We Are In The Poo

[Window Cleaner]

your point, politely asking you to explain by answering my questions please?

 

 

no come on Alpine, have you actually seen this plan or have you just first hand knowledge of what it says?. You've put yourself on the hot seat, let's be having an answer then, put up or shut up as the say.

[NickG]

don't hold your breath....alpine...????

[EdgarAllanPoe]

How is this factual or how is a bad idea? If you are referring to walcot, restructuring the original transfer made a lot of sense, it will be many years before he has made enough competitive interntaional appearances to warrant any additional payments, if he ever does. So that was £2m which we may have never seen. If you are referring to Bale, there have been no accounts published that contain such figures, we probably won't see them until October.

 

While I agree with a lot of what you say, much of what you try to pretend is factual is actually just nonsense you made up, still I guess given your username we should not expect anything else.

 

I didn't say it was a bad idea. I said it was robbing Peter to pay Paul, which is a desperation measure, but one that they felt they had to take to avoid administration.

 

But in whose interest was it? Ours? The shareholders? The board?

 

If a club goes into administration it is provided with protection from it's creditors. The last board were not interested in taking the necessary measures now being taken, they were interested in protecting the many highly paid jobs of board members. Their strategy was to keep the balls in the air long enough to attract investment and hope to cling on or get severance packages from the new board.

 

So they negotiated away future revenue in order to sustain the company short term without taking the necessary cost-cutting measures now being taken. Net result, that money has been ****ed away on nothing.

 

Now we have a board who are governing the company exactly as it should be governed according to PLC rules, in the interests of the shareholders. If the company goes into administration the shareholders lose everything. So they are trying to keep the balls in the air long enough to attract investment.

 

If they don't attract investment, and every sign says they are failing to do so despite the sales pitch, the point I am making is that administration becomes more inevitable with every sub-break even date and every week the business plan is not fulfilled.

 

As for the posts about 'what was the business plan' obviously no-one knows this, but whatever the plan was it included assumptions and projections. It absolutely did not say 'the bank will continue to support the club when gates drop to 13,000, the team is bottom of the league and the high earners cannot be shifted. It was a reasonable assumption that certain players could be moved on back when the business plan was agreed with the bank in the summer. But that has not happened.

 

Which is why the title of this thread is deeply apposite. Gates may well not be what was assumed and players have not been sold that all parties might reasonably have expected to have moved on. Banks have to work with assumptions like everyone else, and have to balance the need to get the team doing something to keep the punters coming in, (Schneiderlin, Holmes and the new direction), and the need to show a projected return to profitability.

 

Banks agree plans with business all the time and many of them enter administration within weeks or months. Remember that banks also have a duty of care to their customers must show they have acted reasonably when calling in administrators. They have been forced to pay compensation to people for acting unreasonably in this way before, and with something as public as a football club they will do a lot to avoid it. Only when it has become obvious to everyone will they take the step. I would project that as being some time in October or November.

[EdgarAllanPoe]

How is this factual or how is a bad idea? If you are referring to walcot, restructuring the original transfer made a lot of sense, it will be many years before he has made enough competitive interntaional appearances to warrant any additional payments, if he ever does. So that was £2m which we may have never seen. If you are referring to Bale, there have been no accounts published that contain such figures, we probably won't see them until October.

 

While I agree with a lot of what you say, much of what you try to pretend is factual is actually just nonsense you made up, still I guess given your username we should not expect anything else.

 

I didn't say it was a bad idea. I said it was robbing Peter to pay Paul, which is a desperation measure, but one that they felt they had to take to avoid administration.

 

But in whose interest was it? Ours? The shareholders? The board?

 

If a club goes into administration it is provided with protection from it's creditors. The last board were not interested in taking the necessary measures now being taken, they were interested in protecting the many highly paid jobs of board members. Their strategy was to keep the balls in the air long enough to attract investment and hope to cling on or get severance packages from the new board.

 

So they negotiated away future revenue in order to sustain the company short term without taking the necessary cost-cutting measures now being taken. Net result, that money has been ****ed away on nothing.

 

Now we have a board who are governing the company exactly as it should be governed according to PLC rules, in the interests of the shareholders. If the company goes into administration the shareholders lose everything. So they are trying to keep the balls in the air long enough to attract investment.

 

If they don't attract investment, and every sign says they are failing to do so despite the sales pitch, the point I am making is that administration becomes more inevitable with every sub-break even date and every week the business plan is not fulfilled.

 

As for the posts about 'what was the business plan' obviously no-one knows this, but whatever the plan was it included assumptions and projections. It absolutely did not say 'the bank will continue to support the club when gates drop to 13,000, the team is bottom of the league and the high earners cannot be shifted. It was a reasonable assumption that certain players could be moved on back when the business plan was agreed with the bank in the summer. But that has not happened.

