Chez Posted 4 October, 2012 Share Posted 4 October, 2012 I have it on trusted authority that the Liebherr family are very much still behind us and this latest event is nothing to worry about. I have no explicit details, but from a position of concern yesterday I am a lot more comforted. did your source mention any reasons for the need to loan from a third party? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint-Fred Posted 4 October, 2012 Share Posted 4 October, 2012 Wasn't there rumours that the Ramirez deal was stalling because Bolgna wanted proof of funds for next years payment as it was not a straight cash deal? Perhaps this has something to do with the solution to that? No club pays straight cash for players..The vast majority of the big fees are all based on instalments. How is that not borrowing against future season ticket funds? It's common practice and why would Cortese go cap in hand for more millions when we just had £30m off them especially as he has a guarenteed £90m coming in over the next 4-5 years? Where do you think that £30m went? To pay off debt we had accrued....Money isn't pumped into the club daily it was paid off after the event. Cortese is obviously confident that we can spend with little risk, I trust him it's not in his interest's to bankrupt the club (oh excuse me you know that 30m you turned to shares well now it's worth nothing as I ran the club into the ground!) and he seems a sensible sort of guy with money anway... Storm in a tea cup and who is to say in future there won't be another cash injection to write off any more debt accrued? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Chalet Posted 4 October, 2012 Share Posted 4 October, 2012 did your source mention any reasons for the need to loan from a third party? Unfortunately not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Marco Posted 4 October, 2012 Share Posted 4 October, 2012 Are we dead yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Chalet Posted 4 October, 2012 Share Posted 4 October, 2012 Are we dead yet? Yes, did you not get the memo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 4 October, 2012 Share Posted 4 October, 2012 and he seems a sensible sort of guy with money anway... what makes you say that? Knowing how to squeeze the last penny out of fans or racking up £21m of debt in three seasons? The fans keep paying and the side keeps winning so his decisions have been correct, but football is unpredictable, things could easily have been different. Can you tell me how he has demonstrated he is sensible with money? Yes I'm a cynic, indulge me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Without a Halo Posted 4 October, 2012 Share Posted 4 October, 2012 It hasn't been paid for up front. No one in their right mind pays construction contractors more than 10% up front! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 4 October, 2012 Share Posted 4 October, 2012 Unfortunately not. did your source suggest that the owners would not be loaning/gifting any more money? Also any indication that they would be owners for decades? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Without a Halo Posted 4 October, 2012 Share Posted 4 October, 2012 (edited) A loan to pay for our transfers is sensible as we want them at the front of the season and the revenue comes over the season. Also if we go down we sell the likes of Ramierez to pay off the debt as I doubt he and some others will want to play championship football. where is the problem? If we bought no one, would that have been better SFC is afterall a business and businesses invest for future growth if they are to prosper All investments contain risk the trick is balancing risk with reward! Edited 4 October, 2012 by Saint Without a Halo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maysie Posted 4 October, 2012 Share Posted 4 October, 2012 Surprised the echo haven't picked this up. Unless I've missed something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint-Fred Posted 4 October, 2012 Share Posted 4 October, 2012 what makes you say that? Knowing how to squeeze the last penny out of fans or racking up £21m of debt in three seasons? The fans keep paying and the side keeps winning so his decisions have been correct, but football is unpredictable, things could easily have been different. Can you tell me how he has demonstrated he is sensible with money? Yes I'm a cynic, indulge me. I did say "seems" so it's based on my perceptions rather than reality and hard evidence. That perception is fuelled mainly by by: His previous jobs in which being extremely loose with money would not I assume be seen as an attractive trait. He was respected enough for Markus to employ him? His position held within the company now..Saints is not his only interest for the company, he is obviously trusted. The number of players we were rumoured not to have signed as he would not pay either over the odds or the wages for them. (perhaps that was all rubbish though?) He may have racked up £21m of debt but did that ever seem to worry him? It never seemed a burden on the rare occasions he appeared on film in fact he spoke of greater things to come, almost as though he knew it would be cleared..which indeed it has been. It's easy to say he spent too much the last few years and racked up debt but if he knew it would be cleared why wouldn't you? Finally the only evidence I have...did we go into this season debt free after 3 years of him being in charge? Yes we did and we made it to the premier league. Seems pretty sensible to me! (ask that gold bloke how much it cost his club to get back?