Fowllyd Posted 23 October, 2008 Share Posted 23 October, 2008 Nah I think I'll keep him to myself SlickMick for the time being. Not talking about you but too many others on here line up to shoot the messenger with a result that the message usually gets lost amid all the insults. Wilde knows he's drinking in the last chance saloon any way and his glass is nearly empty. Cheers! Don't be so precious for god's sake. You started this thread with a post which meant pretty much nothing, but hinted at a lot more. You were questioned about it (and mocked as well by some, but what the hell would you expect?) and, bit by bit, you have given us the full shebang. Oh, and a few more hints about other things too. Anyway, a major point in the initial story is that a junior employee of SLH/SFC got sacked. As WSS points out above, this in itself had nothing to do with Wilde. The only area where you can condemn Wilde's behaviour is IF Burley was drinking with him until 5am on the day of a match. Your message, such as it was, hasn't been lost among the insults - you only revealed it in pieces when asked to expand on the original riddles. And, now you've done so, it turns out it's not much of a message anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up and away Posted 23 October, 2008 Share Posted 23 October, 2008 Originally Posted by up and away And not a word about how we got into this mess. Anyone can see administration coming and the only way out of that will be by selling what ever assets we have to avoid it. Not a single word regarding Crouch and his financial master plan to just sit and wait on any idiot that has found his kids piggy bank, whilst we wasted 10's of milliions on a set up we could not afford, because Crouch did not have a clue. 10s of millions has to mean at least 20 million plus, which is a joke. Be so good as to justify that claim, or please desist from gross exageration, lest it weakens the validity your assertions any more. We know that Wilde was supposed to be looking for outside investment the first time around and we also know that Crouch was too. What we do not know is whether Lowe and Wilde together are seeking investors. On Lowe's past record, I'm thinking not. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if as you claim Crouch presided over a situation whereby we were living beyond our means, then surely the blame lies squarely on the shoulders of the the PLC's Financial Director, David Jones, who has been the one constant through the turmoil of the past few years. Dave Jones, why would any idiot bring him into the equation unless you are Cherry Pester? All Dave Jones does is adds up the figures, shows what's gone out, what we can expect in and what will be going out. As long as the figures presented are accurate, there is nothing more you can demand from the bloke. If you are going to blame Dave Jones you may as well throw in the abacus or calculator you have used along the line, even when it's giving you the correct figures. Just because idiots ignore the figures, believe the take over fairy or the figures are not too bad if you squint at them, has nothing to do with Jones. As for losing all the money, that is as plain as a pikestaff. Just add up all the revenue we had / could of had from player transfers and see where it went and what we have left of value from that. What we have seen done this season with bringing in the youth players was done ages ago with the other teams that came down with us. Then we could have had a sustainable business plan with old heads married with the young pups to give us a real chance. Other clubs never even had the transfer monies or even the parachute, but it is us who are favourites for administration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 23 October, 2008 Share Posted 23 October, 2008 Phil - fair questions politely put so will attempt an explanation. The reason I have only just posted this story was it was only corroborated by a 2nd witness to me on Tuesday. I first heard the story from someone who worked at SMS last year but was asked not to say anything. That person has now given his permission and when it was backed up by a second witness I felt it should be in the public domain. Whether or not it is acceptable that the manager and chairman should be "on the ****" in a public place at 5 am on the day of a match is debateable but someone losing his job over something he said in that company is something else, I guess. I gather the lad made a remark about the execs which was not complementary and it found its way back to Oldknow, who insisted on the sacking. I guess the lad was bang to rights for dissing the execs but there was a lot of drink flowing and he felt OK in the encouraging presence of the Chairman. (As for Burley, I no longer have an interest in his alcohol intake (that's down to the Scottish FA now), but the fact he was there does kinda confirm what many on here were saying last year). Can I also point out that I have not spoken to or been contacted by the person who was sacked, but the two witnesses who have spoken to me were both in the hotel with the official party on the night/morning in question. I am