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

[hypochondriac]

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.

 

It's an interesting question, and one which would be worth asking face to face at a fans forum as the original debt question was...

[rallyboy]

Bearing in mind the club doesn't do any business of this ilk via the media and we have now developed a policy where if you hear a rumour you know it isn't true, the last thing Cortese's going to do is discuss delicate finance issues in public, and nor should he.

 

I see nothing there that concerns me, I'd be worried if they look the same in a year from now, though I think the time has come to get promoted to ensure they don't!

 

As for his wages, my recollection is that in one of the sets of accounts before we blew up it indicated that directors wages and expenses amounted to £14.5M - I'm happy to be corrected on that but it was an enormous amount of money being taken out by those that ran the club (into the ground).

Now we are just paying the going rate for someone of that stature, who at the moment is delivering bigtime.

 

 

Though he is a bit bonkers.

 

Anyway his performance can be judged in the next few weeks, he can either be vilified for sacking Pardew or congratulated on delivering the first phase of the project.

Then can we revisit the forum rantings of early season and see who now has an eggy face.

[Matthew Le God]

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.

 

The "debts" may well be turned into equity similar to what Abramovich did at Chelsea. Helps avoid the need to pay gift tax.

 

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.

 

If you download the accounts you will see the directors loans aren't repayable for at least 5 years (if at all).

[Dig Dig]

The "debts" may well be turned into equity similar to what Abramovich did at Chelsea. Helps avoid the need to pay gift tax.

 

 

 

If you download the accounts you will see the directors loans aren't repayable for at least 5 years (if at all).

 

Exactly, so I can't see the concern which others have expressed.

[Chez]

As for his wages, my recollection is that in one of the sets of accounts before we blew up it indicated that directors wages and expenses amounted to £14.5M - I'm happy to be corrected on that but it was an enormous amount of money being taken out by those that ran the club (into the ground).

where are you getting that figure from? £14.5m just for the directors. That is not a figure that I recall. From my memory Lowe's wage was less than £400k and every tom, **** and harry moaned about it continuously. Now we find out Cortese is doing the job for three times that and not a peep.

[hamster]

The most important thing that we fans need to gleen from these accounts is if we are still okay to sing the Cortese song?

[Stoozer]

So, our club which is soley owned by ML (or ML's estate) owes ML (or ML's estate) money but doesn't need to pay it back (to itself) until the culmination of the 5 year plan? I don't see the problem or have I missed something.

 

We really should just be enjoying this exciting season shouldn't we?

[Saint_John]

anyone heard solent???

would like to know more on this sounds abit concerning imo

 

You can hear the Radio Solent 7:20 and 8:20 Sports News here :-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p00fs2cm/Julian_Clegg_08_04_2011/

 

7:20 - at approx 48:32 to 49:38 ish

8:20 - at approx 1:48:35 to 1:49:20 ish

 

There is less than 10 seconds that say "there is nothing to worry about".

 

As usual Solent give more time to that whinger down the road. I pity his wife because he is always moaning.

[Dig Dig]

So, our club which is soley owned by ML (or ML's estate) owes ML (or ML's estate) money but doesn't need to pay it back (to itself) until the culmination of the 5 year plan? I don't see the problem or have I missed something.

 

We really should just be enjoying this exciting season shouldn't we?

 

Yes!

[hamster]

So, our club which is soley owned by ML (or ML's estate) owes ML (or ML's estate) money but doesn't need to pay it back (to itself) until the culmination of the 5 year plan? I don't see the problem or have I missed something.

 

We really should just be enjoying this exciting season shouldn't we?

 

That's how I see it too.

 

Is it not like your Dad (sugar daddy if you will) 'loaning' you money to modernise your house and not wanting it back until or unless you sell the house. That's how I see it.

 

The day to day budgeting, bills and general upkeep (sustainability bit) is Nicola's ergo OUR side of the deal.

 

And fwiw joking aside I do believe that singing his name is a good thing as I want him to feel like part of the Saints family and where I come from the town motto is 'Welcome the stranger' absolutely no harm in that.

[Sour Mash]

That's how I see it too.

 

Is it not like your Dad (sugar daddy if you will) 'loaning' you money to modernise your house and not wanting it back until or unless you sell the house. That's how I see it.

 

The day to day budgeting, bills and general upkeep (sustainability bit) is Nicola's ergo OUR side of the deal.