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graffito Posted 4 October, 2012 Share Posted 4 October, 2012 I have it on trusted authority that the Liebherr family are very much still behind us and this latest event is nothing to worry about. I have no explicit details, but from a position of concern yesterday I am a lot more comforted. So they're still behind us. Does this mean the club must be run on a commercial basis but they step if things go belly up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 4 October, 2012 Share Posted 4 October, 2012 I did say "seems" so it's based on my perceptions rather than reality and hard evidence. That perception is fuelled mainly by by: His previous jobs in which being extremely loose with money would not I assume be seen as an attractive trait. He was respected enough for Markus to employ him? His position held within the company now..Saints is not his only interest for the company, he is obviously trusted. The number of players we were rumoured not to have signed as he would not pay either over the odds or the wages for them. (perhaps that was all rubbish though?) He may have racked up £21m of debt but did that ever seem to worry him? It never seemed a burden on the rare occasions he appeared on film in fact he spoke of greater things to come, almost as though he knew it would be cleared..which indeed it has been. It's easy to say he spent too much the last few years and racked up debt but if he knew it would be cleared why wouldn't you? Finally the only evidence I have...did we go into this season debt free after 3 years of him being in charge? Yes we did and we made it to the premier league. Seems pretty sensible to me! (ask that gold bloke how much it cost his club to get back?) I don't know if he is sensible with money or was a successful banker. Being a Swiss banker doesn't mean you are necessarily either, but he's done very well for himself and he's been very successful at SFC that's for sure. However criticising other clubs for spending future income and then doing exactly the same is hypercritical. I'm sure he has everything in hand, but one admin was more than enough and I don't want to see risks taken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintBobby Posted 5 October, 2012 Share Posted 5 October, 2012 I'm a little reassured by what I've heard this evening. This isn't any ITK knowledge at all. But I am told this would be a be highly tax efficient way of injecting cash into the club (considerably more tax efficient that the Liebherrs writing a cheque for the same amount, by way of hypothetical example....) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red and White Army Posted 5 October, 2012 Share Posted 5 October, 2012 I'm a little reassured by what I've heard this evening. This isn't any ITK knowledge at all. But I am told this would be a be highly tax efficient way of injecting cash into the club (considerably more tax efficient that the Liebherrs writing a cheque for the same amount, by way of hypothetical example....) Sounds like ballcocks to me. The Liebherrs could simply loan cash to the club, there is no tax payable on that. Or they could purchase newly issued shares and provide direct equity capital. There is no tax on that either. Whatever the reason we are borrowing money, it isn't because it is more tax efficient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minsk Posted 5 October, 2012 Share Posted 5 October, 2012 A loan to pay for our transfers is sensible as we want them at the front of the season and the revenue comes over the season. Also if we go down we sell the likes of Ramierez to pay off the debt as I doubt he and some others will want to play championship football. where is the problem? If we bought no one, would that have been better SFC is afterall a business and businesses invest for future growth if they are to prosper All investments contain risk the trick is balancing risk with reward! This, especially the highlighted bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red and White Army Posted 5 October, 2012 Share Posted 5 October, 2012 Has anyone actually downloaded the document from Companies House? I will if nobody else has stumped up the 6 quid, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 5 October, 2012 Share Posted 5 October, 2012 Sounds like ballcocks to me. The Liebherrs could simply loan cash to the club, there is no tax payable on that. Or they could purchase newly issued shares and provide direct equity capital. There is no tax on that either. Whatever the reason we are borrowing money, it isn't because it is more tax efficient. No APR either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 5 October, 2012 Share Posted 5 October, 2012 I'm a little reassured by what I've heard this evening. This isn't any ITK knowledge at all. But I am told this would be a be highly tax efficient way of injecting cash into the club (considerably more tax efficient that the Liebherrs writing a cheque for the same amount, by way of hypothetical example....) I suppose the loan could be written off against tax. Cortese may be a lot of things to some people. But he's a shrewd businessman. Even his most vociferous opponent couldn't argue against that. He's not Peter Risdale ffs. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19819177 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red and White Army Posted 5 October, 2012 Share Posted 5 October, 2012 I suppose the loan could be written off against tax. Yes, for the BVI company making the loan - if we default on it! No tax advantage for us as a club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 5 October, 2012 Share Posted 5 October, 2012 Yes, for the BVI company making the loan - if we default on it! No tax advantage for us as a club. Thinking about this, there may be an angle but I'm no accountant so could be way off beam. If our tv money goes in this years income pot but we somehow defer payments of transfer fees into the following year then we could, on paper, make a profit. If we have a loan could that reduce the profit and thus our tax liability. Interest on a loan is at a lesser rate than tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red and White Army Posted 5 October, 2012 Share Posted 5 October, 2012 Remember cash flow does not equal the assessed net profit figure. Both income and expenditures can be smoothed out through accrual accounting. Quite apart from that, us taking out a loan doesn't affect the amount of tax we pay! Interest payments on loans can be deducted from operating profits, but if we have a profit of 20 million and a loan of 15 million we don't pay tax on 5 million. No idea where you get that idea from! Quite apart from all this, Southampton Football Club has been and continues to run at an operating loss, so we are not generating any profits to pay taxes on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St_Tel49 Posted 5 October, 2012 Share Posted 5 October, 2012 Cortese does not have a record of being an idiot with money. We are not going to to given an explanation of why we have taken this route but I am prepared to accept that there are good reasons. It seems to me from this thread that there are a lot of people who want to worry themselves into an early grave over what is common business practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintbletch Posted 5 October, 2012 Share Posted 5 October, 2012 Sounds like ballcocks to me. The Liebherrs could simply loan cash to the club, there is no tax payable on that. Or they could purchase newly issued shares and provide direct equity capital. There is no tax on that either. Whatever the reason we are borrowing money, it isn't because it is more tax efficient. It's certainly not immediately obvious how this could be tax-efficient from a corporate perspective. But perhaps the angle is tax-efficiency for Liebherr personal wealth? i.e. They don't have to dip into their personal wealth which has already been taxed and is probably being used to make more money. Instead, the company burdens itself with the debt and attempts to pay down the debt operationally using next season's additional TV revenue. If, and only if the club doesn't do this, they will then stomp up the cash from personal wealth. Probably through another round of converting SFC's debt to the Liebherrs into shares. If the club does pay down the debt then the Liebherr's might have saved themselves a few quid at the expense to SFC of the interest paid. Just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 5 October, 2012 Share Posted 5 October, 2012 Naturally if any business runs at an operating loss for years and the level of accumulated debt is greater than the asset value of the company (the pompey model) then the business becomes insolvent. There is a difference though between looking towards financing growth - standard business practice - or it used to be before the 2007 mare an d banks stopped lending to companies... Seems to me, going by what little factual information is available, that this is standard case of the club needing cash NOW to cover investments that would normally be spread over 3-4 years (as most transfers are, or infrastructure developments etc) - possibly Bologna and the Staplewood development are being paid in full over a short term - so the club has 'borrowed' this cash from another source to ensure these bills are paid. I suspect that had the transfers been paid over the contractual length, we would probably not have needed it. The only time to worry is when the level of debt is in excess of the asset value surely, of if the debt is being accumulated not on assets but on excessive wages etc - eg our liabilties exceed our revenue year after year. We dont know the resons, the amount etc, but we do know the time frame is 1 year, and that includes 1 year of parachutes which means the borrowings must be under 16mil - which would seem about right if we have been forced to pay for Ramirez up front. That 16mil against a club worth around 40-50mil, but