concerned that Wilde is our Chairman and there are lots of other failings I have also heard about which convince me he is unfit - hence my post. I hear that he is "uneasy" at SMS at present and with what is lurking around so he should be. Hope this goes some way to answering some of your questions. Cheers. The lad was neither the first nor the last to be sitting in a hotel late at night and saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. I won't knock the post, nor your posting, that's fine, as again I had issues with GB and with an old TSF'er we saw something we felt was wrong and posted that. In this instance, my feelings are. Wilde should not have been sitting up until 5am drinking with the manager. But on it's own, that is an error of judgement, not a hanging offence, there ARE times and places where that COULD be justified (even in the weird PC world of the UK these days) but it sure as heck seems really dumb to do it the night before a game. The point is that he could have been there to keep GB in some sort of control/talk him out of leaving/let him spill his worries/get GB to dish dirt on the execs to help remove them, we don't really know that side. The fact the lad got fired by Oldknow for "not keeping the company line" and not by Wilde is again not a surprise if we think back to those "halycon days" of the execs. After all EVEN the 3 amigos met TOGETHER in "secret" to try and do something about them. In theory, the only hole in the story is that it could also have been GB who "reported the lad's comments" to his "managers" or even other people sitting in the bar at the time. It isn't totally clear in a "court of law" sort of way. The ONLY thing to keep in mind through all of this is the fact that the good ship SLH is in a real mess and everyone at the club at the moment is in your words "uneasy" at SMS at present and with what is lurking around so he should be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channon's Sideburns Posted 23 October, 2008 Share Posted 23 October, 2008 Cheers. The lad was neither the first nor the last to be sitting in a hotel late at night and saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. I won't knock the post, nor your posting, that's fine, as again I had issues with GB and with an old TSF'er we saw something we felt was wrong and posted that. In this instance, my feelings are. Wilde should not have been sitting up until 5am drinking with the manager. But on it's own, that is an error of judgement, not a hanging offence, there ARE times and places where that COULD be justified (even in the weird PC world of the UK these days) but it sure as heck seems really dumb to do it the night before a game. The point is that he could have been there to keep GB in some sort of control/talk him out of leaving/let him spill his worries/get GB to dish dirt on the execs to help remove them, we don't really know that side. The fact the lad got fired by Oldknow for "not keeping the company line" and not by Wilde is again not a surprise if we think back to those "halycon days" of the execs. After all EVEN the 3 amigos met TOGETHER in "secret" to try and do something about them. In theory, the only hole in the story is that it could also have been GB who "reported the lad's comments" to his "managers" or even other people sitting in the bar at the time. It isn't totally clear in a "court of law" sort of way. The ONLY thing to keep in mind through all of this is the fact that the good ship SLH is in a real mess and everyone at the club at the moment is in your words "uneasy" at SMS at present and with what is lurking around so he should be Although there are reasons I guess why this revelation (?) is now on here, could there not be more to this? In this way, Wilde has (according to some historic posts on here) experienced some tough times with his wife's health. Now, although on an 'SFC' level he deserves contempt for his bed-sharing with Rupert, who knows what was happening in his private life then - surely he is allowed to let off steam??? I know, that if I was in his situation, you would need to cope somehow. Burley though gets no sympathy from me - have to admit I chuckled when you hear stories now about Scottish Players insisting they won't play for their country again whilst he is in charge. Wilde's only mistake on that part was not insisting on Burley's removal.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 23 October, 2008 Share Posted 23 October, 2008 Cheers. In this instance, my feelings are. Wilde should not have been sitting up until 5am drinking with the manager. ] It depends on their living styles though doesn't it. Now as far as I can see we were playing Sunderland later that afternoon; But would the Manager and Chairman be involved in the next morning's events of the team? Probably not, as long as they were there for lunch that would be OK. When you live a varied life you sometimes have to adopt strange hours. It would seem to me that the week that followed that match was international week? ie no football for 14 days or so afterwards.Perhaps the players had been given time off afterwards. To have the full facts to judge the case you'd have to know all the whys and wherefores. You just can't judge anything reasonably from hearsay and half-facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 23 October, 2008 Share Posted 23 October, 2008 agree, makes you wonder why it was posted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 23 October, 2008 Share Posted 23 October, 2008 Long Shot = Nick Illingsworth. 