NickG Posted 9 January, 2009 Share Posted 9 January, 2009 The assumption that Lowe or Wilde would WANT to buy us out of administration is probably false. I suspect that many fans who ARE attending SMS at the moment are willing to do so while they see Lowe trying to steady the ship financially,but in the expectation that they will be removed again at some point not too far in the future. Should Lowe and/or Wilde obtain complete control post-administration ( in League 1 for sure),then i am sure that many tolerating them at the moment will turn their backs on the club as thousands of others have already done. I do not believe that Lowe and Wilde have any illusions about this scenario.I also do not believe that Lowe/Wilde see any future or profit in running a League 1 club with a huge mortgage around its neck and crowds below 10,000. They are here to avoid administration and stay in this league,or they will walk away and accept defeat and the loss of their investment. sounds more logical. The fans will leave in their thousands if we get relegated -whoever is in charge, or if we go into administration (which will lead to relegation) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bakovnetski Posted 9 January, 2009 Share Posted 9 January, 2009 Why do people think the club will go into administration? The biggest creditor by a country mile is Norwich Union - whilst they are getting their repayments in full and on time every year, it is unlikely they would want to call in their loan... whilst they probably have a clause which gives them the right to do so (like most mortgages/loans), if they were to do that we would immediately enter administration and they would never recoup the debt anyway - how much is a stadium worth on eBay? So it's in their interests for us to continue trading. So that only leaves Barclays as being the ones able to pull the rug - and with a £6m overdraft (or whatever it is now) that is a possibility as banks start clawing back their cash. But as the accounts state, if Barclays withdraw their support the club will seek alternative financing whether internal or external so it probably wouldn't mean administration either... but it's clearly a risk. My own personal guess is that Barclays have advised the club that they will be withdrawing the overdraft facility year ending 2009. Of course the sensible thing to do is to take the club out of such a precarious position - ie. pay back the Barclays debt asap and return the club to financial stability. And that's what we're doing. Common sense really isn't it? Come the interims I expect us to have taken a huge step towards reverting to 50-60% wages/turnover, although we may have to dip even lower in order to repay the debt if we don't sell off KD, Surman or Lallana. I'm sure the usual elements of the fanbase will shriek in horror and say Bad Things about RL, but back on planet earth the rest of the fanbase will no doubt see it as a step to recovery. Anyway, by then Yellowstone will have erupted, the IMF will be taking over UK PLC and the imminent bankruptcy of California will kick-start the demise of the US as a civil war leads to a complete seceding of the union. Happy days. With dwindling crowds due to the poor pitchside performances I doubt if the revenue will be sufficient to pay anything off at all even after flogging the best talent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 9 January, 2009 Share Posted 9 January, 2009 OK GM you have me bang to rights. I was oversimplifying rather than writing a treatise on company accounting. Yes of course the overdraft is all about cashflow. However I strongly suspect the cashflow is negative at the moment. Even if it is positive it would be foolhardy to agree to a steady reduction in overdraft facility when provision should be being made for the next annual stadium repayment. We are in no position to "agree to a steady reduction in overdraft facility" or otherwise. That is down to Barclays. The main reason for this is that Wilde and management team assembled by him managed to turn a cash mountain of £4.8M into a £4.4M deficit. The inference in this thread is totally laughable. IF anyone deliberately intended to bring this club to its knees, then Wilde did. Personally, I think he did that through no malice but a heavy dose of ineptitude and ego. He was helped by the pea brained individuals who couldn't see through him, too blinded by their class based hatred of Lowe. They include Crouch all the way down to the Saints Trust and your hero accountant, Um Pahars. As far as cashflow, I would think that Lowe is well on his way to balancing the books and that further asset sales and income savings will place us on an even keel. If we can lose no more than £100K a month for the rest of the season, we will be generating over £500k a year in cash to keep the banks happy. I think people need to get a grip. Administration is light years away.