Please can everyone read this before posting on any threads in future.

[JustMike]

It's a Friday, I typed that from a phone without a spell checker, and with a nasty cpu lag which makes reviewing and editing my post rather time consuming, anyhow isn't there some form of anti-pendant rules on this interweb thing?

 

should be an anti cock rule too

[Window Cleaner]

It's a Friday, I typed that from a phone without a spell checker, and with a nasty cpu lag which makes reviewing and editing my post rather time consuming, anyhow isn't there some form of anti-pendant rules on this interweb thing?

 

you shouldn't need a spell checker to be able to get words like definitely and pedant right.

[JustMike]

you shouldn't need a spell checker to be able to get words like definitely and pedant right.

 

assuming he is not dyslexic

[Joensuu]

should be an anti cock rule too

 

Yup, but it would be unfair to penalise WC twice. Labelling him a spelling nazi is enough for me.

[John B]

Just a little precis of our situation:

 

- We are owned by rich owners.

- The Club is not rich, but is on a solid financial footing.

- The Club is being run as a business that breaks even. Due to our attendances, merchadising and prices this allows us to buy more expensive players.

- Money is there for a marquee signing, however, it is not prudent to pay above the market rate for these players.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Sounds exactly like the Lowe Era

[dubai_phil]

To be fair to DPS everything he has posted in the OP has been made in differing public statements at some point in the past 20 months or so.

 

But boy ain't some people gonna be in for a shock one way or the other IF we ever find out who to really believe NL/LB or NC.

 

IN NC's defence as to whether we should believe or not, he's a Banker, not a Politician

 

Oh

[kpturner]

It's a Friday, I typed that from a phone without a spell checker, and with a nasty cpu lag which makes reviewing and editing my post rather time consuming, anyhow isn't there some form of anti-pendant rules on this interweb thing?

What is wrong with wearing a pendant (not that I do of course)?

[Joensuu]

What is wrong with wearing a pendant (not that I do of course)?

 

I guess if you're into some Beastie Boy thing or perhaps like spending your summer solstice stoned in a henge there's not much wrong with wearing a pendant.

[Doctoroncall]

Dark forces at work i see... ummh.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

To be fair to DPS everything he has posted in the OP has been made in differing public statements at some point in the past 20 months or so.

 

But boy ain't some people gonna be in for a shock one way or the other IF we ever find out who to really believe NL/LB or NC.

 

IN NC's defence as to whether we should believe or not, he's a Banker, not a Politician

 

Oh

 

And this is my point, everything has been stated as FACT by Cortese. Yet people in this thread have said that unless I am NC or have access myself, these statements are not facts.

 

Therefore, conversely, if Cortese said it, it is fact.

[Gemmel]

And this is my point, everything has been stated as FACT by Cortese. Yet people in this thread have said that unless I am NC or have access myself, these statements are not facts.

 

Therefore, conversely, if Cortese said it, it is fact.

 

I have never heard cortese say we are profitable or even running at break even. Whilst that is obvioulsy the goal, i dont think he has ever said that.

 

He also said, he doesnt report to anyone and is not accountable to anyone. Which is quite obviously complete ********.

 

Additionally you dont know how Markus injected cash into the club....so it's all just guess work as to how stable or rich or poor we are.

[Joensuu]

I have never heard cortese say we are profitable or even running at break even. Whilst that is obvioulsy the goal, i dont think he has ever said that.

 

Cortese certainly indicated to this reporter that he aimed to break even once we are in the Championship (albeit without a direct 'break even' quote). http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulfletcher/2009/09/back_from_the_brink_southampto.html?page=15

 

 

He also said, he doesnt report to anyone and is not accountable to anyone. Which is quite obviously complete ********.

After you referring to this interview? http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/s/southampton/9269293.stm About 3:20ish Cortese is asked who is now in charge. If you notice he very carefully avoids answering the question, and instead tells us that everything is the same as it was when Markus was around, and that 'Markus [was] never ever involved'. However, Cortese was employed by Markus, and would have been removed by Markus if he (Leibherr) wasn't happy. As such, if nothing has changed, then Cortese IS still answerable to somebody, and that somebody has to be the current owner(s).

 

Additionally you dont know how Markus injected cash into the club....so it's all just guess work as to how stable or rich or poor we are.

 

Agreed. So let's base our estimate on the minimum known. Just by merit of being both debt free and by having a relatively high income, we are by far the wealthiest club in League One. Even compared to the top Championship clubs we are very wealthy. Of course, this is just the mimimum estimate of our known wealth.