'tis the truth. No it definitely isn't. It would surprise you, if you knew who it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 23 October, 2008 Share Posted 23 October, 2008 A Wilde's only mistake on that part was not insisting on Burley's removal.... Probably did, Crouch and the Execs kicked him out. Perhaps he wasn't keen on "march madness" either. That has got Crouch and Corbett stamped all over it. Knock off £100 from all early ST renewals, yep right smacks of good business management. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 23 October, 2008 Share Posted 23 October, 2008 No it definitely isn't. It would surprise you, if you knew who it is. Does he/she own a cat called Morph? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fowllyd Posted 23 October, 2008 Share Posted 23 October, 2008 It depends on their living styles though doesn't it. Now as far as I can see we were playing Sunderland later that afternoon; But would the Manager and Chairman be involved in the next morning's events of the team? Probably not, as long as they were there for lunch that would be OK. When you live a varied life you sometimes have to adopt strange hours. It would seem to me that the week that followed that match was international week? ie no football for 14 days or so afterwards.Perhaps the players had been given time off afterwards. To have the full facts to judge the case you'd have to know all the whys and wherefores. You just can't judge anything reasonably from hearsay and half-facts. Actually, we played Leeds away the following Saturday, and hammered them 3-0. I agree with the last part of your post though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 23 October, 2008 Share Posted 23 October, 2008 Does he/she own a cat called Morph? :shock: Complete change in writing style, Trousers. And I don't believe a laydeeee would post in that way. Mind you - HMR posted in a ladylike way (most of the time) so gender swapping is a possibility I suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 23 October, 2008 Share Posted 23 October, 2008 No it definitely isn't. It would surprise you, if you knew who it is. I promise not to be surprised if you tell me.:mad::mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fos1 Posted 23 October, 2008 Share Posted 23 October, 2008 Oh, and let's discuss people more attuned to planet earth with a man that two weeks ago announced that a takeover was imminent. A week later issued a rallying call in the echo demanding that all fans forget about who is in charge at the club, and get on with supporting the team. Now you seem hell bent on dishing up the dirt on one of the same people you were telling us not to worry about. Can you show me the thread that longshot said " takeover was imminent " I seem to remember him repeating something he was told by Fulthorpe and it went something like "takeover with health warning " or words to that effect At no stage did he say "takeover imminent" I think this is the post everyone is referring to: http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=2414 It's not hard to search on LS' name you know I think he does add a rider at the bottom of the first post of the thread by saying he doesn't think the takeover will happen. I know what was said on the thread and how to find it just asking weston super saint were longshot said "take over imminent " because it does not say that on the thread and he has his facts wrong !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 23 October, 2008 Share Posted 23 October, 2008 What surprises me about this forum, is the lack of reaction to Long Shot's comment about the overdraft increasing by £2m and the bank not happy. That is dangerous as far as I am concerned. I have been told that the bank wanted to know whether there would be any investment contribution to cover the increase, as not, how was the club going to cover the increase. It is easy to see where this is going next in the transfer window. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 23 October, 2008 Share Posted 23 October, 2008 I promise not to be surprised if you tell me.:mad::mad: I wouldn't break a confidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 23 October, 2008 Share Posted 23 October, 2008 I wouldn't break a confidence. Oh well, those that don't ask, don't want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 23 October, 2008 Share Posted 23 October, 2008 Oh well, those that don't ask, don't want. My dad used to say 'if you don't ask you don't want; if you do ask, you don't get' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloridaMarlin Posted 23 October, 2008 Share Posted 23 October, 2008 I know this tale, the employee who was fired and the reasons he was fired. It doesn't perhaps reflect so badly on