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1965onwards Posted 9 January, 2009 Share Posted 9 January, 2009 we are ALL guessing at the true financial position Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 9 January, 2009 Share Posted 9 January, 2009 We are in no position to "agree to a steady reduction in overdraft facility" or otherwise. That is down to Barclays. The main reason for this is that Wilde and management team assembled by him managed to turn a cash mountain of £4.8M into a £4.4M deficit. The inference in this thread is totally laughable. IF anyone deliberately intended to bring this club to its knees, then Wilde did. Personally, I think he did that through no malice but a heavy dose of ineptitude and ego. He was helped by the pea brained individuals who couldn't see through him, too blinded by their class based hatred of Lowe. They include Crouch all the way down to the Saints Trust and your hero accountant, Um Pahars. As far as cashflow, I would think that Lowe is well on his way to balancing the books and that further asset sales and income savings will place us on an even keel. If we can lose no more than £100K a month for the rest of the season, we will be generating over £500k a year in cash to keep the banks happy. I think people need to get a grip. Administration is light years away.... do not forget the numpty accountant, David Jones , a disgrace to my profession Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 9 January, 2009 Share Posted 9 January, 2009 Everyone is too blame in some extent for this mess, it's only David Jones that has been scrotum deep in the whole farce all the way though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 9 January, 2009 Share Posted 9 January, 2009 Everyone is too blame in some extent for this mess, it's only David Jones that has been scrotum deep in the whole farce all the way though. the ultimate YES man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 9 January, 2009 Share Posted 9 January, 2009 the ultimate YES man Or a typical bean counter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 9 January, 2009 Share Posted 9 January, 2009 As for Lowe taking control of the club post admin, I think a good campaign against him by the fans should sway the administrator in favour of any rival bids (assuming there is one). In League 1 the supporters money will be way more important than it is now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 9 January, 2009 Share Posted 9 January, 2009 As for Lowe taking control of the club post admin, I think a good campaign against him by the fans should sway the administrator in favour of any rival bids (assuming there is one). In League 1 the supporters money will be way more important than it is now. Nice sentiment, but I think administrators look only at best offers, not emotions. Unfortunately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 9 January, 2009 Share Posted 9 January, 2009 sorted the £17m stadium financing, and re-financed to £25m to free up £8m cash And with that one line you still show that you don't get these finance things. It didn't free up 8million cash, the #17million loan was the initial construction loan from MeesPierson, which was replaced and then finally consolidated by #25million of loan notes as the costs of the project increased through time. In fact, Lowe should have been hung out to dry, along with Risdale and others, if he entered into long term loan/deals to generate cash to use in the short term. Some of your analysis on the overall position is quite good, but steer clear of saying things like the above which are patently untrue (and has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions, which does make you wonder why you persist in trotting out such claptrap). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 9 January, 2009 Share Posted 9 January, 2009 do not forget the numpty accountant' date=' David Jones , a disgrace to my profession[/quote'] He has my every sympathy, being one of a number on the board and only having one vote. Generally the MD and Chairman can easily push through decisions if they bullsh !t enough. It's rare to find an FD with the strength of character to stand up to a determined MD. I think the cashflows presented relied heavily on an investment from Wilde, et al... The beancounter can only rely in the information he receives. If it includes the promise of investment, then I can understand why he didn't foresee the cash crisis... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickG Posted 9 January, 2009 Share Posted 9 January, 2009 Nice sentiment, but I think administrators look only at best offers, not emotions. Unfortunately. agree, want look at all at popularity -often not even highest offer but stable business plan -now who is it that keeps going on about that's way to run the business??! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 9 January, 2009 Share Posted 9 January, 2009 The main reason for this is that Wilde and management team assembled by him managed to turn a cash mountain of £4.8M into a £4.4M deficit. I would have thought a man of your wordly ability would have done better than to repeat Lowe's mantra. There were indeed some noddy decisions taken by the old Executive team (particuarly last summer), but you have to remember that revenue has fallen from circa 50m to circa 14m. That sort of fccuks with your cash. As for your analysis of the current position, then we shouldn't have to wait long as the interims are soon out, and unlike you my gut feel is that we are still running at a loss and the overdraft has increased since the summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exit2 Posted 9 January, 2009 Share Posted 9 January, 2009 what I dont get is that the night before Lowe resigned, there was a fans forum. That night Lowe said to about 30 of us that there was enough money in the "pot" for the club to last 18 months before we were really in the ****e. Now that 18 months has gone and some and now we are in the ****e, so why is he blaming the other board for poor managment when he stated this would happen before they took control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 9 January, 2009 Share Posted 9 January, 2009 what I dont get is that the night before Lowe resigned, there was a fans forum. That night Lowe said to about 30 of us that there was enough money in the "pot" for the club to last 18 months before we were really in the ****e. Now that 18 months has gone and some and now we are in the ****e, so why is he blaming the other board for poor managment when he stated this would happen before they took control. You should have asked him then Perhaps he understood how they were going to run the club Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 9 January, 2009 Share Posted 9 January, 2009 This appears to be my 1000th Post I hope when I post my 2000th things around this Forum are better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgiesaint Posted 9 January, 2009 Share Posted 9 January, 2009 Why do people think the club will go into administration? The biggest creditor by a country mile is Norwich Union - whilst they are getting their repayments in full and on time every year, it is unlikely they would want to call in their loan... whilst they probably have a clause which gives them the right to do so (like most mortgages/loans), if they were to do that we would immediately enter administration and they would never recoup the debt anyway - how much is a stadium worth on eBay? So it's in their interests for us to continue trading. So that only leaves Barclays as being the ones able to pull the rug - and with a £6m overdraft (or whatever it is now) that is a possibility as banks start clawing back their cash. But as the accounts state, if Barclays withdraw their support the club will seek alternative financing whether internal or external so it probably wouldn't mean administration either... but it's clearly a risk. My own personal guess is that Barclays have advised the club that they will be withdrawing the overdraft facility year ending 2009. Of course the sensible thing to do is to take the club out of such a precarious position - ie. pay back the Barclays debt asap and return the club to financial stability. And that's what we're doing. Common sense really isn't it? As stated by someone else, HMRC is the main worry for administration. Don't know if this has been mentioned elsewhere but I caught the tail end of a discussion piece on 5live last night with John Madjeski (sp) and Keith Harris of Seymour Pierce. Both were of the opinion that any UK high street bank would be pretty unlikely to push a club to administration as the adverse reaction would not be healthy for the rest of the business. Imagine, if Barclays lost all of their customers in Southampton!! Slightly different if you financing is from an overseas bank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 9 January, 2009 Share Posted 9 January, 2009 This appears to be my 1000th Post I hope when I post my 2000th things around this Forum are better Stuff the forum , lets hope we have won 2 games by next sat night as you break the 2000 barrier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spyinthesky Posted 10 January, 2009 Share Posted 10 January, 2009 Followed all above with interest. # Not a financial man but can anyone pl explain how, in our parlous financial state, we were able to pay £1.2m for Schneiderlin (fee confirmed in the N Forest programme) Also I understand from contacts in Plymouth that we offered Wooton a longer term deal, with 20% increase in wages, than Plymouth were prepared to consider. Also how much wages have we wasted on the invisible Pulis and the opaque Gasmi!