For those who care about club finances etc - annual accounts published

[Thedelldays]

In some ways I admire your "whatever will be" approach as there is most definitely an argument for the line that we can do nothing about the big numbers and just have to take it on the chin (and trust those in charge) so why worry about it, but do you not also think there could be a case for someone to come out and put some people's minds at rest???

why...we get told on more than one occaision that the club have funding in place...we have BEEN told on more than one occasion that the club has been "financed" by markus/family to get to where we are....and the finance is in place...what more do we need to be told..

 

i am amazed all this is a shock...I remember the likes of stuey romsey getting all bothered about the idea of markus (with cortese as his henchman) funding the club..he was so sure that the gates money etc would easily make us break even

 

do people really think we are going to spend big and not have it reflect in our accounts..?

[um pahars]

why...we get told on more than one occaision that the club have funding in place...we have BEEN told on more than one occasion that the club has been "financed" by markus/family to get to where we are....and the finance is in place...what more do we need to be told..

 

i am amazed all this is a shock...I remember the likes of stuey romsey getting all bothered about the idea of markus (with cortese as his henchman) funding the club..he was so sure that the gates money etc would easily make us break even

 

do people really think we are going to spend big and not have it reflect in our accounts..?

 

TBF I wouldn't be using Stu's rants as some sort of objective point to argue against. The way he is ranting (mostly inaccruately) about the numbers isn't worth getting wound up about.

 

I'm with you in that I am comfortable with the words and actions of the Liebherrs to date (backed up by some of the numbers and statements in the accounts), but there does seem to be a fair few who are anxious about these numbers (and perhaps understandably so given our recent past and what has been witnessed at other Clubs!!), so would asking for some clarification be seen as being asking for too much???

[doddisalegend]

Nice one! Let's all panic and slit our wrists! Let's all throw ourselves off the Itchin Bridge!

 

Steve, this club is no longer run by Lowe. Nor is it run by those deviants down the road. I know you'll say you're just printing what's available, but, from here, it has "Agenda" written all over it. The loan, is repayable AFTER 5 years. The loan is by far and away the biggest debt, but, it wouldn't suit anybody with an agenda to admit that this is an UNKNOWN length of time. Is it payable when the club is sold when we are in the Prem? Is it repaid when we make it into the Champions League? Is it a 99 year long loan, depreciating over that period? Is it wiped off after 10 years if we make it to the Prem? I don't know, but neither do you. This privately owned company published these figures in companies house last June. you have accessed them a year later and have pushed an agenda and created fear and division on this site. Seeing as ML is no longer with us, it suits the agenda to direct all our hate of the situation at Cortese. I note well that we are in the final push of the season and everyone together, behind the team is what we want. But, no! We have to divide the fanbase once again, just so we can take personal swipes at the deceased owner or his friend. It serves us all well that we're sniping at each other, about figures from last season, which, if I'm not mistaken, we started on minus 10 points and then bought in january on here, because a similar group of parasites werre complaining we hadn't won promotion, we hadn't invested enough ion the team! And then all hell broke loose when we didn't wade in with millions thios summer, or in January!

 

This divide by the fear of Lowe has to stop! those that dislike Cortese, just don't like him. Stop trying to dupe decent honest fans into believing we are steaming into oblivion like those lot down the road, and that Cortese is at the front of the hand outs from this massive pot of cash that ML left behind.

 

I support the Saints. Cortese is in charge. ML saved this club. we are on the brink of automatic promotion. That is where we are today, let's leave the past in the past. If you have some relevant, up to date factual information on the loan, then share it with us. If you don't, jog on...

 

Oh god another one some people need to lighten up there is no agenda FFS just people interested in what goes on at our club...........

[Gemmel]

Time for I told you so moment???? (And didn't i get some grief)

 

There was no way in the world the the money coming into the club wasn't in the form of a loan, if for nothing else as tax purposes.

There is no repayment due for over 5 years..... there's the clue. Without some sort of timeline, there is no way ot could be called a loan and no tax relief etc.