 

Which is why the title of this thread is deeply apposite. Gates may well not be what was assumed and players have not been sold that all parties might reasonably have expected to have moved on. Banks have to work with assumptions like everyone else, and have to balance the need to get the team doing something to keep the punters coming in, (Schneiderlin, Holmes and the new direction), and the need to show a projected return to profitability.

 

Banks agree plans with business all the time and many of them enter administration within weeks or months. Remember that banks also have a duty of care to their customers must show they have acted reasonably when calling in administrators. They have been forced to pay compensation to people for acting unreasonably in this way before, and with something as public as a football club they will do a lot to avoid it. Only when it has become obvious to everyone will they take the step. I would project that as being some time in October or November.

[broncoboy]

If the debt grows above agreed limits and attendances are falling there will be pressure to get what they can get back.

[broncoboy]

If the debt grows above agreed limits and attendances are falling there will be pressure to get what they can get back.

[saintwarwick]

If you had managed to struggle down to the next sentence you would have seen it. Administration was staved off by taking much reduced payments on outstanding transfers, a policy of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

 

This is factual, we know it happened because it is in the accounts. Look it up. Are you saying that avoiding administration would have been possible without those millions? I would like some of what you are smoking if so. The company was on a collision course with administration exactly as I said, at a time when people were in absolute denial, a place many people remain.

 

If everything is factual then why can you not provide the link to show your findings? I know we are strapped for cash but nowhere can I find that the administrators were knocking at the door, but as I said if you can supply these facts as you call them then I will take your post more seriously, until then I will treat it as another poster who is supposed to be ITK. By the way if the administrators were knocking at the door how did we fund the Schneiderlain deal?

[saintwarwick]

If you had managed to struggle down to the next sentence you would have seen it. Administration was staved off by taking much reduced payments on outstanding transfers, a policy of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

 

This is factual, we know it happened because it is in the accounts. Look it up. Are you saying that avoiding administration would have been possible without those millions? I would like some of what you are smoking if so. The company was on a collision course with administration exactly as I said, at a time when people were in absolute denial, a place many people remain.

 

If everything is factual then why can you not provide the link to show your findings? I know we are strapped for cash but nowhere can I find that the administrators were knocking at the door, but as I said if you can supply these facts as you call them then I will take your post more seriously, until then I will treat it as another poster who is supposed to be ITK. By the way if the administrators were knocking at the door how did we fund the Schneiderlain deal?

[OldNick]

Jesus H F**king Christ....

 

How the hell are accountants and bank managers to know whether Lowe and Cowen have planned for realistic attendance figures in their proposed budgets and plans ? Maybe Lowe and Cowen were clueless too.

So banks didnt have a business plan placed in front of them? RL walks into the Northam branch of Barclays and says 'dont worry we will be alright.' and the teller replies 'thats ok, we'll put another couple of mill aside for you.'

Tell us how YOU would have dealt with the present situation?

Taking into account we had losses of 200/300k a week to deal with.

You must also in your plan keep Rasiak and Saga because that is what you have banged on about.

So go on Mr Financial brain actually come up with a valid arguement/business plan.

 

 

I myself have this week contacted David Luker and asked why, as the corners are closed was that not used to have advertising on them especially where the cameras faced. It if implimented is something that will give the club more finance.

He did reply and said they were looking to do so.It was my daughters idea BTW not mine, but may give the club another revenue stream.

[NickG]

come on alpine we are waiting on your factual reply to enlighten us? Can't be that you made something up just to slag the club off so you must have the truth, go on tell us

[Window Cleaner]

come on alpine we are waiting on your factual reply to enlighten us? Can't be that you made something up just to slag the club off so you must have the truth, go on tell us

 

 

Well I don't know Nick, Alpine knows the team are crap-even though he's never seen them, he also knows the business plan is flawed,probably hasn't seen it either, must be a real Ouijah board buff,a medium, clairvoyant.

[Wes Tender]

The only people who are privy to what was agreed with the bank are the board and the bank. However, it is possible to speculate that the continuance of their support may have been based upon certain conditions and contingencies which might not currently be fulfilled. I suspect that the two areas where we fall short are the sale of certain players and the attendance levels. I would be extremely surprised if it was anticipated that players like Scacel and Euell would not have been sold at this stage and there are still funds going out to them in wages instead of cash going in. Also, we have Rasiak and Saganowski out on loan, whereas I suspect it was anticipated that they would also be sold, although at least they are off the wage bill for a while.

 

Surely the business plan put before the bank would also have anticipated attendances at a certain level as that and player costs are the two main factors determining revenue. A shortfall in revenue from player sales and an increase in wage costs because some players didn't want to leave, increases the numbers required through the turnstiles to balance the books.

 

It is clear to me that we are probably well short of that necessary figure of bums on seats, which is worrying. Of course a winning run would increase attendance figures, but other factors such as the economy, having people running the club who are despised by many, selling many well known names and playing unknown youngsters in their place, etc are not helpful in increasing attendances.

