Guided Missile

15 times? I doubt you turned up once, to see if it worked....

Fan power, in the form of the Saints Trust, et al, bought us the Wilde revolution, arguably the most financially damaging period in the club's history. Now, instead of the Trust, we have a spotty faced 16 year old student, behind whom the "fans" have lined up. We must have the largest number of brainless sheep in our fanbase than any other club in the country. I searched the Charlton fansites for any sign that in East London they have anything approaching our sad moaning, excuses for supporters, but all I found was this. I like the early replies to the blog, which sum it up for me. "Medium sized club, did well, stupid fans living in cloud cuckoo land always demand more. Same story that always happens, it just took longer to play out at Charlton. There are over 50 clubs in the league who's fans think they should be in the premier league within 5 years" "We were not guilty of over-ambition or unrealistic expectations. Curbishley did a magnificent job for the club, but his time had come and as Southampton and others before us found, if you have a limited ground capacity and resources you only need one bad season in the Premiership and you're in trouble. Stability is great, but it was soon clear that Dowie was the wrong choice (the potential candidates for the job were not exactly impressive). Pardew came close to keeping Charlton in the Premiership but failed to shape a team for a bounce back, despite good backing from the board. That paved the way for inevitable cutbacks/player sales for this season and continued turmoil. Yes, this is a tough time for the club. But administration is not likely, we own our own ground, have a very strong bond between the fans and the board (it is wrong to suggest that the fans' director was axed because of his actions, it was a sensible move to replace a fans' director with a consultative fans forum), and continue to stand out for community relations. We may struggle for some years, whether or not we stay up this season, but we won't lose our sense of identity and when we come back it will be with a retained sense of the real meaning of success and failure." Saints have a crap board and crap fans, IMHO...

I look at your post count and can't help thinking that the need for this thread is to prove how unfair life is, when anyone is made redundant ahead of you. (Alpine nervously glances behind him, as he hides this website with a random spreadsheet)

The MD and FD resigned on the 10th October, 2007!! The last director, S.C. Wren (apart from Wilde) resigned on December 1st, 2007, a resignation that was not authorised by the company secretary and notified to Companies House until January 9th, 2009!!! Wilde is now the last man standing at Merlion Group Limited. I think that if administrators are appointed, there will be some very interesting questions asked of his conduct since then....

For anyone that's interested, here's some information on the duties and responsibilities of a director of a company and with that, I'm off to have a stiff brandy.... "It is important to be able to identify if your company or business is insolvent. The directors of an insolvent company have a duty to protect creditors’ interests and maximise funds for creditors. If as a director you fail to take correct action you may be found to be in breach of your duty of care to the company. This could result in you being required to make a contribution out of your private funds to the company’s assets or disqualified from acting as a director."

As Warren Buffet observed: "It’s only when the tide goes out that you learn who’s been swimming naked"

A re-read shows me that the highest paid director of Merlion Group paid himself £940K in 2006, compared with £183,740 in 2005. Who could justify that type of pay, whilst the company is losing over £2.5M? I think I'll now look up the penalties for directors of companies who trade whilst insolvent. I should think they're pretty severe...

It wasn't his cash, actually....it was the company's, which had, during the 12 months to the 31st December, 2006, increased the amount of money it owed, by over a million (creditors due within 12 months increased from £15.4M to £16.5M). Strange year to increase director's wages by nearly £1.3M. That strategy is beginning to sound very familiar.....

One fact jumped out of the accounts. Remuneration is respect of the Directors was £1,747,507 in 2006 compared with £468,575 in 2005, despite the loss increasing from over £700K to over £2.5M. The remuneration of the highest director was £940K!!!!!! No dividend was paid in 2006, unsuprisingly, but, given the above "remuneration" who needs a divi. ?

No real suprises, but the long awaited accounts for the Merlion Group for the 2006 year have been filed at Company's House. 15 months overdue, reading them explains why Wilde himself is unwilling to commit a cent to his investment in Southampton. He signed them on January 29th, 2009, only 15 months late and they read like a train wreck. To quote the auditors: "The group incurred a loss after tax of £2,597,149 during the year that ended 31st December, 2006 and, at that date, the group's liabilities exceeded its total assets by £2,253,781. These conditions.....indicate the existence of a material uncertainty which may cast significant doubt about the group's ability to continue as a going concern." Jeez, why the hell he used his money to invest in a football club whilst his own company needed every penny at the same time, says everything about the man....