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 10 January, 2009 Share Posted 10 January, 2009 Not a financial man but can anyone pl explain how, in our parlous financial state, we were able to pay £1.2m for Schneiderlin (fee confirmed in the N Forest programme) Because there's no way we would have paid all of that upfront (with some even being linked on contingent events, appearances etc). IMHO Schneiderlin was bought more as an asset to be traded in a year or so as opposed to making a contribution to the long term success of the team (altough of course any dosh received would help the team as well as his contributions whilst he is here). Some may be able to see the logic in such an enterprise (if this is indeed the case), whilst others may think the idea of buying players the manager hasn't seen (and may not want) as a future investment as being a dangerous road to go down. Personally, I'm not overly comfortable with other people at the Club speculating on players (however honourable the intent is). Also I understand from contacts in Plymouth that we offered Wooton a longer term deal, with 20% increase in wages, than Plymouth were prepared to consider. Also how much wages have we wasted on the invisible Pulis and the opaque Gasmi!! And although we haven't paid all the money for Schneiderlin, when you combine this with the other loans & frees (and associated costs), it demonstrates that we did have some money (albeit relatively small) that we could trade with and that many think we haven't used those scarce resources very efficiently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1965onwards Posted 10 January, 2009 Share Posted 10 January, 2009 "Haven't used those resources very efficiently". Very understated UP LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spyinthesky Posted 10 January, 2009 Share Posted 10 January, 2009 Um, Thank You for this. Re Schneiderlin, I was surprised to discover, from the programme notes, that he hardly played for Strasbourg (certainly less than Gasmi) In these circumstances it seems bizaare that a fee of £1.2m, however structured, was agreed for the player. Another riddle in a very dark and murky business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 10 January, 2009 Share Posted 10 January, 2009 Um, Thank You for this. All IMHO of course and pieced together from various snippets I have read and heard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up and away Posted 10 January, 2009 Share Posted 10 January, 2009 Originally Posted by 70's Mike do not forget the numpty accountant, David Jones , a disgrace to my profession He has my every sympathy, being one of a number on the board and only having one vote. Generally the MD and Chairman can easily push through decisions if they bullsh !t enough. It's rare to find an FD with the strength of character to stand up to a determined MD. I think the cashflows presented relied heavily on an investment from Wilde, et al... The beancounter can only rely in the information he receives. If it includes the promise of investment, then I can understand why he didn't foresee the cash crisis... I am not so sure he should have every sympathy, equally along with the rest of them that followed blindly. You see the likes of Dave Jones on many boards, a bean counter who is not a driving force in any particular direction, but with their vote aligned to the board of the day. No one has identified any figures being incorrect, so he is doing his job correctly from that point of view. But if you go along with that and vote in support, you are culpable to the extent of that single vote. When you are selling off £10M's and £10M's of the family silver until the cupboard is bare, even a 5 year old should be able to figure out the consequences. More galling to me is out burst by Crouch at the recent AGM, that he has nothing to do with the state of the finances. If you provide loans to get a player on our books, how can you not be seen as complicit in this financial mess when these loans have to be repaid? With one of the most expensive, Andrew Davies being signed in Jan 2008. So who exactly was in charge at this time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 10 January, 2009 Share Posted 10 January, 2009 more galling to me is out burst by crouch at the recent agm, that he has nothing to do with the state of the finances. the bit i will take responsibility for is when i got control of the club and i was appointed chairman. hth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottery st mary Posted 10 January, 2009 Share Posted 10 January, 2009 I am not so sure he should have every sympathy, equally along with the rest of them that followed blindly. You see the likes of Dave Jones on many boards, a bean counter who is not a driving force in any particular direction, but with their vote aligned to the board of the day. No one has identified any figures being incorrect, so he is doing his job correctly from that point of view. But if you go along with that and vote in support, you are culpable to the extent of that single vote. When you are selling off £10M's and £10M's of the family silver until the cupboard is bare, even a 5 year old should be able to figure out the consequences. More galling to me is out burst by Crouch at the recent AGM, that he has nothing to do with the state of the finances. If you provide loans to get a player on our books, how can you not be seen as complicit in this financial mess when these loans have to be repaid? With one of the most expensive, Andrew Davies being signed in Jan 2008. So who exactly was in charge at this time? Andrew Davies money recouped....Sorry forgot big wedge of that was for young Pulis....£300,000 You can correct me if you want...Now is that good business or is Pulis about to save us....Yes other clubs wanted Davies but then again he does not play at mo.. Maybe Pulis will not play until Davies does....Anyway no use me spouting...you know everything so I am sure you will put me right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
