2nd only to Leeds.......

[Weston Super Saint]

5 million for Lallana? Nice bit of business by Lowe.

 

Hopefully his last bit of business eh?

[OldNick]

For those who have an agenda where they would like Saints problems minimised :-

 

7000 fewer through gate than projected @ £25.00 x 23 = approx £4 million.Although i do not know what figure Lowe agreed with the bank,this is not an unreasonable estimate.

 

We know Skacel turned down £6000 a week at Ipswich,as it was half his wages here.Not unreasonable to estimate the 5 players i mentioned as being on equivalent wages.Therefore 12,000 per week x 5 x 52 weeks = approx £3 million.

 

Everything that has come out of the club was that they needed to offload ALL big earners.Not hard to believe that Bank wanted all 5 of those players off the books.

 

Not unreasonable to assume therefore that we will be £7 million worse off this season than Lowe and the Bank had hoped for.Also not unreasonable to assume that as we have not met the banks' cost-cutting demands,and with a massive shortfall in projected income,and in todays financial climate,that the bank will assume that we are a hopeless case and will foreclose.

All very reasonable im sure.What figure have you based your attendance shortfall on? Surely you didnt base that the club expected 22k when the s/t uptake had dropped dramatically.I would expect the club would have put a figure of 16-18k

As for the players wages that may be close to the figure, and so why we have to unload them.IE Saga and Rasiak. JE and Thomas are out longterm and I think? they may be covered by insurance payouts on longterm absences. If Rudi is on 4k appearance money then that is good reason for finances why he is not playing.He really is only worried about money it seems and so why waste our time on him?

Therefore in my calculations compared to yours we are 3-4 m behind.Still far too much.

[up and away]

.........in the financial mismanagement stakes.

 

At least £30 million has been received for Crouch,Walcott,Bale and Jones,plus

£13.5 milion parachute payments,since relegation.

 

Huge resources for a non-premiership team.

 

There is no way we should be in this position.

 

The sight and sound of Mr.Wilde preaching prudence and salvation is the biggest joke ever,

considering he was the one who brought in Hone,Dulieu etc,even bigger jokers than he is.

 

We will probably be at least £4 million short on expected gate revenue this season.

 

We will be paying at least £3 million wages this season for high-earners we expected to go.

 

We are therefore going to be £7 million short of what the bank wanted us to do financially.

Our net debt will INCREASE rather than decrease,and we will fail to meet the banks cost-

cutting targets.

 

The chances of us avoiding administration are rapidly approaching ZERO.

 

If you are going back to Crouchino, it's a lot more than that. If you take the point at which Lowe left, the money in the kitty and the money received from transfers, compensation and windfalls, plus what was left over from the parachute, you should be looking at well over £40M. Wilde over spent an initial £2M which caused a lot of trouble, but there was so much time for Crouch and Wilde to come to their senses subsequently that it beggars belief.

 

This all got wasted in trying to pretend we were a Premier club and this money which should have been the building blocks for the future was just ****ed away. Just look at the clubs that came down with us, Norwich and Palace. They slashed and burned before the end of the parachute and used their youth players to far greater effect, because they had the option of complementing them with the seasoned pro's.

[um pahars]

If you take the point at which Lowe left,

 

If you take the point at which Lowe left then you will see that for that year we lost £9m cash out the door on normal operations.

 

That was what was inherited.

 

Not a cash rich company generating millions from normal trading, but a massive loss making enterprise.

 

The legacy was blown the minute we fell out of the top flight.

[OldNick]

If you take the point at which Lowe left then you will see that for that year we lost £9m cash out the door on normal operations.

 

That was what was inherited.

 

Not a cash rich company generating millions from normal trading, but a massive loss making enterprise.

 

The legacy was blown the minute we fell out of the top flight.

are you really saying that RL is responsible for the next 2 seasons? Forget about the relegation because that happened and you have to react to the new circumstances of our position. the first year was always going ot show buig losses as the club had to try and dismantle a club that was pL in all except its league status.It had built a PL cost base you dont shed that overnight.

[up and away]

Originally Posted by up and away

If you take the point at which Lowe left,

If you take the point at which Lowe left then you will see that for that year we lost £9m cash out the door on normal operations.

 

That was what was inherited.

 

Not a cash rich company generating millions from normal trading, but a massive loss making enterprise.

 

The legacy was blown the minute we fell out of the top flight.

 

I am not arguing that point at all. You could point to other points as well from Lowe and the £2M over spend from Wilde. But that is not what has brought us to our knees at present. Most teams give it a go in the first season down and then gradually reign in during the second.

 

We had so much time and capital available that other CCC teams can only dream about, with a handful of exceptions. There is no way we should be in the position we are now if someone with half a brain had reigned a halt on the expenditure and looked at the long term position. Right to the very end and to this day, Crouch's only position has been to hope an investor will come along.

 

Lowe got us relegated, but Wilde and Crouch have subsequently buggered up any chance of returning by the total waste of resources we had available to us. There is no need for the position we now find ourselves in, that was crass mismanagement of the highest order. What has now happened is that the whole existence of the club is threatened.