 

And fwiw joking aside I do believe that singing his name is a good thing as I want him to feel like part of the Saints family and where I come from the town motto is 'Welcome the stranger' absolutely no harm in that.

 

All joking aside, I really don't think Cortese gives a f**k about being part of "the Saints family".

[Pedro]

Promotion (if we do ) this year won't have any affect on the next balance sheet because the accounts will be up to June this year but should reflect on the average gate increase but still buying players and spending money without having to sell our crown jewels.

 

Any large company (and many small ones) will have at least quarterly figures to hand so any concerns could be addressed as we go along. With Markus buying us out of administration then SFC should be very asset rich with no cause for concern.

[um pahars]

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.

 

Problem is that we don't know if that is indeed the case. It could be possible that the "loans" are never to be repaid. They could just as easily be seen to be gifts (over time converted to shares) and not repayable on promotion, or even on the sale of the Club.

 

We just don't know either way.

 

 

However, if they are repayable upon promotion then people would do well to remember that, as the first chunk of Sky monies wouldn't go to rebuilding the team, it would instead go to paying back these loans.

 

Alternatively, if the loans are to be repaid when the Club is sold then it will be probable that the "new" owner sticks the amount he has paid to buy the Club as debt on to the Club (as has happened elsewhere) leaving this debt to be serviced by the Club.

 

 

Whilst I am fairly confident with regards Liebherr and the Trust he left behind, it doesn't mean I'm ignorant/blind/inconcerned of what could be around the corner (no matter how remote it seems at them moment) and as others have said, I don't think it is unreasonable to want to know a bit more.

 

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.

 

The only reason we are liquid and have cash in the bank is because of the £20m shareholder loans that have injected cash in to the Club. We are cash negative on normal operations so certainly not liquid enough in that sense.

[Gemmel]

If money was an issue we would have cashed in on Chamberlain.

 

Nothing to worry about

[Give it to Ron]

If money was an issue we would have cashed in on Chamberlain.

 

Nothing to worry about

 

Or bought a 17 year old for 150k

[um pahars]

So, our club which is soley owned by ML (or ML's estate) owes ML (or ML's estate) money but doesn't need to pay it back (to itself) until the culmination of the 5 year plan? I don't see the problem or have I missed something.

 

The problem may be (and I'll add emphasis on the may) that if in 5 years times the plan has failed and the money is required to be paid back, then we might have a hard time finding the wonga to pay it back!!!!

 

Personally, I have faith and trust in the Liebherr estate that we will not be left in a pickle, hence the may.

 

Is it not like your Dad (sugar daddy if you will) 'loaning' you money to modernise your house and not wanting it back until or unless you sell the house. That's how I see it.

 

As with above, if you either can't sell the house, or have to sell it for less than you were expecting or if your Dad calls in your loan earlier than expected, then you might be in a pickle. I'm not saying this will happen in our circumstances, but I don't think we should be ignorant of any possibilities given both our own and football's history.

[Dig Dig]

Problem is that we don't know if that is indeed the case. It could be possible that the "loans" are never to be repaid. They could just as easily be seen to be gifts (over time converted to shares) and not repayable on promotion, or even on the sale of the Club.

 

We just don't know either way.

 

However, if they are repayable upon promotion then people would do well to remember that, as the first chunk of Sky monies wouldn't go to rebuilding the team, it would instead go to paying back these loans.

Alternatively, if the loans are to be repaid when the Club is sold then it will be probable that the "new" owner sticks the amount he has paid to buy the Club as debt on to the Club (as has happened elsewhere) leaving this debt to be serviced by the Club.

 

Whilst I am fairly confident with regards Liebherr and the Trust he left behind, it doesn't mean I'm ignorant/blind/inconcerned of what could be around the corner (no matter how remote it seems at them moment) and as others have said, I don't think it is

unreasonable to want to know a bit more.

 

 

The only reason we are liquid and have cash in the bank is because of the £20m shareholder loans that have injected cash in to the Club. We are cash negative on normal operations so certainly not liquid enough in that sense.

 

All distinct possibilities but I'd much rather be in this position than say either having to service external debt or having to compete based on turnover alone. I understand that there are risks regardless but like you, i very much doubt that the liebherrs would do anything to harm the long term propect of the club

[Lord Duckhunter]

I'm going to reserve judgement on this mainly because I dont understand the complex world of finance. However, is what ML and his family doing very much different that what Mad Milan did at Skatesville, or even Gaydamak in his early years? People jumped up and down about Wilde spending money we didn't have on a gamble for Premiership football, is this so very different?

