web page for this comment. I have not investigated the details of the reports myself. I have used the information found on the Financial Fair Play Explained website extensively.

There are two different financial fair play rules that could matter (baring relegation)--UEFA and the BPL. UEFA can be safely ignored for now because it will only come into play when the Saints qualify for European competition and it appears that it does not apply in the first year that you qualify--in other words Hull and Liverpool can pay in Europe next year no matter what their losses.

The BPL rules allow teams to lose up to 105 million pounds over three years. Clearly, Southampton is in no danger of doing that. The loss is limited to 15 million pounds over three years if the owner does not kick in the rest as equity. That is where the potential problem lies. How much does ownership want to kick in?

Also, the youth program and the physical plant stuff does not count against the loss limit. I assume both amounts are substantial for Southampton.
The monies still owed for past transfer fees is a cash flow problem but not a financial fair play issue since transfer fees have to be amortized over the life of the player's contract anyway. (Thus if Osvaldo is sold for a significant loss this summer that could be a cash flow plus but a financial fair play negative.)

Wages can be up to 52 million pounds year with no restrictions. Increases above that amount are limited to 4 million pounds a year plus any commercial revenue increases. Thus, improved commercial revenue is critical not to balance the books but to allow an increased payroll. The report states that the payroll for last season was 47.1 million pounds. With all the long term contracts signed in the past year we must be pushing these limits.

This does not mean that Southampton can spend crazy money and compete with City, Chelsea, MU, Arsenal, or Liverpool directly for specific players. But if youth players are retained significant improvement is still possible if the ownership wishes to keep investing. The question is what does Katharina Liebherr want to do and how much money does she have to do it with.

