skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I here doing it the Neville Chamberlain way have a protest organised. Apparently you've ordered a load of white flags for everyone to wave on the 38th minute of the game.
New SISU Article. (14 Viewers)
- Thread starter I was eleven in 87
- Start date
I here doing it the Neville Chamberlain way have a protest organised. Apparently you've ordered a load of white flags for everyone to wave on the 38th minute of the game.
Nick
Administrator
Go to a game, you might see it
Wouldn't mind if it was last or somebody trying to take the piss.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Go to a game, you might see it
Wouldn't mind if it was last or somebody trying to take the piss.
I could go to every game home and away and I'd never see you protest. I'd see you telling everyone on here why it won't work.
Nick
Administrator
Seems I've been right so far.
Still, as chief protester yourself I admire everything you have done.
Was it you behind the photo shop?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Pat yourself on the back. SISU aren't letting you down so it makes you right and I guess that's all that matters. To you anyway.
I'm not a leader and have never pretended to be. What I have done though is back all those to varying degrees who have tried to do something for the benefit of CCFC. I'm sure I've spent more time backing them and taking part than you. If everyone backed them as much as you put them down we'll probably get some progress alot quicker. You do nothing productive, have nothing productive to say about those being proactive and offer no alternatives. LAST kept asking you and others who are similar to you what are you going to do, it's over to you and the silence was deafening.
No I didn't do the photoshop. I wouldn't have been that kind.
Nick
Administrator
I'm not the one playing the back pat game.
The silence deafening? I was the one posting on there. Silence was you on your boycott wasps thread after they put out some spin.
No, when I say a stupid Photoshop isn't going to do anything for example. It's just using common sense.
I've spent hours offering alternatives and am always constructive.
If only everybody backed ccfc as much, there's a thought. If you were Steve or last etc trying to have digs it would have some merit.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
You're the one congratulating yourself on being right. No one else.
I've always said boycott wasps, my thread I started was a reiteration on that after certain events. Never went quite. If I feel the need to say it again I will. For instance, if they keep refusing to talk about an extension at the Ricoh. I've also made more than one suggestion of what we can do by way of protest should there stance continue and committed to take part in them should they happen. So don't give me this gone quite bullshit following some spin. The only spin there was your own. I've also vocally supported the only posters on here who actually did protest about wasps. Weren't you one of the idiots who kept accusing them of welcoming wasps with open arms?
Apposing SISU is backing CCFC. They'll be the end of this club if we don't keep apposing them. I suspect it will be too late by the time you realise that.
Nick
Administrator
I'm not congratulating myself on anything.
I've never accused last or bhsb of welcoming wasps with open arms, I actually always put a disclaimer to show that. As well as often saying fair play.
6 Generations
Well-Known Member
This is one of the best posts in the history of this site.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
You might want to check yours. Daves point was specifically about their rise from league one to championship not about their current financial performance in the PL.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
But you have to take a punt to be where they are now.
What Club has been promoted and stayed there or done better without their owners putting in some money?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
We're not talking about how much clubs make in the PL, we all know they get millions off Sky. We're talking about living beyond your means in an attempt to get to the PL which obviously can't work for every club as there are only three promotion spots. That is being held up in the article as good business practice.
But if we're talking numbers lets look at Southampton's recent history. In the 06/07 they lost in the play off final. That led to financial difficulties, they hadn't achieved the promotion they'd banked on. That forced them to sell Bale, amoung others, to avoid administration. The weakened squad managed to avoid relegation on the final day of the 07/08 season. Then in the summer the whole board resigned. The following season was another relegation battle. Pearson's contract wasn't renewed to save costs and players were again sold and parts of the ground closed off to save on matchday costs. They were relegated and then placed into administration £30m in debt.
Just in time to ensure they could take their place in L1 in 09/10 the club was purchased by Liebherr. So with this fantastic new business plan what happened:
2009/10 League 1 losses of £7.76m, debt of £21m
2010/11 League 1 losses of £11.5m, debt of £33m written off
2011/12 Championship losses of £8.1m (we were also in the championship that season - their turnover was double ours)
2012/13 PL losses of £7.1m outstanding transfer fees owed of £27m having already paid £21m that season and a bill due for over £30m for the training ground.
"New Southampton director Hans Hofstetter says the club's board has inherited a "difficult financial situation"."
