Club Finances

[john ridley]

1 hour ago, Stadt said:

Had we spent no money at all in the summer of 2024 - we’d be in a far better place both with the squad and finances.

 

Instead we ploughed money into Skipp, Ayew, Okoli, Reid, Golding & Edouard. Our second highest net spend on that crock of shit.

 

They've never once tried to get the finances in order - last summer was the first time we stopped spending when it should have happened 3 years prior 

Also over the last couple of seasons we've  luckily  dodged the Harrison transfer and Antonio's loan to name but two lucky escapes.

Edited 28 March by john ridley

[fairbanksh]

We got rid of Soumare to allegedly help finances then Joe Aribo on who is Southamptons highest paid player. Time and Time again we do not learn

[Spudulike]

4 minutes ago, fairbanksh said:

We got rid of Soumare to allegedly help finances then Joe Aribo on who is Southamptons highest paid player. Time and Time again we do not learn

Don't know the details, obviously, but I wouldn't expect that we're paying anything more than a small portion of his wages. Likewise, we'll still be paying most of Soumare's. Probably.

[NextPlease]

1 hour ago, Drew Peacock said:

They could get away with this nonsense when we were selling out every game, but surely not now.

Buying a home ticket is far too complicated if you’re not a ST holder or member. One ticket per supporter number too, if you’re not one of the above.

Why are the club more obsessed with controlling and knowing who is in the ground and making ticket sales as difficult as possible, rather than with selling more tickets with a simpler process?  
Is there still a fan engagement officer who should be sorting this kind of thing out?
 

 

It’s wide spread practice across many clubs

[NextPlease]

5 hours ago, Lad1966 said:

It’s more likely he /kp group will look external investment, maybe a minority share.

Given Top has stated he will rebuild this is certainly the more likely outcome 

[Mickyblueeyes]

4 hours ago, Guppys Love Child said:

How do you know?

 

( I'm not questioning you or looking for an argument, but how have you come to this conclusion. Is this a normal practice?)

 

 

Oh I could be completely and utterly wrong. 
 

My assumption is based on the following:

 

1. New ceo not (as yet) anything special - cfo to ceo route very normal but the CEO should have some milestones before getting the top gig. Not be in place of a financial/regulatory crisis that is still on-going. 
2. the only member of the board with exposure to corporate advisors - while this is unusual for only one person to have such exposure, it’s quite key in this instance. 
3. Firms like Pwc, KY can gather interest without raising suspicion the club is for sale.

4. CEO is now in place to either steady the ship (controls the books in his role) with needing significant growth or dealing with the financial management in case of an insolvency (or the club being on the brink of one). 
 

Ive seen this on a smaller scale from experience but as an example for this club, see the appointment of ceo when this club went into admin (or just before) the last time - we appointed a very similar candidate. I just think that’s the reason for it.

 

Of course I could be completely wrong and the fella Top has just done what it looks like on the surface and appointed the only person in the last year who can read a balance sheet and thought wow he must be clever. 

[splinterdream]

When you think about it, it does seem baffling 

[Terraloon]

Have to keep going back to the accounts because just when I start to get my head around matters then something else jumps out at me.

 

For instance the debt under the stadium HP has increased. I am trying to get my head around how  or indeed if the extra sum impacts PSR . Similarly debt interest on sums converted to equity have been waived. Nothing is wrong in terms of how the accounts are put together but following on from the Man City arbitration settlement with the PL there are now requirements around assorted and related parties when it comes to PSR calculations.
 

 

[st albans fox]

4 minutes ago, splinterdream said:

When you think about it, it does seem baffling 

Wage bill went up by approx 50m 

[splinterdream]

[ealingfox]

2 hours ago, Stadt said:

Had we spent no money at all in the summer of 2024 - we’d be in a far better place both with the squad and finances.

 

Instead we ploughed money into Skipp, Ayew, Okoli, Reid, Golding & Edouard. Our second highest net spend on that crock of shit.

 

They've never once tried to get the finances in order - last summer was the first time we stopped spending when it should have happened 3 years prior 

 

Not really true. The Ryan Bennett January window was the first time there was an implicit recognition of a lack of headroom (and imo ironically not investing in a new signing or two then cost us a Champions League place).

[CosbehFox]

The line about PSR is a little head scratching the more I think about. 
 

We know that we breached PSR by £20m with an allowable loss of £83m. Over those three years our accountable loss (not PSR) was £201.6m. Which suggests a PSR ratio of roughly 2:1

Now the latest three years, same allowable loss of £83m. Our accountable loss was £180.1m. Now based on the previous verdict that would suggest the club needs to find approx £10m extra PSR head room on a 2:1 ratio. 
 

Looking forward if you do the three year period including this season, we have an allowable PSR loss of £63m. Now we are two years into the accounts and we have £90m already tallied up. A similar Championship season to the last would see £20m financial loss. So squeezing underneath the allowable loss range; albeit this season is a lot less incoming transfer money and incoming £10m off Chelsea but rather two managers sacked in the financial year. 
 

This is fag pack PSR maths. It’s far more nuanced and detailed but it looks like major accountancy work would have been required on the latest PSR submission back in December 

[splinterdream]

Which seasons cock ups is worse do we reckon?

 

16/17 

22/23

24/25

25/26

 

????????????????

