Money bags Blades.

[Cool Clint]

I'm sick of people harping on about money and how poor we are. Sure we've had to trim but i dont think we are as bad as people make out. Yes we dont want to go and spend money we dont have. Are we asset rich and money poor - Maybe ,but just to prove we know nowt.

My assumption is that these are on very low Championship wages, the kind of money that seriously suggests that they have come for the long term in building a side

Steve Simonsen, Stephen Jordan, Nyron Nosworthy, Nick Montgomery, Chris Morgan, Darius Henderson, Leon Britton, Ched Evans, Mark Yeates, Jean Calve, Lee Williamson, Ryan France, Richard Cresswell, Kyle Bartley, Ritchie De Laet, Stephen Quinn.

Of coarse that statement is hearsay as much as the opposite one was in another thread.

And this?

As a reminder, SUFC plc own 50% of a property company which to my knoweldge has bank debts of circa £25-£30m.

So if SUFC own 50% then the debt on that bit is 12.5 to 15 million?

Looking on the positive as someone else stated, if the loans are mortgages then we are not paying out half as much interest as people think.

FACT replies please. -Whoops we know nothing for fact this thread should now die.

 

[DuncDisorderly]

SUFC is not poor. It can pay its bills. However, for some time it has only been able to do that with the direct support of the Chairman. He isn't in that game anymore, and so the bills have to be made smaller to remain affordable. Unfortunately, this kind of prudence stands at odds with many of the clubs we compete with, and in turn the expectations of the supporters. Telling us that this is the sensible approach and is the best we can afford doesn't help when we can see others benefitting from flouting that basic financial principle...

 

[Bergen Blade]

Regarding what you put in bold first there, the original post read:

My assumption is that these are on very high Championship wages, the kind of money that seriously restricts further spending at the moment:

Steve Simonsen, Stephen Jordan, Nyron Nosworthy, Nick Montgomery, Chris Morgan, Darius Henderson, Leon Britton, Ched Evans, Mark Yeates, Jean Calve, Lee Williamson, Ryan France, Richard Cresswell, Kyle Bartley, Ritchie De Laet, Stephen Quinn.

FACT 1: Most of these players have Premiership experience.
FACT 2: McCabe has stated that we have one of the highest wage bills in the division.
FACT 3: We have a small squad.

FACT 4: We didn't pay a single transfer fee in the last window.
FACT 5: Players like Bruce and Naysmith chose Leeds and Huddersfield over us.

I think the three first points make it logical to assume it's the above mentioned players that are receiving most of our wages.

The two last points suggests there isn't a lot left in the budget. I hope I'm wrong though!

 

[CopenhagenBlade]

Regarding what you put in bold first there, the original post read:



FACT 1: Most of these players have Premiership experience.
FACT 2: McCabe has stated that we have one of the highest wage bills in the division.
FACT 3: We have a small squad.

FACT 4: We didn't pay a single transfer fee in the last window.
FACT 5: Players like Bruce and Naysmith chose Leeds and Huddersfield over us.

I think the three first points make it logical to assume it's the above mentioned players that are receiving most of our wages.

The two last points suggests there isn't a lot left in the budget. I hope I'm wrong though!

FACT 1. I actually don't think that many of our squad actually has Premiership experience in the sense that they were a regular player in a Premiership team. How many games has Simonsen, Nos, Jordan Cressy actually played in the Premiership? You could also argue that Monty, Quinn and Morgs were part of a team that went up and came straight back down again so obviously weren't of Premiership standard.
FACT 2. How does McCabe know this? No one here knows what our players are earning so how does McCabe know what all the others are paying
FACT 3 Agreed but if all the players were of the right level and we had some pace and/or wingers I would saythat it is about right. Can't see the need to have a squad of 25-30 when only 14 have a chance of kicking a ball every game.
FACT 4 There really weren't a lot of transfers going on, apart from Man City so I would imagine that many clubs could say the same. Why spend money when our 2 best signings were free, Simmo & Britton?
FACT 5 Maybe Bruce was only offered a squad place and Leeds offered him a starting place? In hindsight with Nays this was the best bit of business we did by not giving him a contract. I think that this highlighted the insanity of the Hudders Chairman rather than any weakness on our part.