[trousers]

Perspective.

 

Exhibit A:

 

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23939878-pound-1-billion-cost-of-roman-abramovichs-empire.do

[Lord Duckhunter]

Perspective.

 

Exhibit A:

 

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23939878-pound-1-billion-cost-of-roman-abramovichs-empire.do

 

What would happen if RA passed away, would his family continue to fund these losses or would they want the money back?

[John Smith]

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...

 

I have spoken of football matters on here many times. In fact, my last posts on here before this were about the 1980 match against Ipswich which ended 4-3.

 

Yes, in my opinion you do have an agenda, and have had since Cortese took charge. Your nose has been shoved in the dirt far too many times for you to resist this opportunity.

 

You have taken these accounts and given them a headline. You didn't just provide a link so people could digest and discuss, YOU made the headlines. Those headlines are driven by your agenda that you have against Cortese.

 

I apologise for not realising that these accounts have just been made available. It does make me wonder how you just happen to come across them the same day they were published (or for accuracy, maybe one day later). I guess it was just pure coincidence that you were purusing the companies House website and luckily came aross them?

 

I don't need an apology from you Steve, I am happy to step out of the way and let this mess that you created spiral into another negative summer for the Saints. Another summer where forum members are diverted from what is going on the field to what is going on behind the scenes and drawing out every little detail until such a time that everyone that has a monetary interest in this club are driven from it. Maybe SISA will take us over this time like they did with Coventry, aren't we lucky that never happened?

 

Aren't you glad that those conmen from a semi detatched house in London never took us over? Aren't you glad we didn't go into admin again? Aren't you glad we're not being run like that mob down the road?

 

ML said he will walk with us through the hard times and support us financially when it got rough. And when I look down and I see only one set of footprints, that isn't where he stole from us or conned us out of money nor stung us for a loan, those footprints are where he carried us my friend.

 

And now you look at those footprints after he is deceased and you question the man who cxarried your club for you. With the full and conscious knowledge that he cannot answer you. this is an unfair thread. It is an unfair slant and biased headlines bent on destabalising Cortese. BUT, in order to point the finger at Cortese, you have to disrespect the dead, and that is what you have done Steve.

 

And so, accept my apology and whilst you sit there smug in the knowledge that I got it wrong on the dates, remember this, you are trying to disrespect ML and the legacy he left. And so, as I walk away I applaude you teve, I applaude you because I have rarely met someone who is willing to F**K this club over in order to snare Cortese on the back of accounts managed by the deceased, and the deceased that have no ability to respond...

 

clap, clap, clap

[Avenue Saint]

I have spoken of football matters on here many times. In fact, my last posts on here before this were about the 1980 match against Ipswich which ended 4-3.

 

Yes, in my opinion you do have an agenda, and have had since Cortese took charge. Your nose has been shoved in the dirt far too many times for you to resist this opportunity.

 

You have taken these accounts and given them a headline. You didn't just provide a link so people could digest and discuss, YOU made the headlines. Those headlines are driven by your agenda that you have against Cortese.

 

I apologise for not realising that these accounts have just been made available. It does make me wonder how you just happen to come across them the same day they were published (or for accuracy, maybe one day later). I guess it was just pure coincidence that you were purusing the companies House website and luckily came aross them?

 

I don't need an apology from you Steve, I am happy to step out of the way and let this mess that you created spiral into another negative summer for the Saints. Another summer where forum members are diverted from what is going on the field to what is going on behind the scenes and drawing out every little detail until such a time that everyone that has a monetary interest in this club are driven from it. Maybe SISA will take us over this time like they did with Coventry, aren't we lucky that never happened?

 

Aren't you glad that those conmen from a semi detatched house in London never took us over? Aren't you glad we didn't go into admin again? Aren't you glad we're not being run like that mob down the road?

 

ML said he will walk with us through the hard times and support us financially when it got rough. And when I look down and I see only one set of footprints, that isn't where he stole from us or conned us out of money nor stung us for a loan, those footprints are where he carried us my friend.

 

And now you look at those footprints after he is deceased and you question the man who cxarried your club for you. With the full and conscious knowledge that he cannot answer you. this is an unfair thread. It is an unfair slant and biased headlines bent on destabalising Cortese. BUT, in order to point the finger at Cortese, you have to disrespect the dead, and that is what you have done Steve.

 

And so, accept my apology and whilst you sit there smug in the knowledge that I got it wrong on the dates, remember this, you are trying to disrespect ML and the legacy he left. And so, as I walk away I applaude you teve, I applaude you because I have rarely met someone who is willing to F**K this club over in order to snare Cortese on the back of accounts managed by the deceased, and the deceased that have no ability to respond...

 

clap, clap, clap

 

Interesting read. You should post more often!

[doggface]

What a load of ******** that was!

[Avenue Saint]

What a load of ******** that was!

 

What's with the abuse?

[johnnyboy]

I have spoken of football matters on here many times. In fact, my last posts on here before this were about the 1980 match against Ipswich which ended 4-3.

 

Yes, in my opinion you do have an agenda, and have had since Cortese took charge. Your nose has been shoved in the dirt far too many times for you to resist this opportunity.

 

You have taken these accounts and given them a headline. You didn't just provide a link so people could digest and discuss, YOU made the headlines. Those headlines are driven by your agenda that you have against Cortese.

 

I apologise for not realising that these accounts have just been made available. It does make me wonder how you just happen to come across them the same day they were published (or for accuracy, maybe one day later). I guess it was just pure coincidence that you were purusing the companies House website and luckily came aross them?

 

I don't need an apology from you Steve, I am happy to step out of the way and let this mess that you created spiral into another negative summer for the Saints. Another summer where forum members are diverted from what is going on the field to what is going on behind the scenes and drawing out every little detail until such a time that everyone that has a monetary interest in this club are driven from it. Maybe SISA will take us over this time like they did with Coventry, aren't we lucky that never happened?

 

Aren't you glad that those conmen from a semi detatched house in London never took us over? Aren't you glad we didn't go into admin again? Aren't you glad we're not being run like that mob down the road?

 

ML said he will walk with us through the hard times and support us financially when it got rough. And when I look down and I see only one set of footprints, that isn't where he stole from us or conned us out of money nor stung us for a loan, those footprints are where he carried us my friend.

 

And now you look at those footprints after he is deceased and you question the man who cxarried your club for you. With the full and conscious knowledge that he cannot answer you. this is an unfair thread. It is an unfair slant and biased headlines bent on destabalising Cortese. BUT, in order to point the finger at Cortese, you have to disrespect the dead, and that is what you have done Steve.

 

And so, accept my apology and whilst you sit there smug in the knowledge that I got it wrong on the dates, remember this, you are trying to disrespect ML and the legacy he left. And so, as I walk away I applaude you teve, I applaude you because I have rarely met someone who is willing to F**K this club over in order to snare Cortese on the back of accounts managed by the deceased, and the deceased that have no ability to respond...

 

clap, clap, clap

 

Strong , passionate , reasoned . This is why I love being a Saints fan , ps John Smith don't stop posting just because you disagree with someone , it's just debate

[DrZuess1979 the 2nd]

Or bought a 17 year old for 150k

 

Are you suggesting that, a full back is a replacment for an attacking right winger/ attacking mid.

[up and away]

I'm going to reserve judgement on this mainly because I dont understand the complex world of finance. However, is what ML and his family doing very much different that what Mad Milan did at Skatesville, or even Gaydamak in his early years? People jumped up and down about Wilde spending money we didn't have on a gamble for Premiership football, is this so very different?

 

There is nothing complex or hidden here. This is the standard method of ploughing money into a club and we have seen how Chelsea have dealt with these in the past. At the end of the day it is a very simple equation, coming down to the faith you have in the owners. Any owner can up sticks at any time and sell on, that you just have to live with.

 

I really don't understand why anyone requires any more information, it means nothing. They can say what they like, just repeat what has already been said and you will have no way of proving or disproving what they say until things actually happen, it all comes down to the faith you have in the owners. You can look at what they have done and that must reassure people, but if you are worried about this as debt, you are totally over looking the fact that the owners can break the club down into bits at any time.

[stevegrant]

Yes, in my opinion you do have an agenda, and have had since Cortese took charge.

I would counter that you are the one with an "agenda" (as you're so fond of using the word, I'll have a go as well) - strangely, whenever I post something that has the faintest mention of club finances, there you are, having a pop at me. I bet you never even read the original post, saw my name and the word "accounts" and assumed it was having a pop at Cortese. I repeat what I wrote in my last post - I offered absolutely NO opinion on the figures in the original post, or any of the subsequent ones. Yet apparently I have an agenda against Cortese... brilliant

 

You have taken these accounts and given them a headline. You didn't just provide a link so people could digest and discuss, YOU made the headlines. Those headlines are driven by your agenda that you have against Cortese.