[Gemmel]

Cortese certainly indicated to this reporter that he aimed to break even once we are in the Championship (albeit without a direct 'break even' quote). http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulfletcher/2009/09/back_from_the_brink_southampto.html?page=15

 

Thats my point, of course we want to be profitable and self sustaining but we are not there yet as op suggested we were.

 

 

 

After you referring to this interview? http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/s/southampton/9269293.stm About 3:20ish Cortese is asked who is now in charge. If you notice he very carefully avoids answering the question, and instead tells us that everything is the same as it was when Markus was around, and that 'Markus [was] never ever involved'. However, Cortese was employed by Markus, and would have been removed by Markus if he (Leibherr) wasn't happy. As such, if nothing has changed, then Cortese IS still answerable to somebody, and that somebody has to be the current owner(s).

 

Of course he is answerable to someone, that was my point

 

 

 

Agreed. So let's base our estimate on the minimum known. Just by merit of being both debt free and by having a relatively high income, we are by far the wealthiest club in League One. Even compared to the top Championship clubs we are very wealthy. Of course, this is just the mimimum estimate of our known wealth

Stupid to suggest we are debt free as we don't know the business model in which Markus put his cash in. The most common and tax efficient way of investing or injecting cash into a company is through a Directors loan. On the assumption that is what he did (regardless of whether he ever intended to call these in or not - and i suspect not) those loan notes, now belong to someone else..

,,,

[Dellman]

It's good NC doesn't have to go public on our financial position, if it was widely known it would immediately foul up our negotiating position. I'm very pleased NC plays his cards close to his chest and refuses to play the publicity game.

[Window Cleaner]

It's good NC doesn't have to go public on our financial position, if it was widely known it would immediately foul up our negotiating position. I'm very pleased NC plays his cards close to his chest and refuses to play the publicity game.

 

I think we still have to register accounts with Companies House though.No doubt these are available for some sort of fee.

[Joensuu]

Agree with you on the first two points (although, seen as our stated aim is to break even, and our current expenditure would suggest that we are doing so, then I think it safe to consider that to be our current policy, until there is evidence to the contrary.).

 

Stupid to suggest we are debt free as we don't know the business model in which Markus put his cash in. The most common and tax efficient way of investing or injecting cash into a company is through a Directors loan. On the assumption that is what he did (regardless of whether he ever intended to call these in or not - and i suspect not) those loan notes, now belong to someone else..

 

Hang on Gemmel, why are you assuming that there are any loans? Weren't they (mostly) dismissed by Cortese when he said "we are a debt free healthy club". Also listen out for his response to Dubai_Phil. So, if loans and debt have been denied, what leads you to assume the opposite?

Edited 28 January, 2011 by Joensuu

[John Boy Saint]

Swiss Business practice at work, don't tell anyone anything unless you really really have to (and even then reluctantly).

 

Of course here where rumour rules the tabloids headlines there is always a tenuous whiff of fire smoke in the air= saying nothing means you are up to something secretive and suspicious.

[Gemmel]

Agree with you on the first two points (although, seen as our stated aim is to break even, and our current expenditure would suggest that we are doing so, then I think it safe to consider that to be our current policy, until there is evidence to the contrary.).

 

 

 

Hang on Gemmel, why are you assuming that there are any loans? Weren't they (mostly) dismissed by Cortese when he said "we are a debt free healthy club". Also listen out for his response to Dubai_Phil. So, if loans and debt have been denied, what leads you to assume the opposite?

 

All outstanding debts were paid off when Markus bought the club. At that point the club obviously neeed working capital and cashflow, so lets say somewhere between 5 and 10 million pounds was deposited or made available to the club. In its most basic form, if the money was simply given to the club, then part of it would be taxable, just in the same way that the most you can gift someone is 10k without tax implications (Or around that) so i think its safe to say they didnt do that. Whilst there are many other ways of investing the most common (Abramovich for example) is through a Directors loan. This has tax benefits and also can be exchanged for equity (See Chelsea, Man City etc etc.) and the loan written off at a later date.

So whilst Markus probably never had any intention of calling in the loans, those loan notes are now owned by someone else and almost certainly exist. It will be their plans for the club that will ultimately decide if we are or not in debt.

[Asaint4ever]

you shouldn't need a spell checker to be able to get words like definitely and pedant right.

 

1st class pr!ck. Get a life you geek......

[Joensuu]

All outstanding debts were paid off when Markus bought the club. At that point the club obviously neeed working capital and cashflow, so lets say somewhere between 5 and 10 million pounds was deposited or made available to the club. In its most basic form, if the money was simply given to the club, then part of it would be taxable, just in the same way that the most you can gift someone is 10k without tax implications (Or around that) so i think its safe to say they didnt do that. Whilst there are many other ways of investing the most common (Abramovich for example) is through a Directors loan. This has tax benefits and also can be exchanged for equity (See Chelsea, Man City etc etc.) and the loan written off at a later date.