with player assets that would more than cover that should it ever be needed... So the borrowing does not worry me, but its likely that it was a late decision based on the terms of the Raierez transfer chaging from the expected norm. The time I will woryy is when our annula cost exceed our annual income, not when we have had to fund 100% of projects or players in 1 year when they would normally have been spread over 2 or 3, from income we are guaranteed whether in the prem or from parachutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danbert Posted 5 October, 2012 Share Posted 5 October, 2012 A loan to pay for our transfers is sensible as we want them at the front of the season and the revenue comes over the season. Also if we go down we sell the likes of Ramierez to pay off the debt as I doubt he and some others will want to play championship football. where is the problem? If we bought no one, would that have been better SFC is afterall a business and businesses invest for future growth if they are to prosper All investments contain risk the trick is balancing risk with reward! This - well put mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
influx Posted 5 October, 2012 Share Posted 5 October, 2012 Who gives a flying f*ck!? Honestly, 11 pages?? Im sure of you guys only come out of the woodwork when news like this comes out. Its perfectly normal practice, and I for one am not the slightlest bit worried about, why should I be?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farawaysaint Posted 5 October, 2012 Share Posted 5 October, 2012 Sounds like ballcocks to me. The Liebherrs could simply loan cash to the club, there is no tax payable on that. Or they could purchase newly issued shares and provide direct equity capital. There is no tax on that either. Whatever the reason we are borrowing money, it isn't because it is more tax efficient. The company in this case does NOT get to deduct the interest on the loan meaning the tax implications are that SFC's taxable income is increased by (1-the corporate tax rate) multiplied by the interest repayments. Everything has a tax effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farawaysaint Posted 5 October, 2012 Share Posted 5 October, 2012 SFC's taxation rather is increased by increased by (1-the corporate tax rate) multiplied by the interest repayments . Their taxable income is increased by the full potential interest payments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La BoIS Saint Posted 5 October, 2012 Share Posted 5 October, 2012 We are a best priced Evens to get relegated. So toss a coin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doddisalegend Posted 5 October, 2012 Share Posted 5 October, 2012 Who gives a flying f*ck!? Honestly, 11 pages?? Im sure of you guys only come out of the woodwork when news like this comes out. Its perfectly normal practice, and I for one am not the slightlest bit worried about, why should I be??[/QUOTE] I'm sure I said the same when Leon crouch gambled everything on promotion...................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 5 October, 2012 Share Posted 5 October, 2012 This, especially the highlighted bit. I recall the skates saying exactly the same thing. Didn't quite work out like that with TBH did it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 5 October, 2012 Share Posted 5 October, 2012 Cortese does not have a record of being an idiot with money. We are not going to to given an explanation of why we have taken this route but I am prepared to accept that there are good reasons. It seems to me from this thread that there are a lot of people who want to worry themselves into an early grave over what is common business practice. some of us, having seen our great club and the **** one down the road get close to liquidation, are not happy to just stick our heads in the sand and say "He is Swiss, of course he knows what he is doing. They are all great with money over there, especially the bankers." We want to be sure. We can do **** all other than ask questions. it costs nothing to do that. if you don't give a ****, that is fine. Watchign Saints is a past time, a hobby after all. But for those that nutjobs, to coin a phrase, that like to monitor every move made by the club, this action must be highlighted, discussed and questioned. It's not worrying. Personally I've got far bigger things to fret over, and no one is adding grey hairs as a result, its just the interweb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