[um pahars]

are you really saying that RL is responsible for the next 2 seasons? Forget about the relegation because that happened and you have to react to the new circumstances of our position. the first year was always going ot show buig losses as the club had to try and dismantle a club that was pL in all except its league status.It had built a PL cost base you dont shed that overnight.

 

What I was saying was that those that came in did not inherit a position where everything was hunky dorey (as Up and Away would have us believe).

 

They inherited a cost base that even after being cut in the first year down was still far in excess of the income that was being generated. There was no vast pot of money, but instead we were still a heavily loss making business.

 

(As an example, even after axing many Premiership players, our wages bill was just as high under Burley for the last part of the season as it was under Redknapp for the first part).

 

The legacy of relegation and having a Premiership cost base was still with us (and still is in many areas, not least the £2m pa in interest on the "mortage").

[OldNick]

What I was saying was that those that came in did not inherit a position where everything was hunky dorey (as Up and Away would have us believe).

 

They inherited a cost base that even after being cut in the first year down was still far in excess of the income that was being generated. There was no vast pot of money, but instead we were still a heavily loss making business.

 

(As an example, even after axing many Premiership players, our wages bill was just as high under Burley for the last part of the season as it was under Redknapp for the first part).

 

The legacy of relegation and having a Premiership cost base was still with us (and still is in many areas, not least the £2m pa in interest on the "mortage").

That is fine it just seemed by your wording that you may be pointing the blame at RL. I find it interesting that the wage bill under Gb is asd high as it was under HR.That to me is scandalous, who ever oversaw that needs shooting.

[um pahars]

Most teams give it a go in the first season down and then gradually reign in during the second.

 

Even Lowe acknowledges that most teams give it a go during both years of the parachute payments, hence his various words and deed at the end of that first season down:

 

signing Rasiak

 

Informing Burley he had a transfer kitty to spend

 

Stating that history had shown that repromotion happens most in the 2nd year down (OK so he was wrong on the stats, but he was stating that we would be giving it a real go in the second year, bless him).

 

Compiling a Plan B that would be implemented once the parachute payments finished.

 

etc etc etc.

 

 

Most of our financial problems stem simply from relegation (and then failure to get repromoted). That turned this Club upside down and cost us tens of millions.

 

The situation was then not helpled by the failure to implement Plan B after the parachute payment ran out (as was acknowledged at the Runnymede meeting), which put a few million more on the debt.

 

And who was in charge of the PLC board and the day to day decsion maker when Plan B was not implemented?????

[Snowballs2]

Even Lowe acknowledges that most teams give it a go during both years of the parachute payments, hence his various words and deed at the end of that first season down:

 

signing Rasiak

 

Informing Burley he had a transfer kitty to spend

 

Stating that history had shown that repromotion happens most in the 2nd year down (OK so he was wrong on the stats, but he was stating that we would be giving it a real go in the second year, bless him).

 

Compiling a Plan B that would be implemented once the parachute payments finished.

 

etc etc etc.

 

 

Most of our financial problems stem simply from relegation (and then failure to get repromoted). That turned this Club upside down and cost us tens of millions.

 

The situation was then not helpled by the failure to implement Plan B after the parachute payment ran out (as was acknowledged at the Runnymede meeting), which put a few million more on the debt.

 

And who was in charge of the PLC board and the day to day decsion maker when Plan B was not implemented?????

 

 

 

You tell me !! And this runnymead meeting that all talk about just what was that and what happened

[alpine_saint]

Even Lowe acknowledges that most teams give it a go during both years of the parachute payments, hence his various words and deed at the end of that first season down:

 

signing Rasiak

 

Informing Burley he had a transfer kitty to spend

 

Stating that history had shown that repromotion happens most in the 2nd year down (OK so he was wrong on the stats, but he was stating that we would be giving it a real go in the second year, bless him).

 

Compiling a Plan B that would be implemented once the parachute payments finished.

 

etc etc etc.

 

 

Most of our financial problems stem simply from relegation (and then failure to get repromoted). That turned this Club upside down and cost us tens of millions.

 

The situation was then not helpled by the failure to implement Plan B after the parachute payment ran out (as was acknowledged at the Runnymede meeting), which put a few million more on the debt.

 

And who was in charge of the PLC board and the day to day decsion maker when Plan B was not implemented?????

 

That would be Turncoat Mike....

[um pahars]

That would be Turncoat Mike....

 

Not really (although he did bring the decision maker in), it was Hone, who by then had total control of the PLC board with himself, Hoos, Dulieu, Oldknow & Jones easily outnumbering Wiseman, Trant and Crouch.

[1965onwards]

The failure was bringing in players who were paid way above proper ccc wage levels.

 

Burley inherited a huge squad of crap players,and re-populated it to the same quantity with even more crap players.

 

With the £40 + million we received in player sales and para payments we had ample opportunity to sensibly manage ourselves to a secure financial position commensurate with our new status.