It wasn't until 2013/14 they returned a profit, which was pretty much entirely the result of the new TV deal which saw an increase in TV revenue from £46m to £79m.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
That's the whole point. Things have to change so that clubs are forced to be self sufficient. That in itself will make fan ownership a viable prospect for many clubs. If you don't do it you have 21 clubs making that investment and failing to get promoted.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
If you're going to try and make smart comments, at least spell correctly.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
You really need to visit the real world. Southampton owners invest because there is something to invest in and great support to pay back some of that investment.
ccfc92
Well-Known Member
But then, maybe if CCFC weren't in a 29 year barren spell, there would be better support?
The fact, last year at least, we had the 3rd best support in the league speaks volumes for our fan's resilience IMO.
singers_pore
Well-Known Member
So in other words Southampton have already earned back all the money they lost while investing in the squad to move up to the Premiership. And they are poised to make even more profits from their stable position in the Premiership. And yet you reckon they are not well run and are not sustainable. Go figure.
stupot07
Well-Known Member
Its interesting looking back at Southamptons finances, in league one their turnover was £14.8m (09/10 - made £9m losses) and £16.4 (10/11 - made £11m losses). The highest our turnover has been in league one was £6.5m in the first season, the last accounts (14/15) it was c£5m. In fact in both those league one seasons Southamptons turnover was significantly bigger than our £10.7m in the championship relegation season.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
georgehudson
Well-Known Member
Aye up you lot, ffs, imho, you know who, will be fucking loving the bitching going on.
As was suggested by several posters before, 'divide and conquer' appears to be their maxim.
Perhaps a straightforward question, do our owners have CCFC fans at heart ?
Imho, most certainly NOT.
An excellent article, imho,
one only has to read through the obsequious agents to the sisu agenda,
i proffer, messrs, Bosco, Bradley, Clarke, Dulieu, Brody, Clouting,Igwe, Labowic, etc., etc.,
PUSB
A gritty performance @ Morecambe today.
As was suggested by several posters before, 'divide and conquer' appears to be their maxim.
Perhaps a straightforward question, do our owners have CCFC fans at heart ?
Imho, most certainly NOT.
An excellent article, imho,
one only has to read through the obsequious agents to the sisu agenda,
i proffer, messrs, Bosco, Bradley, Clarke, Dulieu, Brody, Clouting,Igwe, Labowic, etc., etc.,
PUSB
A gritty performance @ Morecambe today.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
FFS its not really that complicated.
a) If every club in the championship accrues losses of ~£10m a year in an attempt to go up and only 3 can go up what happens to the others? It might seem a great business plan if it pays off, what if it doesn't?
b) They haven't earned all the money back. Even if we ignored the £30m debt they had when they went into administration they then spent £41.1m getting into the PL and losses of £7.1m the first PL season with debts of £27m in outstanding transfer fees and £30m for the training ground. That's £105.2m against profits of £33.4m and £12m, they're still £59.8m down.
And as you will see Southampton, in common with many other clubs, made a much lower profit in the second year of the new Sky deal as players know the clubs have more money and demand higher wages.
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
The real world?
Maybe you should try it some day.
Or at least turn the light on, you might then see what is actually going on.
PUSB
singers_pore
Well-Known Member
Wow - talk about desperate. To justify your ridiculous argument that Soton are unsustainable you now quote a £30m debt that they had BEFORE they went into administration, plus a £30m INVESTMENT in a new training ground. You really are a complete chump if you think they can be counted as losses suffered by the new owner.
This thread started because the Guardian journalist compared the excellent way that Soton have been managed under their new ownership with the diabolically incompetent way that SISU have managed us. In your desperate attempt to deflect attention from SISU, you tried to claim that Soton are unsustainable and losing millions which is completely untrue. Soton have made profits of £39m over the past two years. Your continued defence of SISU is frankly embarrassing. The Guardian journalist was spot on in his column and your response to his article was predictably dishonest.
Hobo
Well-Known Member
So it WAS good business sense, rejecting SISU and going with some one who wanted to and could afford to invest the money. The investments still need to be well managed to produce the turnaround Saints have had. Having money doesn't mean success.
