Gorgiesaint

What does having a higher number of posts have to do with it, Gordon? Actually I agree with Moonraker & Sidthe squid's comment, surely that's what being a fan is about. And by the way - Moonraker may have only posted a few times but he's been a member of this forum for longer than you have. But (I imagine) he's like me that he comes and views whats written but doesn't always feel the need to get involved in a slanging match on here.

I quote - These conditions, together with the other matters explained in the Statement of Accounting Policies, indicate the existence of a material uncertainty which may cast doubt about the Group’s ability to continue as a going concern. Auditors casting doubt about a companies ability to continue as a going concern - pretty damning from where I'm sitting!!

The thing that concerned me was the increase in financial liabilities from £884k to £6.62m - I'd be interested to see the accounts that get lodged with companies house to see the notes attached regarding this.

SaintRichmond - be careful what you wish for Administration is not the automatic answer that you seem to think it will be. If go into admin, there is no guarantee that we won't end up with Lowe and/or Wilde in complete control of the club but we will be almost certain to be in L1 with even less income. And administration doesn't just get rid of our debts - they will still remain. If the club does go private then supporters will have no say (shareholders have a limited say) in how the club is run, and there will be no check on how much the owner then takes out of the club. Shareholders who do not support the current regime at least provide some check on what goes on.

Every little helps. What would have been more interesting though, would have been a comment in the accounts relating to our position on paying taxes (and the recent report that 60 or so clubs are in arrears). Where are we in relation to this? Are we up to date or is there another debt tucked away that still needs to be tackled?

Crouch had the support of the bank & Lowe has the support (just) at the moment. I agree Lowe's ego is the major problem & you are right when things go wrong, but name a plc chairman who will comment on his own failings in public. Sorry but they won't ever. Right now we are stuck with Lowe & Wilde until someone comes along with (much) deeper pockets & buys the three ego's out. Lowe is unpopular and a small part of that is down to having to make some tough decisions now. I wasn't in favour of his return but have to admit out of him, Wilde & Crouch - I would choose Lowe to be the one making those decisions.

You don't need Lowe or Wilde to explain it. I believe (IMHO) that it means that with our current income levels we cannot afford to pay the loan on the stadium & reduce the overdraft with Barclays in the way they have requested, therefore we are trying to negotiate new terms with the loan note holder which would allow us to afford the repayments. Failure with either the loan note holder or the bank and it's administration for us.

So what else should he be doing that he already isn't? Lowe got us relegated? - some of his decisions certainly didn't help but I think that you'll find it was the team that actually got us relegated on the pitch I'm no fan of Lowe & would rather he and Wilde (& Crouch for that matter) were out of our club, but until we find someone with some money to buy out their shares, we are stuck with what we have got.

Thanks - be interesting to get a copy of those accounts when they get published

Actually just seen the last paragraph The auditors have reported on those accounts; their report was unqualified and did not contain statements under Section 237 (2) or (3) of the Companies Act 1985. However, it did contain an emphasis of matter paragraph which drew attention to the material uncertainties surrounding the going concern assumptions as set out above. The auditors report attached the last set of accounts was particularly damning - why would their report be unqualified this time around? Not sure if anything should be read into this but just seems a little odd.

And no one has answered the question as to why these accounts are unaudited and therefore not suitable for companies house? What will those accounts show?

In the event that the Group do not comply with the terms of the new overdraft facility being discussed and the agreement still to be reached with the loan note holder such that the facilities would be withdrawn, alternative financing would need to be found for the Group to continue as a going concern. The Directors would then consider seeking additional opportunities for finance from internal sources. Does this mean that they would put their hands in their pockets as a last resort? If so, why wait until then - if they have the funds why not put them in now, save us selling any players in January and allow the squad to continue developing.