[um pahars]

The failure was bringing in players who were paid way above proper ccc wage levels.

 

Burley inherited a huge squad of crap players,and re-populated it to the same quantity with even more crap players.

 

With the £40 + million we received in player sales and para payments we had ample opportunity to sensibly manage ourselves to a secure financial position commensurate with our new status.

 

£16m of the player sales and parachute payments went to fund the normal operational cash out the door in the first year down (ie we lost £9m out he door even after banking the £7m parachute payment).

 

It's not hard to see that an enterprise eating up so much money after being relegated will soon consume so much cash.

 

Additionally, the existing Football Club Chairman has made it known that he doubts we will ever be self financing in this division (so will always be eating more cash than we make).

[1965onwards]

If Wilde believes that UP then it is his duty as a company director to place the company into liquidation,as the company will continually trade in an insolvent position,which is illegal.

[um pahars]

If Wilde believes that UP then it is his duty as a company director to place the company into liquidation,as the company will continually trade in an insolvent position,which is illegal.

 

That's just on normal operations, with the deficit being made up from regular player sales.

[1965onwards]

The only expense Saints should have over and above most other CCC clubs is the

£3 million p.a. stadium payment.

 

Even 15,000 gates will provide the club with over £3 million per season more gate revenue than many CCC clubs who are doing much better than we are.Therefore there is no reason why the stadium should unduly disadvantage us in this division.

 

What Wilde is really saying is that he does not have the will or ability to run the club properly.

[OldNick]

The only expense Saints should have over and above most other CCC clubs is the

£3 million p.a. stadium payment.

 

Even 15,000 gates will provide the club with over £3 million per season more gate revenue than many CCC clubs who are doing much better than we are.Therefore there is no reason why the stadium should unduly disadvantage us in this division.

 

What Wilde is really saying is that he does not have the will or ability to run the club properly.

but surely if the club have put a lot of highly paid plaayers on high contracts 3m is nothing. That is where the mistake was made and not acting sooner to cut those costs.It seems to me last season nothing was done to start the cutting and in fact it seems we took on more .

[1965onwards]

Spot on Nick.

 

Unbelievable but true.

[um pahars]

Player wages 1st season down : £13.6m

 

Player wages 2nd season down : £10.5m

 

Player wages 3rd season down : £12.1m

 

There really should have been a serious effort in getting them down in that 3rd year, but Hone in his own wisdom actually increased them.

 

Whilst there was obviously a few million overspent in that third year and lost forever (and I would never condone that) it really is fairly insignificant when compared to the £25m to £35m lost from the top line every year that we're out of the top flight.

 

It certainly needed correcting, but it is not the main reason for the position we now find ourselves in.

[1965onwards]

To be in our 4th CCC season,and even now still not running a financial regime appropriate to the division we are in is probably even worse mis-management than Leeds,

on reflection.

[OldNick]

Player wages 1st season down : £13.6m

 

Player wages 2nd season down : £10.5m

 

Player wages 3rd season down : £12.1m

 

There really should have been a serious effort in getting them down in that 3rd year, but Hone in his own wisdom actually increased them.

 

Whilst there was obviously a few million overspent in that third year and lost forever (and I would never condone that) it really is fairly insignificant when compared to the £25m to £35m lost from the top line every year that we're out of the top flight.

 

It certainly needed correcting, but it is not the main reason for the position we now find ourselves in.

Look UMP I dont feel like getting into a long arguement again , but surely you have to react to the situation as it is, not as it might have been.Forget the relegation as that was an event that has indeed cost us but also you have to take into account all the extra money by us staying up and the extra attendances at the new stadia.

The boards responsibility is to react to the time and to the future, we cannot keep harping back to what may have been if we were in the PL , many clubs go down but then they act responsibly to the new factors.

The figures you give (thanks for that ) really do show how irresponsible the people running the club have been. Personally i dont care who they are. We as a club knew our budget and so should have cut the cloth accordingly and patently it wasnt done. It is not your fault and not mine but the custodians of our club that were reckless and we are now paying for it emotionally.

The wage bill should have been cut drastically, period. Interestingly, and i dont wish to be partisan in this is that the 2nd season the wage bill had been trimmed 3m. Now I have always argued that GB remit was to sell off the players to reduce the wage bill, would it be fair to say after RL was deposed those constraints were lifted (for popularity) and that is why the wage bill went back up again?

[Totton Red]

Look UMP I dont feel like getting into a long arguement again , but surely you have to react to the situation as it is, not as it might have been.Forget the relegation as that was an event that has indeed cost us but also you have to take into account all the extra money by us staying up and the extra attendances at the new stadia.

The boards responsibility is to react to the time and to the future, we cannot keep harping back to what may have been if we were in the PL , many clubs go down but then they act responsibly to the new factors.

The figures you give (thanks for that ) really do show how irresponsible the people running the club have been. Personally i dont care who they are. We as a club knew our budget and so should have cut the cloth accordingly and patently it wasnt done. It is not your fault and not mine but the custodians of our club that were reckless and we are now paying for it emotionally.