 

I suspect that it is things like this that Alpine was alluding to and whereas I have no hard evidence to back up my assumptions, I welcome posters picking holes in my analogy, provided that they have concrete evidence to support their arguments.

Edited 6 September, 2008 by Wes Tender

[NickG]

The only people who are privy to what was agreed with the bank are the board and the bank. However, it is possible to speculatee that the continuance of their support may have been based upon certain conditions and contingencies which might not currently be fulfilled. I suspect that the two areas where we fall short are the sale of certain players and the attendance levels. I would be extremely surprised if it was anticipated that players like Scacel and Euell would not have been sold at this stage and there are still funds going out to them in wages instead of cash going in. Also, we have Rasiak and Saganowski out on loan, whereas I suspect it was anticipated that they would also be sold, although at least they are off the wage bill for a while.

 

Surely the business plan put before the bank would also have anticipated attendances at a certain level as that and player costs are the two main factors determining revenue. A shortfall in revenue from player sales and an increase in wage costs because some players didn't want to leave, increases the numbers required through the turnstiles to balance the books.

 

It is clear to me that we are probably well short of that necessary figure of bums on seats, which is worrying. Of course a winning run would increase attendance figures, but other factors such as the economy, having people running the club who are despised by many, selling many well known names and playing unknown youngsters in their place, etc are not helpful in increasing attendances.

 

I suspect that it is things like this that Alpine was alluding to and whereas I have no hard evidence to back up my assumptions, I welcome posters picking holes in my analogy, provided that they have concrete evidence to support their arguments.

 

yours is a fair and reasonable post about justifiable concerns.

No-one could have a problem with it even if they disagree.

Alpine however is talking about the holes in the plan so clearly he knows what the plan is, think it would be great if he would share it with us

[ottery st mary]

yours is a fair and reasonable post about justifiable concerns.

No-one could have a problem with it even if they disagree.

Alpine however is talking about the holes in the plan so clearly he knows what the plan is, think it would be great if he would share it with us

 

Nick to be fair Alpine says very much the same as wes tender over the course of his posts but usually in his own unique way. His worry is the same as most of us.. We are in the proverbial and not everyone agrees your line is the best or only course of action.

Little ole me is very concerned in that no wins in next 4/5 games and the attendance and support for Lowey will.. Lowey has been there before and will he have the strength to hand over to Cowen or another last attempt.

[NickG]

if thats what he meant he should learn to communicate better, what he said is...

 

 

Another good post, though it doesnt even touch on the effect on attendance of the "petering out" of the teams performance.

 

The plan Lowe agreed with the bank is full of holes big enough to steer the Titanic (another sinking ship) through.

 

which is very different to showing concern about our finances.

 

I thought he must have known what he was talking about and so politely asked him to share his knowledge of the plan and where the holes were with us;) but as he is hiding from answering I am starting to wonder if he could possibly be throwing a direct criticism at Saints without knowing the facts? Surely not!

[ottery st mary]

Ego mean anything to some of you?

You two are not right all the time but I am most of the time.

That is when the wife allows me to be.

In the mean time remember your club needs your support not necessarily the Directors who are passing ships in the night and in my opinion do not really give a hoot for the mighty Saints. New Directors please. Forgotten tomorrow. Talk about Ego..

All your bickering never seems to resolve anything so who is right you or Alpine?

Does anybody really care.. not really but we should all respect your free will to post.

[OldNick]

The only people who are privy to what was agreed with the bank are the board and the bank. However, it is possible to speculate that the continuance of their support may have been based upon certain conditions and contingencies which might not currently be fulfilled. I suspect that the two areas where we fall short are the sale of certain players and the attendance levels. I would be extremely surprised if it was anticipated that players like Scacel and Euell would not have been sold at this stage and there are still funds going out to them in wages instead of cash going in. Also, we have Rasiak and Saganowski out on loan, whereas I suspect it was anticipated that they would also be sold, although at least they are off the wage bill for a while.

 

Surely the business plan put before the bank would also have anticipated attendances at a certain level as that and player costs are the two main factors determining revenue. A shortfall in revenue from player sales and an increase in wage costs because some players didn't want to leave, increases the numbers required through the turnstiles to balance the books.

 

It is clear to me that we are probably well short of that necessary figure of bums on seats, which is worrying. Of course a winning run would increase attendance figures, but other factors such as the economy, having people running the club who are despised by many, selling many well known names and playing unknown youngsters in their place, etc are not helpful in increasing attendances.

 

I suspect that it is things like this that Alpine was alluding to and whereas I have no hard evidence to back up my assumptions, I welcome posters picking holes in my analogy, provided that they have concrete evidence to support their arguments.

 

Wes s very good assessment I would say. As for bu## on seats we have had 2 home games 1 of 19k+ and 1 of 15k +. Which 1 would you suspect would be closer to the norm taking into account of match time and on tv, against a bigger club who brought a fair following but not a major one.

In the summer we had lots of posts on here with fans predicting 14-20k attendances.

