The January 2026 Transfer Window Thread - Now Closed!

[malc]

The signing of Walta now is going to help him settle in ready for next season .
Will also help.with the clarity going forward
3 or 4 quality signings will make us a team to watch.

 

[magicdaps10]

Owning the stadium is fine if, and in football that's a pretty massive IF, ownership can be trusted. Too many examples exist of financial manipulation around sale/buyback of stadiums, or clubs getting shafted when things turn sour.

Having the ground owned by an independent third party may not be sexy, might not be as lucrative, but it's secure.

The Mel Griffin scenario proves that.
Thank god the local lot took over from Tony Petty because if Griffin got his hands on the club and plans to get his hands on the Vetch.

 

[Cinio Dydd Sul]

More control of sponsorship, more revenue with control over events. It opens up more avenues for more income being in full control.
The purchase doesn't effect PSR if I am correct.

It would certainly be a good thing and would own a stadium for the first time in over 40 years.

We've already got control over all that though?

 

[IAN05]

We've already got control over all that though?

Owning it would allow for certain infrastructure spends to be deducted from PSR allowances, currently anything we spend on the stadium is essentially renovating someone else's home.

It would also mean we no longer pay the annual lease fee. I'm not sure what the agreement is with the council on concerts ans other revenue but owning it would mean that all revenue generated would go to the Swans.

I'm not advocating it by the way, as i don't know enough about it to know whether it would be the best thing for us or not.

 

[Cinio Dydd Sul]

Owning it would allow for certain infrastructure spends to be deducted from PSR allowances, currently anything we spend on the stadium is essentially renovating someone else's home.

It would also mean we no longer pay the annual lease fee. I'm not sure what the agreement is with the council on concerts ans other revenue but owning it would mean that all revenue generated would go to the Swans.

I'm not advocating it by the way, as i don't know enough about it to know whether it would be the best thing for us or not.

I dont think it's relevant - infrastructure isnt included in PSR so if the club bought it, there would be no difference would there?

Yes no annual lease fee, but I believe we run the stadium lock stock since we came to that agreement (and paid an initial lump sum i think?) with the council so we already get all the revenue (and incur losses - remember the previous owners took the council to court and lost over liability for roof repair costs?).

I think the only advantages of buying would be saving on the annual lease costs (which would be dwarfed by the purchase costs) and the future possibility of expanding. Neither of which are worth it currently.

 

[IAN05]

I dont think it's relevant - infrastructure isnt included in PSR so if the club bought it, there would be no difference would there?

Yes no annual lease fee, but I believe we run the stadium lock stock since we came to that agreement (and paid an initial lump sum i think?) with the council so we already get all the revenue (and incur losses - remember the previous owners took the council to court and lost over liability for roof repair costs?).

I think the only advantages of buying would be saving on the annual lease costs (which would be dwarfed by the purchase costs) and the future possibility of expanding. Neither of which are worth it currently.

Makes sense .

It's not an area i know much about in honesty. If we do intend to buy the stadium i'd imagine they must see some advantage to it.

 

[Londonlisa2001]

£300k of course is not an insignificant sum of money if you are close to the PSR limits.

In reality £300k or £50 if it takes you beyond the parameters would still be a barrier.

I agree but as I said, if we’re that close we are storing up trouble and you’d have expected different financial decisions to have been made.

More likely imo to be not wanting to pay the first part of the fee now for cash flow purposes rather than PSR which is what I said yesterday. (Which is fair enough by the way).
The main thing is the player is here and looks to be filling a gaping hole we’ve had, namely creativity. Let’s hope he does as expected.

 

[Londonlisa2001]

Owning it would allow for certain infrastructure spends to be deducted from PSR allowances, currently anything we spend on the stadium is essentially renovating someone else's home.

It would also mean we no longer pay the annual lease fee. I'm not sure what the agreement is with the council on concerts ans other revenue but owning it would mean that all revenue generated would go to the Swans.

I'm not advocating it by the way, as i don't know enough about it to know whether it would be the best thing for us or not.

On this, the infrastructure costs are already deducted from our profit and loss account (actually added back to make our losses smaller) so that has no PSR impact.

The lease cost to the council is £300k per annum for another c. 31 years which is c. £9m plus. The cost of purchasing will be more than that.

We also get revenue from concerts and everything else. Plus we are responsible for repairs and rectification. Which will therefore not change.

The big change is that the current agreement means a percentage of the stadium naming rights go to the council (I don’t think the stand naming rights do although that may be wrong) and if we own the stadium it comes to us. There is an agreement in place until (I think) 2031 with Swansea.com so obviously that would need to be bought out both with Swansea.com (MM) and with the council. But naming rights could be substantial so that would be a big swing for PSR.

We can already make the stadium bigger / make changes (subject to planning) and we will still need planning to make changes if we buy it outright.

It may make raising debt secured against the stadium easier. Emphasis on may.

In the round, as a club they will want to do it for the reasons given.
In the round, as a supporter, I’d rather it remained with the council irrespective of that as owners present and future can’t bugger about as much.