up and away Posted 10 January, 2009 Share Posted 10 January, 2009 Originally Posted by up and away More galling to me is out burst by Crouch at the recent AGM, that he has nothing to do with the state of the finances. If you provide loans to get a player on our books, how can you not be seen as complicit in this financial mess when these loans have to be repaid? With one of the most expensive, Andrew Davies being signed in Jan 2008. So who exactly was in charge at this time? Andrew Davies money recouped....Sorry forgot big wedge of that was for young Pulis....£300,000 You can correct me if you want...Now is that good business or is Pulis about to save us....Yes other clubs wanted Davies but then again he does not play at mo.. Maybe Pulis will not play until Davies does....Anyway no use me spouting...you know everything so I am sure you will put me right. Davies has played what? 45 minutes since leaving us for Stoke? Just exactly how lucky were we in getting Davies off our books and being lumbered with those costs for the rest of this season even? You obviously think that was an acceptable risk, even with the precarious position we were in financially? Originally Posted by leon crouch's ball juggler the bit i will take responsibility for is when i got control of the club and i was appointed chairman. But when you take such action at a time when you knew exactly how bad our financial position was, lumbering us with one of the most expensive wage additions in recent times, you don't feel this to be far more stupid than everything that has brought us to this point. We have all seen the inability to move on these high earners and it is with exceeding good luck that we still not have him with us now! If you have any regard for the financial mess we were in, you do not compound that problem and then try to imply that you were against the whole concept from the beginning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottery st mary Posted 10 January, 2009 Share Posted 10 January, 2009 Davies has played what? 45 minutes since leaving us for Stoke? Just exactly how lucky were we in getting Davies off our books and being lumbered with those costs for the rest of this season even? You obviously think that was an acceptable risk, even with the precarious position we were in financially? But when you take such action at a time when you knew exactly how bad our financial position was, lumbering us with one of the most expensive wage additions in recent times, you don't feel this to be far more stupid than everything that has brought us to this point. We have all seen the inability to move on these high earners and it is with exceeding good luck that we still not have him with us now! If you have any regard for the financial mess we were in, you do not compound that problem and then try to imply that you were against the whole concept from the beginning? You might be right re Davies, but I already suggested that. No comment on all the money wasted on Pulis...Interested on your thoughts as a Lowey fan/associate....Rid of Davies costs....but you know it has not been such a great saving when you take into account the Pulis, four year contract, transfer fee , wages, signing on fee, accomodation, club etc...car..medical fees. Surely rid of wages, yes, but Pulis, Gasmi, Robertson, Smith, Peckhart even Spiderman and Holmes had injury problems and lack of games in the bank...Very Strange way to run a business especially footbal club business.. Then again you and you group are happy with Lowey, The Lavender Hill Mob and The Dutch Masterclass......Oh! forgot he is a top Business chappie and so many sucessful business accomplishments to his CV ????? REALLY Someone will explain to me I am sure one result he has had at least in his business career......Forgot Retirement whatever called taking over Saints... or was that an inside deal with his company and no substance or money to his then company....You know this is my opinion but always interested to be put right.....Forgot you say...There is noone else so clever as Rupert. You might be right at the end of the road in a few weeks time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faz Posted 10 January, 2009 Share Posted 10 January, 2009 Forget Administration FFS. Its not even a remote possibility. The Stadium debt is up straight, interest cover on the overdraft is £3-4k per week - less than we pay one of our infant stars. We'd be mad to **** around HMRC, and there's not even the merest rumblings of local creditors not being paid. Even if we go down