A hard nosed banker who sees all the wild predictions from many businessmen take a view on the plan in front of them and can assess for themselves how far out the predictions are in their opinions.

if the predictions ar fanciful they would immediately be suspicious of the whole plan.

As I believe RL is a cautious type I would expect him to have used close to worst case scenario and then go from there.

[OldNick]

Ego mean anything to some of you?

You two are not right all the time but I am most of the time.

That is when the wife allows me to be.

In the mean time remember your club needs your support not necessarily the Directors who are passing ships in the night and in my opinion do not really give a hoot for the mighty Saints. New Directors please. Forgotten tomorrow. Talk about Ego..

All your bickering never seems to resolve anything so who is right you or Alpine?

Does anybody really care.. not really but we should all respect your free will to post.

Some of that is true except you being right of course.

In general I myself am much closer in thought to MR G

[NickG]

Ego mean anything to some of you?

You two are not right all the time but I am most of the time.

That is when the wife allows me to be.

In the mean time remember your club needs your support not necessarily the Directors who are passing ships in the night and in my opinion do not really give a hoot for the mighty Saints. New Directors please. Forgotten tomorrow. Talk about Ego..

All your bickering never seems to resolve anything so who is right you or Alpine?

Does anybody really care.. not really but we should all respect your free will to post.

 

not about opinions, or right and wrong -just about people making stuff up again, this man wrote of lightweight Schneiderlin -as he had not seen him and didn't realise he was actually pretty big and strong, said he could judge the team better than those who goes, and now says business plan has got big holes in it that he has easily spotted but the accountants and bank didn't!

Why shouldn;t he be asked to explain his comments?

 

Other poster here giving his concerns about the plan etc was quite reasonable and can't have a problem with any of his comments, even if they are negative they are explained and justified

[Wes Tender]

Wes s very good assessment I would say. As for bu## on seats we have had 2 home games 1 of 19k+ and 1 of 15k +. Which 1 would you suspect would be closer to the norm taking into account of match time and on tv, against a bigger club who brought a fair following but not a major one.

In the summer we had lots of posts on here with fans predicting 14-20k attendances.

A hard nosed banker who sees all the wild predictions from many businessmen take a view on the plan in front of them and can assess for themselves how far out the predictions are in their opinions.

if the predictions ar fanciful they would immediately be suspicious of the whole plan.

As I believe RL is a cautious type I would expect him to have used close to worst case scenario and then go from there.

 

Call me a cynic, but given that both Lowe and the Quisling Wilde were desperate to keep the club afloat in order to protect their shareholdings, having realised that the financial situation was desperate, would they tend to put forward the worst case scenario, or to tint it a little in shades of rosy pink? When it came to projecting revenue from attendances at matches, Lowe may have based his figures on historic attendances from the past couple of seasons in this division, which on the face of it was reasonable. Whether the bankers realised that there was an anti-Lowe/Wilde element who might boycott matches, whether they factored in that some might stay away because several known name players had been replaced by the youngsters, the economic downturn and other things is debateable.

 

If Lowe had provided the bank with worst case scenarios that factored in the current circumstances of attendances at this level and the failure to shift Scacel and Euell and the inability to sell Rasiak and Saganowski, fair enough, we still have some leeway. If on the other hand the bank was expecting a rather better situation, then they are entitled to be a bit peeved and nervous if attendance figures don't improve to the level deemed to be acceptable in order to cover the player situation.

[Wes Tender]

Other poster here giving his concerns about the plan etc was quite reasonable and can't have a problem with any of his comments, even if they are negative they are explained and justified

 

Realistic, please, or failing that pessimistic at the very least.

[OldNick]

Call me a cynic, but given that both Lowe and the Quisling Wilde were desperate to keep the club afloat in order to protect their shareholdings, having realised that the financial situation was desperate, would they tend to put forward the worst case scenario, or to tint it a little in shades of rosy pink? When it came to projecting revenue from attendances at matches, Lowe may have based his figures on historic attendances from the past couple of seasons in this division, which on the face of it was reasonable. Whether the bankers realised that there was an anti-Lowe/Wilde element who might boycott matches, whether they factored in that some might stay away because several known name players had been replaced by the youngsters, the economic downturn and other things is debateable.

 

If Lowe had provided the bank with worst case scenarios that factored in the current circumstances of attendances at this level and the failure to shift Scacel and Euell and the inability to sell Rasiak and Saganowski, fair enough, we still have some leeway. If on the other hand the bank was expecting a rather better situation, then they are entitled to be a bit peeved and nervous if attendance figures don't improve to the level deemed to be acceptable in order to cover the player situation.