I doubt that there is much money and with dropping crowds what was there is now less, unless we getthis Malaysian investment! UTB

 

[DP8789]

Have we spent any substantial money on transfers in the last 12 months? no.
Has mccabe stated we have a massive wage bill? yes.
If we had money, would we be buying the much needed players to strengthen? yes.
Did players like paddy and naysmith leave for more cash? yes.
Would that have happend 2 years ago? no.

Were skint, i really dont see why we have to keep going over the same thing every month or so.

"wheres all the money gone" "why didnt we buy anyone in the window" "this is all mccabes fault"

What people need to realise is the recession has caused this, WE TOOK A RISK AND IT DIDNT PAY OFF. Were are not man city or chelsea, we cant be reckless in this economic climate or we will end up like wendy, and nobody wants that.

Stop blaming the lack of cash and blame the underperforming players we have in that squad -
ched evans - doesnt score enough.
quinn and monty - worst cm partnership in the last 10 years.
willo - always injured - we knew this before we bought him.
ward - played out of position but still doesnt do enough at the minute.
nosworthy - he's too up and down - sometimes hes great other times he isnt.

we need these players to start working harder and realise the potential hell hole of a predicament we could find ourselves in come xmas.

 

[gavtheblade]

Have we spent any substantial money on transfers in the last 12 months? no.
Has mccabe stated we have a massive wage bill? yes.
If we had money, would we be buying the much needed players to strengthen? yes.
Did players like paddy and naysmith leave for more cash? yes.
Would that have happend 2 years ago? no.

Were skint, i really dont see why we have to keep going over the same thing every month or so.

"wheres all the money gone" "why didnt we buy anyone in the window" "this is all mccabes fault"

What people need to realise is the recession has caused this, WE TOOK A RISK AND IT DIDNT PAY OFF. Were are not man city or chelsea, we cant be reckless in this economic climate or we will end up like wendy, and nobody wants that.

Stop blaming the lack of cash and blame the underperforming players we have in that squad -
ched evans - doesnt score enough.
quinn and monty - worst cm partnership in the last 10 years.
willo - always injured - we knew this before we bought him.
ward - played out of position but still doesnt do enough at the minute.
nosworthy - he's too up and down - sometimes hes great other times he isnt.

we need these players to start working harder and realise the potential hell hole of a predicament we could find ourselves in come xmas.

A simple answer to this.we need investment and we need it now,cos there will be no more money spend even if we sell someone,i wouldnt pay ten bob for the tripe weve got.

 

[Pollingtonblade]

regardless of money other teams build promotion winning squads with fuck all ie burnley, blackpool.

 

[boo radley]

Regarding what you put in bold first there, the original post read:



FACT 1: Most of these players have Premiership experience.
FACT 2: McCabe has stated that we have one of the highest wage bills in the division.
FACT 3: We have a small squad.

FACT 4: We didn't pay a single transfer fee in the last window.
FACT 5: Players like Bruce and Naysmith chose Leeds and Huddersfield over us.

I think the three first points make it logical to assume it's the above mentioned players that are receiving most of our wages.

The two last points suggests there isn't a lot left in the budget. I hope I'm wrong though!

Fact 1 Most didnt make it there and others were relegated. If they were prem class they would still be there. Just because you were once on good wages it dont mean you stay on them.
Fact 2 Unless recently repeated that was well over a year ago. Do you know different?
Fact 3: So were being prudent with our money.
Fact 4: So were being prudent and picky about who will improve the squad.
Fact 5: Just goes to show others are paying higher wages than us.

I think the first 3 points above go to show that it is logical, that the players above are recieving most of our wages as that is our first line team. That doesn't mean to say that we are paying more than any other club.

The last 2 points show that we are not prepared to pay big wages.

 

[gavtheblade]

regardless of money other teams build promotion winning squads with fuck all ie burnley, blackpool.

promotion!who says owt about building a team for promotion,we need a team with bollox to keep us stable in this division at the moment.