Wilde as on previous encumbents of executive roles, no longer with the club. It came from a drinking session at an away game in the north-east, when lots of people from both inside and outside the club were present. The ale-fulled conversation was supposed to be on the lines of "What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas," but word got back to one of the execs about some of the things that were said (supposedly through Wilde, but never actually confirmed) and as a result this employee was called in on Monday and fired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 23 October, 2008 Share Posted 23 October, 2008 I wouldn't break a confidence. If you tell everyone in confidence then no-one will ever know that you've broken a confidence because everyone will be in confidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 23 October, 2008 Share Posted 23 October, 2008 What surprises me about this forum, is the lack of reaction to Long Shot's comment about the overdraft increasing by £2m and the bank not happy. That is dangerous as far as I am concerned. I have been told that the bank wanted to know whether there would be any investment contribution to cover the increase, as not, how was the club going to cover the increase. It is easy to see where this is going next in the transfer window. Well although Weston and LS both said it don't think most took it very seriously. I didn't. I have no doubt that if we don't get money for Saganowski this January, Surman and Lallana will be sold. I can live with that, you get used to it at SFC. But surely we can't be living off the 5000 walk up so far? I mean, 5000x£24 every 2 weeks doesn't pay all the bills. If we're at 8 mill NOW we'll be at 10 mill at least by Christmas. I worked out on the back of me fag packet (which is getting over full and dog-eared as I gave up in 1982) that we should still be living within our means.Perhaps there are incoming monies,perhaps we had back taxes to pay before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Bates Posted 23 October, 2008 Share Posted 23 October, 2008 If you tell everyone in confidence then no-one will ever know that you've broken a confidence because everyone will be in confidence. Are you confident about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 23 October, 2008 Share Posted 23 October, 2008 Are you confident about that? Can't say Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 23 October, 2008 Share Posted 23 October, 2008 I know this tale, the employee who was fired and the reasons he was fired. It doesn't perhaps reflect so badly on Wilde as on previous encumbents of executive roles, no longer with the club. It came from a drinking session at an away game in the north-east, when lots of people from both inside and outside the club were present. The ale-fulled conversation was supposed to be on the lines of "What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas," but word got back to one of the execs about some of the things that were said (supposedly through Wilde, but never actually confirmed) and as a result this employee was called in on Monday and fired. What's most worrying is that junior employees were already disenchanted with the execs in November 2006.Mind you there are some right gabby kids about, I fire anyone who speaks ill to outsiders of any colleague behind his(or her) back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 23 October, 2008 Share Posted 23 October, 2008 Are you confident about that? Master has a new avatar with black shiny drawers.:p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fowllyd Posted 23 October, 2008 Share Posted 23 October, 2008 (edited) What surprises me about this forum, is the lack of reaction to Long Shot's comment about the overdraft increasing by £2m and the bank not happy. That is dangerous as far as I am concerned. I have been told that the bank wanted to know whether there would be any investment contribution to cover the increase, as not, how was the club going to cover the increase. It is easy to see where this is going next in the transfer window. Not that surprising really - it was wrapped up in all the other gumph about late-night drinking and junior employee sacking. Also, Long Shot had hardly did himself any favours in terms of credibility with his first posts on the thread. As you know who he is, you'll have a far better idea than I or most other posters do as to whether his statement about the overdraft increase is true or not. Either way, how much does it have to do with Wilde? Does he have any real influence on what happens? I'd rather assumed that he doesn't, but I could be wrong about that. Edited 23 October, 2008 by Fowllyd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 23 October, 2008 Share Posted 23 October, 2008 As you know who he is, you'll have a far better idea than I or most other posters do as to whether his statement about the overdraft increase is true or not. I've heard it from a number of sources (some more reliable than others), and with the current level of attendances it makes sense that the club has had to extend the overdraft again. If we assume that about £5m has