once_bitterne Posted 5 October, 2012 Share Posted 5 October, 2012 Who gives a flying f*ck!? Honestly, 11 pages?? Im sure of you guys only come out of the woodwork when news like this comes out. Its perfectly normal practice, and I for one am not the slightlest bit worried about, why should I be??[/QUOTE] I'm sure I said the same when Leon crouch gambled everything on promotion...................... Michael Wilde. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doddisalegend Posted 5 October, 2012 Share Posted 5 October, 2012 Michael Wilde. was it? I could have sworn it was Leon who sanctioned the big spend.................still barmy club chairmen of that era do kind of merge together in the memory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red and White Army Posted 5 October, 2012 Share Posted 5 October, 2012 It's certainly not immediately obvious how this could be tax-efficient from a corporate perspective. But perhaps the angle is tax-efficiency for Liebherr personal wealth? i.e. They don't have to dip into their personal wealth which has already been taxed and is probably being used to make more money. Instead, the company burdens itself with the debt and attempts to pay down the debt operationally using next season's additional TV revenue. If, and only if the club doesn't do this, they will then stomp up the cash from personal wealth. Probably through another round of converting SFC's debt to the Liebherrs into shares. If the club does pay down the debt then the Liebherr's might have saved themselves a few quid at the expense to SFC of the interest paid. Just a thought. I can't see how it would be more efficient from the Liebherr's perspective either. The whole tax efficient thing sounds like BS to me. The point of registering companies in the BVI is secrecy, not tax planning. Tax evasion maybe, but not legitimate tax planning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red and White Army Posted 5 October, 2012 Share Posted 5 October, 2012 The company in this case does NOT get to deduct the interest on the loan meaning the tax implications are that SFC's taxable income is increased by (1-the corporate tax rate) multiplied by the interest repayments. Everything has a tax effect. Taking a loan doesn't increase your taxable income. The interest payments come OUT of your profit as interest expense, and hence your taxable income is lowered. However, you are of course paying the interest on the loan so this has an overall negative effect on the clubs profitability. Any way, Saints are running at a huge loss so they are not paying corporate in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Without a Halo Posted 5 October, 2012 Share Posted 5 October, 2012 (edited) Who gives a flying f*ck!? Honestly, 11 pages?? Im sure of you guys only come out of the woodwork when news like this comes out. Its perfectly normal practice, and I for one am not the slightlest bit worried about, why should I be??[/QUOTE] I'm sure I said the same when Leon crouch gambled everything on promotion...................... Every successful business rises money to invest for future profit/success the issue to understand is does the risk taken match the probability of reward in the case of betting the kitchen sink on promotion it certainly didint here we would need to understand the amount borrowed, the terms of the loan and the criteria and probability for success to understand if it makes good business sense as the saying goes to be a winner you need to take part not being in the race to avoid the risk of falling over or losing cannot produce a winner Edited 5 October, 2012 by Saint Without a Halo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 5 October, 2012 Share Posted 5 October, 2012 I recall the skates saying exactly the same thing. Didn't quite work out like that with TBH did it? Big difference though Chez - Skates were simply spending on wages for assets that no longer had any value and inexcess of annual revene - with their 'plan' relying on annual cash injections from their numerous owners to make up teh shortfall - without ever being concerned with that money being there or where it came from from, or eeven if there was ever any intention of paying it intothe club - and over some 7 years! By all sensible accounst it 'appears' that we have operating costs within our revenue forecasts, but needed a short term cash boost to cover some captial expenditure and player transfer contracts that were outside the norm (money up front rather than spread over 2 or 3 years) - so its quite a different scenario, even if teh skates like to think its the same. Not saying its not something we should discuss or ask questions about - that is right and proper, just think in this case and at this time, the 'conern' over it is probably not necessary. If we end up having to do this every year with the amount owed growing year on year, then we MUST be concerned and prepared to voice that concern, but for a short term loan against guarranteed earnings, I must admit seems a big fuss over nothing IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tajjuk Posted 5 October, 2012 Share Posted 5 October, 2012 11 pages and as far as I can tell absolutely nothing on this media wise bar a few tweets right at the start. Considering the Echo has done two articles already on work stopping at the training already, surely if this was an issue the media would have reported on it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doddisalegend Posted 5 October, 2012 Share Posted 5 October, 2012 (edited) Big difference though Chez - Skates were simply spending on wages for assets that no longer had any value and inexcess of annual revene - with their 'plan' relying on annual cash injections from their numerous owners to make up teh shortfall - without ever being concerned with that money being there or where it came from from, or eeven if there was ever any