Even moderate future investment can allow continued growth. She can go crazy and probably kick in 40 million pounds a year without violating BPL financial fair play. But if she wants to take out some dividends players must be sold.
100% agree with everything you have written but might I just add that, Man city and PSG have failed the uefa ffp but are not likely to be excluded from European competition, the toughest sanction uefa can take, and are likely to just be fined or have prize money withheld. Uefa then are going to `punish` the big spenders by taking money away from them, will that make a huge difference?
Both City and PSG's meteoric rise are based on the massive financial input of wealthy owners, as Sheikh Mansour and Qatar Tourism Authority have ploughed the respective clubs with funds to ensure rapid improvements over the last few years. While it has worked—both have captured league titles and cup wins since investment—these are the types of financial structures that UEFA wishes to keep an eye on.
Clubs entering European football can afford to make losses of £37 million on accounts registered during the 2011-12 and 2012-13 seasons. This number drops to £25 million in 2015-16 and will continue to decrease until the 2018 campaign
Arsenal, Manchester United and Chelsea were previously cleared by UEFA.
Chelsea were the most likely to face extra sanctions, but a conscious effort to offload players before signing new talents—highlighte
d by the January exits of Juan Mata and Kevin De Bruyne before Nemanja Matic, Mohamed Salah and Kurt Zouma were signed—aids the club's future safety.
UEFA's exact punishment is yet to be defined for those who do breach the newly installed rules. Fines, bans from European competition and the withholding of prize money are all viable options, but the first ruling is likely to set precedent here. A transfer ban would perhaps be a smart idea, curbing the amount any offenders can spend until they post accounts in the black.
This summer's transfer activity may be dictated by clubs who aim to ensure they don't violate the system. PSG could be forced into letting a star name leave for a hefty price.
[quote][p][bold]Redslo[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Rising_Son[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]warrens 76[/bold] wrote: It is a fact of life well known down the road that you have to balance the books..our ignomy of bankruptcy should never of happened for the pathetic amount involved yet it's that easy to turn the boat over these days.. FFP which is only a trick to keep the big clubs big and stop any new interlopers also has to be atched carefully… The question is were can we realistically go without breaking the bank… The stages are first to keep the majority of the talent pool and and add pace and defensive cover in order that this season is a stepping stone not the peak… Stage two massively expand our almost non existant global marketing …and create full houses for every game even if it's entry for a fiver on early league cup games…build the base support to a demand for 30.000 season tickets. Stage 3 increase caèpacity to the maximum possible and get the train link approved so as we can counter the traffic issues…park and ride on the M271 with a train link from red bridge, mill brook and so on, the city needs it anyway. When total revenues bring us within the top six earners the project is technically completed….then we are a permanent force not a yo yo club or a bust one.[/p][/quote]The only things the owner can do to 'invest' in the club is invest in its infrastructure and increase the fan base. The FFP won't allow her to subsidise the team. As you say, it gives those at the top one hell of a built in advantage.[/p][/quote]The situation is more complicated than that. The ownership of the Saints has a great deal of flexibility to invest--if they wish to spend the money. I am relying on the recent financial report on the official web page for this comment. I have not investigated the details of the reports myself. I have used the information found on the Financial Fair Play Explained website extensively. There are two different financial fair play rules that could matter (baring relegation)--UEFA and the BPL. UEFA can be safely ignored for now because it will only come into play when the Saints qualify for European competition and it appears that it does not apply in the first year that you qualify--in other words Hull and Liverpool can pay in Europe next year no matter what their losses. The BPL rules allow teams to lose up to 105 million pounds over three years. Clearly, Southampton is in no danger of doing that. The loss is limited to 15 million pounds over three years if the owner does not kick in the rest as equity. That is where the potential problem lies. How much does ownership want to kick in? Also, the youth program and the physical plant stuff does not count against the loss limit. I assume both amounts are substantial for Southampton. The monies still owed for past transfer fees is a cash flow problem but not a financial fair play issue since transfer fees have to be amortized over the life of the player's contract anyway. (Thus if Osvaldo is sold for a significant loss this summer that could be a cash flow plus but a financial fair play negative.) Wages can be up to 52 million pounds year with no restrictions. Increases above that amount are limited to 4 million pounds a year plus any commercial revenue increases. Thus, improved commercial revenue is critical not to balance the books but to allow an increased payroll. The report states that the payroll for last season was 47.1 million pounds. With all the long term contracts signed in the past year we must be pushing these limits. This does not mean that Southampton can spend crazy money and compete with City, Chelsea, MU, Arsenal, or Liverpool directly for specific players. But if youth players are retained significant improvement is still possible if the ownership wishes to keep investing. The question is what does Katharina Liebherr want to do and how much money does she have to do it with. Even moderate future investment can allow continued growth. She can go crazy and probably kick in 40 million pounds a year without violating BPL financial fair play. But if she wants to take out some dividends players must be sold.[/p][/quote]100% agree with everything you have written but might I just add that, Man city and PSG have failed the uefa ffp but are not likely to be excluded from European competition, the toughest sanction uefa can take, and are likely to just be fined or have prize money withheld. Uefa then are going to `punish` the big spenders by taking money away from them, will that make a huge difference? Both City and PSG's meteoric rise are based on the massive financial input of wealthy owners, as Sheikh Mansour and Qatar Tourism Authority have ploughed the respective clubs with funds to ensure rapid improvements over the last few years. While it has worked—both have captured league titles and cup wins since investment—these are the types of financial structures that UEFA wishes to keep an eye on. Clubs entering European football can afford to make losses of £37 million on accounts registered during the 2011-12 and 2012-13 seasons. This number drops to £25 million in 2015-16 and will continue to decrease until the 2018 campaign Arsenal, Manchester United and Chelsea were previously cleared by UEFA. Chelsea were the most likely to face extra sanctions, but a conscious effort to offload players before signing new talents—highlighte d by the January exits of Juan Mata and Kevin De Bruyne before Nemanja Matic, Mohamed Salah and Kurt Zouma were signed—aids the club's future safety. UEFA's exact punishment is yet to be defined for those who do breach the newly installed rules. Fines, bans from European competition and the withholding of prize money are all viable options, but the first ruling is likely to set precedent here. A transfer ban would perhaps be a smart idea, curbing the amount any offenders can spend until they post accounts in the black. This summer's transfer activity may be dictated by clubs who aim to ensure they don't violate the system. PSG could be forced into letting a star name leave for a hefty price. el caballo santos101
  • Score: 0

12:46pm Sat 26 Apr 14

contric says...

let them all go so they will have a chance of champions league football and a chance to win something
let them all go so they will have a chance of champions league football and a chance to win something contric
  • Score: -2

1:45pm Sat 26 Apr 14

BracknellSaint says...

contric wrote:
let them all go so they will have a chance of champions league football and a chance to win something
Something smells small( tiny really) and fishy....
Swim on skate
[quote][p][bold]contric[/bold] wrote: let them all go so they will have a chance of champions league football and a chance to win something[/p][/quote]Something smells small( tiny really) and fishy.... Swim on skate BracknellSaint
  • Score: 0

7:46pm Sat 26 Apr 14

Freddie Flowerpot says...

It's always one of the negatives about supporting a medium sized club, you just know your best players are going to be prised away with offers of large salary increases, the real possibility of winning major trophies and all the glamour that goes with joining the Big Four/Five.

Thing is if I was in their position I'd do exactly the same thing, we just have to enjoy them whilst they are here.but let's stop kidding ourselves, Adam and Luke will go in the summer.
It's always one of the negatives about supporting a medium sized club, you just know your best players are going to be prised away with offers of large salary increases, the real possibility of winning major trophies and all the glamour that goes with joining the Big Four/Five. Thing is if I was in their position I'd do exactly the same thing, we just have to enjoy them whilst they are here.but let's stop kidding ourselves, Adam and Luke will go in the summer. Freddie Flowerpot
  • Score: -5

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree