jonah

OK, so you'd want to shut down anything that isn't football-related, such as stadium concerts, non-matchday hospitality and corporate events, etc? I can see why people want this focus on football, but I think it's completely wrong to ignore alternative revenue streams which can help fund the football as clubs need every penny they can get to remain competitive - the risk is with revenue streams which may turn out to be a loss, eg. the radio station, although obviously this can be partly classified as football-related since it was supposed to be a service for fans. But does that make the problem the idea itself or the execution of that idea? Well it's a nice thought, but I'm not sure it's very realistic - success brings stability, but "success" is a subjective term in itself.

What does that mean though? It's the exact woolly phrase that Wilde used in his infamous manifesto - it doesn't mean anything and can't really be quantified can it?

I partly agree, just like JP wasn't plucked from obscurity either - a World Cup finalist no less. But whichever way you dress it up, he wasn't a league manager was he - which is why nobody thought he'd be on a short-list for a 13 match run-in when everyone assumed we'd go for an experienced manager. I remember Dave Merrington saying he was "shocked" at the appointment. I didn't realise we had to be charitable - I would feel more like being charitable about his appointment if there were more things to be charitable about... apart from some hindsight of seeing how he did at a totally different club, with totally different finances and in a totally different league, I'm only left with the facts that he phoned NP out of the blue after we lost to BR in the cup and he made him manager the next day. I said I was glad we stayed up and that was what ultimately mattered as far as that decision was concerned (despite Crouch's claims we were heading to the playoffs). I'm sure he's a nice enough bloke, but why does everything on here have to be about how "nice" people are rather than whether they actually do a decent job? Hence my quip about someone was bound to mention him in this context. That NP was "nice". Lee Hoos was "nice". To keep this balanced this is also the guy who advocated us increasing wages at a time when cuts were desperately required, and who blindly accepted Wilde's claims at face value with no proof of investment (something we discussed in private and he wouldn't accept Wilde couldn't be trusted). Having claimed it was all about Wilde's vision and plans and that was what convinced him to join SFC rather than other jobs, he then helped kicked him out yet stayed on for a full 2 years. He then took a full payoff and popped up at Leicester within a couple of weeks (though the blame for that lies more with the muppets who fixed the payoffs and wrote the contracts!). I'm pleased to hear he helped with GITR, because when the Chernobyl Kids came over to SMS (funded by saintslist) he was unable to keep his lunchtime appointment with them which didn't look very good - afterwards they were told he was delayed in a meeting. Not a big deal in itself, but there you go.

You've got to be kidding, they only hit the D&G panic button on the Sunday and the first phone call was to NP which was the first he'd even heard about it (despite Crouch's claims it was a "thorough process") - and the day after he was appointed manager. So let's at least call a spade a spade, NP was plucked from obscurity the same as JP and MW, had even less experience in management and had a similar record points/game record whilst in charge. I'm happy enough that the end result of scraping survival by 20 minutes justified those means at the time (despite us previously heading for the playoffs), but taking NP off Chris McMenemy's books was no more astute than taking on JP - they were unknowns and a gamble. After 13 matches there was little difference other than the fact NP left to be euligised on here whereas JP had to carry on - and nobody was that unhappy with JP after 13 matches either. So yes, well done NP on getting Leicester, promoted, but so what? It's cringeworthy trying to make this some veiled "look at what we could have won" type analogy - different players, different finances, different league. And you know full well that if NP had been kept on and we were still in this position then you'd have a different tune - blaming lack of investment or not getting rid of him sooner, etc. I can't believe how many people are more interested in still trying to score points than in supporting SFC - all we need now is someone to start mentioning Lee Hoos and how we missed out on his abilities too...

Stanley, you can argue the point til you're blue in the face but the fact remains that one bloke selling £450 of shares was enough to drop the share price 10% - it's an illiquid AIM stock in the middle of the worst recession since 1931 or earlier. Sh!t happens, it doesn't mean anything in the context of us going into administration. Well we tried that when Wilde came on the scene but everyone then thought wasting £1m on an EGM to remove Lowe was money well spent. It doesn't matter what facts are presented because people will spin and lie to suit their own agendas - hence why people are desperately trying to think up reasons to back Crouch despite him actually having very similar traits to Lowe. There is no ability to think about it logically still, it remains a popularity contest.

Oh yes, the day that someone sold an incredible, whopping £450 worth of shares and the price dropped 10% - so whilst I stupidly suggested that was completely irrelevant and unrelated to our plight, what are you suggesting? That someone at the club had tipped off a punter in Basingstoke about pending administration when Barclays had yet to bounce the cheques or cancel the overdraft? I can certainly see your point, the chance to make £450 through insider trading must have been very tempting...

2nd place goes to Mr Len Wilkins! Congratulations Len, come up here and join alpine on the losers rostrum. You both win employment contracts with Crouch's local firms. On no, wait, he's made you redundant... but never mind, because he's boasting about having £2m cash to waste in the local papers so it's not all bad news is it? Meanwhile, why not comment on the calamitous series of cokcups and faux pas he made in his brief spell at the club - after all, the thread is about Crouch not Lowe.

