Southampton wages ... a warning !

[Royal Monk]

I cant believe some of the figures stated in this article , should this be a warning to us about what we offer our players when we give them long contracts ?

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints ... l_shocker/

[rabidbee]

What stands out to me in that article is that in one season their income dropped from £23m to £15m, so that a £1.5m rise in their wage bill - from £10.5m to £12m - saw their wage bill go from 45% of their turnover to 81%.

[The whole year inn]

The figures involved in that article are utter madness.

Plus the club pay the NI contributions

I would love to see Man Utd's version of this

[The 17 Bus]

Perhaps a few on this site who think we should go after that type of player might now be able to see that wages can be too high, and more than just a problem.

It is also why if good offers come in for players we are in no position to reject them.

We don't know the level RFC are paying, but if folk think that those figures are high then for the ones around the 10k mark, i think many or ours would be near that as well. Makes those that say we should be paying £25k a week in the prem totally wrong IMHO, these players and many others are overpaid, underplayed, and over here.

It is another reason why many players will run down a long contract rather than move, not many at our level can afford Lita, we won't just let him go, as just one or two goals could take us up, and we need the cover, I reckon he will already be on a similar figure, so if teams like S'ton are cutting back, then there are few that will want to take him on a 3 year deal at his current rate, and pay us money s well.

[readingbedding]

Perhaps a few on this site who think we should go after that type of player might now be able to see that wages can be too high, and more than just a problem.

It is also why if good offers come in for players we are in no position to reject them.

We don't know the level RFC are paying, but if folk think that those figures are high then for the ones around the 10k mark, i think many or ours would be near that as well. Makes those that say we should be paying £25k a week in the prem totally wrong IMHO, these players and many others are overpaid, underplayed, and over here.

It is another reason why many players will run down a long contract rather than move, not many at our level can afford Lita, we won't just let him go, as just one or two goals could take us up, and we need the cover, I reckon he will already be on a similar figure, so if teams like S'ton are cutting back, then there are few that will want to take him on a 3 year deal at his current rate, and pay us money s well.

If you can afford the wages, there is no problem, if you can't - well you're lining yourself up for some financial trouble.

[Skyline]

The figures involved in that article are utter madness.

Plus the club pay the NI contributions

To be strictly accurate, the club pay the Employer's NI contributions. The same as anyone's employer has to pay.

[The 17 Bus]

If you read it tho they can afford the wages, it appears that the reporter is suggesting that the players are well overpaid, rather than unaffordable. Sounds about the levels we were paying in 05/6 season, was Sidwell not offered £18k a week at the time??

The problem was a 15% increase in wages with a drop in income of about 60%, overall I think it shows that RFC have still remained sensible, I would guess that players had clauses reducing wages on relegation, but with release clauses as well, has to be the only sensible way long term.

[PieEater]

Sensationalist reporting with lots of earning xxxx "between them", adding up all the salaries to get a bigger number. It just says what everyone knows; professional footballers earn a lot of money, although not nearly as much as everyone thinks they do.

What the headline should says is: Fickle saints fans desert the club in droves as income hits a new low.

[bobby1413]

I would have thought Doyle and S. Hunt would be on similar figures wouldn't they? Maybe around 15K per week, or am I completely out of the ball park?

[Dirk Gently]

If you can afford the wages, there is no problem, if you can't - well you're lining yourself up for some financial trouble.

That's slightly too simplistic, if you don't mind me saying so.

It's not just if you can afford the wages, it's if you can be sure of affording the wages for the duration of the contract you're giving the players. Too many things can happen to affect future income (relegation, failure to gain anticipated promotion,loss of sponsorship or anything that affects crowds) but too much of football financing has been done with an over-optimistic outlook on future achievements. When that doesn't happen - and, of course, it can't happen to all the teams who may be banking on it happening - then problems lie.

For years football has been spending future income - now that income is not materialising for many clubs the birds are coming home to roost.

[Tutti Frutti]

What stands out to me in that article is that in one season their income dropped from £23m to £15m, so that a £1.5m rise in their wage bill - from £10.5m to £12m - saw their wage bill go from 45% of their turnover to 81%.