 

[Compound_Legend]

I was involved on the BIFA steering committee back in the mid 90's.During the initial set up period,and then what escalated with the Brealey situation,we got to know what was going on behind the doors of power,and what was going where,and to who.

Believe me,if you think this is bad,you should have been around then.Talk to anybody who was on that committee on that time (Nick who posts on here will back me up regarding this),and some of the stories would make your hair curl.Obviously,for legal reasons they can't be discussed here,but the club is in a must better state of affairs now than it was then,and is far better run,by people with some form of business acumen -not those who couldn't be trusted to even run a bric a brac stall at a jumble sale.

 

[Bergen Blade]

Fact 1 Most didnt make it there and others were relegated. If they were prem class they would still be there. Just because you were once on good wages it dont mean you stay on them.
Fact 2 Unless recently repeated that was well over a year ago. Do you know different?
Fact 3: So were being prudent with our money.
Fact 4: So were being prudent and picky about who will improve the squad.
Fact 5: Just goes to show others are paying higher wages than us.

I think the first 3 points above go to show that it is logical, that the players above are recieving most of our wages as that is our first line team. That doesn't mean to say that we are paying more than any other club.

The last 2 points show that we are not prepared to pay big wages.

So you agree with the first conclusion, though you think our wage bill is small by Championship standards? Regarding the second conclusion, how much money is left in the budget, do you think it's little, or loads?

 

[boo radley]

So you agree with the first conclusion, though you think our wage bill is small by Championship standards? Regarding the second conclusion, how much money is left in the budget, do you think it's little, or loads?

I think like a lot of clubs, we have to be carful. I think our wage bill is no more than similar clubs and a lot less than most.

 

[FleaPitBlade]

FACT 340982347948957437856435786

Just because a player is signed on a free doesnt mean he cost nowt.

If player A is signed for 3 years on just 5k per week, the total of that contract is £780,000 + anything up to £200k isnt an unreasonable signing fee for a championship player.

The term 'free transfer' is a falacy. Its not unreasonable that an average player signed for free on a modest contract costs SUFC circa £1m.

The reality is that a 20k crowd and a few shirt sales probably just about covers that figure multiplied over a squad of circa 15 established championship footballers - doesnt leave a lot in the pot for 'transfer fee's', does it?

And thats without considering any other overhead away from player wages.

 

[Jim Chimmerney]

At least we're saving money on goal and win bonuses

 

[Micalijo]

I think like a lot of clubs, we have to be carful. I think our wage bill is no more than similar clubs and a lot less than most.

Cannot let this one pass. You think our wage bill is 'a lot less than most'?

This means you think our wage bill is substantially lower than more than 50% of clubs in this division. I had to type it out again because I simply cannot believe what I am reading.

Please tell me it is a bad mistake on your behalf.

 

[Jim Chimmerney]

Cannot let this one pass. You think our wage bill is 'a lot less than most'?

This means you think our wage bill is substantially lower than more than 50% of clubs in this division. I had to type it out again because I simply cannot believe what I am reading.

Please tell me it is a bad mistake on your behalf.

Where would you place us in the wage bill league for the Chumpionship Mic ?

 

[Micalijo]

Where would you place us in the wage bill league for the Chumpionship Mic ?

7 - 9th. Definitely in top 12, which is my main point with regards to Boo's post.

 

[Bergen Blade]

FACT 340982347948957437856435786

Just because a player is signed on a free doesnt mean he cost nowt.

If player A is signed for 3 years on just 5k per week, the total of that contract is £780,000 + anything up to £200k isnt an unreasonable signing fee for a championship player.

The term 'free transfer' is a falacy. Its not unreasonable that an average player signed for free on a modest contract costs SUFC circa £1m.

The reality is that a 20k crowd and a few shirt sales probably just about covers that figure multiplied over a squad of circa 15 established championship footballers - doesnt leave a lot in the pot for 'transfer fee's', does it?

And thats without considering any other overhead away from player wages.