 

The debt is not real (In the sense of Aviva, Barclays etc.), go look at chelsea, man city, etc etc.

 

Some middle eastern business men have been found wanting on this one.

 

Anybody who has got their knickers in a twist over this, havent got a clue what they are talking about.

[trousers]

jordansibley: Saints' Chief Finance Officer on @solentsport news bulletins tomorrow morning, talking about last years financial reports #saintsfc

[vico]

Most interesting part of the Group accounts is the Aquistion note. This is where a buying Company must set out what assets it bought, how much those assets were worth at "fair value," how much it actually paid for those assets.

 

In Summary The stadium was valued at £13m, half of the value in the previous accounts. The Investment property was valued at £1m, I presume this is that Farm, if saints still owned it when the club was taken over.

 

The loan notes (I think this must be mostly the Norwich union stadium debt) we re-valued down from £35m to £13m. This means NU must have accepted £13m max and lost the difference. The overdraft at the time would also have been settled for a fraction too as that is included in £13m.

 

The total cash that was paid for the club's net assets (ui.e. ignoring the debt that was paid off) was just £6 - which I thought was funny!!

[Chez]

Oh god another one some people need to lighten up there is no agenda FFS just people interested in what goes on at our club...........

 

spot on and after with the club almost going to the wall not so long ago I personally think its a fans duty to keep a bloody close eye on the finances and ask questions where ever possible. If there are good answers so be it.

[vico]

Another interesting point. The club's ultimate ownership remains in probate at the time of signing the accounts - i.e. the Will (if there was a Will) that ML left has not been settled and actioned upon. No idea how long this would normally take but if there are no disputes you would have though ownership would pass on quite quickly. Interesting if there are any Swiss Probate Lawyers on this Forum?!

[vico]

Also interesting that we sold part of the Stadium Car park for £250k after the year end. Anyone know anything of this?

[CB Fry]

I'm not sure you even deserve a response. But I pointed this out in my post you... er... prat! And Steve brought it to our attention, er, yes, something else I pointed out in my post. I think, like others on here, you are squirming because it doesn't say what you want it to say and you are dig dig digging for stuff that isn't there. But a few smoke and mirrors and you can make it look like you want it to.

 

As to the rest of you, you are right, I understand that there are jitters and wabbles about this stuff. But like him or loathe him, Cortese is NOT Lowe. Cortese is doing this job for his deceased friend and the guy's name we still sing on the terraces! ML, for those of you that may not go (for good or bad reasons alike). Cortese, is not going to screw over the family of his deceased friend you muppets! Wake up and smell the Italian coffee. he may be a bit of a **** from time to time. He may not recognise the family essence of this club, but he knows about numbers, and he knows about loyalty, and I don't mean the sort of dealings and loyalties that Lowe and his mob knew.

 

Over time, Cortese could be swayed on his views and the way he treats individuals. BUT, some of you lot have to stop trying to beat him round the head at every god damn opportunity. Have you not noticed that Saints need your support. or maybe we should all boycott the ground, march on Cortese's house and demand his resignation! Is that it? is that what you want? if not, shut up, take this year old report for what it is, OLD, take a deep breath and sing it with me...

 

Oh when the Saints, Go Marching in, oh when the saints go marching in. I wanna be, in that number, when the Saints go Marching in!

OH WHEN THE SAINTS....

 

 

What a load of utter drivel.

 

No one is saying boycott the ground or doing any of the guff you're coming out with.

 

Pat yourself on the back for being the very bestest super-dooper Saints megafan in the world and sod off onto a different thread.

[um pahars]

Also interesting that we sold part of the Stadium Car park for £250k after the year end. Anyone know anything of this?

 

The bit that backs on to the railway in the Kingsland/Chapel corner????

 

Can't think of anything else!!!!

[Crab Lungs]

It's a Trust thing. There's a lot of wannabe chairmen twiddling their thumbs at the minute.