So whilst Markus probably never had any intention of calling in the loans, those loan notes are now owned by someone else and almost certainly exist. It will be their plans for the club that will ultimately decide if we are or not in debt.

 

Certainly all sounds plausible (plausable?), but surely thats an assumption on your part? It would also make Cortese`s (partial) denial of any loans a lie.

 

I also fell you have over estimated the start up costs. Our spending to date broadly matches our income.

 

You might be right, but if so lies have been told.

 

Perhaps youre right to be sceptical, after all the board have let us down for years. Perhaps im just old-fashioned when i give people the benefit of the doubt until they first let me down.

[aintforever]

Why are people saying that our spending matches income when no one has a clue what our wage bill is?

[saintbletch]

Oh FFS if you want to be taken seriously learn to spell.

DEFINITELY LEAKED RECEIVE.

 

Spelling definitely as definately should be infractable, there is no earthly reason for getting it wrong.

 

Sorry rant over but there's far too much of it at the moment.

 

Well I'd say that the more heinous crime is the use of Are (ARE CEO) instead of our. But I'd also make allowances for the difficulty the original poster had typing on his mobile. He might also argue that this is a simple football forum and as such normal grammar fascism should be left at the door. He might just have a point.

 

I also rile when I see poor spelling and grammar but I recognise that this says more about me than the perpetrator. In fact there is one thing that I hate more than poor grammar and that is people who are poor at complaining about poor grammar.

 

I couldn't see why you suggested using LEAKED. I did see that the OP used "LEACHED". Was that it? If so then in my humble opinion LEACHED is OK in that context.

 

And if you're going to be a pedant and you don't flag the OP's use of AVALIABLE and ATTENDENCE - two words I'm not completely familiar with, then you should be sending back your Pedant Society membership.

 

Finally, I wouldn't say that yours was a particularly sorry rant, but it's good to see that you can be self-critical too.

 

Hugs and the warmest of regards.

 

P.S. I should acknowledge that this post is probably full of grammar and/or spelling crimes. So if you find any, I was being ironic.

[kpturner]

Well I'd say that the more heinous crime is the use of Are (ARE CEO) instead of our. But I'd also make allowances for the difficulty the original poster had typing on his mobile. He might also argue that this is a simple football forum and as such normal grammar fascism should be left at the door. He might just have a point.

 

I also rile when I see poor spelling and grammar but I recognise that this says more about me than the perpetrator. In fact there is one thing that I hate more than poor grammar and that is people who are poor at complaining about poor grammar.

 

I couldn't see why you suggested using LEAKED. I did see that the OP used "LEACHED". Was that it? If so then in my humble opinion LEACHED is OK in that context.

 

And if you're going to be a pedant and you don't flag the OP's use of AVALIABLE and ATTENDENCE - two words I'm not completely familiar with, then you should be sending back your Pedant Society membership.

 

Finally, I wouldn't say that yours was a particularly sorry rant, but it's good to see that you can be self-critical too.

 

Hugs and the warmest of regards.

 

P.S. I should acknowledge that this post is probably full of grammar and/or spelling crimes. So if you find any, I was being ironic.

Sarcasm and irony! A heady cocktail!

[Gemmel]

Certainly all sounds plausible (plausable?), but surely thats an assumption on your part? It would also make Cortese`s (partial) denial of any loans a lie.

 

I also fell you have over estimated the start up costs. Our spending to date broadly matches our income.

 

You might be right, but if so lies have been told.

 

Perhaps youre right to be sceptical, after all the board have let us down for years. Perhaps im just old-fashioned when i give people the benefit of the doubt until they first let me down.

 

Your missing the point, it is not a question of lies. Cortese has said we are debt free and whilst Markus was alive to all intents and purposes we were, it is just a way of moving money around in the most economical way. Unfortuneately Markus's untimely death changes things if the new owners want to realise those loans.

 

It's not something underhand, just common business practice.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/debt-swap-is-window-dressing-1859997.html

[Redondo Saint]

Because it's better than shoving them up their own arse??

 

Is this fact or your opinion?

[NickG]

Your missing the point, it is not a question of lies. Cortese has said we are debt free and whilst Markus was alive to all intents and purposes we were, it is just a way of moving money around in the most economical way. Unfortuneately Markus's untimely death changes things if the new owners want to realise those loans.

 

It's not something underhand, just common business practice.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/debt-swap-is-window-dressing-1859997.html

 

there weren't any loans

[Gemmel]

there weren't any loans

 

So how did Markus inject cash into the club

[NickG]

straight non-returnable transfers.

[Gemmel]

straight non-returnable transfers.

 

 

With the greatest of respect.... dont be ******* stupid. Why would Markus do that and then lose 40%.

 

Go back and read some of the posts. You are out of your depth

[NickG]

with greatest respect?? Grow up.

 

 

Directly stated by Nicola Cortese.

 

Was he lying?

[Chez]

straight non-returnable transfers.

 

for what? Are we breaking even or not?

[NickG]

how would I know?!!!

 

Just know that Markus ensured that he would not leave us with any debt to anyone or any institution.

 

Hope that helps Gemmel???

[Gemmel]

with greatest respect?? Grow up.

 

 

Directly stated by Nicola Cortese.

 

Was he lying?

 

Not neccesarily if the intention (As i have already posted) was to never call in the loans, but you dont just go and handover 5 million or whatever the amount was when the company you are giving it to would then have to pay tax on it. When the other way is perfectly legal and means that when you give 5 million, they get 5 million.

 

Go and read the link from the independant a few post back

[NickG]

glanced at the end of this thread and saw your mistake -correcting you is pretty much the limit of my interest. No need for that first response - particularly as its you in the wrong on this occasion.

 

Markus and his time here was not based on a normal business model - thats obvious

[dubai_phil]

Re-vist the Solent interview with NC from about last April. The question re how ML was funding the club was asked.

 

The answer was vague, but it came out as "in the form of grants" or words to that effect.

 

Don't think there are any loan notes on the club at the moment (IMHO) think it really was a hobby

[Chez]

Not neccesarily if the intention (As i have already posted) was to never call in the loans, but you dont just go and handover 5 million or whatever the amount was when the company you are giving it to would then have to pay tax on it. When the other way is perfectly legal and means that when you give 5 million, they get 5 million.

 

Go and read the link from the independant a few post back

so for all intents and purposes any potential `handouts' from Marcus (if there were any) will have been made as loans (for tax reasons). These will be on the company's balance book, and could potentialy be called in by the current (new) owners should they choose.

 

After the Gaydmak nightmare forgive me for not being 100% carefree.

[NickG]

not unless Nicola was lying.

 

Nicola has stated what Gemmel is saying is not true - clearly asked and repeated with no ambiguity.

[buctootim]

My hunch, based on nothing at all, other than circumstantial comments by Cortese and Adkins and is that Markus allocated a specific amount to the 'project' - ie get Saints back within 5 years. If we use up a big chunk on transfers now, or run at a big annual loss there will likely be less for when we need the big push up from the championship. I can imagine the family honouring Markus' plegdes, but not committing big new money.

[CanadaSaint]

My hunch, based on nothing at all, other than circumstantial comments by Cortese and Adkins and is that Markus allocated a specific amount to the 'project' - ie get Saints back within 5 years. If we use up a big chunk on transfers now, or run at a big annual loss there will likely be less for when we need the big push up from the championship. I can imagine the family honouring Markus' plegdes, but not committing big new money.

 

That's pretty much how I've understood the various snippets. A finite sum was formally allocated before Marcus's death.

 

This is why I'm not gung-ho about signing people when we arguably have the deepest and most talented squad in our division.

 

If Cortese is taking a calculated gamble that we have the playing resources to secure promotion, it's probably because he knows that we can't spend the same money twice and wants to hold onto it for (hopefully) Summer squad strengthening.

[um pahars]

Re-vist the Solent interview with NC from about last April. The question re how ML was funding the club was asked.

 

The answer was vague, but it came out as "in the form of grants" or words to that effect.

 

Don't think there are any loan notes on the club at the moment (IMHO) think it really was a hobby

 

Going back to the beginning, from my fag packet calculations I would be surprised if we were running at break even.

 

Obviously don't have access to any of the figures (wages & costs changed, "mortgage" interest gone, attendances up), but judging from the gap last time around I still think we're running at an Operating Loss. Net Transfers (in or out) are then on top of this.

 

As for how we're funding that deficit (and any terms), then no idea (apart from it's coming from someone's pocket), and have been interested in some of the snippets here.

[Red and White Army]

Heres a little precis of our situation;

- We are not quite sure who actually owns us, but we are currently under the wing of the "Estate of Markus Liebherr"

- We have no idea if the club is rich, if funds were already in place prior to Markus's illness or whether funds were deposited during Markus's illness or if access to funds has been made available by the estate.