Again neither of us know the truth of the plan put forward.RL coming from financial circles probably realises if you try to pull wool over there heads they soon would lose faith in any of your other predictions.So I hope he has been realistic

[Professor]

Quite frankly it is ridiculous for anyone to claim that all Lowe and Wilde are interested in is protecting their 'shareholding'. No one 'invests' in football club shares to make money and either L or W could have sold up at anytime in the last couple of years and walked away. Given the abuse that is heaped on them by some people it may be surprising that one or both have not done so. Perhaps that is the objective of the absusers who use descriptions such as 'quisling' to describe a man who came in after the relegation and has spent a lot of time and effort to try to help turn the club around. Wilde has certainly done a lot more than the Jeremiahs who put maximum effort into this message board to rubbish everything the club has tried to do in the last few months.

 

People are entitled to wish for different club management but it should be possible to do that without resorting to abuse, which inevitably then attracts responses, sometimes in a like ilk. It should also be possible to wish for different management but still have ones eyes open enough to see and acknowledge the things that are done with the best interests of the club in mind. Pleasingly, some people are doing that, lets hope that more will follow suit.

[Fowllyd]

Quite frankly it is ridiculous for anyone to claim that all Lowe and Wilde are interested in is protecting their 'shareholding'. No one 'invests' in football club shares to make money and either L or W could have sold up at anytime in the last couple of years and walked away. Given the abuse that is heaped on them by some people it may be surprising that one or both have not done so. Perhaps that is the objective of the absusers who use descriptions such as 'quisling' to describe a man who came in after the relegation and has spent a lot of time and effort to try to help turn the club around. Wilde has certainly done a lot more than the Jeremiahs who put maximum effort into this message board to rubbish everything the club has tried to do in the last few months.

 

People are entitled to wish for different club management but it should be possible to do that without resorting to abuse, which inevitably then attracts responses, sometimes in a like ilk. It should also be possible to wish for different management but still have ones eyes open enough to see and acknowledge the things that are done with the best interests of the club in mind. Pleasingly, some people are doing that, lets hope that more will follow suit.

 

Really? Who was going to buy Lowe's 6% of the total shareholding then? Or Wilde's 16%? Seems to me there's been a distinct scarcity of buyers, and you can't sell up if nobody's interested in buying.

[ottery st mary]

Some of that is true except you being right of course.

In general I myself am much closer in thought to MR G

 

Closer to who? God knows. Praise the Lord.

 

Your support of MR L is also allowed it is your opinion and I respect that

and let us hope he pulls it off. But where is the MR W who fronts for Lowey at the moment to a script and gets slated from some of your little group of like minded posters. But as long as he tows the party line then his medicine is working in your eyes and you appear to endorse his current stance almost as if you are judge and jury because Lowey says so. What is going on.

 

My opinion. Time is running out no results soon and I will hope Miss Staveley is coming round that corner.

 

In the meantime Nick rember this. You have Alpine as a friend and all he has got is you.

[ottery st mary]

not about opinions, or right and wrong -just about people making stuff up again, this man wrote of lightweight Schneiderlin -as he had not seen him and didn't realise he was actually pretty big and strong, said he could judge the team better than those who goes, and now says business plan has got big holes in it that he has easily spotted but the accountants and bank didn't!

Why shouldn;t he be asked to explain his comments?

 

Other poster here giving his concerns about the plan etc was quite reasonable and can't have a problem with any of his comments, even if they are negative they are explained and justified

 

Sorry you two nicks confuse me G and h. I keep getting you mixed up. You are not brothers in arms per chance?

[OldNick]

Closer to who? God knows. Praise the Lord.

 

Your support of MR L is also allowed it is your opinion and I respect that

and let us hope he pulls it off. But where is the MR W who fronts for Lowey at the moment to a script and gets slated from some of your little group of like minded posters. But as long as he tows the party line then his medicine is working in your eyes and you appear to endorse his current stance almost as if you are judge and jury because Lowey says so. What is going on.

 

My opinion. Time is running out no results soon and I will hope Miss Staveley is coming round that corner.

 

In the meantime Nick rember this. You have Alpine as a friend and all he has got is you.

MR G is NickG. As for the rest of the post you have lost me. Alpine my only friend?????? or me his???

I support RL in a lot of htis as I can see wht he is trying to do.MrW has seen sense and now seems to be in agreement that it is the correct way forward, he is a buinessman and is obviously not so stubborn not to accept he was wrong last time and now trying to resurrect the club with the plan.

I would rather the club be strong financially but still use the youth and a mix of older players but still playing the way we are.

OK it would be great to be like Man City and know you will be buying the best players in the world, but at the same time you watch all those 'Man City fans' come out of the woodwork rushing to buy s/ts all of a sudden.The fans who saw the bad days deserve all the success but just you wait for a couple of years and you will see their shirts on kids playing in the parks down here.Those clubs are devoid of soul and at present Im still proud as punch of being a Saints fan and know when Im at SMS the fans there are the lifeblood of our club and live and die Saints fans.

[ottery st mary]

You and Alpine that was a joke.

Now you as a Saints fan is great to hear. The rest is never going to be black and white.

Let us all hope for the best sorry I have been a bit cynical lately but apparently someone has said it all ends on Wednesday and I really wanted to see how the season was panning out after Sept/Oct.