 

Lmao!

[stevegrant]

Nice one! Let's all panic and slit our wrists! Let's all throw ourselves off the Itchin Bridge!

 

Steve, this club is no longer run by Lowe. Nor is it run by those deviants down the road. I know you'll say you're just printing what's available, but, from here, it has "Agenda" written all over it. The loan, is repayable AFTER 5 years. The loan is by far and away the biggest debt, but, it wouldn't suit anybody with an agenda to admit that this is an UNKNOWN length of time. Is it payable when the club is sold when we are in the Prem? Is it repaid when we make it into the Champions League? Is it a 99 year long loan, depreciating over that period? Is it wiped off after 10 years if we make it to the Prem? I don't know, but neither do you. This privately owned company published these figures in companies house last June. you have accessed them a year later and have pushed an agenda and created fear and division on this site. Seeing as ML is no longer with us, it suits the agenda to direct all our hate of the situation at Cortese. I note well that we are in the final push of the season and everyone together, behind the team is what we want. But, no! We have to divide the fanbase once again, just so we can take personal swipes at the deceased owner or his friend. It serves us all well that we're sniping at each other, about figures from last season, which, if I'm not mistaken, we started on minus 10 points and then bought in january on here, because a similar group of parasites werre complaining we hadn't won promotion, we hadn't invested enough ion the team! And then all hell broke loose when we didn't wade in with millions thios summer, or in January!

 

This divide by the fear of Lowe has to stop! those that dislike Cortese, just don't like him. Stop trying to dupe decent honest fans into believing we are steaming into oblivion like those lot down the road, and that Cortese is at the front of the hand outs from this massive pot of cash that ML left behind.

 

I support the Saints. Cortese is in charge. ML saved this club. we are on the brink of automatic promotion. That is where we are today, let's leave the past in the past. If you have some relevant, up to date factual information on the loan, then share it with us. If you don't, jog on...

Christ, where to begin

 

Always helps to go wading into an argument in full possession of as much information as you can get. In your case, you've not even got over the first fence.

 

As a limited company not listed on the stock exchange, Companies House requires submission of the company's annual report within the nine months after the financial year end. In SFC's case, the financial year ended on 30th June 2010, which means they had until 31st March 2011 to file the accounts, which is exactly the date they were filed. When accounts are filed at Companies House, it takes a few days before they're publicly available, hence why they've only been available from today (possibly yesterday if an eagle eye got there at the right time).

 

I didn't even offer any opinion that could be construed as an "agenda" - a word I notice you rather like, strange how you never have anything to say about footballing matters - I merely printed numbers.

 

I look forward to seeing you be man enough to apologise for being about as wrong as can be. I'm not holding my breath though...

[Clapham Saint]

You speak for yourself.

 

I was saying we'd go into admin months before the financial gurus/happy clappers on here finally conceeded that we would.

 

Really?

 

You joined the forum on 14th July 2009, 6 days after Marcus bought the club from the administrator.

 

Surely you don't have multiple accounts or god forbid have created a new account after being banned?

[Red and White Army]

People 'demanding' to know more about a loan between two private companies/individuals? Don't they know how private/limited companies work? It's not a plc anymore...

 

Fans want to have confidence that Saints are not going to do a Leeds or a Poopey and massively overspend.

[trousers]

jordansibley: Saints' Chief Finance Officer on @solentsport news bulletins tomorrow morning, talking about last years financial reports #saintsfc

 

Has this been broadcast yet?

[trousers]

Fans want to have confidence that Saints are not going to do a Leeds or a Poopey and massively overspend.

 

Don't we have that level of confidence already? (both anecdotally and from the Cortese interviews?)

 

Don't get me wrong, I think transparency is a good thing. I'm just exercising a little devil's advocacy in highlighting that they are not duty bound to release any more detail than is in the public domain already. Indeed, it maybe anti-competitive, business wise, if they did.