the cost base will be further chopped (player-wise) and then with a reasonable run attendances go up and we go on again. There is a long term strategy at play here and, unless someone buys the club, that's the way it is. Like it or lump it. IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 10 January, 2009 Share Posted 10 January, 2009 Forget Administration FFS. Its not even a remote possibility. The Stadium debt is up straight, interest cover on the overdraft is £3-4k per week - less than we pay one of our infant stars. We'd be mad to **** around HMRC, and there's not even the merest rumblings of local creditors not being paid. Even if we go down the cost base will be further chopped (player-wise) and then with a reasonable run attendances go up and we go on again. There is a long term strategy at play here and, unless someone buys the club, that's the way it is. Like it or lump it. IMHO. That's pretty much how I see it. Provided the overdraft is not growing at pace it is in no-one's interest to instigate any proceedings against us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 10 January, 2009 Share Posted 10 January, 2009 That's pretty much how I see it. Provided the overdraft is not growing at pace it is in no-one's interest to instigate any proceedings against us. It is in ruperts interest to keep the story rolling to help justify his decisions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottery st mary Posted 10 January, 2009 Share Posted 10 January, 2009 Forget Administration FFS. Its not even a remote possibility. The Stadium debt is up straight, interest cover on the overdraft is £3-4k per week - less than we pay one of our infant stars. We'd be mad to **** around HMRC, and there's not even the merest rumblings of local creditors not being paid. Even if we go down the cost base will be further chopped (player-wise) and then with a reasonable run attendances go up and we go on again. There is a long term strategy at play here and, unless someone buys the club, that's the way it is. Like it or lump it. IMHO. Its always of interest to know how our great leader thinks and how he cascades his info and his long term strategy....cheers Faz.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowballs2 Posted 10 January, 2009 Share Posted 10 January, 2009 You might be right re Davies, but I already suggested that. No comment on all the money wasted on Pulis...Interested on your thoughts as a Lowey fan/associate....Rid of Davies costs....but you know it has not been such a great saving when you take into account the Pulis, four year contract, transfer fee , wages, signing on fee, accomodation, club etc...car..medical fees. Surely rid of wages, yes, but Pulis, Gasmi, Robertson, Smith, Peckhart even Spiderman and Holmes had injury problems and lack of games in the bank...Very Strange way to run a business especially footbal club business.. Then again you and you group are happy with Lowey, The Lavender Hill Mob and The Dutch Masterclass......Oh! forgot he is a top Business chappie and so many sucessful business accomplishments to his CV ????? REALLY Someone will explain to me I am sure one result he has had at least in his business career......Forgot Retirement whatever called taking over Saints... or was that an inside deal with his company and no substance or money to his then company....You know this is my opinion but always interested to be put right.....Forgot you say...There is noone else so clever as Rupert. You might be right at the end of the road in a few weeks time. Lowe IS NOT A TOP BUSINESSMAN, nor will he ever be. Crouch is far more successful by a street.I was also aware that one of the other companies Lowe was involved with are very close to Administration too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottery st mary Posted 10 January, 2009 Share Posted 10 January, 2009 Lowe IS NOT A TOP BUSINESSMAN, nor will he ever be. Crouch is far more successful by a street.I was also aware that one of the other companies Lowe was involved with are very close to Administration too. Thank you for that....there are a few other businesses going the same way and many in the past......A good guy dealing with lots of TV money and couldn't even make a good fist of that.. I just love it when his freinds. colleagues , supporters/luvvies or agents come on here and state only one King......Never giving a clear indication of his business acuman or his business CV results/sucess. I am really at a loss why Askey, Withers and co keep him on....Something dark about that Retirement home business....or will I be told different on how it was a thriving business and good for Saints etc when they took the club with great leg up from Askey and co. Shambles the lot of themm.........DISGRACE the lot of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 10 January, 2009 Share Posted 10 January, 2009 Forget Administration FFS. Its not even a remote possibility. The Stadium debt is up straight, interest cover on the overdraft is £3-4k per week - less than we pay one of our infant