Club Direction

[Le Tissier's Laces]

Okay, so as much as anything to take this discussion (because that's what it is, regardless of opinion) away from the transfer thread.

There's been a lot of (possibly correct) concern about the fact the club seems to want to invest heavily in youth, only sign bargains for the first team, and essentially run as a profitable business for the owners.

Should this be a position, in the current cash rich climate for PL clubs, that we're satisfied with?

 

[HarryTipper]

I'd have prefered an option something along the lines of 'The transfer window has only been open for 9 days, let's see how things pan out before we make judgement.'
I can understand fans frustration and for what it's worth I think it's much better that a forum has posters who have a wide variety of opinions, it's just far to early to be critical.
Also what on earth caused all the negativety on here today (technically yesterday)?

 

[Che’s Godlike Thighs]

Why is everyone so excited about the new TV money?

£5.5b to £8.7b is a 58% increase, which seems very impressive.

However, that increase percentage has been bettered five times previously (from possible seven occassions). So it's actually one of the smallest increases.

(See table below)

Also, the money is only guaranteed for three seasons. Who knows what may happen after that? Surely if the revenue stops rising at some point, at lot of clubs will be ****ed.

You must log in or register to see images

 

[I Sorry I Ruined The Party]

And now Brexit and the devaluation of the pound has taken a big bite out of that increase.

I've been saying for awhile people were making way too big a deal over it. It helps, definitely. But it's not THAT big a deal, and when you consider that all the PL clubs are getting the revenue bump, it doesn't change things.

 

[Schad]

Why is everyone so excited about the new TV money?

£5.5b to £8.7b is a 58% increase, which seems very impressive.

However, that increase percentage has been bettered five times previously (from possible seven occassions). So it's actually one of the smallest increases.

(See table below)

Also, the money is only guaranteed for three seasons. Who knows what may happen after that? Certainly if the 5V money stops rising at some point, at lot of clubs will be ****ed.

You must log in or register to see images

If it merely flattens out, clubs will be fine; there are plenty of sports leagues (the NBA, for one) that have whipsawed between high and low growth years without calamity. If it craters, there will be problems. I wouldn't expect that in the near term, however, given the dramatic increase in foreign viewership. Even if domestic rights were to decline, global rights will likely continue to increase for some time.

Regarding the club's spending, my feeling is that there are five possible directions:

- aim to keep the club at roughly its current debt load (which, relative to revenues, has dropped significantly), which would mean a pretty heavy spend, in the short-term, and do so for the immediate future;

- aim to turn a significant profit this year, with the intention of spending at a much higher level once it has been reduced/eliminated;

- aim to keep the club at its current financial state, and sell in short order;

- aim to eliminate the debt and then sell;

- aim to use the club as a profit center for a sustained period.


I have no qualms with the first, second or third options; all have some risks, but manageable ones. The fifth is foolhardy...unless you're one of the few clubs whose revenues are such that relegation isn't plausible, it's a bit like the Martingale system of betting; the odds are good that you'll make money in a small sequence of events, but should you fail, or attempt it over a larger sequence, you'll likely lose everything. The fourth is the one that would and should receive the most criticism; selling at any point would be profitable now, even with the debt owed to KL, and running the club cheaply for a year to boost her take would add perhaps 1-2% to her net worth...it'd be a lot of money taken out of the club for a gain small enough that it's doubtful she'd ever see any real-world benefit from it.

 

[TheSecondStain]

Why is everyone so excited about the new TV money?

£5.5b to £8.7b is a 58% increase, which seems very impressive.

However, that increase percentage has been bettered five times previously (from possible seven occassions). So it's actually one of the smallest increases.

(See table below)

Also, the money is only guaranteed for three seasons. Who knows what may happen after that? Surely if the revenue stops rising at some point, at lot of clubs will be ****ed.

You must log in or register to see images

As a percentage it's less impressive than a few of the others, but in actual hard cash it's the biggest increase of the lot. That's why it's so impressive.