 

Ps did you know Richard Donohoe at school as he was at Bellemoor when you were ther I believe.

Edited 6 September, 2008 by ottery st mary

[Thedelldays]

You and Alpine that was a joke.

Now you as a Saints fan is great to hear. The rest is never going to be black and white.

Let us all hope for the best sorry I have been a bit cynical lately but apparently someone has said it all ends on Wednesday and I really wanted to see how the season was panning out after Sept/Oct.

 

Ps did you know **** Donohoe at school as he was at Bellemoor when you were ther I believe.

haha..

 

I left bellemoor in 1996...he was one of the deputy heads...he told everyone to boycott the games to help get branfoot out...

[sadoldgit]

come on alpine we are waiting on your factual reply to enlighten us? Can't be that you made something up just to slag the club off so you must have the truth, go on tell us

 

 

We are still waiting Alpine.................................

[ottery st mary]

haha..

 

I left bellemoor in 1996...he was one of the deputy heads...he told everyone to boycott the games to help get branfoot out...

 

Good old Richard and a senior steward for many years. I used to play football with Richard in our earlier years and a true Saints fan like you Tdd.

[SaintRichmond]

Quite frankly it is ridiculous for anyone to claim that all Lowe and Wilde are interested in is protecting their 'shareholding'. No one 'invests' in football club shares to make money and either L or W could have sold up at anytime in the last couple of years and walked away. Given the abuse that is heaped on them by some people it may be surprising that one or both have not done so.

 

.

 

 

A) Really ? ... then WHY did they not sell up ...... Answer ..That would have only happened if Hell froze over

 

B) Abuse ?? .... Do you honestly think for one minute that they take any notice whatsoever from us Customers ??..... If you do, you are very deluded.

[Thedelldays]

A) Really ? ... then WHY did they not sell up ...... Answer ..That would have only happened if Hell froze over

 

.

sell to who?

[Window Cleaner]

sell to who?

 

Any one of the 347 billionaires who ring up every day to see if anything's happening apparently. One got tired of waiting and bought Man City instead. He rang up the day after and said it was only because he was in a bad mood that day and he's still open to offers from us.

[OldNick]

You and Alpine that was a joke.

Now you as a Saints fan is great to hear. The rest is never going to be black and white.

Let us all hope for the best sorry I have been a bit cynical lately but apparently someone has said it all ends on Wednesday and I really wanted to see how the season was panning out after Sept/Oct.

 

Ps did you know Richard Donohoe at school as he was at Bellemoor when you were ther I believe.

I dont recall the name. I was only at Bellemoor for about a year and so the teachers names are a bit vague. I was well known as a Saints nut in my schooldays and if he were there no doubt I would have spoken to him.My elder brother was there from about 68-72 also a Saints fan.

The black and white thing I understand, Im sure if I was on the more anti side Id be very cynical but his way at the moment seems the only sensible way forward.

[Professor]

A) Really ? ... then WHY did they not sell up ...... Answer ..That would have only happened if Hell froze over

 

B) Abuse ?? .... Do you honestly think for one minute that they take any notice whatsoever from us Customers ??..... If you do, you are very deluded.

 

The reasons that both Wilde and Lowe, independantly, have not sold their shares could range from the megalomanic suggestions some people put on here, to the claims by the two people themselves that they care for the future of the club. People are free to believe motives based on Saints having two powermad evil dictators, worthy of a James Bond film if they like, but beliefs are more credible if based on evidence.

 

I'm sure neither MW or RL take too much notice, if any, of message boards such as this but when that translates into booing them in the ground, or letters to the Echo, that might be a different matter. Lowe is on record of saying that there were times when he wondered why he carried on. Perhaps I am deluded to believe that the club takes its customers seriously, as MW's interview seems to show, or maybe that was just the easiest insult SaintR could come up with at the time....

[ottery st mary]

I dont recall the name. I was only at Bellemoor for about a year and so the teachers names are a bit vague. I was well known as a Saints nut in my schooldays and if he were there no doubt I would have spoken to him.My elder brother was there from about 68-72 also a Saints fan.

The black and white thing I understand, Im sure if I was on the more anti side Id be very cynical but his way at the moment seems the only sensible way forward.

 

Richard was a very good footballer, very good teacher, sports and other, very nice bloke and ended up as a deputy head as TDD stated and a senior security/sreward type for Saints. All tittle tattle but stated because you were mentioned as knowing nothing about football and would not listen when I tell you the score. Anyway before you get out of your pram, I have had serious words and put the matter right and told him you have learnt a little from the prof and that you are now described as being reasonably knowledgeable about the mighty Saints.

In the meantime lets get behind the team and get a few results.

[um pahars]

The reasons that both Wilde and Lowe, independantly, have not sold their shares could range from the megalomanic suggestions some people put on here, to the claims by the two people themselves that they care for the future of the club.

