Transfer Rumours The January '16 transfer rumour thread.

Cannot imagine a better example of being irresponsible in the name of financial responsible...something like opting not to pay your rent to shore up your retirement savings. In the name of trying to get KL her money back, we'd stand a pretty good chance of ending up in relegation territory, which would ensure that KL never gets her money back.

 

Mugabe is very highly rated by Saints. Reed even said the only reason we bought Martina was because Mugabe was injured. Why would we bring in another rb?

 

Without any evidence, my gut feeling is that KL will not press the club to its detriment. She seems to have been pretty patient up till now and isn't down to her last billion.

 

Because Mugabe is injured?

 

Cedric and Martina, with Yoshida covering. Martina will leave end of the season with Mugabe stepping up.

 

http://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/southampton/news/41519/

From Ugly Inside, suggested link with Hakim.

 

If we sell-to-buy this summer, as Beefy suggests, it would appear that the patience has come to an end; we'd turn a profit large enough to pay back the vast majority of the debt in a single year, because our revenues are expected to jump by the better part of 50m. We'll also be competing against a league full of teams who aren't operating under the same constraints (and won't be imperiling themselves financially either, for what it's worth)...it's certainly possible to thread that needle, but I'm dubious that it's a wise choice.

 

Not sure any of those are natural RBs though. Maybe Cedric can step up, but his positional awareness has been pretty poor up to now. It's the only position where I think our need is urgent (there's goals in all our front 3 imo).

 

It will be the players pressing for a move I suspect. I strongly suspect the club would love to keep Mane and Wanyama....the board have shown they step in and make the players stay for another season if necessary...did this with Morgan, Mane and Wanyama. But will they try again or will they let them go, now we have had a season to prepare for them leaving?

 

That's the rub isn't it? How do we persuade Mane and Wanyama to stay?

 

You guys are jumping to a lot of conclusions here.

We do our best to convince Wanyama and Mane to stay, but if they really want to leave then our hands might be tied somewhat. But we can probably sell both for at least what we paid for them. So we should theoretically have the money to buy replacements on the same level. We can also have money coming in from other revenue sources that can be used to purchase players as well.

It's possible we buy poorly, end up with a lot of dreck, and doom ourselves. Also possible that KL just pockets the money. But I don't see any reason to assume that is what will happen. To date, we've bought fairly well, and KL has put liquid funds into the club rather than take money out.

We're going to sell some players and buy some new ones. Every single PL club will probably do the same thing. It's just reinvestment. There's not a business in the world that doesn't sell assets and use the cash to invest in other things.

 

Beefy tends to have good information, though, so if he says that our spending will consist simply of reallocating whatever we get from the Mane/Wanyama transfer fees, there's a good chance that's what will happen.

 

That's going to be the bulk of our spending for sure, because I mean... it's a lot of money.

I don't see that as mismanagement. It's how we run the side. The core business gotten better, but it's nowhere near enough to fund massive purchases.

We are carrying a lot of debt, but most teams do. Our debt is mostly owed to our owner, though which means it's really just KL investing her own funds into the club. Which is good. But the fact that she has consistently made cash injections means the club is on shaky footing as far as being self sustainable. We do need to start lowering the debt, but because it's owed to KL we can do so bit by bit. Instead of getting loan sharked by Vibrac.

There's really nothing in the balance sheet as for as value, revenue, liquid cash, debt, value/debt, etc. that stands out as far as the team's finances being mismanaged or that there is gross profiteering going on.

The only thing we do different is that we pay low wages. But we also spend a lot on transfers. And we make a lot in transfers. Which isn't too surprising. If we could get our players to stay, our wage bill would increase but our transfer spending and revenue would go down. Instead of selling Clyne for lots of money and then spending it on VVD, we would just still have Clyne and be paying him a lot more.

 

...until this summer, when our revenues go up by 40-50m a year because the new TV deal kicks in, plus whatever additional money we receive via our new commercial deals. We were also owed about 10m more in transfer fees than we owe per the most recent accounts. If our transfer spending remains restricted to a figuring paralleling (or below) our player sales, and we aren't building a new stadium or some such, there's really no doubt that we will reap windfall profits.

The only threat to our financial situation (and to that of all but the worst-run teams, at this point; the revenues are getting rather absurd) is relegation. Paying the debt down bit-by-bit should mean spending more, as a hedge against that threat. No change in our spending habits in the face of a massive increase in revenues wouldn't be aiming for gradual, however.

 

What is this talk of mane leaving in the summer - our usual strategy is to sell with 1 year left on the contract; next season isn't the last year on his contract is it?

 

I hear what you're saying, but I don't think it will have that big an impact since we are on both sides of the market as buyer and seller (and so is everyone else).

If we assume that most other teams are not investing in stadiums or long-term infrastructure, then they will all put their money into player acquisition. Which simply results in inflation.

Meaning, we will need more money in order to acquire players. But, we will also generate more money from our sale of players. Relative to other teams, we will be the same as we were.

There are still other factors to consider-- other revenue we have coming that other teams don't or that they have more of, whether we want to pay down debt, the amount of strengthening our squad needs, etc. But that's the same with any season. And obviously our goal is not to stand still but to advance, so that will require additional investment at some point.

But the mere fact that teams will be getting a lot of money from the fat PL TV deal does not mean we have to devote a greater percentage of resources to player acquisition to keep up. Instead of getting 40m in and spending 40m, we'll just get 50m in and spend 50m.

 

Except that our competitors will not be labouring under the same model; a substantial portion of our transfer budget will be spent merely hoping to adequately replace our departures, whereas theirs will not. If they're able to spend nearly as much without the prerequisite of selling their best players first, and are still financially stable in the process, that represents a substantial competitive disadvantage. That's particularly true when bidding on the same players, or attempting to retain our own; other clubs will respond to the jump in their revenues by shifting their wage structure. If we do not, we'll have to simply accept that here and there we're going to get outbid by Bournemouth and our players' heads will be turned by the promises of riches at Crystal Palace, heh.

 

I think we are just assuming we can refuse to deal only once...but not necessarily true.

 

http://www.skysports.com/football/n...and-approach-qpr-over-defender-steven-caulker


Sunderland said to have approached QPR about Caulker.

 

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/sa...outhampton_boss_heading_to_Slovenia_/?ref=rss

Rumour of Redknapp going to manage a Slovenian club. Can't see it myself...he's a bit of a home body.