[Wopper]

What ever happens there will always be another Markus Leibher ready to throw his money away

[Wes Tender]

The total cash that was paid for the club's net assets (ui.e. ignoring the debt that was paid off) was just £6 - which I thought was funny!!

 

That was the value of the train painting that Doncaster gave us.

[Wes Tender]

Really?

 

You joined the forum on 14th July 2009, 6 days after Marcus bought the club from the administrator.

 

Surely you don't have multiple accounts or god forbid have created a new account after being banned?

 

No, that couldn't be, as it is against the rules of the forum.

[doddisalegend]

Don't we have that level of confidence already? (both anecdotally and from the Cortese interviews?)

 

Don't get me wrong, I think transparency is a good thing. I'm just exercising a little devil's advocacy in highlighting that they are not duty bound to release any more detail than is in the public domain already. Indeed, it maybe anti-competitive, business wise, if they did.

 

Might work in our favour if it gets arounds saints aren't rolling around in a bottomless pit of money maybe other clubs will stop trying to squezze extra cash out of becuase they think we can afford it every time we try to buy someone.

[North Wilts Saint]

Has this been broadcast yet?

 

Heard this about 08:20, very brief recorded piece. basically "in-line with expectations, very healthy position, no need to be worried" - Relax !

[Red and White Army]

Don't we have that level of confidence already? (both anecdotally and from the Cortese interviews?)

 

You might have, I don't. I believe what can be verified, not what I am told.

 

I think most Saints fans do have confidence we won't do a Poopey, but then Saints fans are really in any better position to judge than the Poopey fans cheering Storrie's name prior to it all unravelling.

 

We don't know who owns the club, we don't know how we are being funded and we know we are running at a significant, unsustainable operating loss. We also know we are signing and paying for players that are not supported by our revenue stream. There are a lot of parallels to Poopey right there!

 

Now, before I get flamed I don't think we are going to do a Poopey, but I couldn't put my hand on my heart and say that I KNOW we're not going to do a Poopey. Ultimately we are relying on the word of Cortese just as Poopey and Leeds fans relied on the words of the people running their club.

[Charlie Wayman]

I must be a bit thick as I didn't realise privately owned business have to publically publsh accounts.

 

They have to submit annual accounts which do not have to be published in the public domain. Clearly Saints owners are making a point about openness and transparency, which is very good to see. No need for futile and endless speculation about rumours and innuendo.

[Pancake]

Another interesting point. The club's ultimate ownership remains in probate at the time of signing the accounts - i.e. the Will (if there was a Will) that ML left has not been settled and actioned upon. No idea how long this would normally take but if there are no disputes you would have though ownership would pass on quite quickly. Interesting if there are any Swiss Probate Lawyers on this Forum?!

 

From 2nd experience of a foreign owned UK based company, it took almost 9 months for it all to be sorted. And this was a small company.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I take it then that the cheap season ticket renewal I was relying on to balance the CEC books is looking distinctly less likely then?

 

Never mind, I'll just have to go back to selling my body down the docks I suppose .......

[positivepete]

More perspective to the issues at other clubs to add to the earlier note about the situation at Coventry. From the Grauniad again

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/apr/08/tottenham-gareth-bale-departure

 

 

However the financial realities at Tottenham – as displayed by the balance sheet accompanying Levy's remarks – point to straitened circumstances ahead. With eight games remaining in their Premier League season, Spurs are five points adrift of Champions League qualification and risk missing out on Europe's senior club competition next season. That would come at a significant cost for a club who appear to have become rapidly reliant on Champions League revenues.

 

Starting with the positives, turnover for the six-month period has increased by very nearly 50% to £79.8m. The Champions League group stage brought in £18.4m in extra gate receipts and participation bonuses, with another £3.3m in sponsorship and corporate hospitality. Merchandising went up £1.2m. This all adds up to Champions League-related income growth of £22.9m of the total £26.2m rise in overall revenue. But much of that new money was quickly spent.