You appear to be confusing me with a newspaper. How do I "give them a headline"? I didn't provide a link because a) I know that it costs money to download documents from Companies House (a whole £1 per document) and it would be fair to assume that most people wouldn't bother doing so, and b) I was made aware that the Echo had the figures and were in the process of writing about them. What's the point in me - not a journalist, not paid for writing - doing all the legwork when one or many people at the local paper are going to do exactly the same as part of their job?

 

I apologise for not realising that these accounts have just been made available. It does make me wonder how you just happen to come across them the same day they were published (or for accuracy, maybe one day later). I guess it was just pure coincidence that you were purusing the companies House website and luckily came aross them?

I wasn't perusing the Companies House website at all - a friend of mine emailed me asking if I'd seen the figures, I'd not even given it a moment's thought.

 

I don't need an apology from you Steve, I am happy to step out of the way and let this mess that you created spiral into another negative summer for the Saints. Another summer where forum members are diverted from what is going on the field to what is going on behind the scenes and drawing out every little detail until such a time that everyone that has a monetary interest in this club are driven from it. Maybe SISA will take us over this time like they did with Coventry, aren't we lucky that never happened?

:lol:

 

Yes, because the fans having a negative attitude is my fault

 

Nurse!

 

Aren't you glad that those conmen from a semi detatched house in London never took us over?

Yes, but let's face it, that was never going to happen, was it?

 

Aren't you glad we didn't go into admin again?

Again? Last time I checked, we DID go into admin. It would have been one almighty ****up if we managed to get into admin again so soon after the first time - even Pompey haven't managed that one yet.

 

Aren't you glad we're not being run like that mob down the road?

Very much so.

 

ML said he will walk with us through the hard times and support us financially when it got rough. And when I look down and I see only one set of footprints, that isn't where he stole from us or conned us out of money nor stung us for a loan, those footprints are where he carried us my friend.

Not read ANY of the rest of this thread then? £20.4m is owed to the Liebherr estate, whether you or I like it or not. Personally, I'm actually quite comfortable with it at this stage, although would like that debt to be converted to equity at the soonest available opportunity. I believe most would share that viewpoint, at least in terms of the conversion of the debt.

 

And now you look at those footprints after he is deceased and you question the man who cxarried your club for you. With the full and conscious knowledge that he cannot answer you. this is an unfair thread. It is an unfair slant and biased headlines bent on destabalising Cortese. BUT, in order to point the finger at Cortese, you have to disrespect the dead, and that is what you have done Steve.

Utter ********. Not once have I "disrespected the dead". The only time I mentioned Cortese was in response to someone who claimed he was earning £650k and I looked to either prove or disprove that claim - as it turns out, it's not far wrong.

 

And so, as I walk away I applaude you teve, I applaude you because I have rarely met someone who is willing to F**K this club over in order to snare Cortese on the back of accounts managed by the deceased, and the deceased that have no ability to respond...

Once again, utter ********.

 

How about you ACTUALLY READ WHAT I'VE ****ING WRITTEN for once. Stop seeing words and expressions THAT DON'T EXIST. If you have an interest in the club's finances, continue digesting what others are saying. If you don't have an interest in it, which is entirely your prerogative, leave this thread and let those of us who DO want to discuss it do so.

[dune]

The most important thing that we fans need to gleen from these accounts is if we are still okay to sing the Cortese song?

 

Which one?

 

We now have a new Cortese song.

[up and away]

Not read ANY of the rest of this thread then? £20.4m is owed to the Liebherr estate, whether you or I like it or not. Personally, I'm actually quite comfortable with it at this stage, although would like that debt to be converted to equity at the soonest available opportunity. I believe most would share that viewpoint, at least in terms of the conversion of the debt.

 

Not having a go at you over the rest of that post because you really have nothing to answer. But I really do not get the logic in this statement?

 

Why does this debt have to be converted into equity? it really makes little difference. They can convert the debt into equity and then just strip the club bare if that's what they want to do. I know I would maximise any interest of any such debt, such the club never paid a penny in tax and keep ploughing it into the club. The only questions you have to ask, do we have the financial backing and do we trust the owners. There is absolutely nothing we can do or possibly find out until it is virtually a done deal, it just comes down to a matter of faith.