 

[fatletiss]

It looks like the club are casting a wide net across uk and Europe to bring in lots of 'older' youngsters. They talked about a new direction and think this may be a big part of that.

It is both good and tricky to get right.

If they do this well and have say 3-5 of those 17-19 year olds in and around the first team season 2017-18 along with having signed a few first team players this summer, then that will be excellent strategy.

One stake to keep us grounded on this policy (if you like it) is that any of those players we have brought in that become a success will be no different to today's starts - the big clubs will come poaching.

These young signings also concur with what a few pointed out (Beefy, Sainstfan4life, Don, etc) that we had a bit of a talent hole in the academy at a certain age group.

 

[Romsey_Saint]

As a percentage it's less impressive than a few of the others, but in actual hard cash it's the biggest increase of the lot. That's why it's so impressive.

And to try to put some perspective of the sums here; earlier this year Dubai Mall (most visited mall in the World) announced its revenue for the previous year and I was listening to Dubai Eye (the local English speaking equivalent to Radio 4) who calculated that if Dubai Mall was a country in its own right its GNP would be around the GBP 3B - making it the 164th richest country in the world. That the increase is the same and the overall fees are approaching GBP 9B for a three-year agreement; the sums for the EPL are so significant.

Also says a lot for the spending power of Dubai and its visitors. Too expensive for my tastes however!

 

[Le Tissier's Laces]

If it merely flattens out, clubs will be fine; there are plenty of sports leagues (the NBA, for one) that have whipsawed between high and low growth years without calamity. If it craters, there will be problems. I wouldn't expect that in the near term, however, given the dramatic increase in foreign viewership. Even if domestic rights were to decline, global rights will likely continue to increase for some time.

Regarding the club's spending, my feeling is that there are five possible directions:

- aim to keep the club at roughly its current debt load (which, relative to revenues, has dropped significantly), which would mean a pretty heavy spend, in the short-term, and do so for the immediate future;

- aim to turn a significant profit this year, with the intention of spending at a much higher level once it has been reduced/eliminated;

- aim to keep the club at its current financial state, and sell in short order;

- aim to eliminate the debt and then sell;

- aim to use the club as a profit center for a sustained period.


I have no qualms with the first, second or third options; all have some risks, but manageable ones. The fifth is foolhardy...unless you're one of the few clubs whose revenues are such that relegation isn't plausible, it's a bit like the Martingale system of betting; the odds are good that you'll make money in a small sequence of events, but should you fail, or attempt it over a larger sequence, you'll likely lose everything. The fourth is the one that would and should receive the most criticism; selling at any point would be profitable now, even with the debt owed to KL, and running the club cheaply for a year to boost her take would add perhaps 1-2% to her net worth...it'd be a lot of money taken out of the club for a gain small enough that it's doubtful she'd ever see any real-world benefit from it.

"Whipsawed" is a tremendous word!

 

[Le Tissier's Laces]

I'd have prefered an option something along the lines of 'The transfer window has only been open for 9 days, let's see how things pan out before we make judgement.'
I can understand fans frustration and for what it's worth I think it's much better that a forum has posters who have a wide variety of opinions, it's just far to early to be critical.
Also what on earth caused all the negativety on here today (technically yesterday)?

Yeah, that's kind of what the third option was for, but it includes the proviso that we're clueless

 

[VVD]

The Southampton Way.

 

[fran-MLs little camera]

Saints is not a high-risk financial outfit...doesn't mean we can't tweak the plan as required, but there will be nothing wild. There was a financial problem when KL took back the reins, she increased her loans to the club to get us back on track, and there has always been a plan to reduce that debt to her. The financial director a year or two ago said he didn't like the business being exposed by such a debt. He could carry on paying regularly with interest or clear it more quickly once and for all...what he chooses to do will depend on what demands there are on our cash. Either makes sense. KL seems a tolerant owner, so I doubt there is pressure there.

