Saints are 'increasingly hopeful' on Victor Wanyama signing a new deal at St. Mary's

FFS, cant you give it a rest.

I'm actually over bored, as in over tired.

I don't know how to deal with over boredom.

 

Of course it will if we buy better players and integrate them better than the other clubs.




Variables...

 

We have money coming in and going out from staged transfers. Yeah. It's just that the money coming in is, per our accounts, significantly more than the money going out.

And amortization only exists on paper. It involves no actual tangible exchange of money for anything. It might make our profits look less shiny, but it doesn't affect our bank account.

This. Our advantage, we have been told, is that we cast a wider net for players and get better value in the transfer market. If we have as much to spend as the teams around us, that's a good thing: we have reason to believe we will make better use of those funds. But if we're zealously turning over the squad on an annual basis, the degree of difficulty in acquiring the right players in high volumes with consistency necessarily jumps.

I'd rather have a mostly cohesive squad with a couple substantial annual signings within our budget (and aggressively move on the lesser elements of the squad, it should be said), rather than continuing with an atypically high turnover long-term. Doesn't strike me as beneficial to reinforce the notion that players at the club are transient assets here only until someone wants to wave cash in our direction.

 

Of course. But that is a whole different thing. If we believe we are better investors of player talent than other clubs, then liquid cash is great. Because we get a better return for every pound.

But thinking would also apply to Wanyama or Long or any other players we sell. If we think we can beat the market, and we can sell at market price, then sell them all. Because when we sell them at "market price" and invest in an equal player at below market price, we profit.

 

Yeah, see.. I don't care about this at all. Every player at every club IS a transient asset. They get old. They get hurt. Their contracts run out. They decide they don't like it here. Some young starlet proves to be better and younger.

It's not even like Wanyama is a Lovren or Shaw one-and-done type of player. He'll have been here 3 years in the summer. He will be in the last year of his contract. That is the normal time at which you either sell or extend.

I hope "every player has his price" actually is our policy. If you are willing to send us enough cash to make it worth our while, we will sell. I want every club in the world to view us as one who is always happy to pick up the phone and listen to an offer.

 

I think it's important to factor in the net worth of the club. The vast majority of the clubs debt is owed to Kat. I would say a very conservative valuation of the club is currently £100m. This would easily pay off her debt and any money which has been converted into shares.

Like Schad has said, amortisation is just a way of depreciating an asset through the accounts and can't be a measure on its own of a clubs financial performance

I agree that I think our first team squad is just right(in terms of numbers) and a one in, one out policy is sensible.

 

I think they've virtually sold out already.

 

There are three types of accountant. Those that can count and those that can't.

 

Has he signed yet?

 

*sigh*

The amortization makes us look RICHER than we are. According to the books, we haven't paid 12m for VVD yet. If you don't want to amortize and instead charge all the expenses to the year we acquired the players then our financial performance looks worse.

But in fact, we actually have not paid 12m for VVD. It's likely on installments. So spreading the cost over the course of his contract actually isn't that unreasonable. It generally evens out if you spend the same amount per year.

Really our financial situation as far as anyone outside the club can glean is pretty well laid out in that link I posted earlier. We don't have a ton of spare cash lying around. We don't generate very much revenue compared to the big clubs. We have a high but not dangerous amount of debt for a club our size. Which means we have to be cost-conscious and have little room to splurge on big names or stockpile players.

If you guys just refuse to believe it, I guess there's nothing else I can say.

 

Sorry. What was this thread about? I seem to have stumbled into a parallel universe.

I get the argument, but does it need to be over-egged? ISIRTP, are you saying we're a relatively small club with a small fan base and so we need to develop players to sell on at a profit? Then I agree.

Any news on Wanyama?

 

Our accounts actually explicitly state what we owe in installment payments: 43.3m. They also state how much we are owed in installment payments: 54.8m. That's 11.5m in unrealized net surplus that doesn't yet translate to actual money against our debt, but which will.

Using the amortization writedown to approximate something for which we have exact figures doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

 

Right you lot I have tried to make sense of all of this accounting stuff but ended up with a headache and fell asleep at the keyboard. However I have learned enough now to deal with my problem in which the very lovely gives me £40 a week beer money which I spend on whisky at the pub with my mates but it has never been enough and every week I have been overspending by at least ten quid. Thankfully Roger the landlord has been putting this on the slate. From what you have all been saying though it would appear that I don't really owe him any money at all as it is has been ameliorated or something. So which one of you will come to the pub with me tomorrow and tell him this and get my slate cleared for me? This will save me having to explain my debt to the very lovely and hence keep me in her good books. Two birds with one stone - slate cleared and a very happy Mrs Godders.

 

For Pete's sake, man. That is addressed in the article, right under that graph.

"This latter point is important in terms of how much cash is really available for investment. Specifically, it looks like Southampton have driven a hard bargain in terms of a player’s selling price, but have been more flexible on when the money is actually paid to them.

In addition, Southampton’s contingent liabilities, dependent on the number of first team appearances, goals and international debuts being made, have increased from £1.7 million to £5.1 million."

So yeah, we have 11.5m trickling in over the next few years, not 11.5m to spend now. So if we say the money is coming in over three years then <4m a year is hardly a game changer. And depending on incentives reached, it might be less than that.

 

No, it's not money available to spend immediately. But if we're evaluating our financial state going forward, money that is unequivocally coming to us is necessarily part of that equation. It's part of the context in determining whether our situation is such that we have to flog our best players at every turn, or can have the temerity to try and see whether we can actually retain them past the point where they catch the eye of our betters.

If one believes that Wanyama is a good player -- and I do, and it appears many others do -- re-signing him for anything less than comical wages is unadulterated good news. A team that presents itself as a shop window for players seeking moves elsewhere will constantly be in flux, and at some point the instability will catch up to us. Going a summer without seeing half the starting lineup sold and replaced is something we should aspire to.

 

I mean, it's a nice bit of change coming our way that gives us a bit of extra flexibility but not enough to really change the equation in terms of player acquisition. Suspect we will just use it to pay down the debt.

Your feelings on Wanyama here have less to do with budget than with club philosophy. Basically, the question is whether we want to commit ourselves to Wanyama as a starter for the next 2-3 years at whatever wages he asks. I could go either way. If his agent is going to play hardball and negotiations don't go well then I think we have to sell rather than lose him for nothing.

As midfield-ish options we still have JWP, Davis, Romeu, Clasie, Reed, and it sounds like we have interest in Vilhena and from what Beefy says he might be heading our way in the summer. Wanyama's a fine player and we do run a risk if we sell him, but to me it's an acceptable one. I'm not paying over market for Wanyama just to prove a point when we have other good options available. OTOH, if Wanyama is willing to sign for a fair price, then that's fine and maybe we don't go for Vilhena, then.

I'm taking the whole thing with a grain of salt. I'm sure we actually are more hopeful of signing Wanyama, which I mean six months ago he was about to boycott his way out so it's not that hard to be more optimistic than we were then. I feel like Wanyama likes it here, but he has a twat for an agent, and also one who plays games.

 

All I have to say is never ever confuse profit and cashflow. That seems to be the issue here. The two are so different as to be almost unrelated. In our business cashflow is all but then I don't have a Swiss billionaire around to smooth out any shortfalls till the cash actually arrives. Perhaps I should find one. Any ideas where Katharina hangs out when she's on the pull?

Vin

 

Vic's agent is called Pete?

 

I agree you shouldn't. It's the club's deal, so they should pay.

 

If anyone spots a plot around here, someone has lost it. Please return to owner.