Matthew Le God Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 What does that mean for this? http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?37346-St-Mary-s-What-we-might-expect-to-see-happen-(and-possibly-announced-soon) Who knows! But given the stadium expansion images were as recent as this summer and it was a summer which saw Saints the 7th highest spenders in Europe it appears the club still holds great ambition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
latter day saint Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 What does that mean for this? http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?37346-St-Mary-s-What-we-might-expect-to-see-happen-(and-possibly-announced-soon) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 Who knows! But given the stadium expansion images were as recent as this summer and it was a summer which saw Saints the 7th highest spenders in Europe it appears the club still holds great ambition. So you don't expect anything to be announced soon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 Who knows! But given the stadium expansion images were as recent as this summer and it was a summer which saw Saints the 7th highest spenders in Europe it appears the club still holds great ambition. When you said "I expect Southampton to announce either an expansion of St Mary's or a relocation to a new stadium relatively soon." How soon did you intend? Any quantifiable amount? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 Isn't there some new rule from this season onwards (Financial Fair Play?) whereby owners can only inject their personal cash up to a percentage of turnover? Maybe they've hit that limit and this is the only legit way to provide the short term injection of funds we needed to hit the ground running this season? I've no idea but might this have something to do with it? Oddly, the FFP rules currently only apply to teams in the Football League, and teams in the Premier League who qualify for UEFA competitions. Those in between can - at the moment at least - do as they please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maysie Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 When you said "I expect Southampton to announce either an expansion of St Mary's or a relocation to a new stadium relatively soon." How soon did you intend? Any quantifiable amount? Fckunig hell! Just leave him alone you cretins! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 Oddly, the FFP rules currently only apply to teams in the Football League, and teams in the Premier League who qualify for UEFA competitions. Those in between can - at the moment at least - do as they please. That includes us with our Champions League qualification aspirations though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint J 77 Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 This is exactly the sort of rumour we don't need right now. It would be good to have some clarification from official sources saying it was not true. But even that might not be enough to put our minds at rest. Is it the "Dark forces" at work again? Or our we really headed in the wrong direction again? As a fan, I want to know the truth for the good of the club. I just hope that those who are digging up the dirt are doing it for the good of the club and not to destabilise it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corky morris Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 We spent £30m in the summer. It has to paid for somehow. As a company we have many sources of finance. All corporate bonds are - are a way of borrowing against future profits or/and income. Equity is also a way of borrowing against future income. This is a loan fixed ( being the important word) against future income. That in itself does not worry me as long as the rate is not stupid. What is different is the need for Cortese to find funds outside of the Liebher estate. That for me is the worry. Maybe Cortese is trying to get the business to stand alone in order to value it to sell it? I am concerned, but unlike the blue few we do have fixed assets to on against, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 This is exactly the sort of rumour we don't need right now. It would be good to have some clarification from official sources saying it was not true. But even that might not be enough to put our minds at rest. Is it the "Dark forces" at work again? Or our we really headed in the wrong direction again? As a fan, I want to know the truth for the good of the club. I just hope that those who are digging up the dirt are doing it for the good of the club and not to destabilise it. :lol: Bravo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 Fckunig hell! Just leave him alone you cretins! This. Can't we just have a decent panic about stuff that we know nothing much about without having a pop at mlg about a stadium that we definitely can't afford. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 Isn't there some new rule from this season onwards (Financial Fair Play?) whereby owners can only inject their personal cash up to a percentage of turnover? Maybe they've hit that limit and this is the only legit way to provide the short term injection of funds we needed to hit the ground running this season? I've no idea but might this have something to do with it? Financial fair play hasn't kicked in yet has it. Besides I doubt we get close to Man City in terms of owners cash injections. Why go offshore and not to a UK bank? Everton only turned to these guys because they were maxed out at their UK bank. Could loan be to pay for stadium expansion? Straw clutching skate style. I know Cortese will say **** all, but I'd really like an explanation. I didn't expect my 40% ST price increase to be supported with an offshore loan to pay for the new signings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Chalet Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 This is exactly the sort of rumour we don't need right now. It would be good to have some clarification from official sources saying it was not true. But even that might not be enough to put our minds at rest. Is it the "Dark forces" at work again? Or our we really headed in the wrong direction again? As a fan, I want to know the truth for the good of the club. I just hope that those who are digging up the dirt are doing it for the good of the club and not to destabilise it. Clearly it is not a rumour. Unless of course the 'dark forces' have doctored the Companies House record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 This is exactly the sort of rumour we don't need right now. It would be good to have some clarification from official sources saying it was not true. But even that might not be enough to put our minds at rest. Is it the "Dark forces" at work again? Or our we really headed in the wrong direction again? As a fan, I want to know the truth for the good of the club. I just hope that those who are digging up the dirt are doing it for the good of the club and not to destabilise it. are you saying that Steve Grant is the dark force? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 This. Can't we just have a decent panic about stuff that we know nothing much about without having a pop at mlg about a stadium that we definitely can't afford. How dare you say we can't afford it or couldn't fill it. Shame on you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 This is exactly the sort of rumour we don't need right now. It would be good to have some clarification from official sources saying it was not true. But even that might not be enough to put our minds at rest. Is it the "Dark forces" at work again? Or our we really headed in the wrong direction again? As a fan, I want to know the truth for the good of the club. I just hope that those who are digging up the dirt are doing it for the good of the club and not to destabilise it. That would be some impressive Iraqi Minister of Information-esque denial, considering there is a document lodged at Companies House which states that SFC has taken out a loan with a company registered in the British Virgin Islands, secured against broadcasting revenue for the 2013/14 season with a fixed and floating charge over the club's other assets. That is an undeniable fact. What is unknown is the amount borrowed and the terms of the agreement in terms of the interest rate and when it is due to be repaid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 Financial fair play hasn't kicked in yet has it. Besides I doubt we get close to Man City in terms of owners cash injections. Why go offshore and not to a UK bank? Everton only turned to these guys because they were maxed out at their UK bank. Could loan be to pay for stadium expansion? Straw clutching skate style. I know Cortese will say **** all, but I'd really like an explanation. I didn't expect my 40% ST price increase to be supported with an offshore loan to pay for the new signings. Fair points. Like everyone else, in the absence of any specific details, I'm clutching at straws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 Oddly, the FFP rules currently only apply to teams in the Football League, and teams in the Premier League who qualify for UEFA competitions. Those in between can - at the moment at least - do as they please. Perhaps we've taken the moral high ground and joined in voluntarily? (Said Trousers on a straw clutching roll this evening) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anothersaintinsouthsea Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 Some of you pussies need to man up. We don't know how much has been borrowed, we don't know the repayment terms, we don't know how much it will cost, we don't know what exactly its being used for, we don't know the real identity of the lenders and we don't know how this fits in with our cash flow for the next few seasons. Concluding that we're doing anything particular risky and using words like gambling is just based on nothing but conjecture. You want Saints to be run like a business? The vast majority of successful businesses use debts to finance capital purchases and working capital. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 Some of you pussies need to man up. We don't know how much has been borrowed, we don't know the repayment terms, we don't know how much it will cost, we don't know what exactly its being used for, we don't know the real identity of the lenders and we don't know how this fits in with our cash flow for the next few seasons. Concluding that we're doing anything particular risky and using words like gambling is just based on nothing but conjecture. You want Saints to be run like a business? The vast majority of successful businesses use debts to finance capital purchases and working capital. Wise and rational words sir. Shame they'll be largely wasted on here though.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 Some of you pussies need to man up. We don't know how much has been borrowed, we don't know the repayment terms, we don't know how much it will cost, we don't know what exactly its being used for, we don't know the real identity of the lenders and we don't know how this fits in with our cash flow for the next few seasons. Concluding that we're doing anything particular risky and using words like gambling is just based on nothing but conjecture. You want Saints to be run like a business? The vast majority of successful businesses use debts to finance capital purchases and working capital. All valid points, but you ignore the fact/assumption that we are being bankrolled. This appears to kick that notion into touch whilst revealing a debt floating over all our assets and future tv deals etc. Two shocks in one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 Wise and rational words sir. Shame they'll be largely wasted on here though.... You mean apart from the fact the fanbase have constantly been spoon fed that we don't do debt, we don't countenance debt, that's not how the family operates? Yet we should suddenly accept the terms of this sudden turn around? It's a strange way to counter a particular assertion, that's for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AussieDog Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 on first sight it does appear worrying, but there