The key is having someone who is prepared to spend or risk their money, the money they have. Rather than spending or risk money the club haven't got. If you haven't got it you have to operate within your means.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Worth remembering that they have also made a number of significant player sales in that time with a combined value north of £100m
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
What does that mean? What's going on?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Nobody is deflecting anything from SISU, merely pointing out that suggesting spending tens of millions you don't have in an attempt to gain promotion is not a sound business strategy. It may have got Southampton promoted but it will fail for more clubs than it will succeed leaving them with huge debts. Its exactly how so many clubs have ended up in trouble, to now suggest it is the way forward is crazy.
And in any case I haven't included the pre-administration debt and even if you discount the £30m spent on the training ground they are still £30m down. You stated they had earnt back all the money they lost which is simply untrue. Even their own board described the club as a financial mess
That's a quote from when they released their accounts after one season back in the PL
oldskyblue58
CCFC Finance Director
Last Southampton figures filed at Companies House
Showed
profit after tax £12m, (2014 £31m) - 2015 showed an exceptional item of £14m write down of player contracts and other contracts)
Net current assets of £11m (2014 £ -6m)
Net total assets £30m (2014 £12m)
Turnover £110m (2014 £103m) including £80m in both years from broadcasting
Amortisation of player contracts in 2015 was £29m! 2014 £20m
Spent £78m on 270 employees (191 playing side staff)
Paid 2.7m in interest on loans
Player registrations had a cost of £134m with a carrying value of £75m 30-06-2015
were owed a total of £55m in transfer fees and owed 43m out
Shareholder loans totalled £33m plus £14m in other loans
Benefitted from loans of £14m being waived in 2009
The holding company owns the stadium and freehold land totalling £40m
Looks to me like they are getting their finances sorted, profitable, with both current and total assets, with a growing financial base
BUT they got lucky. Not every club will get a backer prepared to put in massive loans in a short space of time. The financial plan at this stage relies very much on staying in the Premier League. if they faltered again and got relegated then I suspect given the player contracts then they will catch a cold for a season until they ship the high earners out
Showed
profit after tax £12m, (2014 £31m) - 2015 showed an exceptional item of £14m write down of player contracts and other contracts)
Net current assets of £11m (2014 £ -6m)
Net total assets £30m (2014 £12m)
Turnover £110m (2014 £103m) including £80m in both years from broadcasting
Amortisation of player contracts in 2015 was £29m! 2014 £20m
Spent £78m on 270 employees (191 playing side staff)
Paid 2.7m in interest on loans
Player registrations had a cost of £134m with a carrying value of £75m 30-06-2015
were owed a total of £55m in transfer fees and owed 43m out
Shareholder loans totalled £33m plus £14m in other loans
Benefitted from loans of £14m being waived in 2009
The holding company owns the stadium and freehold land totalling £40m
Looks to me like they are getting their finances sorted, profitable, with both current and total assets, with a growing financial base
BUT they got lucky. Not every club will get a backer prepared to put in massive loans in a short space of time. The financial plan at this stage relies very much on staying in the Premier League. if they faltered again and got relegated then I suspect given the player contracts then they will catch a cold for a season until they ship the high earners out
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
This is the problem with football full-stop atm.
A fine example being Bolton, where Garside was held up as an example of how to run a middling-small club...
Until they went down.
Will be interesting to watch, objectively, if Burnley stop their good housekeeping at any stage.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Which was only possible from not selling players as soon as the first bid came in so they could help with getting promotion. Then they also became more valuable. And then replacing them with other players bought with some of the money received.
Astute
Well-Known Member
I
If done right the payment for getting relegated will more than pay the wages and also give a decent chance of promotion.
Covcraig@bury
Well-Known Member
The only way to get rid of these parasites is EVERYONE " NOT " buy a season ticket !!!! Its that simple ....
letsallsingtogether
Well-Known Member
Well turn on the light, but be careful you might get a shock.
Nar, better for you to stay in the dark they need you.
PUSB.......
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
OK mate
Bob Latchford
Well-Known Member
No need to argue any point . the article speaks for itself and is absolutely spot on !
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
That's the problem, its a business plan that relies on pumping millions in hoping for promotion, and even then tens of millions in loans from the owner have been written off, and then managing to stay up once there. Great if it works but not so good for all the other teams using the same plan that don't get promoted or can't stay in the league.
Parachute payments only go so far and you only have to look at the jump in wages since the new TV deal came in to see some clubs going down are going to have problems even with those payments.