 

[IAN05]

On this, the infrastructure costs are already deducted from our profit and loss account (actually added back to make our losses smaller) so that has no PSR impact.

The lease cost to the council is £300k per annum for another c. 31 years which is c. £9m plus. The cost of purchasing will be more than that.

We also get revenue from concerts and everything else. Plus we are responsible for repairs and rectification. Which will therefore not change.

The big change is that the current agreement means a percentage of the stadium naming rights go to the council (I don’t think the stand naming rights do although that may be wrong) and if we own the stadium it comes to us. There is an agreement in place until (I think) 2031 with Swansea.com so obviously that would need to be bought out both with Swansea.com (MM) and with the council. But naming rights could be substantial so that would be a big swing for PSR.

We can already make the stadium bigger / make changes (subject to planning) and we will still need planning to make changes if we buy it outright.

It may make raising debt secured against the stadium easier. Emphasis on may.

In the round, as a club they will want to do it for the reasons given.
In the round, as a supporter, I’d rather it remained with the council irrespective of that as owners present and future can’t bugger about as much.

Thanks for this.

Any idea how much Swansea.com are paying ?

 

[IAN05]

I agree but as I said, if we’re that close we are storing up trouble and you’d have expected different financial decisions to have been made.

More likely imo to be not wanting to pay the first part of the fee now for cash flow purposes rather than PSR which is what I said yesterday. (Which is fair enough by the way).
The main thing is the player is here and looks to be filling a gaping hole we’ve had, namely creativity. Let’s hope he does as expected.

He certainly looks like the type of player we have been missing.

I'm not sure it indicates that we are storing up trouble though as the expectation is for significantly improved commercial revenue and next season brings new regulations.

 

[Londonlisa2001]

Thanks for this.

Any idea how much Swansea.com are paying ?

Not an awful lot I don’t think.

From memory, it was rumoured that they’d paid less p.a. than Liberty did (when we were in league 1). But not certain so that may be incorrect.

 

[Londonlisa2001]

He certainly looks like the type of player we have been missing.

I'm not sure it indicates that we are storing up trouble though as the expectation is for significantly improved commercial revenue and next season brings new regulations.

It would genuinely be poor management if we were so close that £300k tipped us over.

I don’t think we are to be honest. We lost a lot of high earners last summer (the amounts that players that were bit part for us like Pedersen were on was crazy). Plus Grimes was a high earner (replaced by O’Brien who was very high), plus Allen and Naughton retired who were high earners. We lost a lot from our monthly cost base. And lots of lesser paid players went (our overall numbers dropped a lot). And Coleman was being paid a fair whack. And we shed quite a bit of back room cost with Gorringe’s cuts.

We have of course had the hit of sacking yet another coaching team. But the new ones will be on relatively low wages. And we’d not really have been doing stuff like paying Britts and Allen on coaching staff on top of the Matos coaching team and hiring a bunch of media people if we were really tight.

I mean we won’t have loads to spare as we have terrible commercial income and didn’t sell much in the way of players last summer. But we won’t be within £300k unless we are spending on some strange stuff that we don’t know about.

 

[Londonlisa2001]

BTW - I’ve seen lots of talk about new rules from next year.

They are coming in for the premier league (85% squad cost rule) and expected for the championship (I’m not certain they’ve had the final vote as yet and what % will be in place). It’s slightly unclear whether it’s a benefit or otherwise for us (as our playing budget is such a high percentage of our total cost). Obvs if our commercial revenue and player trading revenue is higher that will benefit us whatever the system.
But it’s designed (in the championship) to really help the relegated clubs more than anything else. For us it may be beneficial but not certain - it depends on the details.

 

[Flash]

It would genuinely be poor management if we were so close that £300k tipped us over.

I don’t think we are to be honest. We lost a lot of high earners last summer (the amounts that players that were bit part for us like Pedersen were on was crazy). Plus Grimes was a high earner (replaced by O’Brien who was very high), plus Allen and Naughton retired who were high earners. We lost a lot from our monthly cost base. And lots of lesser paid players went (our overall numbers dropped a lot). And Coleman was being paid a fair whack. And we shed quite a bit of back room cost with Gorringe’s cuts.

We have of course had the hit of sacking yet another coaching team. But the new ones will be on relatively low wages. And we’d not really have been doing stuff like paying Britts and Allen on coaching staff on top of the Matos coaching team and hiring a bunch of media people if we were really tight.

I mean we won’t have loads to spare as we have terrible commercial income and didn’t sell much in the way of players last summer. But we won’t be within £300k unless we are spending on some strange stuff that we don’t know about.

How is it bad management? I’d say if it’s a sign of good management to be as close to the cap as possible. If we were millions under I would say that’s wasted potential performance.

 

[Frankie Burrows Cap]

How is it bad management? I’d say if it’s a sign of good management to be as close to the cap as possible. If we were millions under I would say that’s wasted potential performance.

I’m not sure losing £13-14 million per season for 3 consecutive years can be seen as good management no matter how bonkers football finances are.

Relying on owners with no real attachment to the club covering that for a prolonged period is risky at best IMO.