[The9]

I have spoken of football matters on here many times. In fact, my last posts on here before this were about the 1980 match against Ipswich which ended 4-3.

 

Yes, in my opinion you do have an agenda, and have had since Cortese took charge. Your nose has been shoved in the dirt far too many times for you to resist this opportunity.

 

You have taken these accounts and given them a headline. You didn't just provide a link so people could digest and discuss, YOU made the headlines. Those headlines are driven by your agenda that you have against Cortese.

 

I apologise for not realising that these accounts have just been made available. It does make me wonder how you just happen to come across them the same day they were published (or for accuracy, maybe one day later). I guess it was just pure coincidence that you were purusing the companies House website and luckily came aross them?

 

I don't need an apology from you Steve, I am happy to step out of the way and let this mess that you created spiral into another negative summer for the Saints. Another summer where forum members are diverted from what is going on the field to what is going on behind the scenes and drawing out every little detail until such a time that everyone that has a monetary interest in this club are driven from it. Maybe SISA will take us over this time like they did with Coventry, aren't we lucky that never happened?

 

Aren't you glad that those conmen from a semi detatched house in London never took us over? Aren't you glad we didn't go into admin again? Aren't you glad we're not being run like that mob down the road?

 

ML said he will walk with us through the hard times and support us financially when it got rough. And when I look down and I see only one set of footprints, that isn't where he stole from us or conned us out of money nor stung us for a loan, those footprints are where he carried us my friend.

 

And now you look at those footprints after he is deceased and you question the man who cxarried your club for you. With the full and conscious knowledge that he cannot answer you. this is an unfair thread. It is an unfair slant and biased headlines bent on destabalising Cortese. BUT, in order to point the finger at Cortese, you have to disrespect the dead, and that is what you have done Steve.

 

And so, accept my apology and whilst you sit there smug in the knowledge that I got it wrong on the dates, remember this, you are trying to disrespect ML and the legacy he left. And so, as I walk away I applaude you Steve, I applaude you because I have rarely met someone who is willing to F**K this club over in order to snare Cortese on the back of accounts managed by the deceased, and the deceased that have no ability to respond...

 

clap, clap, clap

 

LOLz, Steve doesn't have an agenda against Cortese, and all he's done is cut and paste publicly available figures, you're a mentalist.

 

That full, controversial, agenda-ridden, biased tirade against Cortese here :

 

 

Headline figures (rounded):

 

Turnover £14.3m (£800k broadcasting, £10m matchday, £3m corporate)

Operating Loss £6.7m

Overall Loss (including player trading, interest, tax, etc) £7.8m

 

Cash in the bank £2.6m

Debtors £1.9m

 

Short-term creditors £7m (£1.7m trade creditors, £800k tax/NI, accruals/deferred income £3.9m)

Long-term creditors £14.6m (amounts owed to group undertakings £6m, loan from shareholder £8.4m - both stated as being due "in more than five years")

 

Wage bill £10.9m, £12.3m if you include social security and pension costs

Highest-paid director £105,870

 

Transfer fees spent since 30th June 2010 £1.3m, no transfer revenue

 

Errrm, I don't even see an opinion, never mind a headline.

Edited 8 April, 2011 by The9

[dune]

Maybe SISA will take us over this time like they did with Coventry.

 

Does this mean we've lost Richard and Perry?

[aintforever]

I have spoken of football matters on here many times. In fact, my last posts on here before this were about the 1980 match against Ipswich which ended 4-3.

 

Yes, in my opinion you do have an agenda, and have had since Cortese took charge. Your nose has been shoved in the dirt far too many times for you to resist this opportunity.

 

You have taken these accounts and given them a headline. You didn't just provide a link so people could digest and discuss, YOU made the headlines. Those headlines are driven by your agenda that you have against Cortese.

 

I apologise for not realising that these accounts have just been made available. It does make me wonder how you just happen to come across them the same day they were published (or for accuracy, maybe one day later). I guess it was just pure coincidence that you were purusing the companies House website and luckily came aross them?

 

I don't need an apology from you Steve, I am happy to step out of the way and let this mess that you created spiral into another negative summer for the Saints. Another summer where forum members are diverted from what is going on the field to what is going on behind the scenes and drawing out every little detail until such a time that everyone that has a monetary interest in this club are driven from it. Maybe SISA will take us over this time like they did with Coventry, aren't we lucky that never happened?

