Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Saints Do Not Need To Sell Before They Can Buy !
Tuesday, 22nd Aug 2017 09:41

Despite the rumours spread in the press when it was revealed that our new major shareholder would not be bankrolling this transfer window, Saints do not need to sell before they can buy.

Last week when it was revealed that the new Chinese major shareholder would not be putting in transfer capital in this window, many media sources and Liverpool fan websites put 2 + 2 together and made £60 million by claiming that now Saints would have to sell Virgil Van Dijk if they wanted to buy anymore players this month.

That is far from the truth as will be shown by the imminent signing of Wesley Hoedt from Lazio in the next day or so.

Saints strategy is based on breaking even or thereabouts on transfer dealings in any given season and although that may sound strange to some supporters, what has to be take into account is not the gross fee but the net after agent fees and indeed 10% to the player if he hasn't asked for a transfer, Saints have to use the best part of their income from non transfer business in not only continuing to build the infrastructure of the club but in annual bonus's and wages etc.

Of course with our new major shareholder in the medium to long term it makes us more stable and with the ability for transfer deals to be underwritten so it cannot be a bad thing.

So the need for Saints to sell before they buy is not strictly true as although they like to break even, their is money in the kitty to fund transfers above any money we have raked in from selling.

So far this summer we have raked in around £15 million when you take into account the sale of Jay Rodriguez & Jason McCarthy and a loan fee for Sam Gallagher and we have spent just over £22 million in buying Jan Bednarek and Mario Lemina and we are about to spend £15 million on Wesley Houdt, meaning that our transfer deficit this summer is going to be around £22 million.

This is large compared to recent years but it should be understood that three years ago we were not in a very good position budget wise, we were paying high wages for players like Ramirez and Osvaldo who were not playing and the squad was top heavy with players left over from the Championship years, add to that the training ground cost and we had little left over from our everyday income to supplement transfer fees.

That has now changed slightly, but our strategy will remain unaltered it will just allow us more leeway.

Therefore I do expect Saints to sell a player or two before the end of the season, Jordy Clasie is likely to leave and that would fetch at least the £8 million we paid, possibly a little more and there could be a few more smaller departures, Florin Gardos and Paulo Gazzaniga could both go.

Those three players alone would fetch somewhere between £15 -20 million and if Saints did wish to complete their transfer business by bringing in another forward then it's likely that Shane Long would depart and that in itself would generate somewhere in the region of £10 million.

So those who say that Saints need to see Virgil Van Dijk are way off the mark, we can do what we do without the need to bring in £60 million.

Saints will feel happy with the squad they have, yes it needs an addition or two but what squad doesn't but overall they will feel they are in a better position than this time last year, last season we had a good squad and it was poorly managed but still managed to finish 8th, the club will be confident that with Mauricio Pellegrino we now have a good manager with a good squad, he can do better than last term without the need for major buying.

Big transfer fees is not the Saints way, especially not in this summers inflated market, some clubs are paying over twice what a player would have been worth a year ago, if the bubble bursts they could be in trouble, therefore Saints will keep doing what we do well with the confidence that it is now a proven strategy rather than pot luck.

So Liverpool fans will be disappointed to hear we are under no pressure to sell Van Dijk, if the right deal came in we would do what we always do and take a business decision, but Liverpool have totally burned their bridges with us, they will need to pay big.

Photo: Action Images



Please report offensive, libellous or inappropriate posts by using the links provided.



stmichael added 10:44 - Aug 22
Begs the question what happens to the billions we receive from SKY?
0

SanMarco added 11:01 - Aug 22
VVD's wages stmichael.

We may not NEED to sell VVD but if an enormous non-Liverpool offer comes in then why not?

Of course all the good work will be totally undone if we cave in and sell for a low price, and any sale to Liverpool will not be forgiven by many, including me.
6

helpineedsomebody added 11:16 - Aug 22
since 1885

no investment/ no vision just a few people making money for themselves

& now who is going to pay the bank in HK

these people havent put money in buying the club for the love of the club they will need a profit for there investment
by the way where is the new owners
-6

GeordieSaint added 11:20 - Aug 22
Apparently virgils 6 year deal was approximately 20 million in wages. When you consider there are probably 7 or 8 other players on similar money it is very easy to see where the money goes.
4

SonicBoom added 11:20 - Aug 22
I think there are a lot of fans that will be a little confused so the sooner the new owners set out their strategy for the future the better.
There is a view that if the new owners are not going to put more money into transfers then what are they going to do? Kat wanted to sell because she felt she couldn't take the club any farther - but if the new people are going to continue with the same methods and strategy then she might as well have stayed.
Personally I think they will do more good off the field and we could be in for some surprises in the mid-term on that score. I would like to hear their plan though rather than just the PR spin and fluff.
8

ExiledSupporter added 12:00 - Aug 22
Nick , A couple of points here, things which you have now repeated a couple of times too often without them being challenged.

