The Kraken Posted 5 November, 2012 Share Posted 5 November, 2012 Fair enough. But as the purpose of security is to give the lender something to recover against in the event of a default, it would seem logical for that security to be against something which post-dates the expected loan term? Instead of the word 'proof', would you accept 'very strong indication'? Yep, agree with that in principle. And also from other private snippets I've heard as to how much the loan is and what it's for. However, as I say the loan is secured against next year's income as well as the assets of SFC, so its not 100% that clear cut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 5 November, 2012 Share Posted 5 November, 2012 This years money? We'll find out when the accounts are released then wont we. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 5 November, 2012 Share Posted 5 November, 2012 We'll find out when the accounts are released then wont we. Indeed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AK Posted 5 November, 2012 Share Posted 5 November, 2012 We'll find out when the accounts are released then wont we. In 20 months time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greenridge Posted 5 November, 2012 Share Posted 5 November, 2012 We'll find out when the accounts are released then wont we. Judging by your postings I took it as read that you already knew. Is that not the case then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint lard Posted 7 November, 2012 Share Posted 7 November, 2012 Are we really £24m in 'debt'? click on key financials,apologies if already posted..... http://companycheck.co.uk/company/06951765 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey-deacons-left-nut Posted 7 November, 2012 Share Posted 7 November, 2012 No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey-deacons-left-nut Posted 7 November, 2012 Share Posted 7 November, 2012 its for the 2010 year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 7 November, 2012 Share Posted 7 November, 2012 its for the 2010 year. We are probably even further in debt, however: Since then 30 million pounds of debit to the Estate of Markus Liebherr has been converted in club equity. It's been integrated into the value of the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norwaysaint Posted 7 November, 2012 Share Posted 7 November, 2012 Are we really £24m in 'debt'? click on key financials,apologies if already posted..... http://companycheck.co.uk/company/06951765 Current directors: Ms Nicola Cortese Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 7 November, 2012 Share Posted 7 November, 2012 Are we really £24m in 'debt'? click on key financials,apologies if already posted..... http://companycheck.co.uk/company/06951765 Hard to take the research of any website seriously that thinks Nicola Cortese is a woman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 7 November, 2012 Share Posted 7 November, 2012 Hard to take the research of any website seriously that thinks Nicola Cortese is a woman. Yep, thats a great reason why we should completely rule it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 8 November, 2012 Share Posted 8 November, 2012 Yep, thats a great reason why we should completely rule it out. Not unreasonable to question credibility if they have shown they can't even get the basics right, such as the chairman's gender. It says it is based on the 2010/11 accounts. This explains them, the interview is an interesting listen... http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17547804 The loan we know little about was in September 2012 and isn't covered by this website Pompey fans are getting all excited about on POL and Twitter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capitalsaint Posted 8 November, 2012 Share Posted 8 November, 2012 Yep, thats a great reason why we should completely rule it out. Tbf, the stuff it has about my business is wildly incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 8 November, 2012 Share Posted 8 November, 2012 so how do we find out what the loan amounts to in terms of size and interest rate etc.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tajjuk Posted 8 November, 2012 Share Posted 8 November, 2012 We won't know until the accounts come out but I would say the most reasonable and obvious explanation for it is paying for Ramirez up front and then paying the loan back with Premiership TV money over the rest of this season. If it's something else then maybe it's worrying but there is nothing to indicate that we should be thinking the worst. Pompey fans are going to seize on every bit of negativity around our club because frankly that's all they have. They will soon be at best rock bottom of Division 3, they have no owner, no manager, no players who have any attachment to the club, a crumbling down stadium the club doesn't even own, no academy. In short no hope. I would think there are BSP South clubs with better long term prospects. Hating us is all they have got at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 5 December, 2012 Share Posted 5 December, 2012 (edited) Today's training ground announcement perhaps ties in with the BVI loan taken out in September 2012. BACKGROUND Training ground... http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/news/article/training-ground-update-527858.aspx BVI loan... http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/9970183.Mystery_over_Saints__loan__from_tax_haven_company/?action=complain&cid=10832783 The connection? The original plan was to use the existing training dome in the new redeveloped Staplewood. Today Saints confirmed this won't be happening due to issues with the existing dome. The timing of which links perhaps with the British Virgin Island loan taken out in late Spetember 2012. I posed this question to a Pompey supporting accountant... "Do you think it could be feasible the BVI loan could be a tax efficient way to pay for the new training dome after the construction issue and need to build a new one rather than keep the old one arose around the same time the loan was taken out? Perhaps the two tie in with each other? In which case a potential non issue." His response was... "That would make sense if the club was going to make a profit as debt interest is tax deductible (Where did you learn that from ). Are you confident of making a profit after the expenditure in this year? It's a fair point though." So... We all have no idea if Saints will make a profit or not, but it would tie everything together wouldn't it? Given the huge TV money it is possible I suppose, I don't think our wage bill will be that big (yes Ramirez is on a hefty wage, but the others?). The BVI loan then isn't really an issue and just a financial management technique to fund the unexpected investment in having to build a new training dome when they originally planned to use the old one. Panic over perhaps...? Would be nice for some official clarification though. Edited 5 December, 2012 by