Oh dear so alpine_obsessive is first out of the blocks, I wonder who will be next? Crayon Boy? SaintRobbie? So back to the thread subject - Crouch. Apart from the lack of integrity, PR, common sense and financial ability, he's a bit of a catch then is he?

You see it's hard to even start to take you seriously when you have to say things like that. It's like S4E all over again. Quite right - I don't remember any b*ll*cks about "we got our club back" or hollow promises of putting in cash, just a statement that he would try his best to get the club out of the mess it was in. But of course you're trying to steer a conversation about Crouch round to one about Lowe, anyone would think people were obsessive about the bloke... Personally I think he's pushing Wilde in terms of unsuitability: * Burst onto the scene by claiming he would make "significant financial investment" in Saints in January 2006 * Paid 20% over market price and quickly showed he didn't really know what was going on at the club * Promised to proxy 100,000 shares to the Saints Trust but never did * Having bought the right to choose the future of the club's direction, failed to do any due dilligence on Wilde and fell for the most blatant lies about investment in the history of football (well nearly :-)) * Having brought Wilde to power, started to make hollow promises of £2m cash (since 2007 or so?) * Together with Wilde hid behind the Takeover Panel as an excuse for not being able to invest in the club * Having then become chairman, still wouldn't put any money into the club despite being in charge - if you won't do it then Leon, when will you? * Having stated in the program notes that we were "financially secure and don't need to release players", he errr, released players - Skacel and Rasiak out on loan (though as chairman he obviously left it to Hoos to tell us that) * Naive claims we were heading for the playoffs * Appointed Dodd & Gorman as the best management team to take us forward despite previously criticising the appointments of Gray and Wigley * Backtracked on that pretty quickly and plucked someone from obscurity to lead our fight for the playoffs, sorry I mean relegation * Lo and behold that "obscurity" was actually on the books of McMenemy & Co Agency * Crowed about his appointment of Pearson when we scraped survival in the last 20 minutes of the season thanks to other teams' failure to win - quite some result that given we were heading for the playoffs when he appointed D&G 3 months earlier * Continually told fans we were getting investment in 3 months. Or was it 6 months. Sometimes it was 9 months. He even stated "it's Paul Allen" as a fact * Ranted and raved at the company's AGM, behaviour so impetuous and childish that the AGM itself was nearly stopped, culminating in a grown man stomping to the front of the room and demanding that others (sheep) in the room walk out of a formal company meeting with him. Ah yes, the club's best interests at heart there again Leon * Continually claims to have £2m cash available to invest in the club, but still fails to save the club and lets it fall into administration So given so much nonsense in such a short period of time, it's hard to know what makes him so unsuitable - the poor PR, the lack of integrity, the poor decisions, or just generally opening his gob and having an opinion without thinking it through. No doubt some people are going to evangelise the bloke now, and others will somehow think addressing Crouch's flaws relates to Lowe (obsessives). I think these facts speak for themselves though.... I don't want Crouch anywhere near the club other than in an expensive box as a fan.

Oh dear 19C, you've brought out one of the Crayon Kid stalkers again... that must mean you have made a valid point. The issue is not whether Lowe or Wilde could have put in the cash to save the club, because neither of them (for whatever reason) claimed to have the cash to do so this season. Crouch was the one shooting his mouth off again saying he had £2m cash he would willingly put into the club - just not willingly enough to save it from administration and even possibly it's death it seems. I would quite happily file Crouch away as yet another gobsh!te loadsamoney who never actually put a penny into the club after boasting they would (like Wilde, Trant, etc), except he isn't stepping down and sitting back to let new people come in - he's still in the mix, still on the pitch demanding fans cough up to support the club and still acting like he owns the club. That's a problem because as we've seen since Wilde first came along, the last thing we need now are more hollow promises and fan-friendly rhetoric. Fingers crossed he really can't afford to buy into the club again and fingers doubly-crossed we get a new owner who isn't stupid enough to include any of the ex-Directors in future plans.

Maybe we'll get a millionaire (shortbread) after all? I think they are serviced offices... so probably just the registered address used by the formation agents.

I'd have thought the prices offered for both the stadium and SFC will be significantly different depending on where we end up come May 3rd. Hence it would be in the administrators/creditors interests to keep the companies running as going concerns until then whilst lining up the conditional bids - I wonder if they'll try to sell off Jacksons Farm asap to provide the working capital to continue until the relegation issue is decided. Or rather now, if the story is true, we have proceeds from the sale of Dyer. I guess the longer the administrator drags it out the more he can charge too?

It's not Southampton Football Club Limited, it's Southampton Football Company Limited - as stated, formed 9th April 2009, company number 06874662: SOUTHAMPTON FOOTBALL COMPANY LIMITED 2 OLD BATH ROAD NEWBURY BERKSHIRE UNITED KINGDOM RG14 1QL

Yes I think this is really the only thing that affects it - hence why Leicester's crowds have dropped 4,500 despite being top of Div 1, and why Birmingham have had poor crowds all season despite being in the automatic promotion spots all season. People can pretend that it's about board members, results and style of play, but really it's about the core support compared to the casual supporters... there's not a lot you can do about that, otherwise Luton would have been filling a 40,000 stadium right up until they went out of the league...