Brought to mind this article: "In 1980, callow and fresh out of grammar school, I wanted to become a "squaddie". My background - rare among recruits of that era - meant I came in for some fearful abuse from my training corporals. They made my life hell. And that was part of their job. They realised that if I left training and went to my regiment with my grammar-school mores and methods still intact then I would not have lasted five minutes. They had to make me change - in essence, conform - while I was still in their "care". It was better by far that the corrective bullying be done by those training corporals rather than by others once in the regiment. I thank them for not having a "zero tolerance of bullying". The army needs soldiers who can hack it when the chips are down and who can put up with any amount of pain, discomfort, provocation and stress when they arrive in the Iraqs and Afghanistans of this world. Any recruit who cannot take "instances of abuse" in training should not be in the army. And those who cannot take the abuse will leave while still in training. Both the individual and the army are then better off."

I think a corporate bond may be the answer, which is redeemable when/if we return to the Premiership. Payment of a free signed home shirt or item of similar value could be attractive instead of an interest payment and the bonds could be sold or transferred by the owners.

The game is on, according to the Sheffield local rag, this morning. "BREAKING: Owls and Blades games to go ahead Published Date: 03 February 2009 BOTH SHEFFIELD United and Sheffield Wednesday's games are still on...so far."

Local businesses would support the club and it's players, not Crouch, or any other individual. I decided a couple of weeks ago that £400 to sponsor Saga for the rest of the season was good value. The (presumably) lovely and (definitely) efficient Danielle Lewis, the sponsorship executive at the club responded quickly to my email and even before I had signed the agreement, she had made sure that my companies name and logo appeared after Saga's name at the Donnie game. We lost, he scored, but, I tell you what, with my son next to me jumping into the air when he stuck the ball in the back of the net, while most of the stadium were fighting with each other or moaning, was one of the best moments I've enjoyed at the ground. In addition to the enjoyment of having a player that is "mine" I get a signed shirt and two tickets to the presentation dinner at the end of the season and a chance to meet Saga with my son. What a bargain and even with the recession, without doubt the best £400 I've spent since my last visit to "Your Eyes Only". Leon might be trying to rally the local businessmen behind some sort of power play, but why ruin the investment by further dividing the club. Phone Danielle up at the club up and tell her what you can afford to spend on sponsorship. In my opinion she'll try and involve you in the club and who knows, in addition to helping the club, you may feel part of it again.

I think Wilde should have read Alan Sugar's biography, particularly this part: "In 1991, Sugar along with Terry Venables bought Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Sugar's relationship with Venables turned acrimonous and court battle ensures. Alan Sugar stated that his time spent at Spurs was a "waste of my life". In 2001, after several death threats towards him and his family, Sugar sold most of his shares to ENIC Sports Ltd, represented by Daniel Levy - effectively the current chairman of the club." It was all bound to end in tears. The nature of football, I'm afraid.

The graph shows average, not total attendances....

If the figures for the total capacity were available (maybe Duncan has them) prior to the all seater Dell being introduced, I would have posted them. I have the average gates and the list is as follows: Year Ave. attn. 2008 21,254 2007 23,556 2006 23,614 2005 30,610 2004 31,699 2003 30,680 2002 30,633 2001 15,115 2000 15,132 1999 15,133 1998 15,159 1997 15,105 1996 14,822 1995 14,689 1994 14,764 1993 15,148 1992 15,291 1991 17,122 1990 16,484 1989 15,584 1988 14,544 1987 14,950 1986 14,877 1985 18,046 1984 18,089 1983 18,799 1982 21,835 1981 21,482 1980 21,335 1979 21,330 1978 21,167 1977 19,480 1976 17,648 1975 15,910 1974 21,128 1973 18,118 1972 21,191 1971 22,267 1970 22,901 1969 22,492 1968 24,665 1967 25,527 1966 18,919 1965 17,123 1964 17,217 1963 15,267 1962 13,763 1961 18,665 1960 18,052 1959 21,540 1958 14,851 1957 14,784 1956 11,612 1955 14,724 1954 14,885 1953 16,159 1952 19,038 1951 21,816 1950 23,894 1949 25,384 1948 20,789 1947 16,597 1993-94 was when the Dell was made an all seater, but the average attendances prior to that got nowhere near the St. Mary's years and I suspect nor did the total attendances.

I think the hyperbole posted on this site regarding the attendances at Southampton FC home games really needs to be considered over the long term. The financial problems that the club now faces are purely the responsibility of those that run the plc, as this history of the total number of fans paying to watch the continual underachievement over the last 20 years, demonstrates: Year Total attn 2008 519,615 2007 574,182 2006 586,819 2005 653,587 2004 677,357 2003 728,536 2002 597,672 2001 330,672 2000 333,896 1999 314,167 1998 325,015 1997 341,481 1996 361,221 1995 369.513 1994 326,643 1993 336,208 1992 478,328 1991 429,416 1990 409,534 1989 355,663

On a serious note, I didn't mean buy something you will enjoy, that will not have a chance of increasing in value. I really think that equities at the moment are too risky and bonds and gilts just won't give adequate returns to fund retirement. My gut feel is that now is the time to buy art, antiques and if you can stretch to it, UK property in prime locations. You can enjoy the art and antiques, rent the property out and you must be able to get a better return than the banks are offering. As far as pension funds, they've done their b***** in over the last year or so and I can't see that changing...