- We hope that the club is on a solid financial footing and everything suggests that it is, however we do not know the model in which capital has been injected into the club and regardless of whether Markus ever intended to recover any investment or not, the most common, prudent and tax effcient way of doing this is through Directors loans, so it is now ultimately down to the new owners as to how they mange or realise these.

- We have no idea whether we are breaking even, running at a profit, or continuing to run at a loss. Attendances have been on the whole, "good" and a number of squad players were released in the summer that would have brought the wage bill down, but without access to the accounts, it is impossible to say.

- There is obviousy funds available to draw on, but how much is unknown, as is the structure of any deal for Marquee signings that we might bid for.

 

The quotes and noises coming out of the club are positive, the squad is strong and theres an excellent chance of promotion. However the future (As it has been since Markus's death) remains uncertain and the best thing the fans can do, is enjoy, for what many will be their first genuine automatic promotion chase.

 

This. You have summed up the situation perfectly. I hope we are ok, but I do not know that we are.

[Gemmel]

Morning Um, Nickg seemed to think, i was suggesting something sinister with the fact that money may have been injected through loan notes (Which i wasn't - its just a standard way of injecting cash). Phil seems to think it was through "Grants" - What's the most common way of how these things are typically done?

[Fan The Flames]

The first item is a fact. The rest can be seen as deductions based on all available evidence. I have seen nothing but the rantings of some no name on an unreliable message board to suggest otherwise.

 

The evidence or the lack of counter evidence doesn't make the deductions right.

[Fan The Flames]

It was clearly stated when ML and NC took over, that the club would be run as a business, using the funds generated by the club. How and why people seem to think otherwise is beyond me, there is a train crash happening just down the road, yet many on here, want us on the same track as our fishy fiends. I for one, believe the way we are proceeding is the proper way.

 

You are mixing up two things being run as a business and only spending the cash you have generated. Basically a business can either only spend the cash they have generated or they can speculate, but both methods are illustrations of 'being run as a business'.

 

I see no problem with spending cash beyond our current revenue that we can comfortably service.

[Smirking_Saint]

We still have access on a serious amount of money, for that i am 90% sure. Give it time and plans will probably be revealed.

[um pahars]

Morning Um, Nickg seemed to think, i was suggesting something sinister with the fact that money may have been injected through loan notes (Which i wasn't - its just a standard way of injecting cash). Phil seems to think it was through "Grants" - What's the most common way of how these things are typically done?

 

I think they're as broad as they are long.

 

From the Walker & Gibson types of financing (see attached link http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2010/nov/10/venkys-blackburn-rovers-takeover-proposed and http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/jun/25/premierleague.blackburn1 for info relating to Blackburn loans, conversions to shares and funding after Walker's death) to Abramovich

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/may/19/roman-abramovich-chelsea-loan-debt which is still a little unsure (loans or shares) through to Directors loans at an advantageous rate (to the Club), commercial loans (at going rate) and then shark loans (at Pompey's rates)!!!!!!

 

Donations aren't generally the order of the day (for a number of reasons).

Edited 29 January, 2011 by um pahars

[benjii]

All outstanding debts were paid off when Markus bought the club. At that point the club obviously neeed working capital and cashflow, so lets say somewhere between 5 and 10 million pounds was deposited or made available to the club. In its most basic form, if the money was simply given to the club, then part of it would be taxable, just in the same way that the most you can gift someone is 10k without tax implications (Or around that) so i think its safe to say they didnt do that. Whilst there are many other ways of investing the most common (Abramovich for example) is through a Directors loan. This has tax benefits and also can be exchanged for equity (See Chelsea, Man City etc etc.) and the loan written off at a later date.

So whilst Markus probably never had any intention of calling in the loans, those loan notes are now owned by someone else and almost certainly exist. It will be their plans for the club that will ultimately decide if we are or not in debt.

 

I'm pretty sure that Cortese said at some point it was just direct equity investment.

 

Don't ask me for a link or proof though because I can't remember for sure!

[benjii]

Re-vist the Solent interview with NC from about last April. The question re how ML was funding the club was asked.

 

The answer was vague, but it came out as "in the form of grants" or words to that effect.

 

Don't think there are any loan notes on the club at the moment (IMHO) think it really was a hobby

 

Ahh, there we go, that's where I may have heard it then.

 

Also, Cortese has repeatedly said "no debt". Now, director's loans may not be on market-standard commercial terms but they most certainly are "debt". Therefore, unless that was an untruth or a halftruth, equity injections look the most likely answer.

 

As someone else said, the accounts will be available from Companies House for anyone who is that interested.

[NickG]

Cortesse said there were no loans - if Markus walked away the club would not owe him or anyone else money.