This is something everybody should realise. But you only have to look at the signings we've made the last few seasons to notice that there IS a difference between fee signings and free transfers. And we seem unwilling or unable to pay for the ones that cost a transfer fee, agreed?

 

[Jim Chimmerney]

7 - 9th. Definitely in top 12, which is my main point with regards to Boo's post.

Right, so it's his use of the word 'most' when you think we could be close to half way

To be honest, we might only just be top half these days. I reckon, in no particular order QPR, Ipswich, Hull, Burnley, Pompey (when they eventually get round to paying them), Cardiff, Norwich, Forest, Derby and Boro are likely to be above us, even the likes of Leeds, Leicester, Reading could be close.

 

[Coily]

A simple answer to this.we need investment and we need it now,cos there will be no more money spend even if we sell someone,i wouldnt pay ten bob for the tripe weve got.

A simple answer it is. What's not so simple is getting whoever to invest. Would they get a return on the investment? Doubtful. So what we need is someone to tap up someone else who doesn't mind spunking up a bundle of millions on SUFC which they might never see again. Put 'em up in the hotel, that'll impress 'em.

Maybe it's not so simple after all...

 

[boo radley]

Cannot let this one pass. You think our wage bill is 'a lot less than most'?

This means you think our wage bill is substantially lower than more than 50% of clubs in this division. I had to type it out again because I simply cannot believe what I am reading.

Please tell me it is a bad mistake on your behalf.

Right, so it's his use of the word 'most' when you think we could be close to half way

To be honest, we might only just be top half these days. I reckon, in no particular order QPR, Ipswich, Hull, Burnley, Pompey (when they eventually get round to paying them), Cardiff, Norwich, Forest, Derby and Boro are likely to be above us, even the likes of Leeds, Leicester, Reading could be close.

Thanks Jim about time someone hammered this down.

Mic the thread starter also called in to question another bit about 50% of the debt. Care to comment on that?
Last year the statement was we have a higher wage bill than all apart from thos on parachute payments. Most took this as being forth in wages paid it actually meant 6th. now added to the fact we have substancially reduced ours and anothe three clubs have come down and two that came up may also be higher we could well be below half way in the payment table even given those teams that went back up to the prem.
UNLESS YOU CAN PROVE OTHERWISE, THE THREAD STARTER IS RIGHT, ITS JUST HEARSAY.

 

[Micalijo]

Thanks Jim about time someone hammered this down.

Mic the thread starter also called in to question another bit about 50% of the debt. Care to comment on that?
Last year the statement was we have a higher wage bill than all apart from thos on parachute payments. Most took this as being forth in wages paid it actually meant 6th. now added to the fact we have substancially reduced ours and anothe three clubs have come down and two that came up may also be higher we could well be below half way in the payment table even given those teams that went back up to the prem.
UNLESS YOU CAN PROVE OTHERWISE, THE THREAD STARTER IS RIGHT, ITS JUST HEARSAY.

You said Boo 'a lot' less than 'most' of the division. Can you clarify what you mean by that or is it the cas ethat you think our wage bill is say 15th highest and loads less than say Forest? You are 100% wrong in saying that - in my opinion. As ever, we agree to disagree, simple as that. Your stuff is hearsay, so is mine.

Haven't got a clue what you are on about re 50% debt or the opening post.

Realty had bank debt of £39m as at Feb 2009 (I checked yesterday) so SUFC plc is in theory liable for half of that which is £19.5m. Realty obviously has some assets which are designed to cover that bank debt, my fear given the economic climate is that negative equity applies and given the per accounts loss on disposals (circa £3m) of properties in the year to Feb 2009 I fear cash flow will not cover the interest - hence I suggest we had to sell players quicker and cut wages quicker than other clubs who don't have these stupid property links.

 

[Jim Chimmerney]

hence I suggest we had to sell players quicker and cut wages quicker than other clubs who don't have these stupid property links.

Are you suggesting that other clubs' owners have not been similarly hit by the economic climate ? I think it's daft to suggest that we're worse off than other clubs because our debt is directly linked to property.