The wage bill should have been cut drastically, period. Interestingly, and i dont wish to be partisan in this is that the 2nd season the wage bill had been trimmed 3m. Now I have always argued that GB remit was to sell off the players to reduce the wage bill, would it be fair to say after RL was deposed those constraints were lifted (for popularity) and that is why the wage bill went back up again?

 

"Whilst the cat was away the mice will play".....last throw of the dice?

[OldNick]

"Whilst the cat was away the mice will play".....last throw of the dice?

seems as it might have been the case. TR

[carljack]

The failure was bringing in players who were paid way above proper ccc wage levels.

 

Burley inherited a huge squad of crap players,and re-populated it to the same quantity with even more crap players.

 

With the £40 + million we received in player sales and para payments we had ample opportunity to sensibly manage ourselves to a secure financial position commensurate with our new status.

 

 

Coupled with the fact he was ****ed on large scotches everyday allday and his training sessions were like something from the 1960s we never stood a fookin chance.

 

SAINT TILL WE DIE!

[Weston Super Saint]

but surely if the club have put a lot of highly paid plaayers on high contracts 3m is nothing. That is where the mistake was made and not acting sooner to cut those costs.It seems to me last season nothing was done to start the cutting and in fact it seems we took on more .

 

That'll be why no-one was sent out on loan last January

[um pahars]

Look UMP I dont feel like getting into a long arguement again , but surely you have to react to the situation as it is, not as it might have been.Forget the relegation as that was an event that has indeed cost us but also you have to take into account all the extra money by us staying up and the extra attendances at the new stadia.

The boards responsibility is to react to the time and to the future, we cannot keep harping back to what may have been if we were in the PL , many clubs go down but then they act responsibly to the new factors.

The figures you give (thanks for that ) really do show how irresponsible the people running the club have been. Personally i dont care who they are. We as a club knew our budget and so should have cut the cloth accordingly and patently it wasnt done. It is not your fault and not mine but the custodians of our club that were reckless and we are now paying for it emotionally.

The wage bill should have been cut drastically, period. Interestingly, and i dont wish to be partisan in this is that the 2nd season the wage bill had been trimmed 3m. Now I have always argued that GB remit was to sell off the players to reduce the wage bill, would it be fair to say after RL was deposed those constraints were lifted (for popularity) and that is why the wage bill went back up again?

 

You seem to be reading my post but not digesting it in the context of the reply to Up and Away.

 

I was just pointing out that when Lowe left he did not leave a stable business, he did not leave a pot of cash, nor did he leave a business that was cash neutral.

 

In fact we lost £9m out the door in cash that first season ust running the Club and that was after receiving £7m in one off parachute monies (i.e. without it we were losing £16m out the door on normal business, exc play transfers).

 

So the context was that he left a cash hungry Club that needed the player transfer income and parachute payments just to survive.

 

The second point was that it is universally recognised (including by Lowe) that you have to do all you can to get repromotion during the parachute years and the strategy taken by the new regime was probably much in line with what he would have done. At the end of that period, in relative terms we were stable (debt was at it's lowest for years and costs had been managed down).

 

Getting on to that third season down, I have always maintained that Plan B should have then been implemented at that point. I never ageed with Hone not implementing it and have said so numerous times. It is also something all the shareholders agreed on (my only caveat would be that Plan B would not have mirrored Lowe's Plan B in it's exact execution!!!!).

 

So Hone must definitely shoulder the blame for overspending last year. My only caveat there is that whilst it was a totally unjustified and the cash was lost forever, it is not that overspend that put us in such a perilous financial position. It certainly didn't help to have further millions put on the debt, but the precarious financial position stems solely from losing £75m+ from the top line over the last three years.

 

You can react to your circumstances, but I think the current lot will also find it impossible to make this Club wash it's face given the inherent infrastructure and cost base (in fact the Football Club Chairman has openly shared his fears on here).

[OldNick]

You seem to be reading my post but not digesting it in the context of the reply to Up and Away.

 

I was just pointing out that when Lowe left he did not leave a stable business, he did not leave a pot of cash, nor did he leave a business that was cash neutral.

 

In fact we lost £9m out the door in cash that first season ust running the Club and that was after receiving £7m in one off parachute monies (i.e. without it we were losing £16m out the door on normal business, exc play transfers).

 

So the context was that he left a cash hungry Club that needed the player transfer income and parachute payments just to survive.

 

The second point was that it is universally recognised (including by Lowe) that you have to do all you can to get repromotion during the parachute years and the strategy taken by the new regime was probably much in line with what he would have done. At the end of that period, in relative terms we were stable (debt was at it's lowest for years and costs had been managed down).

 

Getting on to that third season down, I have always maintained that Plan B should have then been implemented at that point. I never ageed with Hone not implementing it and have said so numerous times. It is also something all the shareholders agreed on (my only caveat would be that Plan B would not have mirrored Lowe's Plan B in it's exact execution!!!!).

