30 Jun 2014 01:40:01
Sorry guys but I just felt the need to post about this as I've seen it a few times on here lately and on other forums as well.

THE BOARD ARE NOT ASSET STRIPPING. People, if you don't have any knowledge about technical economic terms then please stop using them. I hate to sound like a snob on this but the term is being used incorrectly every single time in this context; 3 points to this effect.

1. Players are not assets. They are employees. When you pay another company (club) for a player you are not paying for ownership of that player, you are paying for the rights and services of that player, specifically football playing rights. Shock horror it is illegal for people and companies to own people. They are, under contract, employed to do a service by the club. Assets in the context of a football club are the things it owns; such as the St Mary's or Staplewood as obvious examples.

2. Everything the club has done to date (specifically post-Cortese) is the exact opposite of an asset strip; they have put significant investment into the club, investing in the infrastructure like Staplewood and improvements to St Mary's. If Les Reed's statement is true, that revenues from the sale of players will be put directly back into transfers and new contracts, then again the point is null.

3. In the context of a football club asset stripping is not just exceedingly difficult it is downright stupid. To sell the assets of Southampton individually (as is asset stripping) would not bring in as much as selling the club as a whole. The assets of the club are worth considerably less outside the context of football and a considerable amount of the value of a football club is its position (in the league structure) and the fact it is a football club. In fact if you were selling you'd want to keep hold of the players. If you are selling the club you want the club to be of maximum desirability to any potential buyer and a strong first team which requires little direct investment is much more desirable. Southampton also has almost all the infrastructure, to a high standard, already in place. The club as a whole is more then the sum of the individual parts which is why an asset strip of a football club is inherently illogical. This is why asset stripping in football clubs is very rare, especially at the top level, and only really occurs in clubs in the very worst of financial straits as a 'get out as quickly and cleanly as possible' strategy.

There is no Southampton conspiracy, the board are not trying to destroy this club for money in the bank. Perhaps Liebherr will sell at some point in the near future, but an asset strip, especially not in the context of its use here, will not precede it. The worry about the board is not malicious intentions; it's incompetency. This is an inexperienced boardroom, especially in football, and there are legitimate and valid questions about whether or not they suffer from naivety and ignorance and whether or not they are really fit for purpose. But we have to wait and see for the answer to those questions.

So for the love of god, if anyone uses the term 'asset strip' again in this context I'm going to have a brain bleed. Ta.

1.) 30 Jun 2014
Whilst I agree with some of your post (and it was only me I think who mentioned the words Asset Stripping) I think you took it the wrong way.
I actually think the players are assets and are worth more individually than as a whole in the club.
Anyone looking to purchase the club will take into account an estimate of the players worth.
We have managed to get far over the price an auditor would value Shaw for had the club been up for sale.
I say they are assets in "" as the cash brought in from them will be used to clear debt and hit the bottom line of the clubs books until any signings are made.
A club clear from debt and making money is a far more of a prospect for potential buyers than one which they initially have to invest money into to clear debt (like ML did)
I didn't mean the academy/staplewood etc.
I agree the board are very new here but they have held firm on transfer fees out so far.
That said (and this is where it goes back to players being assets in "") if they sell the rest of our stars and don't invest correctly we will struggle this season, lose money on Sky payments if we are lower down the league and god forbid lose a lot of club worth if we were relegated.
The above I firmly don't believe will happen.
I hope all the cash received from players sales will be invested back into the club. Realistically can you see it though. I realise Les Reed did say that would happen but let's wait and see as he also said he would like Lallana to stay for at least another year.

2.) 30 Jun 2014
Oh don't get me wrong, this wasn't directed at any individual this was just a general rantgasm on my part. You spend enough time on Saintsweb and you'll go mad eventually. Most people on here, like yourself and montecristo seem to have a decent amount of knowledge, I just think you've taken the less likely conclusions then these sales otherwise indicate. Whilst I agree that if the players can be sold at an inflated fee, as is often the case with 'potential' sales, then they will accrue more revenue then the sale as a whole, but the bulk of players this does not apply to and the strength of the squad and the necessity for high levels of direct investment for any potential buyer will do more to lower their valuation then anything. Whilst a player sale, particularly the likes of Shaw, can be good for a quick necessary buck, the sale of the bulk of players prior to the sale of a club would not be particularly wise. And I think, if nothing else, Liebherr is business savvy and is aware of this.

3.) 30 Jun 2014
Cheers TK. I think this period of uncertainty is making us all jump to conclusions at the moment.
Time to wind the clock forward to the start of the season