Firstly the assertion that MP is a good manager (after only two games) I hope he is, but it's much too early to make that assertion - especially since you regularly lectured us all, last season, on not judging Puel until we were well into the season and to be fair you did not do so yourself until the last third of the season, since which time your views of Puel have been unremittingly negative, in my view a little harshly too.

Secondly. the issue of having to fund transfer costs out of transfer income (and not by implication any transfer costs out of match income, merchandising or most significantly TV income) is by most people's standards a definition of a selling club. I accept the extent to which one is a selling club can be gauged on a continuum and we are not at an extreme position on this line, but always buying cheaper and selling high is a difficult and sometimes dangerous strategy to repeat over the medium or long term. In any case surely the money that we got for Fonte in January should be set against our summer spending...or are you saying that in truth we had to sell him to be able to afford Gabbiadini? We need to take a longer term view of incoming and outgoing transfer revenue and costs before we can determine the real extent to which we are a selling club.

I personally think we are more than not. But running an annual balance sheet that opens on 1st June and closes on 31st May does not give the right picture. The implication of St Michael's pithy comment at the head of this chain of supplies is highly pertinent.
3

DPeps added 12:45 - Aug 22
Any idea what's happening with the Hoedt transfer?
He's been 'imminently' joining us for the last 2 weeks
0

WanderingSaint added 13:04 - Aug 22
It's imminent DPeps, imminent.
-1

underweststand added 14:11 - Aug 22
as for the "Where's the Money " question, it's a matter of swings and roundabouts when you consider that those horrific dealings with the Ramirez and Osvaldo deals probably cost SFC around £50 million - a loss that can't just be put down to "bad luck".
Both of those deals came on Cortese's watch, and his indulgence to Pochettino in allowing the Osvaldo deal to go through was nothing short of treason. Anyone taking a close look at his CV would have seen he was an accident waiting to happen.
I think part of those deals may still have been on the books until last season...

The Euro rules that govern how much we can pay out in salaries limits clubs (I think) to 70% of their income, and Saints have been pretty close to that for several seasons. I don't think the envelope with the new "Superdeal " TV money has dropped through the letter box at SMS yet, so I guess the club is still playing it safe in the transfer market.
1

SanMarco added 15:20 - Aug 22
The new owners have now bought the house. I am unclear but it seems they have taken out a big mortgage to do so - this needs repaying with interest. The big question is have they got funds on top of that to make home improvements and furnish their new home. If not then I do not see how we are any better off. If the new owner owes 200m to the building society and has no funds then there is only one way he will be able to make his payments. A current prices I would say 3 and a half VVDs.

I really hope someone can put me right on this and correct the above analogy. If not then we can expect the 'selling club' label to stick for a while yet...
2

IanRC added 15:44 - Aug 22
San Marco - I don't think your presumption is correct as you are presumably plying loan repayments would be financed by player sales. Unless he were to pay himself a dividend out of the proceeds of the player sales or take a loan from the club this is not correct. The loan taken out is his and is independent of the club unless some kind of guarantee is in place.

On a separate but related issue I do wonder whether Kat has a golden share that would allow her to veto certain of the new owners actions if prejudicial to the long term future of the club.
1

aceofthebase added 16:47 - Aug 22
Perhaps we should put VVD out on loan until Christmas with Liverpool or Chelsea. They pay his wages ( no increase) and get him match fit for us post winter and also Liverpool will get to see why Saints value VVD at 80 million.
-3

kenis added 18:35 - Aug 22
We won't get £7-12m for Gardos and Gazzs! And we should not be selling or even considering selling Long.
2

SaintBrock added 19:26 - Aug 22
We should consider Les's 'Jewel in the Crown' who is a guaranteed starter and England international with over 150 PL games under his belt. Has many unique skills like ducking headers to put off rival players, passing the ball 60 yds backwards to his goalkeeper from the final third to start yet another exciting attacking probe and doing an African war dance in front of advancing strikers to confuse them without actually impeding their progress. Must be worth upwards of £40m at least. Every club wants a quota of home grown players and they don't come more home grown than this lad. Shame about the haircut.
-3

SanMarco added 22:48 - Aug 22
Thanks IanRC - so he cannot replay a loan he took out to buy the club from the assets of the club that is now his? I thought that was what happened at Manure with the Glaziers?? Perhaps there was the guarantee you talk about in that case?
0

montecristo added 12:33 - Aug 24
makes me laugh when journos assume they know what a club owner wants for his club without even talking to him. Stop guessing, speculate by all means but stop claiming you are ITK its irritating The Chinese have yet to make any statement at all personally with regard to their vision for the future, best to stay tight lipped until that happens.
0


You need to login in order to post your comments

Blogs 31 bloggers

Knees-up Mother Brown #22 by wessex_exile
Knees-up Mother Brown #18 by wessex_exile

Southampton Polls

About Us Contact Us Terms & Conditions Privacy Cookies Advertising
© FansNetwork 2024