 

So Hone must definitely shoulder the blame for overspending last year. My only caveat there is that whilst it was a totally unjustified and the cash was lost forever, it is not that overspend that put us in such a perilous financial position. It certainly didn't help to have further millions put on the debt, but the precarious financial position stems solely from losing £75m+ from the top line over the last three years.

 

You can react to your circumstances, but I think the current lot will also find it impossible to make this Club wash it's face given the inherent infrastructure and cost base (in fact the Football Club Chairman has openly shared his fears on here).

All valid but your arguement about us losing the Pl money and so it is Rl's fault is not how I see it.You may as well say that he should have budgeted for CL monies and because that revenue stream did not appear that was a factor.

You have to budget (as you have agreed) to the likely income. Windfalls that have been and gone cannot be taken into account.Yes we had a shortfall first season how would a club that had been geared up to PL after decades, have its costs slashed within months is impossible.People are under contract.When GB was appointed his remit was to trim the high wages.This is evident in the 2nd seasons wage bill, and that was the treansition time when the new people took over. i dont care if it was Hone, Wilde,LC who was making the decisions the whole board must have passed a lot of the spending.The panic buttons should have been pressed as soon as any of the board saw the figures.It should have been acted upon instantly.No it didnt happen but in fact we took on other players whether it be in loans or signed on high wages.Its madness and all due respect UMP Im sure you wouldnt run your life the same way as you seem too smart for that.(unless my judgement is wrong!!! but its not)

I am not saying relegation has not cost us but that after a disaster happens you have to make provisions and whoever was left in charge did not do their job.

[Weston Super Saint]

All valid but your arguement about us losing the Pl money and so it is Rl's fault is not how I see it.

 

And yet he was the presiding Chairman during our relegation season, so while you're happy to give him credit for the FA cup final, you're happy to exhonerate him from all blame for relegation??

[OldNick]

And yet he was the presiding Chairman during our relegation season, so while you're happy to give him credit for the FA cup final, you're happy to exhonerate him from all blame for relegation??

I did not exonerate him from blame.You see what you want to see. RL did not score the goals that got us to the cup final and so he doesnt get the credit for it. What I do point out is that fans who say 'I will not support saints while RL is there' were happy to when things were good and didnt have these high fuluting attitudes then.The same as he wasnt the one who ****ed up game after game in the relegation season. Yes he was part of the problem but not 100% like many try and portray.

[1965onwards]

You are right Nick,the failure was not to immediately cut our cloth to CCC level after the first season down.It would have been much easier to manage then than now.

 

There is not logic to expect a better chance of going up the second season down,as Lowe is supposed to have suggested.

[up and away]

Originally Posted by um pahars

If you take the point at which Lowe left then you will see that for that year we lost £9m cash out the door on normal operations.

 

That was what was inherited.

 

Not a cash rich company generating millions from normal trading, but a massive loss making enterprise.

 

The legacy was blown the minute we fell out of the top flight.

are you really saying that RL is responsible for the next 2 seasons? Forget about the relegation because that happened and you have to react to the new circumstances of our position. the first year was always going ot show buig losses as the club had to try and dismantle a club that was pL in all except its league status.It had built a PL cost base you dont shed that overnight.

 

 

All you need do is go back and look at the position when Lowe left. Lowe had decimated the first team squad and as far as I remember the only real high earner we had on the books was Rasiak and Claus. We only had half a squad at that point and although Lowe would need to add to it as Wilde, only one had control over what contracts were agreed. BWP was immediately converted from a loan with option to a direct purchase.

 

Throughout all of this there has been the fundamental problem, no one managed Burley and no one considered the long term future of the club. This financial irresponsibility continues to the point of Crouch going, no attempt was made to get our house in order.

 

At the point Lowe left we had ample opportunity to sort things out. In comparison to your normal CCC club we had an additional £23M-£33M (that's allowing for £7M in player purchases to get the squad back up to strength) from the parachute and player sales. The £2M mortgage can be covered by an increased gate of 3000-3500.

Just think what was possible if we got our house in order, had all that revenue available to us and used it wisely around the youth players. The advantage we had over that period was huge by CCC standards, but we just ****ed it against the wall.

 

Then can anyone explain to me why Rasiak was not sold to Sheffield Wednesday for £2M? As he was hardly used and we were then forced to let him go out on loan because of the financial mess that was created. The basic plan appears to have been to give George Burley everything he asked for, irrespective of cost or what damage it was storing up for the club. Failing promotion we would rely on a buyer coming in to get us out of the ****.

[OldNick]

That'll be why no-one was sent out on loan last January

for heavens sake yes and then we took on Wright, Euell, Perry and Luketti all would have been on high wages not forgeting Davies and thomas a few months before.I defended GB for his management but he was left to be a loose cannon and able it seems to buy/loan others included of course when it was obvious seeing UMP figures that it was suicidal madness.