been shaved off the annual wage bill and various cutbacks have been made elsewhere at the club, that still doesn't come close to repairing the £17m operating deficit from last year, and of course we've not sold any players this year to lessen that either. With those figures, we were losing approximately £1.4m per month. About £500k per month has been saved by ditching loads of high earners (either permanently or on loan), but that still leaves a significant monthly loss, which leaves us with no other option but to go further into the overdraft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 23 October, 2008 Share Posted 23 October, 2008 (edited) I've heard it from a number of sources (some more reliable than others), and with the current level of attendances it makes sense that the club has had to extend the overdraft again. If we assume that about £5m has been shaved off the annual wage bill and various cutbacks have been made elsewhere at the club, that still doesn't come close to repairing the £17m operating deficit from last year, and of course we've not sold any players this year to lessen that either. With those figures, we were losing approximately £1.4m per month. About £500k per month has been saved by ditching loads of high earners (either permanently or on loan), but that still leaves a significant monthly loss, which leaves us with no other option but to go further into the overdraft. I don't think the operational loss was as high as 17 million actually Steve, 13 million is the figure I've always heard used. As I said the other day, last year we lost more than our entire player/coach wage bill. How we've gotten into a state where our "other running and administration costs" already gobble up all our income beats me. Doesn't matter how much the players earn, peanuts or mega-bucks, we can't afford to pay them anyway. If you pay the players (and coaches) 12 million in a year and lose 13 million,well then you need some tyro kids who'll play for free. Edited 23 October, 2008 by Window Cleaner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 23 October, 2008 Share Posted 23 October, 2008 If you tell everyone in confidence then no-one will ever know that you've broken a confidence because everyone will be in confidence. Quite! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Bates Posted 23 October, 2008 Share Posted 23 October, 2008 Master has a new avatar with black shiny drawers.:p -oo- /-\ BTF I must leave this thread now, looks like peeps are going to be talking numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 23 October, 2008 Share Posted 23 October, 2008 I don't think the operational loss was as high as 17 million actually Steve, 13 million is the figure I've always heard used. Perhaps, although I was going on the comments made here by Lowe that the figures "indicated a potential recurring loss of £17m". I guess there are various bits and pieces that aren't covered in the operating profit/loss figure but would be included on the cash-flow statement, such as interest payments and suchlike. Regardless of whether it's £13m or £17m or somewhere in between, though, it still clearly suggests that even by taking £5-6m out of the picture we're still losing a hell of a lot of money, and that it's only natural that the overdraft will have increased in a time where we've not brought in any single large sums of money to reduce it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 23 October, 2008 Share Posted 23 October, 2008 The bank has to be supportive to sustain the deterioration in the finances, the only source of increased income is increased attendances until the transfer window. If the Directors/Shareholders don't contribute to reduce the overdraft then the bank may be looking for increased income to stop any further increase in the debt, then to sell as many players as possible to solve the problem. Paying up contracts may not be affordable to allow the release of the highly paid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloridaMarlin Posted 23 October, 2008 Share Posted 23 October, 2008 What's most worrying is that junior employees were already disenchanted with the execs in November 2006.Mind you there are some right gabby kids about, I fire anyone who speaks ill to outsiders of any colleague behind his(or her) back. Why is there an assumption he was a junior employee? It depends on how far up or down the scale of things you reach the cut-off point of 'Junior'. I think you could fairly describe him as quite senior in his field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 23 October, 2008 Share Posted 23 October, 2008 -oo- /-\ BTF BTF has no lobes ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 23 October, 2008 Share Posted 23 October, 2008 The bank has to be supportive to sustain the deterioration in the finances, the only source of increased income is increased attendances until the transfer window. If the Directors/Shareholders don't contribute to reduce the overdraft then the bank may be looking for increased income to stop any further increase in the debt, then to sell as many players as possible to solve the problem. Paying up contracts