One of the more amusing things to come out of the present situation is that my missus was very upset 3 years ago when I bought a new Range Rover. She said I should have invested the money instead. My bank manager at Barclays agreed with her, but luckily, I ignored both of them. The car has depreciated less in three years than Barclay's shares have in the last 12 months.....:smt044 Come to think of it, Southampton Leisure shares have performed better than Barclay's have.... So my advice is to go out and buy something that will cheer you up and help shorten the recession. Saving is for the Japanese and they have the highest suicide rate in the world.

At least I can spell "the"....

This is a normal response for someone that has adopted the main characteristic of the French, namely an inflated sense of national pride, despite all evidence to the contrary. :yawinkle: On the subject of credit default swaps, I'm pretty sure that the German, French and UK government bonds are about as risk-free as any investment could be. Now, if we talk about Irish, Greek, Portuguese, Spanish and Italian bonds, they are only slightly safer at the moment, than shares in Southampton Leisure plc. I'm sure your colleagues are watching those CDS's rise nearly as quick as unemployment rates in the City....(sorry about that one)

Jonah, I think you should have read the comments on that highly misleading Spectator article you quoted, particularly this one, that I think is on the money: AlexM December 11th, 2008 6:23am Sorry, Fraser. Far be it from me to defend the worst Prime Minister and (by a country mile) worst Chancellor of the Exchequer this country has ever had, but you're slightly wide of the mark here. For a start, there is nothing remotely new or original about these data. They are a standard derivation from the International Investment Position (IIP) published quarterly by most countries according to IMF-defined standards. These ratios may not be widely known by the public (or journalists) but are common knowledge in the markets and should already be fully reflected in prices and exchange rates. I'm sure Michael Saunders will be flattered by your praise but this is very elementary stuff for a credit analyst. Secondly, it is the net external debt ratio that is important. Quite a few developed countries have much larger external debt/GDP ratios than the UK but these liabilities are matched by liquid external assets. All countries with large international banking sectors *by definition* have outsized gross external liabilities (e,g, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Hong Kong, Singapore, Aruba, Cayman Islands, Malta, Cyprus, to name a few) but, of course, banks (however imperfectly) have to balance their liabilities with assets. In most cases, these countries are net external creditors. Some external assets will be dodgy US securities but, in the greater scheme of things, these are unlikely to be enough to affect national-level ratios. As I am on holiday at the moment, I cannot furnish you with the detailed numbers but, off the top of my head, I believe the UK's net external debt is nearer 30% of GDP. Certainly it is not out of line with other G7 countries. Indeed, Moody's and Standard & Poor's consider that external debt ratios are irrelevant from a credit perspective for countries with fully convertible reserve currencies and do not even quote them (Fitch Ratings do). I must admit, you had me worried until I noticed the name of the financial genius of a credit analyst that constructed the graphs you linked. Michael Saunders from CitiGroup!!!! :smt044 I think he should concentrate more on Citigroup's external asset and debt position, assuming he's still in a job....

I know most of the readers of this exchange may be bored, but as usual, I enjoy our exchanges. The scary figures you quote are from this link, I assume. I think the author tries to confuse gross external debt with net external debt, which I think is disingenous. The reason is that for many years, the UK have been second, only to the US, in regard to total foreign investments and ahead of Japan and Germany. We have punched above our weight for years in this regard and it is not suprising that due to the large scale of foreign investments, we have associated debts. What the figures do not include are the associated foreign assets held by UK entities. The net figure is a better indicator of our foreign indebtedness. Simply put, if I have €150,000 in cash deposits in Germany and I have borrowed €100,000 against these deposits, you can hardly say I am €100,000 in debt. Isn't this right?

I used this as a secondary source: "Public sector net debt, expressed as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), was 44.2 per cent at the end of November 2008, compared with 43.1 per cent at end of November 2007. Net debt was £650.0 billion at the end of November, compared with £617.1 billion a year earlier. The most recent figures for public sector net debt excluding financial sector intervention are for September 2008, when net debt was £562.6 billion (38.3 per cent of GDP)." There's nothing else for us to do now, though. We're just going to be forced to ask Um Pahars who is right....