Whether we are PLC or privately owned, if the bank wants the £4.5m overdraft reduced then it will get reduced by hook or by crook - and if the shareholders or owners won't put money in then it's administration either way. As someone else has already said, there have been no dividends for 3 years so the shareholders are hardly making a fortune!!! The comment at the end regarding going concern and the cash flow forecast that 'The Directors have prepared cash flow forecasts for the period to 30 November 2009 which include the sales of various assets, further cost reductions and deferrals, and rely on the support of the bank and loan note holder' indicates that we will be selling, however doesn't state whether its January or at the end of the season, but I do feel that Barclays will want action sooner rather than later. One last point - these accounts are unaudited and do not constitute 'statutory accounts' with the companies act. By accountancy knowledge is not that good so maybe someone else can help - does this mean that a different audited set of accounts are lodged with companies house?

Spot on. However I doubt that Crouch is able to unite the club either, he is too tainted with Lowe & Wilde as the Three Ego's that are ruining the club. So it's back to the original question, who? The name that sticks out is Salz, but he appears to need the financial backing of others to be in a position & even then, would he want to be in that position? As for who will supply the money to buy out Lowe, Wilde & Crouch, who knows? In the short term, we are stuck with what we have. The interesting bit, as has been discussed already is what the accounts will says when they are published in the next week or so (are we a going concern?) and how many players we lose in the January window.

You may or may not be right about Saga ever playing for us again, but don't kid yourself, he's hardly set danish football on fire. Aab Aalborg are in 8th place out of 12 in the Danish League & Saga has one goal in 14 league games!!

or are there going to be changes as a result of the latest annual accounts which would be published around that time?

The one that says that tackling 2 footed is a red card offence!! This is an example of where the law is an ass. The Wolves player gets there & makes contact with the ball - he also went in with 2 feet but goes unpunished. Euell gets there a fraction of a second later & it's a straight red card. By the letter of the law, the ref has made the right decision & although for there to be no middle ground is ridiculous. Therefore, there is no point appealing this one. The chances of getting it overturned are nil. Thats the FA, UEFA & FIFA for you for wanting to stop football being a contact sport.

Interesting comparison - lucky enough to get a ticket for Real Madrid v Juventus at the Bernabeu on Wednesday, great atmosphere with both sets of fans mingling before & after the game. Even had a few pockets of Juventus fans in with the home fans without any trouble. Leaving the ground, bit of bother with one Spanish lad having a go at someone else in the tube station, the policeman who was next to me whipped out his batten, shouted at him to keep still, he didn't so he hit him as hard as he could in the ribs. The guy ran off, but I can bet he'll think twice about starting anything next time. Basically treat fans with respect & you get respect back. By the way, Del Piero also got a standing ovation from the Real fans when he was taken off - they recognise quality when they see it.

Pearce was immense for us yesterday. Not just with the goal, but was strong in the air. Despite that, we still looked weak at a couple of set pieces towards the end of the first half. What really impressed me, given that he is only 19, is the way he organised things at the back. He was constantly talking to Olly and the full backs and generally making sure that the rest of the defence was doing what they should be doing! We did look much more stable when Cork moved to right back in the second half, and JP should stick to the team that started the second half against Bristol City on Saturday. Now any chance we can find some money to buy Pearce in January?

Great support from the fans and in particular the second half. Now, if we can get the same level of singing at SMS on saturday against Bristol City....

Just back from Preston & what a second half performance!! If Alex Pearce keeps playing like that then we need to try and keep him - he organised the defence brilliantly & topped it off with the goal to start the fightback. Big up to Oscar Gobbern who came on at half time, looked really good on his debut. Been a long time since I enjoyed a Saints game that much!!

What - that our threads are depressing, SFC are a shambles or that Kaizer Soze's been driven to drink??

What a complete f***ing shambles our club has become. I am now thinking that administration, and the pain that comes with it, may be the answer - it would be a mercy killing anyway! At least we would hopefully start afresh & rebuild in L1 or L2 without any of the clowns that have run our club in the last few years. It may be the only way out.

Agree with much of what you say Phil. My main concern (as you indicated) is that despite the bank allowing us to trade our way out of trouble, they will be much tighter with the purse strings. If the cash-flow now still has more going out than in, then they may refuse to sanction any increase (however small in the overdraft) - that then leads to others not being paid, and the downward spiral to administration. It will be interesting to see that when the results come out, what other statements ar made about our financial position to see if the cuts made have made enough of a difference.

So if you are a true Saints fan, then how do you support your desire for the club to go into administration which you posted on the 'foresight' thread?