[um pahars]

i dont care if it was Hone, Wilde,LC who was making the decisions the whole board must have passed a lot of the spending.The panic buttons should have been pressed as soon as any of the board saw the figures.It should have been acted upon instantly.

 

So are you saying we should have cut right back at the end of the first season down?

 

If so, then you would have been out on your own for holding that view as even Lowe was aware you had to go for promotion during the parachute period.

 

He even sanctioned a £4m commitment to Rasiak and made it clear that Burley would be further supported in the transfer market. He was not going to slash and burn in that second season down as the prize of the Premiership was so valuable we had to go for it.

 

Just a simple question:

 

Why do you think we are we now cutting back?

[um pahars]

At the point Lowe left we had ample opportunity to sort things out. In comparison to your normal CCC club we had an additional £23M-£33M (that's allowing for £7M in player purchases to get the squad back up to strength) from the parachute and player sales.

 

At the point Lowe left he left a cash hungry company consuming circa £16m in cash a year (£9m cash out on normal trading , even after recieving £7m parachute payments).

 

That would have been initialy reduced by any exodus that summer, but the signing of Rasiak and statements of a transfer kitty to support Burley, along with aims of gaining repromotion in the second year of the parachute payments, also give a clear indication that further monies would have been spent that summer and the wage bill being added to.

 

Th strategy of holding back from implementing Plan B was one that almost everyone (with the exception of you and nickh) would have implemented. Lowe's plan was to implement Plan B after the second season down.

 

Furthermore, as will be shown by the current years accounts (and I'll happily take a wager on it), despite the ruthless cuts administered by the current regime, we are still a loss making enterprise that will have to rely on player sales to cover those losses.

 

The £2M mortgage can be covered by an increased gate of 3000-3500.

 

What are you on about. The £2m "mortgage" is an integral part of our running costs (i.e. the £16m deficit), where has this increased gate come from???

 

If anything slashing and burning to get us down to CCC revenues has resulted in reduced gates.

 

 

When Lowe left he did not leave a cash rich Club that was self sustaining. He left a very cash hungry Club, whose appetite would get even hungier a year down the line with the withdrawal of the parachute payments. A Club whose own Football Club Chairman doubts we will ever get to a position of self financing unless we regularly sell players.

[Tamesaint]

for heavens sake yes and then we took on Wright, Euell, Perry and Luketti all would have been on high wages not forgeting Davies and thomas a few months before.I defended GB for his management but he was left to be a loose cannon and able it seems to buy/loan others included of course when it was obvious seeing UMP figures that it was suicidal madness.

 

 

 

Come on, come on. Get your facts right.

 

Euell arrived here in September - not after January. All of the others you quote above were brought to the club by Pearson - not Burley. Perry came from a League One club who seem to have spent longer in administration that out of administration over the last few years. He was probably tempted by the thought of actually being paid!! Luketti and Wright only arrived 6 games before the end of the season.

 

Removing Scacel and Rasiak from the wage bill in January would have been a much bigger saving than taking on the players you mentioned.

[OldNick]

So are you saying we should have cut right back at the end of the first season down?

 

If so, then you would have been out on your own for holding that view as even Lowe was aware you had to go for promotion during the parachute period.

 

He even sanctioned a £4m commitment to Rasiak and made it clear that Burley would be further supported in the transfer market. He was not going to slash and burn in that second season down as the prize of the Premiership was so valuable we had to go for it.

 

Just a simple question:

 

Why do you think we are we now cutting back?

No we were cutting back first season down as your figures ably show.That was in GB's remit. Of course as has been said many times before if you get rid of over 20players you have to replace some positions with lower paid players.That was starting, Yes Rasiak was purchased (I believe at too high a cost and salary,a mistake by Lowe??? or was he bought in the interim period and the contract sorted out after.The timescale I dont know.If it was under Lowe it was a mistake).

The new people arrived on a populist vote and wanted to prove their claims and went on a buying spree.GB must have been delighted.Pleae do not try and convince me that RL would have sanctioned such spending because I really dont go with that.He did say he had a war chest but not a £7m one. The signing of Fuller for 90k underlines how RL was trying to get things in order and to try and streamline the club for the CCC. I do agree though it would have been folly to dismantle the PL setup straight away as we may have gone straight back up and so a balancing act was to be carried out.

The 2nd season the brakes came off the spending and we went to town.No prudence what so ever and big contracts dished out in PL proportions. So if you can forgive that and then we failed in that crucial 2nd season surely you concede the 3rd was time to forget the dream and get practical.Slash the squad of the high wages then and get ready for the long haul, use the last payment to stabilise not turn a blind eye and hope things will be OK.

You ask the odd question 'Why do you think we are now cutting back?' Is that question for real? It is obvious to me, because we are so in the mire as we didnt take action 12 months ago or even before.

[OldNick]

Come on, come on. Get your facts right.

 

Euell arrived here in September - not after January. All of the others you quote above were brought to the club by Pearson - not Burley. Perry came from a League One club who seem to have spent longer in administration that out of administration over the last few years. He was probably tempted by the thought of actually being paid!! Luketti and Wright only arrived 6 games before the end of the season.

