southampton new owner

[TIL 1010 4,792]

7 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

I suspect Webber and Ward are in effect joint CEOs, but that is separate from the need for some freshening up at board level.

Whilst at the same time Ward is the the business and project director and Webber the sporting director also.

[Kenny Foggo 1,116]

The only place in the club we seem to be willing to pay the going rate for staff..... 

[Jim Smith 2,339]

55 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

Indeed we could Purple and before Ed Balls we had Alan Bowkett back in 2009 and apart from them nobody whatsoever so we have ended up with Zoe Ward and her husband running the club from top to bottom without a Chairman or a CEO to hold them to account. Our ' Executive Board ' of three became two once Ben Kensell left leaving us as probably the only club in the 92 operating without either a Chairman or CEO. Love them or loathe them are majority shareholders are in their 80's for goodness sake and i would be amazed if they had a full grasp of the rudder.

The AGM in November with the guy who ran it ( can't even recall his name that is how dynamic he was ) was uninspiring with Zoe Ward taking virtually all the questions asked of the top table with D & M not uttering a word. This cannot continue surely  ?

At least though our sporting director has generously agreed to sign a rolling contract which was no doubt negotiated at great length with the senior executives at the club. 

[TIL 1010 4,792]

1 hour ago, Jim Smith said:

At least though our sporting director has generously agreed to sign a rolling contract which was no doubt negotiated at great length with the senior executives at the club. 

Yes indeed as it appears that Mr &Mrs Webber hold a number of senior roles within the club with them answering to each other. 😜

[Mengo 825]

7 minutes ago, TIL 1010 said:

Yes indeed as it appears that Mr &Mrs Webber hold a number of senior roles within the club with them answering to each other. 😜

Keep it in the 👪 family. 🙃

[Mengo 825]

2 hours ago, Jim Smith said:

At least though our sporting director has generously agreed to sign a rolling contract which was no doubt negotiated at great length with the senior executives at the club. 

with D & M not uttering a word. This cannot continue surely  ?

Did they manage to stay awake. 🙃

 

[PurpleCanary 5,580]

Whenever these discussions on the merits of new ownership come up I don't know why but I get reminded of a US comedy show in which people are given a glitzy PR welcome and told they are in the Good Place, but find the afterlife there is one long torture and they have been lied to all this time because actually they are in hell...🤓

[Cliff the Canary 63]

[nutty nigel 7,619]

7 hours ago, Jim Smith said:

We don't keep getting promoted with no money. With the exception perhaps of the first farke promotion (although our wages were still pretty high then) we get promoted because the parachute payments, supplemented by the odd high value sale, enable us to retain a few premier league quality players and run a much higher wage bill than the majority of the division. 

So last season there were 7 clubs in the championship in receipt of parachute payments. We won the league and Watford came up with us. That left 5 clubs with shiny owners and parachute payments who missed out.

 

[Badger 2,412]

8 hours ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

There's all types of investment out there, some risky, some less so.

Every time a club gets sold fans on here think that this is a sign of "new investment." This simply isn't the case, however.

Southampton's previous owner Gao didn't invest in Southampton, he borrowed money from MSD and left it in debt (at over 9% interest). In Burnley's case, they used to the clubs own cash reserve to help finance the purchase of the club,

Some of the clubs have "sugar daddy/ mummy owners," but most have business people looking to make a profit. The "investment" that takes place is usually borrowing of some sort or other which the club pays. As a generally debt-free club, I'm sure that we could borrow £100 million if we wanted to, but I would very much doubt the wisdom of it (unless it went to developing fixed assets, like the ground, which would generate future revenue).

[nutty nigel 7,619]

5 hours ago, The Great Mass Debater said:

Southampton have been acquired for £100m.

Unlike a lot of clubs, because we are self-sustaining we are actually profitable - we dont operate at huge losses because we dont have a sugar daddy.

We are one of the current 20 elite clubs in the country and we are only 4 points off survival. We are debt free.

 

I seriously doubt there is noone out there with an interest in buying us. I've never been a 'Delia Out!' person, but at present our ownership is holding us back. We will never be able to compete at this level without money.

As long as Delia stays we are doomed to yoyo-ing between the divisions and getting pummelled each week in the Prem. And that relies on the idea we can bounce back every time, which considering we've sacked the manager who had proven he could do that is no given.

Dont bounce back and the Prem money runs out quickly and before you know it we're back stagnating in the Championship with the rest of them.

 

Delia is condemning the fans to this misery if she will not consider selling. That's her prerogative, but as fans we are also entitled to object to this

Delia, Delia, Delia...

Smith & Jones own 53% of our football club between them. They are both fans. The other 47% is also owned by fans.

It's clear your problem is with Delia personally.

[The Great Mass Debater 1,092]

16 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

Delia, Delia, Delia...

Smith & Jones own 53% of our football club between them. They are both fans. The other 47% is also owned by fans.

It's clear your problem is with Delia personally.

Nope, not bothered about Delia personally at all. I dont know her, so how can it be personal? But she seems a nice person. Feel free, if you are so inclined, to look through any of my previous posts to find any anti-Delia sentiment. My problem is with, as our majority shareholder, her lack of personal wealth, in that, she doesnt have any. These last two Premier League seasons have only gone to demonstrate that without wealthy backers we will never be able to compete against those clubs which have them.

[Highland Canary 76]

Southampton have moved from league one to become a reasonably established PL club largely achieved by owners with sufficient wealth to not only bankroll that achievement but also act as insurers should relegation occur. It is this latter capability, in particular, we lack with relegation typically forcing Maddisonesc fire sales to avoid the risk of administration. We don’t necessarily need new owners but we do need additional investment if we are to break our cycle of failure.

Edited January 6, 2022 by Highland Canary

[nutty nigel 7,619]

1 hour ago, The Great Mass Debater said:

Nope, not bothered about Delia personally at all. I dont know her, so how can it be personal? But she seems a nice person. Feel free, if you are so inclined, to look through any of my previous posts to find any anti-Delia sentiment. My problem is with, as our majority shareholder, her lack of personal wealth, in that, she doesnt have any. These last two Premier League seasons have only gone to demonstrate that without wealthy backers we will never be able to compete against those clubs which have them.

No wish to look at your posts buddy. Your continued reference of 'Delia' as majority shareholder tells me all I need to know.👍

[Wilson 62]

On 05/01/2022 at 12:55, Thirsty Lizard said:

And if your Aunty had b*lls she'd be your uncle......................

Probably not the best use of this phrase. The pandemic and promotion were not counterfactual situations.

My comment demonstrates the frailty of the basis of self sustaining club.