intention of paying it intothe club - and over some 7 years! By all sensible accounst it 'appears' that we have operating costs within our revenue forecasts, but needed a short term cash boost to cover some captial expenditure and player transfer contracts that were outside the norm (money up front rather than spread over 2 or 3 years) - so its quite a different scenario, even if teh skates like to think its the same. Not saying its not something we should discuss or ask questions about - that is right and proper, just think in this case and at this time, the 'conern' over it is probably not necessary. If we end up having to do this every year with the amount owed growing year on year, then we MUST be concerned and prepared to voice that concern, but for a short term loan against guarranteed earnings, I must admit seems a big fuss over nothing IMHO. That's probably a fair assesment. I think it's justifible for people to be a little concerned given our recent history and our chairmans, as highlighted earlier in this thread, comments about debt...but as the details are pretty sparse on what the club has done I don't think we can panic yet. Edited 5 October, 2012 by doddisalegend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up and away Posted 5 October, 2012 Share Posted 5 October, 2012 some of us, having seen our great club and the **** one down the road get close to liquidation, are not happy to just stick our heads in the sand and say "He is Swiss, of course he knows what he is doing. They are all great with money over there, especially the bankers." We want to be sure. We can do **** all other than ask questions. it costs nothing to do that. if you don't give a ****, that is fine. Watchign Saints is a past time, a hobby after all. But for those that nutjobs, to coin a phrase, that like to monitor every move made by the club, this action must be highlighted, discussed and questioned. It's not worrying. Personally I've got far bigger things to fret over, and no one is adding grey hairs as a result, its just the interweb So to get this straight, your not happy yet not a nut job or worried at all? But do reserve the right to question what ever they do? The problem is that what ever they do, you have no influence over. We can just look at past history, see what has actually been done and judge accordingly. Even when we fully knew that Crouch was slamming us into future administration by increasing the wage bill, it was ok because he was not a banker but a fan. Then you can write off £30+M in loan notes and still be viewed as untrustworthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Munster Posted 5 October, 2012 Share Posted 5 October, 2012 Maybe this is part of Nicola's cunning plan to avoid having to overpay for a LB and CB during the next window. Give the impression that the Liebherrs have pulled the plug and that he has to resort to dodgy loan sharks for running costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 5 October, 2012 Share Posted 5 October, 2012 So to get this straight, your not happy yet not a nut job or worried at all? But do reserve the right to question what ever they do? er no, read my post again, the complete opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 5 October, 2012 Share Posted 5 October, 2012 It's probably just some way of avoiding tax but it is cause for concern. It's naive to think the money we are spunking on Ramirez etc won't have to be paid back at some point in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melmacian_saint Posted 6 October, 2012 Share Posted 6 October, 2012 Aren't we all just feeling a bit guilty for all the stick we've given the lot down the road considering their story, and desperately trying to make a point to their online community/twitterers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 6 October, 2012 Share Posted 6 October, 2012 Aren't we all just feeling a bit guilty for all the stick we've given the lot down the road considering their story, and desperately trying to make a point to their online community/twitterers? Nope Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manji Posted 6 October, 2012 Share Posted 6 October, 2012 Aren't we all just feeling a bit guilty for all the stick we've given the lot down the road considering their story, and desperately trying to make a point to their online community/twitterers? Not at all. Not remotely similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manji Posted 6 October, 2012 Share Posted 6 October, 2012 Who gives a flying f*ck!? Honestly, 11 pages?? Im sure of you guys only come out of the woodwork when news like this comes out. Its perfectly normal practice, and I for one am not the slightlest bit worried about, why should I be?? This. Anything to whinge about. Stop on training ground building while a few minor glitches are sorted. Whinge. Few bods who work a couple of hours a month laid off. Whinge. We borrow money. Whinge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 6 October, 2012 Share Posted 6 October, 2012 It's not a case of Whinging, It's right to ask question's about borrowing, we could easily end up the same way as portsmouth. 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