We are good spenders on talent, but not at the crazy level. Things will be tougher now everyone has money, but I'm sure some increase in spending has been factored in based on increased TV money. Saints like success, but I suspect are more tolerant of football blips than we are. Saints plan is long term. It's not always how much you spend, but who you buy...we aren't interested in stars (just for the sake of them) who might unbalance the team...we have had fingers burnt there.

A decision appears to have been made to bring in more youngsters at 16-18 yrs old....this may be a complete change of direction or may be forced on the Academy by a talent gap. Our rapid rise may mean that our catchment area (which you have to stick to for younger lads as you can't drag 8-yr-olds from their families) is limiting our talent pool.

No one can be sure of success, but this will have been thought out with hope of success in medium to long term. If you are familiar with evolution, you will know that any animal which gallops headlong down one path which offers a good chance of survival may risk extinction if conditions change.

 

[saintlyhero]

You only have to look at Newcastle to see how lack of squad investment only leads in one direction and Ashley has ended up losing money because he had to panic buy. I'm not suggesting Saints are going down this road, but full on scrimping only leads one way.
I'm happy for the club to slowly make a profit each season to chip away at the debt and then potentially save to invest in some capital projects(a new stadium or expansion).

I believe our squad size last season was about right. Remember we actually finished the season strongly instead of fading out. Yes we'll have a minimum of six extra games and that brings extra pressure, but one of the strengths of our club has been the smaller size of our squad and the opportunity it gives players to settle in.
You only have to look at Liverpool and see them signing three or four players for the same role and then they get lost in the shuffle. When they play they know if they don't perform then they'll be dropped. They can't relax and play a team role. There is a balance to be struck

 

[fran-MLs little camera]

Newcastle went for the sticking plaster method of team development...ignore the team and have no plan, then panic and hope to buy players that can solve all the problems that have developed over the years. Huge pressure on the incomers as well.

Our method is more like evolution (which can be too slow for some)...our team and style are there, so that new players coming in are generally comfortable and supported.

Newcastle's method may work if you strike lucky on your purchases, but I'd rather stick to our plan...because I'm proud of my club and I like the fact that it isn't like every other team. We have an identity. The main problem is that us fans tend to be the old unreconstructed types...Saints have been unable to modernise us

 

[fatletiss]

You only have to look at Newcastle to see how lack of squad investment only leads in one direction and Ashley has ended up losing money because he had to panic buy. I'm not suggesting Saints are going down this road, but full on scrimping only leads one way.
I'm happy for the club to slowly make a profit each season to chip away at the debt and then potentially save to invest in some capital projects(a new stadium or expansion).

I believe our squad size last season was about right. Remember we actually finished the season strongly instead of fading out. Yes we'll have a minimum of six extra games and that brings extra pressure, but one of the strengths of our club has been the smaller size of our squad and the opportunity it gives players to settle in.
You only have to look at Liverpool and see them signing three or four players for the same role and then they get lost in the shuffle. When they play they know if they don't perform then they'll be dropped. They can't relax and play a team role. There is a balance to be struck

The first part makes no sense to me. Last summer Newcastle spent close to £50m and were one of the biggers spenders. Yes they spent again in January in more of a panic, but in the summer window they spent a lot and it didn't work. That wasn't panic spending. They did invest in their squad during the summer.

Maybe I've missed your point here SH, apologies if I have.

 

[Che’s Godlike Thighs]

I think we can all safely assume that we are in safer hands than Newcastle Utd.

Any one who doubts that, just remember these two words...

Steve McClaren

 

[......loading......]

The club's direction is towards becoming a profitable business. There is little to no doubt of that. The club believe last year's squad - minus its two most desired assets and with only one fit striker with a fairly poor goalscoring record - will be able to replicate the performance last year and also push on in Europe. The ambition is to make our Academy work - not to compete with wealthy clubs like Stoke for big talent. If we had a load of talent in the Academy then I would give this the big bravo. We don't.