Matthew Le God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearsy Posted 5 December, 2012 Share Posted 5 December, 2012 Bump is my favourite Mister Man. I also like Tickle and Impossible. Sneeze is a bit of a cvnt tho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 5 December, 2012 Share Posted 5 December, 2012 Your logic makes no sense: debt is tax deductible, so it is an incentive to borrow and structure deals in a particular way. But this could be done to fund any number of projects including transfers. From this, you jump to assuming it must be for the redevelopment of Staplewood. Where's the evidence? Even your suggestion that the timing is very close doesn't really stack up. For all we know, the dome is the reason for the falling out with the contractors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 5 December, 2012 Share Posted 5 December, 2012 Bump is my favourite Mister Man. I also like Tickle and Impossible. Sneeze is a bit of a cvnt tho. Strong seems like an arrogant bastard. Tickle is a good lad, I always quite liked Messy too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 5 December, 2012 Share Posted 5 December, 2012 Your logic makes no sense: debt is tax deductible, so it is an incentive to borrow and structure deals in a particular way. But this could be done to fund any number of projects including transfers. From this, you jump to assuming it must be for the redevelopment of Staplewood. Where's the evidence? Even your suggestion that the timing is very close doesn't really stack up. For all we know, the dome is the reason for the falling out with the contractors. Not my logic, that of a Pompey supporting accountant I asked... actually... "Pompey" and "accountancy"? I see where I've gone wrong! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 5 December, 2012 Share Posted 5 December, 2012 Not my logic, that of a Pompey supporting accountant I asked... actually... "Pompey" and "accountancy"? I see where I've gone wrong! No. He just says that the debt is an efficient way to access credit. It still means we're borrowing while it doesn't mean it's for Staplewood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 5 December, 2012 Share Posted 5 December, 2012 Strong seems like an arrogant bastard. Tickle is a good lad, I always quite liked Messy too. Mr Funny was one of those c*nts that tried to be hilarious but was boring as f*ck, a if he was a mongboard poster he'd be The9. Wes Ender reminds me of Mr Uppity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avenue Saint Posted 5 December, 2012 Share Posted 5 December, 2012 "We have money" From a club supporting source who's job it is to know. Don't ask any further questions please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 5 December, 2012 Share Posted 5 December, 2012 Mr Funny was one of those c*nts that tried to be hilarious but was boring as f*ck, a if he was a mongboard poster he'd be The9. Wes Ender reminds me of Mr Uppity. I wonder who mr daydream is. In his happy world, anything can happen and facts are no barrier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 5 December, 2012 Share Posted 5 December, 2012 I wonder who mr daydream is. In his world, anything can happen and facts are no barrier. I would say MlG but he is already Mr Wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 5 December, 2012 Share Posted 5 December, 2012 Franks Cousin is Mr Chatterbox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kraken Posted 5 December, 2012 Share Posted 5 December, 2012 There's plenty of candidates for Mr. Grumpy, that's for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Le God Posted 5 December, 2012 Share Posted 5 December, 2012 I regret using that image now. Mr Sad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dig Dig Posted 5 December, 2012 Share Posted 5 December, 2012 Strong seems like an arrogant bastard. Tickle is a good lad, I always quite liked Messy too. From whispers I've heard, Mr Tickle is a known peado. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint86 Posted 5 December, 2012 Share Posted 5 December, 2012 This thread.... Mr cringe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 5 December, 2012 Share Posted 5 December, 2012 I regret using that image now. Mr Sad Along with flying cats, no images of dead horses being flogged? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wade Garrett Posted 5 December, 2012 Share Posted 5 December, 2012 Mr Tickle was a f*cking nonce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 5 December, 2012 Share Posted 5 December, 2012 I would say MlG but he is already Mr Wrong. Nickg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 5 December, 2012 Share Posted 5 December, 2012 Nickg Good call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 5 December, 2012 Share Posted 5 December, 2012 Just to add this back into the equation re: "next year's revenue" : http://swissramble.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/southampton-saints-alive.html "At the risk of stating the obvious, there is never a good time for a football club to be relegated, but it is fair to say that Southampton’s timing was particularly bad, as they missed out on the significant growth in TV deals, e.g. West Ham received £40 million for finishing bottom of the Premier League last season compared to Southampton’s £19 million in 2005. Similarly, while Southampton’s relegation was cushioned by £13 million of parachute payments, West Ham will receive £48 million (£16 million in each of the first two years, and £8 million in each of years three and four)." If we'd have had the current £48m in the 4 years following the Prem relegation we wouldn't have been in anything like the same trouble - add the additional £10m to 2006 and 2007's figures and our income would have been on a par with our last season still in the Prem. Even the attitude of clubs to relegation of keeping their players for 2 seasons and going for the bounce-back rather than culling their wage earners after 6 months or a year shows there's much more money going to the relegated clubs now, and of course that amount is going through the roof next season. So a small loan against guaranteed parachutes (minimum) shouldn't be a problem... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_clark Posted 5 December, 2012 Share Posted 5 December, 2012 From whispers I've heard, Mr Tickle is a known peado. Wasn't that Sfc_Scott or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 5 December, 2012 Share Posted 5 December, 2012 I read the echo article I got as far as sisa and then switched off I still see the echo refers to them as saints fans spokesmen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pedro Posted 5 December, 2012 Share Posted 5 December, 2012 Wonder if the club were blaming the contractors for the dome structure. The experts should have known whether the structure could stand the strain of nearby construction. 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