are dozens of explanations as to why we would do this - some good and some not so good. Not all debt is bad. What % interest are we being charged? I seem to recall something being said about a 5 year plan and that a trust fund was set up. Maybe the interest we receive on that trust fund is greater than the interest we are paying on this loan? Maybe we borrowed against Premier League payments because a technicality means we can't borrow against the trust fund? It would help if there was more transparency from the club, but a simple statement that we have a loan isn't enough to get too stressed over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 B.V.I. . . . .Isn't that where Portpin are based? F u u u u u u u k c! What are they thinking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wireframebox Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 Could this have anything to do with the frequency and period in which the TV money is paid out? I don't think it's a lump sum is it? Perhaps we were in need of some readys that are secured against this seasons TV money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 Can I just take this opportunity to remind everyone who has forgotten that three years ago we were literally thirty five minutes away from definitely going out of business forever and we were bottom of league one and everything and stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 Can I just take this opportunity to remind everyone who has forgotten that three years ago we were literally thirty five minutes away from definitely going out of business forever and we were bottom of league one and everything and stuff. Nobody needs reminding of that, thanks. We're well aware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint J 77 Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 That would be some impressive Iraqi Minister of Information-esque denial, considering there is a document lodged at Companies House which states that SFC has taken out a loan with a company registered in the British Virgin Islands, secured against broadcasting revenue for the 2013/14 season with a fixed and floating charge over the club's other assets. That is an undeniable fact. What is unknown is the amount borrowed and the terms of the agreement in terms of the interest rate and when it is due to be repaid. Ok thanks, that doesn't sound good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maysie Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 On face value it doesn't look great. I'll be honest though it's a subject I know very little about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paris Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 So thank's everyone for your various thoughts on the matter however i'll wait for something more official from the club ..... Bonne Nuit !!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 Nobody needs reminding of that, thanks. We're well aware. That's because you're only ever about ten posts away from a reminder on here. I felt it was my turn to chip in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rational Rich Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 We spent £30m in the summer. It has to paid for somehow. As a company we have many sources of finance. All corporate bonds are - are a way of borrowing against future profits or/and income. Equity is also a way of borrowing against future income. This is a loan fixed ( being the important word) against future income. That in itself does not worry me as long as the rate is not stupid. What is different is the need for Cortese to find funds outside of the Liebher estate. That for me is the worry. Maybe Cortese is trying to get the business to stand alone in order to value it to sell it? I am concerned, but unlike the blue few we do have fixed assets to on against, It is true, the publically available records at Companies House show it. Would be good to know why the loan is needed, it may be for perfectly valid reasons, but when it has been said or at least intimated by the powers that be at the club that it is debt free and being funded by the Liebherrs, it's a bit of a surprise to find they have borrowed from an offshore entity secured against next season's premier league payments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 You mean apart from the fact the fanbase have constantly been spoon fed that we don't do debt, we don't countenance debt, that's not how the family operates? Yet we should suddenly accept the terms of this sudden turn around? It's a strange way to counter a particular assertion, that's for sure. Not all 'debt' is bad. As I keep saying, I 'm reserving judgement on this until I know more details about the terms of the loan and the context behind it. Apologies if such pragmatism isn't befitting of an Internet football messageboard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 This company we have borrowed cash from, could they not be some sort of hiding company ? The ones the big boys use to blanket funds ? And in reality it is just a screen for our parent company ? Just saying in that case its not too much to worry about. It could always br more sinister of course, at ehich point I would have to ask what its for and why the family Liebherr cabt fund it ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 Not all 'debt' is bad. As I keep saying, I 'm reserving judgement on this until I know more details about the terms of the loan and the context behind it. Apologies if such pragmatism isn't befitting of an Internet football messageboard. You're correct, not all debt is bad. Debt that is unexpected and completely nullifies an apparent position of "we don't do debt", well I find that concerning. Pragmatism or otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gambol2K9 Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 You can't be worried about it unless you know the figures involved. Impossible to draw a conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 You can't be worried about it unless you know the figures involved. Impossible to draw a conclusion. True. But possible to start raising concerns, no? Different thing entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 (edited) You're correct, not all debt is bad. Debt that is unexpected and completely nullifies an apparent position of "we don't do debt", well I find that concerning. Pragmatism or otherwise. I accept that 'concern' is a valid stance to take given we don't know why the club has done what it's done and on what terms. Maybe 'intrigued' or 'curious' are better words than 'concerned' but my gut feel is that there'll be a rational explanation for it. I could be wrong. Edited 3 October, 2012 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 I accept that 'concern' is a valid stance to take given we don't know why the club has done what it's done and on what terms. Maybe 'intrigued' or 'curious' are better words than 'concerned' but my gut feel is that there'll be is rational explanation for it. I could be wrong. And that is an indisputable approach. As you say, we'll see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horley CTFC Saint Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 Suppose the Liebherrs are the secret owners of this Vibrac Corp would you all be so concernered? More likely Richard Branson tba Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 You can't be worried about it unless you know the figures involved. Impossible to draw a conclusion. You can ask why any loan is needed if we apparently have wealthy benefactors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 I accept that 'concern' is a valid stance to take given we don't know why the club has done what it's done and on what terms. Maybe 'intrigued' or 'curious' are better words than 'concerned' but my gut feel is that there'll be a rational explanation for it. I could be wrong. The rational explanation is we need more money than we currently have to hand to spend on new players, a new training ground, Premier League wages and a fifty thousand seat stadium we are absolutely desperate for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 (edited) From the words of Nicola Cortese himself, in May 2010. Source: his wiki page, from an interview with The Times. "Clubs spend money they do not have; they spend next year’s income. They spend money that will not arrive for two years and say, "But we'll have some success and bring in more cash to cover the shortfall". It cannot be sustained. In good times you need to be saving money for the bad times. If we reach the Premier League, I would like to be in a position where we did not need parachute payments. In good years you should put money away for the bad years. " I can only presume he's changed his mind. Edited 3 October, 2012 by The Kraken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 From the words of Nicola Cortese himself, in May 2010. Source: his wiki page, from an interview with The Times. I can only presume he's changed his mind. Don't worry. The sacred texts are being rewritten. First line is "You people need to get real, not all debt is bad." Second line is something about Cortese debt actually being better than free money and don't you remember where we were three years ago or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 Don't worry. The sacred texts are being rewritten. First line is "You people need to get real, not all debt is bad." Second line is something about Cortese debt actually being better than free money and don't you remember where we were three years ago or something. "Not all debt is bad" is my new favourite. It's the ultimate in ignorance of our past 3 years. MLG must be crying into his horlicks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 From the words of Nicola Cortese himself, in May 2010. Source: his wiki page, from an interview with The Times. I can only presume he's changed his mind. Damning quote right there. Not all debt is bad, but it is a complete reversal of the stated way we were running the company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 (edited) Good debt...? http://biggsuccess.com/2012/08/15/the-dirty-secret-to-getting-rich/ What’s better than being debt-free? Large companies know the answer. Large companies are already flush with cash. Yet they are borrowing money like crazy. Why? Because they know a dirty secret to getting rich: What’s better than debt-free? Hitting pay dirt with money that’s dirt cheap. We are witnessing interest rates that most of us won’t see again in our lifetimes. So now may be the time to add to your long-term capital base. As long as you’re strategic about it. Ask people who lend to consumers and they’ll tell you that most people only think about the payment. And they borrow for the wrong things. Entrepreneurs think differently. They realize that the “interest rate” is the cost of money. It’s the rent you pay until you return the lender’s money. So why not lock in cheap rent for the long haul? Use the money to buy assets which throw off enough cash flow to service the debt and provide you with a nice return. Edited 3 October, 2012 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintNeil90 Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 Are people really moaning and saying having a loan is bad? This is normal in business. In addition, we have a chairmen who has managed the accounts of billionaires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 3 October, 2012 Share Posted 3 October, 2012 Some of you pussies need to man up. We don't know how much has been borrowed, we don't know the repayment terms, we don't know how much it will cost, we don't know what exactly its being used for, we don't know the real identity of the lenders and we don't know how this fits in with our cash flow for the next few seasons. Concluding that we're doing anything particular risky and using words like gambling is just based on nothing but conjecture. You want Saints to be run like a business? The vast majority of successful businesses use debts to finance capital purchases and working capital. well said. some ignorant crap on here mixed with pathetic panic. don't expect any explanation. how much has cortese ever said about our finances? still gives people todays moan!! 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