 

During the corresponding six months in 2009, Spurs' operating expenses were £48.6m; last year's interim period showed expenses had reached £61.5m, a net growth in costs of £12.9m. The summary to the accounts states: "[increases in] operating expenses [were] due in the main to the costs associated with a large squad size."

 

With other charges such as interest, depreciation and amortisation of player contracts, the club are on a trajectory for a substantial loss next year. And in addition, Spurs have spent £40.7m in transfer and agents' fees.

[trousers]

You might have, I don't. I believe what can be verified, not what I am told.

 

I think most Saints fans do have confidence we won't do a Poopey, but then Saints fans are really in any better position to judge than the Poopey fans cheering Storrie's name prior to it all unravelling.

 

We don't know who owns the club, we don't know how we are being funded and we know we are running at a significant, unsustainable operating loss. We also know we are signing and paying for players that are not supported by our revenue stream. There are a lot of parallels to Poopey right there!

 

Now, before I get flamed I don't think we are going to do a Poopey, but I couldn't put my hand on my heart and say that I KNOW we're not going to do a Poopey. Ultimately we are relying on the word of Cortese just as Poopey and Leeds fans relied on the words of the people running their club.

 

Fair point. But playing the Devil's advocate card one more time....if it transpired that the levels of prudence we were being told about (directly and anecdotally) didn't match reality, what could you/I/we do about it? Yes, it's "nice to know" but what does knowing actually achieve in the tangible sense?

[Tamesaint]

More perspective to the issues at other clubs to add to the earlier note about the situation at Coventry. From the Grauniad again

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/apr/08/tottenham-gareth-bale-departure

 

 

However the financial realities at Tottenham – as displayed by the balance sheet accompanying Levy's remarks – point to straitened circumstances ahead. With eight games remaining in their Premier League season, Spurs are five points adrift of Champions League qualification and risk missing out on Europe's senior club competition next season. That would come at a significant cost for a club who appear to have become rapidly reliant on Champions League revenues.

 

Starting with the positives, turnover for the six-month period has increased by very nearly 50% to £79.8m. The Champions League group stage brought in £18.4m in extra gate receipts and participation bonuses, with another £3.3m in sponsorship and corporate hospitality. Merchandising went up £1.2m. This all adds up to Champions League-related income growth of £22.9m of the total £26.2m rise in overall revenue. But much of that new money was quickly spent.

 

During the corresponding six months in 2009, Spurs' operating expenses were £48.6m; last year's interim period showed expenses had reached £61.5m, a net growth in costs of £12.9m. The summary to the accounts states: "[increases in] operating expenses [were] due in the main to the costs associated with a large squad size."

 

With other charges such as interest, depreciation and amortisation of player contracts, the club are on a trajectory for a substantial loss next year. And in addition, Spurs have spent £40.7m in transfer and agents' fees.

 

 

Super 'arry turning a profitable club into a club making substantial losses???? Surely not!!

[Special K]

Players wages as a proportion of turnover is a concern, but everything else is pretty much as expected. Revenue will increase if (sorry...when) we get promoted, so as a positive it shows a committment (that we already knew) to the push to go up. Could really do with promotion though.

[sandwichsaint]

More perspective to the issues at other clubs to add to the earlier note about the situation at Coventry. From the Grauniad again

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/apr/08/tottenham-gareth-bale-departure

 

 

However the financial realities at Tottenham – as displayed by the balance sheet accompanying Levy's remarks – point to straitened circumstances ahead. With eight games remaining in their Premier League season, Spurs are five points adrift of Champions League qualification and risk missing out on Europe's senior club competition next season. That would come at a significant cost for a club who appear to have become rapidly reliant on Champions League revenues.

 

Starting with the positives, turnover for the six-month period has increased by very nearly 50% to £79.8m. The Champions League group stage brought in £18.4m in extra gate receipts and participation bonuses, with another £3.3m in sponsorship and corporate hospitality. Merchandising went up £1.2m. This all adds up to Champions League-related income growth of £22.9m of the total £26.2m rise in overall revenue. But much of that new money was quickly spent.