Yes, I am being pretty negative, but my assessment is that the board lost Koeman because of its desire to slow spending. I saw us do exactly the same thing under Rupert Lowe - the man who created the most successful spell in the Academy's history - and that didn't really go to plan. If you'll remember WGS decided he couldn't get anything done in that situation and we began to slide quickly from promise to obscurity. People are saying we have learnt from our previous economic catastrophy, but to my mind that is a misunderstanding of what caused the catastrophe. A decline in squad quality and a drop down ans out of the Premier League were why we ended up on the brink.

Now, careful, I am not stating we are going down, but more that the club is making a huge gamble this year. Those implying spending is a gamble need to look at the history books again. Spending to excess is a gamble, but spending at a loss is actually a necessity in a massively difficult market. Last year we were the only club to profit on transfers, but we had a steady manager and a little luck (it was an abysmal year) and more than got away with it. This year may see the beginning of the slide.

All of this is hopefully wrong. Hopefully "decent" actually means plenty in transfer funding terms. Hopefully we are not so ball-achingly stupid to think an above average English winger is a replacement for the massive talent of SM. If we spend big on a good creative player I will be satisfied. But spending below sales esch year is a huge gamble, and should be avoided.

 

[Le Tissier's Laces]

The club's direction is towards becoming a profitable business. There is little to no doubt of that. The club believe last year's squad - minus its two most desired assets and with only one fit striker with a fairly poor goalscoring record - will be able to replicate the performance last year and also push on in Europe. The ambition is to make our Academy work - not to compete with wealthy clubs like Stoke for big talent. If we had a load of talent in the Academy then I would give this the big bravo. We don't.

Yes, I am being pretty negative, but my assessment is that the board lost Koeman because of its desire to slow spending. I saw us do exactly the same thing under Rupert Lowe - the man who created the most successful spell in the Academy's history - and that didn't really go to plan. If you'll remember WGS decided he couldn't get anything done in that situation and we began to slide quickly from promise to obscurity. People are saying we have learnt from our previous economic catastrophy, but to my mind that is a misunderstanding of what caused the catastrophe. A decline in squad quality and a drop down ans out of the Premier League were why we ended up on the brink.

Now, careful, I am not stating we are going down, but more that the club is making a huge gamble this year. Those implying spending is a gamble need to look at the history books again. Spending to excess is a gamble, but spending at a loss is actually a necessity in a massively difficult market. Last year we were the only club to profit on transfers, but we had a steady manager and a little luck (it was an abysmal year) and more than got away with it. This year may see the beginning of the slide.

All of this is hopefully wrong. Hopefully "decent" actually means plenty in transfer funding terms. Hopefully we are not so ball-achingly stupid to think an above average English winger is a replacement for the massive talent of SM. If we spend big on a good creative player I will be satisfied. But spending below sales esch year is a huge gamble, and should be avoided.

I take your point, but I just can't see that the bolded section above can be correct. I don't think the club believe that last year's squad minus it's two best assets can compete. That would suggest they're not going to sign any replacements, and I just can't see that happening. If they don't, then I'm with you on the concern. It just surely won't happen though?

 

[......loading......]

I take your point, but I just can't see that the bolded section above can be correct. I don't think the club believe that last year's squad minus it's two best assets can compete. That would suggest they're not going to sign any replacements, and I just can't see that happening. If they don't, then I'm with you on the concern. It just surely won't happen though?

I agree. They'll make signings. But will they be of equal quality? The hints dropped to the press are that they see Mane as being already replaced. Hopefully a bluff. Otherwise, incompetence. To get a player of Wanyama's quality will be difficult, but I am not actually stressed about that. I rate the guys we have, but we do need another big lad to compete with Romeu.

 

[----HistoryRepeating----]

Be great to have a couple new kids break through, but I just can't see it happening either. My fear is this season will damage relations with the big players we need to build our team around. They, more than us need to sense what the club is trying to achieve.