 

Removing Scacel and Rasiak from the wage bill in January would have been a much bigger saving than taking on the players you mentioned.

TS why the january cut off.I beleive that we should have taken the knife months or even a year before then.

It doesnt matter if it was 6 matches if you are potless that could be deemed as wrong.FWIW I think the board wre right to take drastic measures then to save us from relegation, and so they get slack for that.

[up and away]

Originally Posted by um pahars

So are you saying we should have cut right back at the end of the first season down?

 

If so, then you would have been out on your own for holding that view as even Lowe was aware you had to go for promotion during the parachute period.

 

He even sanctioned a £4m commitment to Rasiak and made it clear that Burley would be further supported in the transfer market. He was not going to slash and burn in that second season down as the prize of the Premiership was so valuable we had to go for it.

 

Just a simple question:

 

Why do you think we are we now cutting back?

No we were cutting back first season down as your figures ably show.That was in GB's remit. Of course as has been said many times before if you get rid of over 20players you have to replace some positions with lower paid players.That was starting, Yes Rasiak was purchased (I believe at too high a cost and salary,a mistake by Lowe??? or was he bought in the interim period and the contract sorted out after.The timescale I dont know.If it was under Lowe it was a mistake).

The new people arrived on a populist vote and wanted to prove their claims and went on a buying spree.GB must have been delighted.Pleae do not try and convince me that RL would have sanctioned such spending because I really dont go with that.He did say he had a war chest but not a £7m one. The signing of Fuller for 90k underlines how RL was trying to get things in order and to try and streamline the club for the CCC. I do agree though it would have been folly to dismantle the PL setup straight away as we may have gone straight back up and so a balancing act was to be carried out.

The 2nd season the brakes came off the spending and we went to town.No prudence what so ever and big contracts dished out in PL proportions. So if you can forgive that and then we failed in that crucial 2nd season surely you concede the 3rd was time to forget the dream and get practical.Slash the squad of the high wages then and get ready for the long haul, use the last payment to stabilise not turn a blind eye and hope things will be OK.

You ask the odd question 'Why do you think we are now cutting back?' Is that question for real? It is obvious to me, because we are so in the mire as we didnt take action 12 months ago or even before.

 

We can clearly see that if the youth were brought in far early, married to the senior help they could have received from the finances we should have had available, we would be so far better off. Does not come close to rocket science when you consider that both the teams who were relegated alongside us managed to implement this at least a year earlier.

[um pahars]

Pleae do not try and convince me that RL would have sanctioned such spending because I really dont go with that.He did say he had a war chest but not a £7m one.

 

Well you need to go and have a look at not just his words but his deeds as well around that time.

 

He was not shy in splashing the cash for Rasiak (he sanctioned this deal) and he was also not shy in lining up most of the deals that were then ratfied under the new board.

 

It is accepted that the new regime spent a couple of million more than Lowe intended (e.g.turning BWP into a permanent one as opposed to a loan), and maybe they even gave in to bigger wages than Lowe have, but I'm afraid you need to be convinced abot Lowe's plans that summer, because your current viewpoint is way out of touch with the reality of the situation.

 

He did spend big and he was willing to spend further as he knew that that season would be the last real chance of maintaining a competitive advantage and gaining repromotion [sic].

 

The signing of Fuller for 90k underlines how RL was trying to get things in order and to try and streamline the club for the CCC.

 

Well you have also forgotten how Lowe sanctioned a few million to be spent that summer, but for some reason neither he nor Redknapp could land those they were after.

 

The 2nd season the brakes came off the spending and we went to town.No prudence what so ever and big contracts dished out in PL proportions.

 

Well Lowe presided over the biggest contract (for Rasiak), but even allowing for that, both players wages and overall costs were down year on year.

 

So if you can forgive that and then we failed in that crucial 2nd season surely you concede the 3rd was time to forget the dream and get practical.Slash the squad of the high wages then and get ready for the long haul, use the last payment to stabilise not turn a blind eye and hope things will be OK.

 

Absolutley, and I have never suggested otherwise.

 

The 3rd season down was the time to cut back and make some savings.

 

For some reason (still never fully explained, do you want a hey ho?) Hone decided to carry on as normal, which is something I have always said was a mistake.

 

Hone presided over a one off overspend, brought about as a result of delaying Plan B.

 

You ask the odd question 'Why do you think we are now cutting back?' Is that question for real? It is obvious to me, because we are so in the mire as we didnt take action 12 months ago or even before.

 

I asked it because I just don't think you get it, and your answer actually supports my fear.

 

The overiding reason for us being on the mire is not the one off overspend under Hone (as stupid as it was, and it has added to the problem), but the fact is that this Club cannot operate with an income of circa £14m.

 

Had we cut back before the Hone overspend, then just why would we have been cutting back then?