 

Aren't you glad that those conmen from a semi detatched house in London never took us over? Aren't you glad we didn't go into admin again? Aren't you glad we're not being run like that mob down the road?

 

ML said he will walk with us through the hard times and support us financially when it got rough. And when I look down and I see only one set of footprints, that isn't where he stole from us or conned us out of money nor stung us for a loan, those footprints are where he carried us my friend.

 

And now you look at those footprints after he is deceased and you question the man who cxarried your club for you. With the full and conscious knowledge that he cannot answer you. this is an unfair thread. It is an unfair slant and biased headlines bent on destabalising Cortese. BUT, in order to point the finger at Cortese, you have to disrespect the dead, and that is what you have done Steve.

 

And so, accept my apology and whilst you sit there smug in the knowledge that I got it wrong on the dates, remember this, you are trying to disrespect ML and the legacy he left. And so, as I walk away I applaude you teve, I applaude you because I have rarely met someone who is willing to F**K this club over in order to snare Cortese on the back of accounts managed by the deceased, and the deceased that have no ability to respond...

 

clap, clap, clap

 

So we are not allowed to discus the club's accounts because it is disrespectful to Marcus? Bizarre!

 

I would say that in light of what has happened to other clubs it is wise to keep an eye on the state of the finances. I suppose we could take the Pompey and Leeds approach of "the team is playing well so none of it matters", that's a cracking idea.

[Matthew Le God]

All Steve Grant has done in the opening post is pick out the key figures. He hasn't passed comment on them in either a positive or negative way, nor has he really cherry picked the figures. I see nothing wrong with the opening post.

[um pahars]

All distinct possibilities but I'd much rather be in this position than say either having to service external debt

 

And I too would prefer to be in this position than having to service external debt.

 

However, there could be an argument that I would prefer no debt (or at least only debt that was serviceable), which brings us nicely on to:

 

or having to compete based on turnover alone.

 

I'm not sure on this one!!!!!

 

I know other teams have done it in the past and others are still doing it, but I sometimes struggle with the concept of living beyond your means and relying on a benefactor to gain a competitive advantage. There is a difference between say a Jack Walker providing funds and leaving a legacy at Blackburn and the OTT spending seen down at Portsmuff.

 

A part of me is happy to enjoy the benefit of having a benefactor putting money in to the Club, but another part thinks that perhaps we should be looking to be self sufficient and not living above our means.

 

I understand that there are risks regardless but like you, i very much doubt that the liebherrs would do anything to harm the long term propect of the club

 

Let's hope so, and I wonder if there is anything already in place (or could be put in place) to ensure we aren't exposed at some point down the line.

[stevegrant]

Not having a go at you over the rest of that post because you really have nothing to answer. But I really do not get the logic in this statement?

 

Why does this debt have to be converted into equity? it really makes little difference. They can convert the debt into equity and then just strip the club bare if that's what they want to do. I know I would maximise any interest of any such debt, such the club never paid a penny in tax and keep ploughing it into the club. The only questions you have to ask, do we have the financial backing and do we trust the owners. There is absolutely nothing we can do or possibly find out until it is virtually a done deal, it just comes down to a matter of faith.

A fair point.

 

I guess I'm thinking from a "removal of any lingering doubt" perspective. I had absolutely 100% faith in Markus Liebherr. With his estate in probate, by its very nature, it does bring in an element of uncertainty. We know that the purchase of the club was his decision and his alone, taken using his own money, not that of his wider family, who we assume will be in charge of his estate for the forseeable future. We've heard nothing from them other than via proxy, nor are we likely to, nor do I necessarily want to, but we have no idea as to whether their goals match that of the late Markus - a conversion of that debt, and therefore removal of the potential for them to call the loan in, would be a very strong signal that either their goals do match, or at the very least they're happy and willing to see it through.

 

Before someone () jumps on that statement, I'm not "demanding that the Liebherrs convert the debt to equity because otherwise it definitely shows they're not interested and will strip this club before throwing it to the wolves". Sad state of affairs when I feel the need to add that disclaimer, really

[dune]

I suppose we could take the Pompey and Leeds approach of "the team is playing well so none of it matters", that's a cracking idea.

 

That's the approach i'm taking because at the end of the day there's nothing I could do if the club was going down the pan.