may not be affordable to allow the release of the highly paid. I'd be absolutely stunned if the bank sanctioned paying up any contracts early, and the player(s) involved would effectively have to accept a reduction in overall earnings to do so (although they could of course recoup that "lost" money by signing a contract with another club). I think it's highly likely that either our top youngsters (i.e. Surman and Lallana) will have to be sold in January, whether we or they like it or not, or more of the higher earners are disposed of, or a combination of the two. Either way, unless St Mary's suddenly starts selling out week in, week out, or somebody injects a serious amount of money into the club's bank account in the next few months (both of which seem about as likely as me going to the moon next week), players will have to be sold in January to keep the bank onside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Bates Posted 23 October, 2008 Share Posted 23 October, 2008 BTF has no lobes ? Nor hair :shock: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 23 October, 2008 Share Posted 23 October, 2008 Not that surprising really - it was wrapped up in all the other gumph about late-night drinking and junior employee sacking. Also, Long Shot had hardly did himself any favours in terms of credibility with his first posts on the thread. As you know who he is, you'll have a far better idea than I or most other posters do as to whether his statement about the overdraft increase is true or not. Either way, how much does it have to do with Wilde? Does he have any real influence on what happens? I'd rather assumed that he doesn't, but I could be wrong about that. I believe his sources are good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Bob Posted 23 October, 2008 Share Posted 23 October, 2008 (edited) BTF has no lobes ? Hasn't she? shes not a Ferengi then?? Edited 23 October, 2008 by Big Bad Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 23 October, 2008 Share Posted 23 October, 2008 Nor hair :shock: Not true - she does. You just can't see it behind her big grin in MB's accurate likeness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 23 October, 2008 Share Posted 23 October, 2008 I'd be absolutely stunned if the bank sanctioned paying up any contracts early, and the player(s) involved would effectively have to accept a reduction in overall earnings to do so (although they could of course recoup that "lost" money by signing a contract with another club). I think it's highly likely that either our top youngsters (i.e. Surman and Lallana) will have to be sold in January, whether we or they like it or not, or more of the higher earners are disposed of, or a combination of the two. Either way, unless St Mary's suddenly starts selling out week in, week out, or somebody injects a serious amount of money into the club's bank account in the next few months (both of which seem about as likely as me going to the moon next week), players will have to be sold in January to keep the bank onside. That's where we are at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 23 October, 2008 Share Posted 23 October, 2008 I'd be absolutely stunned if the bank sanctioned paying up any contracts early, and the player(s) involved would effectively have to accept a reduction in overall earnings to do so (although they could of course recoup that "lost" money by signing a contract with another club). I think it's highly likely that either our top youngsters (i.e. Surman and Lallana) will have to be sold in January, whether we or they like it or not, or more of the higher earners are disposed of, or a combination of the two. Either way, unless St Mary's suddenly starts selling out week in, week out, or somebody injects a serious amount of money into the club's bank account in the next few months (both of which seem about as likely as me going to the moon next week), players will have to be sold in January to keep the bank onside. But if as you say we've reduced our costs already by 5 million or so (which is probably very likely ) that equates to 250000 match day tickets (£24 less vat) .If we're still losing money this season on 16K gates (average) that means that last season our break even figure was about 28K. Obviously we weren't going to get that so the statement by the execs that players HAD to be SOLD in the January window was justified.We needed a mass clear out last January, it was evident and the board knew it,why didn't it happen??? I mean we must be getting to the stage where non-footballing activities are costing the club money which has to be financed by football. There is no way that last seasons running expenses for the football side could equate to our entire income so I propose to you that the non-footballing activities are now detracting from the football. The stores must be losing money, so must the event catering and all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 23 October, 2008 Share Posted 23 October, 2008 Hone says it and he's an evil begger. Lowe says it and it's prudent. That's how it works. I thought the outrage over Hone's statement was absolutely laughable at the