 

What we are seeing now is Plan B (with a few more cuts due to the Hone overspend), a Plan that would have been implemented anyway. A Plan B that despite the cost cutting will still show us running at a loss and having to sell players to survive.

Edited 26 September, 2008 by um pahars

[OldNick]

Well you need to go and have a look at not just his words but his deeds as well around that time.

 

He was not shy in splashing the cash for Rasiak (he sanctioned this deal) and he was also not shy in lining up most of the deals that were then ratfied under the new board.

 

It is accepted that the new regime spent a couple of million more than Lowe intended (e.g.turning BWP into a permanent one as opposed to a loan), and maybe they even gave in to bigger wages than Lowe have, but I'm afraid you need to be convinced abot Lowe's plans that summer, because your current viewpoint is way out of touch with the reality of the situation.

 

He did spend big and he was willing to spend further as he knew that that season would be the last real chance of maintaining a competitive advantage and gaining repromotion [sic].

 

 

 

Well you have also forgotten how Lowe sanctioned a few million to be spent that summer, but for some reason neither he nor Redknapp could land those they were after.

 

 

 

Well Lowe presided over the biggest contract (for Rasiak), but even allowing for that, both players wages and overall costs were down year on year.

 

 

 

Absolutley, and I have never suggested otherwise.

 

The 3rd season down was the time to cut back and make some savings.

 

For some reason (still never fully explained, do you want a hey ho?) Hone decided to carry on as normal, which is something I have always said was a mistake.

 

Hone presided over a one off overspend, brought about as a result of delaying Plan B.

 

 

 

I asked it because I just don't think you get it, and your answer actually supports my fear.

 

The overiding reason for us being on the mire is not the one off overspend under Hone (as stupid as it was, and it has added to the problem), but the fact is that this Club cannot operate with an income of circa £14m.

 

Had we cut back before the Hone overspend, then just why would we have been cutting back then?

 

What we are seeing now is Plan B (with a few more cuts due to the Hone overspend), a Plan that would have been implemented anyway. A Plan B that despite the cost cutting will still show us running at a loss and having to sell players to survive.

Ump I think because of your over confidence of being right you do miss my point. Yes the 2nd year the costs werre reduced because Rl's remit to GB to get rid of the high spenders had started to come through the system. The third year the costs spiralled again to whoever you wish to point the finger at.I dont know like yourself how many or if any other players RL had snctioned and I do find it interesting now that you say Rl was prepared to spend when I was under the impression in the past you felt he didnt(I may be wrong if it was you and so sorry if I have indeed got wrong person)

I accept you have criticised Hone for the over spend , but were the board not sanctioning the deals? I go back to the fact you and I were pleased that we weree buying (football fans love players coming in) but also must have wondered this seems odd, where is that money coming from as we were overspending.If we could see it why the hell did not memebers of the board?

As for the spending the first year down that has always been a mystery to me, HR not being able to splash the cash!!!!!

[um pahars]

I do find it interesting now that you say Rl was prepared to spend when I was under the impression in the past you felt he didnt(I may be wrong if it was you and so sorry if I have indeed got wrong person)

 

Wrong guy I'm afraid. I was always aware of our financial limitations and was also fair to Lowe with regards spending on transfer fees.

 

What i did have an issue with was how the money was spent, who by, when, wage sturcture, general transfer policy and a Chairman with too much influence on the transfer targets (but hey ho, they are all seperate arguments), but are not the same as criticising Lowe for not spending.

 

 

I accept you have criticised Hone for the over spend , but were the board not sanctioning the deals? I go back to the fact you and I were pleased that we weree buying (football fans love players coming in) but also must have wondered this seems odd, where is that money coming from as we were overspending.If we could see it why the hell did not memebers of the board?

 

Last summer Hone had full control of the PLC Board in tandom with Dulieu.

 

Those two along with Hoos, Oldknow & Jones made a a majority of in the boardroom of 8 (the others being Trant, Crouch and Wiseman).

 

Hone had all the power and effectively did whatever he wanted with regards the day to day running fo the Club. The Non Execs wielded no power and the shareholders were impotent as long as they continued fifghting each other.

 

As for the spending the first year down that has always been a mystery to me, HR not being able to splash the cash!!!!!

 

For me, that summer was almost as poor as the previous one (supporting Sturrock, only to replace him with Wigley) with Redknapp not wanting to be here and Lowe probably not wanting him here either.

Edited 27 September, 2008 by um pahars

[1965onwards]

Can't agree that Saints can't manage on £14 million.

 

If not we might as well liquidate now.

[um pahars]

Can't agree that Saints can't manage on £14 million.

 

If not we might as well liquidate now.

 

I honestly can't see how we can. I understand we have already negotiated a deferment of some of the interest payments (only paying half of the the £2n a year), but I fear the cost base and structure of the Club is such that I just can't see us turning in a profit on normal operations with a £14m income.

 

Wilde said as much on here, and the previous board were very clear about that (including FD David Jones).

 

I fear the only way we can continue trading is by making regular profits from player sales (the alternative of promotion looks like a pipedream).