[Matthew Le God]

A conversion of that debt, and therefore removal of the potential for them to call the loan in, would be a very strong signal that either their goals do match, or at the very least they're happy and willing to see it through.

 

The fact the club put in a planning application for Staplewood before Markus' death, then after his death they put in a new application with the development costing significantly more than the original is strong signal of intent.

[The9]

The fact the club put in a planning application for Staplewood before Markus' death, then after his death they put in a new application with the development costing significantly more than the original is strong signal of intent.

 

People keep saying we haven't actually paid anything towards it...

 

...not to mention that Markus clearly would have been part of the decision to redraft, whether he was still alive when the application was put in or not.

[hamster]

Which one?

 

We now have a new Cortese song.

 

Any. Can't see any reason to not do this and put a big Saints smile on his face.

 

Top man with all of our interest at heart.

[Forester]

Fully understand people's concerns, but right from the outset its obvious that ML was providing cash injections to fund the difference between income and (player) expenditure. The debt to equity piece would not necessarily be tax efficient for ML's family - its true that if the assets were sold then they could become effectively a creditor to a new owner. But, as has been pointed out, if they really had some devious intent (I don't believe that for one minute) they could always seperate the ground from the rest of the business etc. So I see nothing here at all to be worried about.

 

However, unlike John Smith's bizarre rant, I think Steve has done nothing wrong here - in fact he has helped us learn more about the club we all love. Isn't that what the forum is here for?

[The9]

Any. Can't see any reason to not do this and put a big Saints smile on his face.

 

Top man with all of our interest at heart.

 

You might want to check out the new song before committing support for it...

[Thedelldays]

god, I can see close season is going to full of the same old guff....threads upon threads about the chairman/ownership

[Royce2uk]

I wonder if chelse fans have threads this long moaning and fighting about the £300 million + RA has given then. I do love our fans!!!

[JRM]

John smith what ever happened to 'no nonsense' like your adverts? You're clearly a bit mental with your hysterical ramblings at Steve.

[um pahars]

I wonder if chelse fans have threads this long moaning and fighting about the £300 million + RA has given then. I do love our fans!!!

 

I think you'll find they do, along with heaps of journalistic interest in to what is going on at Stamford Bridge. Just type in David Conn and Chelsea and see what you get.

[Dig Dig]

And I too would prefer to be in this position than having to service external debt.

 

However, there could be an argument that I would prefer no debt (or at least only debt that was serviceable), which brings us nicely on to:

 

I'm not sure on this one!!!!!

 

I know other teams have done it in the past and others are still doing it, but I sometimes struggle with the concept of living

beyond your means and relying on a benefactor to gain a competitive advantage. There is a difference between say a Jack Walker providing funds and leaving a legacy at Blackburn and the OTT spending seen down at Portsmuff.

 

A part of me is happy to enjoy the benefit of having a benefactor putting money in to the Club, but another part thinks that

perhaps we should be looking to be self sufficient and not living above our means.

 

 

Let's hope so, and I wonder if there is anything already in place (or could be put in place) to ensure we aren't exposed at some point down the line.

 

What I meant by not relying on turnover alone is that it would be very difficult to formulate a plan to get back to prem in such a short time frame without having the financial support. What I don't understand is that some fans critise the club when we don't pay over the odds for charlie austin say, but then complain that we have to rely on the loan from ML. It's sad and a sign of the times but it's very difficult to achieve success and compete without the support of a wealthy backer.

[Barry the Badger]

I wonder if chelse fans have threads this long moaning and fighting about the £300 million + RA has given then. I do love our fans!!!

 

Actually all the Chelsea fans I know are worried about what would happen if abramovich lost interest.

[Sour Mash]

John Smith has smoked far too much crack. What a loon!

[John B]

What I meant by not relying on turnover alone is that it would be very difficult to formulate a plan to get back to prem in such a short time frame without having the financial support. What I don't understand is that some fans critise the club when we don't pay over the odds for charlie austin say, but then complain that we have to rely on the loan from ML. It's sad and a sign of the times but it's very difficult to achieve success and compete without the support of a wealthy backer.

 

Yes I totally agree I have always been sceptical about SFC being a regular top team in the PL without massive cash injections.

 

With regard to the accounts the wages seem to be high but we did have a clear out of players last summer so I think the accounts for the year ending this June will give a better idea how well the club is being run financially and if OXO is sold the figures will probably look very goodb