Looking at it another way, surely it's better that we at least have assets than say are bank-rolled by a wealthy businessman who just decides he can't fund his hobby anymore because he's lost a few million this month, or a succession of wealthy businessmen in Pompey's case.

 

[boo radley]

You said Boo 'a lot' less than 'most' of the division. Can you clarify what you mean by that or is it the cas ethat you think our wage bill is say 15th highest and loads less than say Forest? You are 100% wrong in saying that - in my opinion. As ever, we agree to disagree, simple as that. Your stuff is hearsay, so is mine.

Haven't got a clue what you are on about re 50% debt or the opening post.

Realty had bank debt of £39m as at Feb 2009 (I checked yesterday) so SUFC plc is in theory liable for half of that which is £19.5m. Realty obviously has some assets which are designed to cover that bank debt, my fear given the economic climate is that negative equity applies and given the per accounts loss on disposals (circa £3m) of properties in the year to Feb 2009 I fear cash flow will not cover the interest - hence I suggest we had to sell players quicker and cut wages quicker than other clubs who don't have these stupid property links.

What is Blades realty? (39million)?
What is the property company we own 50% of? (12.5to 19.5 million)?

Until you bunch it all together it just causes confusion and people dont want to know.

 

[JohnDenver]

willo - always injured - we knew this before we bought him.

Did we? I thought he's only been crocked since coming here.

 

[Micalijo]

What is Blades realty? (39million)?
What is the property company we own 50% of? (12.5to 19.5 million)?

Until you bunch it all together it just causes confusion and people dont want to know.

Are you taking the Michael?

Realty is owned 50% by SUFC plc.

As at Feb 2009 it had bank debt of £39m What is confusing about that? I guessed at £25m in a previous post before checking the accounts and posting the correct figure.

I couldn't care less whether people want to know or not.

 

[super_pig]

>regardless of money other teams build promotion winning squads with fuck all ie burnley, blackpool.
yep.. it just shows you what a couple of decent signings e.g. adam can do to your fortunes

 

[Bramley]

Are you taking the Michael?

Realty is owned 50% by SUFC plc.

As at Feb 2009 it had bank debt of £39m What is confusing about that? I guessed at £25m in a previous post before checking the accounts and posting the correct figure.

I couldn't care less whether people want to know or not.

I think the prognosis in terms of property development market is that it is slowly creaking back into action. Seeing more signs of lending for bigger schemes and whilst values will drop next year, generally the under-supply of new housing sites means in the long-term things will improve.

 

[boo radley]

Are you taking the Michael?

Realty is owned 50% by SUFC plc.

As at Feb 2009 it had bank debt of £39m What is confusing about that? I guessed at £25m in a previous post before checking the accounts and posting the correct figure.

I couldn't care less whether people want to know or not.

No not at all but when you quot 50 % of a company it would be good to know who owed the other 50% (scarborough group) etc.
So that part of sufc owes 19.5million. Is that a loan debt, Mortgage debt or part each? it is important because of debt structure and could drastically make a difference if you are really worried about admin? or is this just curiosity?

 

[Micalijo]

No not at all but when you quot 50 % of a company it would be good to know who owed the other 50% (scarborough group) etc.
So that part of sufc owes 19.5million. Is that a loan debt, Mortgage debt or part each? it is important because of debt structure and could drastically make a difference if you are really worried about admin? or is this just curiosity?

I don't quite understand what the difference is between loan debt and mortgage debt? Both carry interest, both have to be paid back either monthly or at the end of a fixed term ie interest only mortgage. I don't see why one would be better than the other in terms of what has to be paid back out of assest that have very probably dropped significantly in value. If we have a loan that needs refinancing in say 5 years then we'd better hope the properties can be sold on at a price where we will have enough cash to pay the bank. If we have a monthly repayment loan then we need to find cash on a monthly basis to repay the bank (ignoring interest). Is that what you are getting at, ie a loan gives us breathing space compared with a mortgage which is paid back monthly?

I'm asking out of curiousity and also because I am deeply pissed off about McCabe and his property deals affecting SUFC.