 

Lowe has never sold his shares for the sole reason that no one has been prepared to buy his and his cabal's shares.

 

After being ousted Lowe was quite open that he would sell his shares if a buyer could be fund to buy his and those in his cabal.

 

To my knowlegde, Wilde has never made any announcement about wanting to sell his shares. His recent piece states that he would sell, but only if in doing so it was in the Club's best long term interests.

[70's Mike]

Lowe has never sold his shares for the sole reason that no one has been prepared to buy his and his cabal's shares.

 

After being ousted Lowe was quite open that he would sell his shares if a buyer could be fund to buy his and those in his cabal.

 

To my knowlegde, Wilde has never made any announcement about wanting to sell his shares. His recent piece states that he would sell, but only if in doing so it was in the Club's best long term interests.

 

and how will he ever know that ?

[Fowllyd]

The reasons that both Wilde and Lowe, independantly, have not sold their shares could range from the megalomanic suggestions some people put on here, to the claims by the two people themselves that they care for the future of the club. People are free to believe motives based on Saints having two powermad evil dictators, worthy of a James Bond film if they like, but beliefs are more credible if based on evidence.

 

OK Prof, you've taken Richmond's juicy leg-stump half-volley (a delivery he specialises in) and despatched it to the boundary. Easily done. However, earlier on, in answer to your comment about Lowe and Wilde selling up, I raised the rather more pertinent question of who exactly would have bought either of their shareholdings. You can't sell something that nobody wants to buy, and I have yet to see any indication that there was any buyer for the shares belonging to Wilde or Lowe (presumably the latter would mean Lowe plus his allies).

 

I do not pretend to know the motivations of Lowe and Wilde - I can guess at what they might be, no better than that. But I do know that you need a buyer with sufficient funds in order to sell anything.

[Wes Tender]

Quite frankly it is ridiculous for anyone to claim that all Lowe and Wilde are interested in is protecting their 'shareholding'. No one 'invests' in football club shares to make money and either L or W could have sold up at anytime in the last couple of years and walked away. Given the abuse that is heaped on them by some people it may be surprising that one or both have not done so. Perhaps that is the objective of the absusers who use descriptions such as 'quisling' to describe a man who came in after the relegation and has spent a lot of time and effort to try to help turn the club around. Wilde has certainly done a lot more than the Jeremiahs who put maximum effort into this message board to rubbish everything the club has tried to do in the last few months.

 

People are entitled to wish for different club management but it should be possible to do that without resorting to abuse, which inevitably then attracts responses, sometimes in a like ilk. It should also be possible to wish for different management but still have ones eyes open enough to see and acknowledge the things that are done with the best interests of the club in mind. Pleasingly, some people are doing that, lets hope that more will follow suit.

 

It has already been well explained that Lowe and Wilde could not sell their shareholdings as nobody came forward to buy them. As for the assertion that it is ridiculous that they allied themselves together to protect their shareholdings, your counter argument that nobody buys shares in a football club to make money on them does not answer my point at all. Neither Lowe nor Wilde bought shares to make money; they bought them to buy power, or in Lowe's case most of his shares were awarded to him in exchange for those owned by him in Secure Leisure. However, because you say that people expect to lose money by investment in football, it does not mean that Wilde or Lowe would want to kiss goodbye to the value of money they have tied up in their shares, which even to them represents a quite substantial amount. So if anybody wishes to believe that they only acted on grounds of their love for the club, please feel free to continue with your fantasy.

 

As for the possibility that either of them could chuck it all in based on the hostility they receive from sections of the fans, I for one would be delighted if they did just that...all of them.

 

Wilde has had many epithets aimed at him since his return. What did he expect? That we would all hail him as the club's saviour? Lowe and Wilde deserve each other and it wouldn't surprise me if one does the dirty on the other in the future as they are both as devious as each other. When they brought out the 50p piece, it was nicknamed the Harold wilson, as it was two faced and many sided. Harold Wilson had nothing on these two.

[Totton Red]

Well indeed. Nasty old Wupes is so devious he even managed to get Crouch to publish the last set of plc financial accounts that proved that we are in the financial mire just to perpetuate the myth that we are broke.

 

Of course Alps, as you well know, Rupes has been able to pull up the false floor of his office at SMS and retrieve that famous bag full of gold and cash that he squirreled away by not 'pushing on' to make us a top 6 team when we were in the Prem so we in fact do not have any money worries at all and would have signed Robinho last night had it not been for the fact that he doesn't like living by the sea.

 

What colour is the sky in Alpine World? Actaully, I know that one. It's grey, depressive and constantly raining.

 

Have you looked out the window recently?

[EdgarAllanPoe]

If everything is factual then why can you not provide the link to show your findings? I know we are strapped for cash but nowhere can I find that the administrators were knocking at the door, but as I said if you can supply these facts as you call them then I will take your post more seriously, until then I will treat it as another poster who is supposed to be ITK. By the way if the administrators were knocking at the door how did we fund the Schneiderlain deal?

