There is something to be said for the attendant costs and benefits for the two parties, however. For the corporation, maximizing their profits by knuckling down on the employees may mean a pittance compared to their total revenue; for the workers, that sum may mean far more. I've seen, and been employed by, companies so beholden to their quarterly profits that they not only screwed their workers (in a heartless and arguably evil way), but also screwed themselves over long-term, because they gutted departments that were not just useful but essential, and pushed out competent workers in favour of low-cost (and low-utility) replacements. But it fluffed up their stock price temporarily, so it was worth doing.
Ah, now if you want me to lecture on the evils of short termism in business, I'll give it a damned good go, as it's a reason for significant corporate madness. I'm on your side entirely. What I'm railing against is the prevalent belief that a big company can pay more just because it's big. That view is just as barmy as short term thinking can be. And, by the way, I come to this as the owner of a business that rewards its people far in excess of living, let alone minimum wage. Vin
I notice from Pompey's account the supporters trust now only own 49%, any idea who owns the remaining 51%?
Reading's fine for borrowing from Vibac is a bit of a puzzle. Apparently league clubs can't borrow from them because they have an interest in 3 EPL clubs...which includes their loan to us (hopefully paid off now). Sounds a bit tough on them as I can't see that they gained any kind of advantage from it.
It's the reason why Kat gave us another loan of £20m. She converted the ViBrac loan into a owner loan.
I know that you that you are mocking and indoctrinated in the classical economic model stance, however you do have a point about big business etc. It amazes me how people objectify things to exonerate their own part in anything. For example, I was discussing with employees if the product one was making was being sold to a sweat shop or to a dubious militia would that bother them and most of them replied that it would not because it was not their decision, they were just doing what their boss told them. I find it interesting how people can consciously shift the blame when they are part of a big organisation. However, not all companies obey this model, and it is just a model, like Keynesian models that were adopted in the past - why would you not change a model that has already failed. There are also plenty of example of industries where classical economics fails it is simply that we live in a boom-bust growth driven society.
I wonder how much she knew about the loan when it was taken out. Nicola seemed to be operating alone, but you would assume she knew. Perhaps she knew, but changed her mind about the suitability of such a loan.
I understood that it was a short notice loan to fund the Gaston Ramirez signing, wasn't it close to the deadline and the selling Club demanded an up front payment?
http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/news/article/20150330-southampton-financial-results-2013-14-2367070.aspx Formal announcement of results. Anyone have any idea of what the 6.2 million charge for player registration impairment is about? Something to do with Osvaldo, Ramirez loans?
Interesting article in the City AM paper today.... Page 8 for the story. I like the crest emblazoned on the front page http://www.cityam.com/sites/default/files/edition/frontcover/Cityam 2015-03-31.pdf
Unlike the Daily Express who obviously haven't bother actually reading the annual report and have attributed the profit to the sale of all the players last summer....da! There is nothing like a good bit of journalism
We never really "owed" that money in the sense that other fans and the media think. It was merely scheduled payments on transfer fees, and 27 million was the lump to be paid that season.
Our cashflow must have been a problem after 2 consecutive promotions. We would be due EPL payments, but not immediately...meanwhile we had to build an improved squad on Championship money. In the first season in the top flight, I remember millions were paid out in one off payments (probably bonuses to Nicola, Nigel, and players). We had to pay off Nigel as well, though that was probably peanuts in the scheme of things. Combine that with the cost of the training ground, it was hardly surprising we were still suffering and have just started to recover. Rogers has said the debt is expected to start to go down over the next few years...presumably repayments to the Leihberr estate.
http://www1.skysports.com/football/news/11700/9783398 Financial expert questioning our figures. However, he mentions the money raised from sales, whereas I'm sure they haven't been included or have only partially been included. I can never question figures as I know accounting is really one of the creative arts , but I trust SFC and not worried.
So he doesn't know why we got a loan from Kat? Yet others have stated it was to pay off the ViBrac loan. Just because we made a profit doesn't mean we won't have loans.
Bick is a good one for a goofy quote. But he clearly doesn't know what is going on in detail, was asked, commented and then an article was written.