stars. We'd be mad to **** around HMRC, and there's not even the merest rumblings of local creditors not being paid. Even if we go down the cost base will be further chopped (player-wise) and then with a reasonable run attendances go up and we go on again. There is a long term strategy at play here and, unless someone buys the club, that's the way it is. Like it or lump it. IMHO. You're in dreamland if you think we could avoid admin in Legaue 1. The mortgage is crippling us in this league FFS, there is now way we would survive on 9k attendances and **** all TV or sponsorship/commercial money. There is a BIG difference between the Championship and League 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faz Posted 10 January, 2009 Share Posted 10 January, 2009 Its always of interest to know how our great leader thinks and how he cascades his info and his long term strategy....cheers Faz.. I hate to disappoint the more paranoid amongst us, but this is hardly WWII, and I would in any event be a very poor Lord Haw-Haw. I'm only posting an un informed opinion - quite as uninformed as yours I'm sure. Cling to the administration lifeboat if you like, but it's a long way to the shore from there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottery st mary Posted 10 January, 2009 Share Posted 10 January, 2009 I hate to disappoint the more paranoid amongst us, but this is hardly WWII, and I would in any event be a very poor Lord Haw-Haw. I'm only posting an un informed opinion - quite as uninformed as yours I'm sure. Cling to the administration lifeboat if you like, but it's a long way to the shore from there. Never ever suggested such a thing myself ...not sure about LoWey..you know more than me. All I ever wanted was someone running the show who knows what they are doing.. To-days result is good and a sign that with a few more sensible decisions we could move up the league..Fingers crossed. Get your man and his cronies and things could get much better. COYR Have a good weekend and do not sit in your office all the time.. hAPPY NEW YEAR TO YOU AND YOUR CREW fAZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faz Posted 10 January, 2009 Share Posted 10 January, 2009 You're in dreamland if you think we could avoid admin in Legaue 1. The mortgage is crippling us in this league FFS, there is now way we would survive on 9k attendances and **** all TV or sponsorship/commercial money. There is a BIG difference between the Championship and League 1. Yep. The stadium debt is what £20m. Interest cover is, at present rates, say £1m. Sell Surman (who wouldn't want to stay in L1 anyway) and you've covered 2/3 years. If you don''t think NU wouldn't look to come to some agreement you're mad. What would they want with a bad debt of £20m and a football stadium? At best they would sign it and the loan over to a New Southampton FC who, without serious financial backing, would still have a Stradium debt of £20m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fowllyd Posted 10 January, 2009 Share Posted 10 January, 2009 Yep. The stadium debt is what £20m. Interest cover is, at present rates, say £1m. Sell Surman (who wouldn't want to stay in L1 anyway) and you've covered 2/3 years. If you don''t think NU wouldn't look to come to some agreement you're mad. What would they want with a bad debt of £20m and a football stadium? At best they would sign it and the loan over to a New Southampton FC who, without serious financial backing, would still have a Stradium debt of £20m. I think you're right in that Aviva have no reason to call in their loan at present - as far as I'm aware the payments on it are being kept up to date. And it's certainly in their interests that we keep going and keep paying, rather than default on the loan. Should we go into administration though, I think it far more likely that they will retain the stadium and rent it back to whatever emerges as Southampton FC. From their point of view that would make much better sense. One point you've missed though - I believe that the interest rate on the stadium loan is fixed, therefore current interest rates will have no effect on our payments. And, should we get relegated, it will make life that bit more difficult - unless the whole loan then gets renegotiated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faz Posted 10 January, 2009 Share Posted 10 January, 2009 One point you've missed though - I believe that the interest rate on the stadium loan is fixed, therefore current interest rates will have no effect on our payments. And, should we get relegated, it will make life that bit more difficult - unless the whole loan then gets renegotiated. True, but its not uncommon for loan notes to be re-negotiated. The issue is whether NU would make more renting the stadium (and it would have to be at an affordable rent otherwise what's the point), or re-negotiating the terms. Either way, there's a long way to go before Administration - which should be avoided at all costs in any event. IMHO 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