 

During the corresponding six months in 2009, Spurs' operating expenses were £48.6m; last year's interim period showed expenses had reached £61.5m, a net growth in costs of £12.9m. The summary to the accounts states: "[increases in] operating expenses [were] due in the main to the costs associated with a large squad size."

 

With other charges such as interest, depreciation and amortisation of player contracts, the club are on a trajectory for a substantial loss next year. And in addition, Spurs have spent £40.7m in transfer and agents' fees.

 

LOL! Good Ol' 'arry, leopards and spots anyone?

[dronskisaint]

I find this set of figures worrying.

 

The takeover was supposed to leave us debt-free, but it seems there is still over 14m debt oustanding from it.

 

And we are operating at a loss as well.

 

Financially, we havent moved on at all.

 

I dont get those saying "this means we must win promotion". So, great, a bit more TV money, but the wages will sky-rocket as we try to maintain our hard-fought new level...

 

A loan doesn't have to have a repayment date and it can always be transferred to shares to the value if it became necessary for either tax or, for example, UEFA regulations.

 

It means that the club are debt free even if not making money - this will undoubtedly be written in to the business plan and will change according to future income streams (i.e. Championship & PL) with a contingency if this does not happen to the original timescale.

 

It's a common way of buying and developing a business and allows the flexibility to adjust to the market conditions as they evolve.

 

Please note the lack of sarcasm and an emphasis on the reality.

[Wes Tender]

You might have, I don't. I believe what can be verified, not what I am told.

 

I think most Saints fans do have confidence we won't do a Poopey, but then Saints fans are really in any better position to judge than the Poopey fans cheering Storrie's name prior to it all unravelling.

 

We don't know who owns the club, we don't know how we are being funded and we know we are running at a significant, unsustainable operating loss. We also know we are signing and paying for players that are not supported by our revenue stream. There are a lot of parallels to Poopey right there!

 

Now, before I get flamed I don't think we are going to do a Poopey, but I couldn't put my hand on my heart and say that I KNOW we're not going to do a Poopey. Ultimately we are relying on the word of Cortese just as Poopey and Leeds fans relied on the words of the people running their club.

 

I take issue with the highlighted word here. Who says it is unsustainable? I see no evidence whatsoever that we cannot sustain this level of debt. So either remove it, or give us some concrete evidence to back it up instead of being alarmist and using hysterical adjectives.

[trousers]

jordansibley: Saints' Chief Finance Officer on @solentsport news bulletins tomorrow morning, talking about last years financial reports #saintsfc

 

So, no-one heard these news bulletins then? Or, perhaps we don't care....? :-)

[doggface]

anyone heard solent???

would like to know more on this sounds abit concerning imo

[Matthew Le God]

anyone heard solent???

would like to know more on this sounds abit concerning imo

 

If you want to know more, download the 30 page document from Companies House.

[hypochondriac]

Really?

 

You joined the forum on 14th July 2009, 6 days after Marcus bought the club from the administrator.

 

Surely you don't have multiple accounts or god forbid have created a new account after being banned?

 

Stanley

[hypochondriac]

TBH it clearly is at least a little concerning. If nothing else, we were told that we were debt free and now we have what appears to be debts. I suppose it depends what your definition of debts is but I would have hoped that SFC would be a little clearer about this arrangement. Hopefully this piece on Solent will make things a bit clearer.

[Matthew Le God]

Hopefully this piece on Solent will make things a bit clearer.

 

It was meant to be on Solent this morning. It is now 1pm.

[hypochondriac]

It was meant to be on Solent this morning. It is now 1pm.

 

As clear as mud then.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

Stanley

 

Yes, we know. I think it was said tongue in cheek.

[Thedelldays]

TBH it clearly is at least a little concerning. If nothing else, we were told that we were debt free and now we have what appears to be debts. I suppose it depends what your definition of debts is but I would have hoped that SFC would be a little clearer about this arrangement. Hopefully this piece on Solent will make things a bit clearer.