Exactly. The issue here is that the income side of their business (low gates/no stars left to sell) is absolutely done, meaning that they are having trouble paying the high-ish wages on offer. The actual wages on offer ar3e actually not that shocking for a sizable Championship ckub, where 5-10k a week is "normal" for the top 5 or so players at a big club. The fact that the players that Southampton chose to pay this to some of the crap they did is just bad management, especiallly if you are one of the youngsters on a small wage busting a gut to keep the club up while Rasiak does f all as usual (another example of that last night).

[Deathy]

I cant believe some of the figures stated in this article , should this be a warning to us about what we offer our players when we give them long contracts ?

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints ... l_shocker/

Are you kidding? We are if anything, overly careful and strict with our budgets.

[readingbedding]

If you can afford the wages, there is no problem, if you can't - well you're lining yourself up for some financial trouble.

That's slightly too simplistic, if you don't mind me saying so.

It's not just if you can afford the wages, it's if you can be sure of affording the wages for the duration of the contract you're giving the players. Too many things can happen to affect future income (relegation, failure to gain anticipated promotion,loss of sponsorship or anything that affects crowds) but too much of football financing has been done with an over-optimistic outlook on future achievements. When that doesn't happen - and, of course, it can't happen to all the teams who may be banking on it happening - then problems lie.

For years football has been spending future income - now that income is not materialising for many clubs the birds are coming home to roost.

I'm taking all those obvious points into account.
Of course teams buy players with a worst case, or a best case scenario in mind.
Teams do one or the other, and of course one team's outlook and future interpretation of that is different from others and always changes.

If a team can afford players, then as a fan you accept a 'gamble', but all chips in one basket, based only on one outcome is dangerous for some clubs.

Leeds is a fantastic example of this.

[soggy biscuit]

I cant believe some of the figures stated in this article , should this be a warning to us about what we offer our players when we give them long contracts ?

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints ... l_shocker/

Are you kidding? We are if anything, overly careful and strict with our budgets.

Sounds like you're a man in the know. Who earns what at Reading?

[Rev Algenon Stickleback H]

If you can afford the wages, there is no problem, if you can't - well you're lining yourself up for some financial trouble.

That's slightly too simplistic, if you don't mind me saying so.

It's not just if you can afford the wages, it's if you can be sure of affording the wages for the duration of the contract you're giving the players. Too many things can happen to affect future income (relegation, failure to gain anticipated promotion,loss of sponsorship or anything that affects crowds) but too much of football financing has been done with an over-optimistic outlook on future achievements. When that doesn't happen - and, of course, it can't happen to all the teams who may be banking on it happening - then problems lie.

For years football has been spending future income - now that income is not materialising for many clubs the birds are coming home to roost.

I'm taking all those obvious points into account.
Of course teams buy players with a worst case, or a best case scenario in mind.
Teams do one or the other, and of course one team's outlook and future interpretation of that is different from others and always changes.

If a team can afford players, then as a fan you accept a 'gamble', but all chips in one basket, based only on one outcome is dangerous for some clubs.

Leeds is a fantastic example of this.

...and the sort of fans insisting we should "go for broke" and gamble whether we can afford it or not, are probably the exact same ones who'd desert when things went wrong.

[phil in cornwall]

What makes this so outrageous is not the actual wages being too high for Southampton to afford them, even though that clearly is the case, what is really outrageous is that they are paying more than they can afford for TOTALLY HORRENDOUS players, players who are barely good enough for league one. Luckily they will soon be in league one, so problem solved.

Shame we couldn't beat this TOTALLY HORRENDOUS team and have given them 4 points.

[Deathy]

I cant believe some of the figures stated in this article , should this be a warning to us about what we offer our players when we give them long contracts ?

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints ... l_shocker/

Are you kidding? We are if anything, overly careful and strict with our budgets.

Sounds like you're a man in the know. Who earns what at Reading?

We're a very well run club, and frustrating as it is, we are extremely careful financially.

[soggy biscuit]

We're a very well run club, and frustrating as it is, we are extremely careful financially.

Unless you know exactly what we pay in wages that is nothing more than an assumption. I am sure many Southampton fans thought they knew what they paid until they saw that report.