time and it appears even more so now. It has also been quite evident that Lowe and Wilde are unable to offer anything whatsoever by way of improvement other than Lowe's long awaited experiment (v3) which no doubt in his mind is still destined to bring great things. Oh, for Nigel Pearson and Leon Crouch right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 23 October, 2008 Share Posted 23 October, 2008 What surprises me about this forum, is the lack of reaction to Long Shot's comment about the overdraft increasing by £2m and the bank not happy. That is dangerous as far as I am concerned. I have been told that the bank wanted to know whether there would be any investment contribution to cover the increase, as not, how was the club going to cover the increase. It is easy to see where this is going next in the transfer window. Been done to death in other threads. The BULK of that is the wages for the high earners we could not move on..... No news there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 23 October, 2008 Share Posted 23 October, 2008 (edited) weston super saint please answer this or have you been found out to have your facts wrong !!! Not at all. If you believe that Long Shot is Nick Illingsworth, then you will know that Nick I made an announcement on his website regarding the takeover being imminent. If you don't believe that Long Shot is Nick I, then you are correct, he stated it probably wouldn't happen...... Edited 23 October, 2008 by Weston Super Saint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 23 October, 2008 Share Posted 23 October, 2008 Hone says it and he's an evil begger. Lowe says it and it's prudent. That's how it works. I thought the outrage over Hone's statement was absolutely laughable at the time and it appears even more so now. It has also been quite evident that Lowe and Wilde are unable to offer anything whatsoever by way of improvement other than Lowe's long awaited experiment (v3) which no doubt in his mind is still destined to bring great things. Oh, for Nigel Pearson and Leon Crouch right now. Is there a paradox in there somewhere? Crouch and Pearson(well not so much Pearson) are the LAST thing we need.Crouch knew we had to sell players and not sign any(yep I mean Andrew Davies). We didn't actually sell any and I don't doubt that whatever we saved by loaning our Rasiak and Skacel was gobbled up by the loans at the end of last season,(Perry,Lucketti,Pericard,O Halloran,Wright, Ian Pearce and I've probably forgotten some as well) The only plus points on the revenue front:Whatever we got in loan fees and Burley's compensation. Bet we had to pay off Gorman and Dodd with whatever we got for Burley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 23 October, 2008 Share Posted 23 October, 2008 What surprises me about this forum, is the lack of reaction to Long Shot's comment about the overdraft increasing by £2m and the bank not happy. That is dangerous as far as I am concerned. I have been told that the bank wanted to know whether there would be any investment contribution to cover the increase, as not, how was the club going to cover the increase. It is easy to see where this is going next in the transfer window. There's probably a lack of reaction because we all assumed that the overdraft would grow. It's not like our lack of finances has never been discussed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 23 October, 2008 Share Posted 23 October, 2008 Is there a paradox in there somewhere? Crouch and Pearson(well not so much Pearson) are the LAST thing we need.Crouch knew we had to sell players and not sign any(yep I mean Andrew Davies). We didn't actually sell any and I don't doubt that whatever we saved by loaning our Rasiak and Skacel was gobbled up by the loans at the end of last season,(Perry,Lucketti,Pericard,O Halloran,Wright, Ian Pearce and I've probably forgotten some as well) The only plus points on the revenue front:Whatever we got in loan fees and Burley's compensation. Bet we had to pay off Gorman and Dodd with whatever we got for Burley. To be fair, Leon was still telling us - via the OS - that we were viable candidates for automatic promotion up until the end of January, so it's hardly surprising he did little to reduce the team if he honestly believed that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fos1 Posted 23 October, 2008 Share Posted 23 October, 2008 Not at all. If you believe that Long Shot is Nick Illingsworth, then you will know that Nick I made an announcement on his website regarding the takeover being imminent. If you don't believe that Long Shot is Nick I, then you are correct, he stated it would probably happen...... Thank you so your facts are wrong You have been told that long shot is not Nick I so no way did long shot say "takeover is imminent" he was just relaying what Fulthorpe had told him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 23 October, 2008 Share Posted 23 October, 2008 But if as you say we've reduced our costs already by 5 million or so (which is probably very likely ) that equates to 250000 match day tickets (£24 less vat) .If we're still losing money this season on 16K gates (average) that means that last season our break even figure was about 28K. To be honest, I haven't got a clue what parameters the club uses to set their "break-even" attendance figure. For example, this season's is apparently 17,000, which equates roughly to 7,500 matchday sales per game, but that would bring in just under £4m in revenue (about £3.2m after VAT deductions) in addition to the £3m or so (after VAT) in season ticket sales. That's not going to make much of a dent in the debt given that the wage bill is still going to be somewhere around the £6-7m mark. Obviously we weren't going to get that so the statement by the execs that players HAD to be SOLD in the January window was justified.We needed a mass clear out last January, it was evident and the board knew it,why didn't it happen??? I honestly think Leon Crouch got himself caught in two minds. On one hand, he saw the need to keep hold of our better players as we were starting to look like we were going to slide down the table, and the better players would give us the best opportunity to remain safe, as well as the maintainence of reasonably high fan morale after the play-off season which would probably have dropped significantly if he were to flog all our top players at the first opportunity. On the other hand, he did recognise that costs needed to be cut, so the top earner was packed off to Bolton on loan, thus saving nearly £20k a week, as well as getting a decent loan fee from them and then subsequently a bonus payment because Bolton stayed up, even though Rasiak had pretty much zero impact on that. I mean we must be getting to the stage where non-footballing activities are costing the club money which has to be financed by football. There is no way that last seasons running expenses for the football side could equate to our entire income so I propose to you that the non-footballing activities are now detracting from the football. The stores must be losing money, so must the event catering and all that. Surely the figures show that last season's expenses did at least equate to the entire income - revenue of approx £14m with a wage bill of £12m, while I'm sure there must be at least £2m worth of other "footballing" costs in there somewhere. Then there's the question of the remaining £13m... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 23 October, 2008 Share Posted 23 October, 2008 Thank you so your facts are wrong You have been told that long shot is not Nick I so no way did long shot say "takeover is imminent" he was just relaying what Fulthorpe had told him Which begs the question : Which retarded 'player' in the whole SFC saga is Long Shot? It's very clear that he/she has an agenda, and once again agenda peddling on this site is rife. I say let us know who Long Shot is so we can make our own minds up about his/her intentions. I won't be holding my breath for an answer though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 23 October, 2008 Share Posted 23 October, 2008 (edited) To be honest, I haven't got a clue what parameters the club uses to set their "break-even" attendance figure. For example, this season's is apparently 17,000, which equates roughly to 7,500 matchday sales per game, but that would bring in just under £4m in revenue (about £3.2m after VAT deductions) in addition to the £3m or so (after VAT) in season ticket sales. That's not going to make much of a dent in the debt given that the wage bill is still going to be somewhere around the £6-7m mark. I honestly think Leon Crouch got himself caught in two minds. On one hand, he saw the need to keep hold of our better players as we were starting to look like we were going to slide down the table, and the better players would give us the best opportunity to remain safe, as well as the maintainence of reasonably high fan morale after the play-off season which would probably have dropped significantly if he were to flog all our top players at the first opportunity. On the other hand, he did recognise that costs needed to be cut, so the top earner was packed off to Bolton on loan, thus saving nearly £20k a week, as well as getting a decent loan fee from them and then subsequently a bonus payment because Bolton stayed up, even though Rasiak had pretty much zero impact on that. Surely the figures show that last season's expenses did at least equate to the entire income - revenue of approx £14m with a wage bill of £12m, while I'm sure there must be at least £2m worth of other "footballing" costs in there somewhere. Then there's the question of the remaining £13m... Yep that's what I was saying. Unless you can seriously believe that the costs of running the football club (other than St Mary's and the player's coaches salaries) amount to the 11 million or so that we lost,then the non footballing activities must be losing as well.I still don't believe that Rupert Lowe would have paid Rasiak 20K a week, to me that's urban myth. But you see whatever we received for Rasiak in loan fee we immediately shelled out on A Davies, don't forget he was paid for (I suppose) in January. Edited 23 October, 2008 by Window Cleaner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now