Yes they paid £35m to convert it and add another 15k (?) seats, but that's still a significantly reduced price for a stadium of that ilk which cost £90m to build. But the more important part is that they do NOT pay any rent on the stadium, just maintenance costs, unless the attendance is above 32,500 at which point the council take a share of the additional revenue from tickets (but not merchandising, hostpitality, etc). In other words they have funded a stadium at about 25% of true cost, bit of a bargain really - not a complete gift, I agree, but pretty damn good all the same! Of course the Lottery state that money should be used for public good and not for the gain of private companies, so why did they allow this? Sport England even had the cheek to suggest it didn't help Man City having the stadium rent-free for 25% of cost as the stadium does not provide part of the club's value - FFS, I'm sure Abu Dhabi were just a little interested in the costs to them of hosting the matches. If Soton council are going to get involved, at least there is a nice precedent with which to apply pressure about rent.

Quite, and in fact it was probably one of the more attractive elements of the deal as the Man City stadium deal was ricidulous - 86% funded by the Lottery and only 14% funded by the council. Very generous of the Lottery to provide the funding for a rent-free stadium for a private company. If Saints can somehow end up with a similar deal - ie. rent-free up to say 25,000 crowds - then we will, like City, have a great advantage over other clubs. Some hope there though!

Forensic accountants are as much use as a chocolate teapot, or in Ken Dulieu's case an orange teapot. I would never get a legal opinion from an accountant and I hope/assume the club and administrators haven't either. Legally they are separate entities so I can only see a (valid) 10 point deduction if they come up with some other reason to do so. Either way it'll end up in court so they might as well just toss a coin at the Football League and let the lawyers sort it out before next season starts.

Funny, cos he said the opposite in an article for that scintillating read "Accountancy Age":

They are different, they are not listed. I admit the companies we have exposure to are billion-dollar ones with typically billion-dollar reference obligations, but as far as I was aware the same would be true down the chain. How can an SPV issue loan notes without a rating? I didn't think that was allowed? Agreed, they also hedge with CDS instruments right? And they have certain criteria in terms of what they can and can't hold in their funds (eg. for pensions), and those include credit ratings - which is why when AAA companies get downgraded it causes such a problem as some funds have to sell up. Credit Rating agencies are usually nowhere near the curve are they? :-) Of course, but Crossley wasn't running an income fund was he? (question, not rhetorical! :-)) You know why, Secure had a full listing to start with and that was more relevant when raising the finance - do you think it would have been as easy on AIM? I don't defend him, at least I don't intend that to be the interpretation - I will defend the things I think he got right on the basis they were the right things to do at the time, nothing to do with it being *his* decision any more than it was Cowen's or anybody else's. FWIW, I've never spoken to the guy - maybe I'd think he was a condescending arse if I did, but on the other hand it means I'm just judging an action for what it is, not to be awkward or to try to support someone I've never even met.

And did you see their plan? The club said it had four elements to increase its financial growth; maintaining playing success, treating fans as customers, leveraging the global brand, and developing club media rights. Dear lord, the protests will be starting already!

This is not my understanding of events, Duncan - could you tell us the source of this? My understanding was that he clearly bought it for the club on the basis that the money would be paid back (interest free) in time when the club could afford it. I didn't hear the radio interview myself, but I thought Mary C confirmed this quite recently? I would like to hope that none of this will matter soon and we'll have completely new people in charge with all the old names out of the loop - wouldn't it be great to judge potential Directors on their own ability rather than something their relatives did half a century ago? But somehow I can't see it happening can you? I don't want that to start a separate debate, so back to the main point - I am concerned at the number of "bids" as in my mind this simply means more money for the administrators and more time wasted. I hope they have been strict on their starting criteria, lack of evidence of funds should have them kicked into touch... I imagine at least half of those expressions of interest are from dodgy middle-men with no funding of their own.

Listed in the SLH accounts, last valued in OCtober 2007 at £1.1m. No they did not! John Corbett bought it on Saints' behalf on the understanding he was repaid in full which he was. No donation, no gift, Saints paid for it.

As far as I'm aware it's the creditors who decide wrt offers, and that means the secured creditors (ie. Aviva) are the ones in control. As far as I know Barclays don't have a fixed charge do they? As for what we as fans want, well I'm afraid we're at the bottom of the pile too, the ones getting the say are Aviva, the ones getting the money are Aviva and the administrators. Beyond that, it's just fingers crossed it's somebody completely unrelated to the previous business at the club - from Lowe, Wilde, Crouch, Corbett, to LLS, Fulthorpe and Salz. But you can bet your life several of them are involved somewhere in the bids.

Thanks for clarifying Clapham Saint - am I right in thinking that they will also pay interest on the creditors debts before they pay any remaining money to shareholders? ie. the longer it drags on the more money is "lost" for shareholders?

I think the more intelligent shareholders realised the mess the club was in last summer and that this was an attempt to rescue us from that. I suspect they are more upset with why we had a £6.3m overdraft when we had just lost the parachute payments, no?