 

We were also told that we are going to be run like a proper business... Like all businesses, we have incomings and out goings but we have the financial security of the marks legacy/family

[Dig Dig]

TBH it clearly is at least a little concerning. If nothing else, we were told that we were debt free and now we have what appears to be debts. I suppose it depends what your definition of debts is but I would have hoped that SFC would be a little clearer about this arrangement. Hopefully this piece on Solent will make things a bit clearer.

 

These are not debts in the normal sense of the word. They are defined as debts but there is a world of difference between this type of loan (from a private beneficiary) and a loan from a bank etc. As others has said, labelling cash injected into the club as a loan is for tax purposes and I don't see the need for us to know the exact mechanisms of the loan made public as it may have an adverse effect on the business model.

 

You can't have it both ways... you have been complaining about about us not spending as we did circa Jan 2010 but at the same time you want us to be debt free?

[Ken Tone]

It was meant to be on Solent this morning. It is now 1pm.

 

It was ...admittedly only briefly. As someone has already posted, sports news at c8.20 am.( The only reason I have Solent on in the car in the morning.)

 

Basically Solent bulletin said "Chief Finance Officer of Saints says don't worry, all is well."

[hypochondriac]

These are not debts in the normal sense of the word. They are defined as debts but there is a world of difference between this type of loan (from a private beneficiary) and a loan from a bank etc. As others has said, labelling cash injected into the club as a loan is for tax purposes and I don't see the need for us to know the exact mechanisms of the loan made public as it may have an adverse effect on the business model.

 

You can't have it both ways... you have been complaining about about us not spending as we did circa Jan 2010 but at the same time you want us to be debt free?

 

Well then possibly statements such as 'we are debt free' should be clarified in order to save confusion?

[hypochondriac]

It was ...admittedly only briefly. As someone has already posted, sports news at c8.20 am.( The only reason I have Solent on in the car in the morning.)

 

Basically Solent bulletin said "Chief Finance Officer of Saints says don't worry, all is well."

 

Well he's hardly likely to say 'panic, all has gone to hell!'

[Thedelldays]

Well then possibly statements such as 'we are debt free' should be clarified in order to save confusion?

 

Why... I am not confused.. We were told on more than one occasion that we were being funded by marks/family... If that means any debt will disappear down the line the. So be it. We shall see if we go up an don't add relatively well/realistically

[hypochondriac]

These are not debts in the normal sense of the word. They are defined as debts but there is a world of difference between this type of loan (from a private beneficiary) and a loan from a bank etc. As others has said, labelling cash injected into the club as a loan is for tax purposes and I don't see the need for us to know the exact mechanisms of the loan made public as it may have an adverse effect on the business model.

 

You can't have it both ways... you have been complaining about about us not spending as we did circa Jan 2010 but at the same time you want us to be debt free?

 

I don't want us to be debt free if that is not the best way to run the business, I just want some clarification as to what this is. On the face of it, it doesn't tally with the statement 'we are debt free.'

[hypochondriac]

Why... I am not confused.. We were told on more than one occasion that we were being funded by marks/family... If that means any debt will disappear down the line the. So be it. We shall see if we go up an don't add relatively well/realistically

 

I agree that that will be very interesting and I will be the first to admit my fears were unfounded if this is the case. I suppose 'realistically' is quite a flexible concept for many though. I'm just saying that we get a statement that we are debt free and now we have what is defined as debts.

[Dig Dig]

Well then possibly statements such as 'we are debt free' should be clarified in order to save confusion?

 

It doesn't take a genius to work out that all contributions made by ML and now his estate are in the form of a "loan" repayable upon promotion to the premiership or else when they eventually sell the club. We are debt free in the sense that we owe little to external companies and we are liquid enough to have over 2 million in the bank which means that the club is servicing little or no interest linked to debts.