 

:weedman:

 

Last season the club gave Spurs and Arsenal big discounts on future payments for Bale and Walcott.

So you think they took a bath on millions of revenue in order to get cash in the door immediately, but this was not to stave off the threat of administration? For what other reason could it possibly have been?

 

 

BTW, if you read the rest of the thread you will see the answer to the Schneiderlin point. Firstly the team has to try and stay up, this is all part of keeping the business going. Secondly, the company only survived last season by the aforementioned payments AND because it made £12m profit on transfer dealings. Schneiderlin was bought with a view to a quick couple of million profit in the January window.

 

If you want facts, read the accounts. Honestly I struggle with people like you. You really think that without the extra few million last season the club would have survived administration? When one of the BOARD was saying that the losses were £1m a month?

[70's Mike]

:weedman:

 

Last season the club gave Spurs and Arsenal big discounts on future payments for Bale and Walcott.

So you think they took a bath on millions of revenue in order to get cash in the door immediately, but this was not to stave off the threat of administration? For what other reason could it possibly have been?

 

 

BTW, if you read the rest of the thread you will see the answer to the Schneiderlin point. Firstly the team has to try and stay up, this is all part of keeping the business going. Secondly, the company only survived last season by the aforementioned payments AND because it made £12m profit on transfer dealings. Schneiderlin was bought with a view to a quick couple of million profit in the January window.

 

If you want facts, read the accounts. Honestly I struggle with people like you. You really think that without the extra few million last season the club would have survived administration? When one of the BOARD was saying that the losses were £1m a month?

 

Agreed but accounts are always out of date, hence the speculation

[EdgarAllanPoe]

the last set of results showed a multi million pound pre tax loss even after making £12m profit on player sales during the period.

 

The corners are close, that has saved £250k, so bound to be alright now then:(

 

The club avoided administration last season by getting in those payments early. The point I was trying to make was that you can't do that again, and the business plan would certainly have included sales of higher earners and their replacement by young players with a potential resale value. Even clinging on to mid-table would probably see those young players become valuable assets.

 

However, sales haven't been what was expected, gates are probably not going to be what was expected and mid-table looks a long way off post-Blackpool.

[Window Cleaner]

the last set of results showed a multi million pound pre tax loss even after making £12m profit on player sales during the period.

 

 

 

Ah those would be the results that aren't published yet, just a brief trading statement that there would be a 5 million pre-tax loss on 14 million turnover.

Are you all absolutely sure that we made 12 million on player trading last

year or is that just a bit of fag packet calculation.??

When you speak of gate receipts being down this season have you taken into account the additional home friendly and the extra Carling Cup revenues?

Just checking to see if I can make myself as miserable as you seem to be.

[Alain Perrin]

I think people over egg the impact of gate receipts.

 

An extra thousand bums on seats equates to a mere £20K per home game (assuming all adults at £20 each). I'm not claiming that every penny doesn't count, but getting someone significant salaries off the books is more significant (they get paid whether there is a home game or not).

[Window Cleaner]

I think people over egg the impact of gate receipts.

 

An extra thousand bums on seats equates to a mere £20K per home game (assuming all adults at £20 each). I'm not claiming that every penny doesn't count, but getting someone significant salaries off the books is more significant (they get paid whether there is a home game or not).

 

 

Anyway if you look at it closely our gate receipts for this season are probabably (so far) superior to those of last season. We have a 45% share of an

extra 14K on the Carling cup alone, plus ther 3rd round to come,although it's true that the away tie at Rotherham won't bring much more than say another 45% of 8K or so; Having THREE home friendlies (although 1 was for Claus) probably taxed the purses and piggy banks of the faithful and the home games that followed probably suffered a bit.

As for the 12 million plus on player trading I'm still waiting for confirmation on that,I think that if you do the maths you'll find that it was far far nearer

7.5 million (hint:Bale left on the 25th of May 2007)

[Scummer]

We have a 45% share of an

extra 14K on the Carling cup alone, plus ther 3rd round to come,although it's true that the away tie at Rotherham won't bring much more than say another 45% of 8K or so

 

Once you factor in appearance fees, wages for the people who work at the ground etc, I wouldn't be surprised if the Carling Cup games actually increase our losses.

[Window Cleaner]

Once you factor in appearance fees, wages for the people who work at the ground etc, I wouldn't be surprised if the Carling Cup games actually increase our losses.

 

Probably not actually. Their emoluments are absolutely zero when compared to those of the playing staff. Players get paid 12 months a year whether they play

23,26 or 30 games. Those who cost a lot in "appearance fees" aren't actually appearing. We make money out of the Carling,not shedloads but every extra game counts, till you get an away tie at the Emirates or Stamford Bridge, then you make a lot.Nothing can be so ignominious than a first round exit in front of 4000 fans like last year. Other great thing about the Carling is that in brings in total money, season tickets don't count.,