[Terraloon]

13 minutes ago, splinterdream said:

When you think about it, it does seem baffling 

First thing to remember it was circa £19 million loss last year so the increase in losses  year on year is £52 million ish 

 

 
24/25 

 

Yes Turnover increased by £81.156m

 

But  cost of sales went up by £55.697 million so only £25.4.

 

 

Profit and loss tells us that there was £64 million  less revived in transfer profit so now £39 million negative comparing 24/25 to 23/24 (£25.m - £64m)  

 

 These are rounded up /rounded down 

 

There was £12m less in respect of Meresca money so up to £51m  other areas such as Admin expenses went up some others like net interest came down.

 

[foxinsocks]

41 minutes ago, CosbehFox said:

The line about PSR is a little head scratching the more I think about. 
 

We know that we breached PSR by £20m with an allowable loss of £83m. Over those three years our accountable loss (not PSR) was £201.6m. Which suggests a PSR ratio of roughly 2:1

Now the latest three years, same allowable loss of £83m. Our accountable loss was £180.1m. Now based on the previous verdict that would suggest the club needs to find approx £10m extra PSR head room on a 2:1 ratio. 
 

Looking forward if you do the three year period including this season, we have an allowable PSR loss of £63m. Now we are two years into the accounts and we have £90m already tallied up. A similar Championship season to the last would see £20m financial loss. So squeezing underneath the allowable loss range; albeit this season is a lot less incoming transfer money and incoming £10m off Chelsea but rather two managers sacked in the financial year. 
 

This is fag pack PSR maths. It’s far more nuanced and detailed but it looks like major accountancy work would have been required on the latest PSR submission back in December 

My poor grasp is that the psr calcs include defined income lines and defined cost lines.  So, not having big tv income might have an amplified effect and vice versa.

I think someone needs to do the psr calcs based on the public accounts

Edited 28 March by foxinsocks

[Stadt]

1 hour ago, ealingfox said:

 

Not really true. The Ryan Bennett January window was the first time there was an implicit recognition of a lack of headroom (and imo ironically not investing in a new signing or two then cost us a Champions League place).

We’ve never done anything in January besides the 2023 window (panic/necessity). If they were concerned then we might have sorted things since. Signing Ryan Bennett was just the usual incompetence - nothing to do with FFP, that was just convenient 

[murphy]

How do you guys understand all this shit?  I hate the way the modern game forces fans to become amateur accountants.  I draw the line at that. 

[Dan]

3 minutes ago, murphy said:

How do you guys understand all this shit?  I hate the way the modern game forces fans to become amateur accountants.  I draw the line at that. 

- Jon Rudkin

[Dan]

1 hour ago, splinterdream said:

Which seasons cock ups is worse do we reckon?

 

16/17 

22/23

24/25

25/26

 

????????????????

2022/23

 

I don't know if that's just because it was the first real catastrophe but everything else has felt kind of inevitable. 2024/25... we've seriously spent £50mil or so net in fees, and upped the wage bill by around the same amount to serve up a record breakingly bad team who were relegated with 6 games to spare.

 

This season is a disgrace. Tbh probably even worse than 2022/23 the more I think about it.

 

How our fans aren't angrier about this as beyond me.

[MattFox]

1 hour ago, splinterdream said:

Which seasons cock ups is worse do we reckon?

 

16/17 

22/23

24/25

25/26

 

????????????????

Gonna be edgy and say 19/20

 

Perfect opportunity to cement ourselves in Europe and we somehow blew it

 

[Trav Le Bleu]

5 hours ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

I disagree entirely with this, we've spent money, on crap players. 

 

90% of the fanbase called Skipp and Ayew poor value for money signings. 

 

A lot called out BDR (I thought he'd be alright tbh).

 

A lot called out Lascelles.

 

The problem isn't the amount of money being spent, it's where it's being sent. Add to that the fact we seem to mess up any sale of a player and always end up losing out (Iversen for 5m, Thomas to Germany) You make those 2 sales and we've got an extra 15m or so pumped into the club.

We'd maybe in the premier League. We'd still get punished, if we spent more to get better players, we'd have been docked even more points.

 

But you're right, the problem has probably more been not recouping our losses on players. Had we done that we could've gotten away with crap signings.

[King Claudio]

2 hours ago, splinterdream said:

Which seasons cock ups is worse do we reckon?

 

16/17 

22/23

24/25

25/26

 

????????????????

21/22 was pretty bad... according to transfer market.com

Daka 30m Euros

soumare 20m Euros

vestegaard 17.5m Euros

bertrand - vaguely remember him being in 90k a week. 

[Blue ROI]

2 hours ago, splinterdream said:

Which seasons cock ups is worse do we reckon?

 

16/17 

22/23

24/25

25/26

 

????????????????

22/23 

 

The season where it all turned sour.

 

We were begging for Rudkin and Aiyatwat to act on Rodgers and they did nothing until the horse had bolted. 

 

3 reputations destroyed forever more

[Claudio Fannieri]

5 minutes ago, King Claudio said:

21/22 was pretty bad... according to transfer market.com

Daka 30m Euros

soumare 20m Euros

vestegaard 17.5m Euros

bertrand - vaguely remember him being in 90k a week. 

And yet some still blame our woes on PSR not dogshit recruitment and financial decision making 

[HankMarvin]

3 hours ago, st albans fox said:

Wage bill went up by approx 50m 

Good luck with the company that person ends up working for