This year's annual accounts

[stevy777_x]

Is it normal they haven t been published yet?

If I remember well last year's accounts had been published in September/October of last year.

 

Is this due to the ongoing takeover discussions?

[stevegrant]

Historically they've always been published on the last possible date, 31st March. Last season, I believe, was the only exception.

[trousers]

 

Don't recall the charge filed last month being discussed on here?

[SuperSAINT]

 

Don't recall the charge filed last month being discussed on here?

 

What is it?

[Heisenberg]

£13.9 million loan with Macquarie Bank (replacing a Vibrac loan on better terms)?

 

Or new loan perhaps so Kat has no or reduced debt owed to her?

[VectisSaint]

£13.9 million loan with Macquarie Bank (replacing a Vibrac loan on better terms)?

 

Or new loan perhaps so Kat has no or reduced debt owed to her?

The Vibrac loan was terminated (satisfied in full) on 4 Oct 2013 according to the filings. So your first suggestion is rubbish. Its a new loan.

[Shance]

Most clubs have loans. It's called cash flow. Nothing to worry about.

[badgerx16]

Most clubs have loans. It's called cash flow. Nothing to worry about.

 

Don't spoil it for those that want to speculate/grumble/panic unnecessarily.

[Batman]

I thought we had to sell everyone to pay off the loans

[stevy777_x]

They were publlished in October in 2015:

https://southamptonfc.com/news/2015-10-09/201415-financial-results-released

[Gorgiesaint]

The Vibrac loan was terminated (satisfied in full) on 4 Oct 2013 according to the filings. So your first suggestion is rubbish. Its a new loan.

 

No, Heisenberg is actually correct on this occasion. The Macquarie Bank loan was taken out to replace the one with Vibrac. Please see the quote from the Echo report below.

 

While there are many positives, Saints' debt position has also increased in the last year, with a loan from Macquarie Bank replacing a Vibrac loan for £19m that was taken out in 2012, as the club says it offers them better terms, while Liebherr has also injected a further £20m loan in the reporting period that Saints had already disclosed would be coming in.

 

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/13835835._Southampton_have_reinvested_everything_from_player_sales____Rogers/

[VectisSaint]

No, Heisenberg is actually correct on this occasion. The Macquarie Bank loan was taken out to replace the one with Vibrac. Please see the quote from the Echo report below.

 

 

 

[/font][/color]http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/13835835._Southampton_have_reinvested_everything_from_player_sales____Rogers/

Yet the official information from Companies House clearly shows the Vibrac loan was paid off in full 2 years before the Macquarie Bank arrangement was put in force. Clearly the Echo was wrong, because official information clearly shows what the Echo reported was bull****. Personally couldn't give a ****, but facts is facts.

[Gorgiesaint]

Yet the official information from Companies House clearly shows the Vibrac loan was paid off in full 2 years before the Macquarie Bank arrangement was put in force. Clearly the Echo was wrong, because official information clearly shows what the Echo reported was bull****. Personally couldn't give a ****, but facts is facts.

 

 

I've not seen the dates you are referring to but that will just be the date the charge is registered / discharged. Even if there is a 2 year gap, it does not mean that there wasn't a facility (or arrangement as you have termed it) in place with Macquarie, it just means the charge was not in place at that time.

 

Given the Echo is giving a direct quote from Gareth Rogers who as CEO of the club should know what is happening with the finances, I'm happy to take his word as to what the loan was for. Anyway, I think we be safe to say that the purpose of the loan was the same, i.e. to help cash-flow. Maybe, we had a period where the financing wasn't actually required, who knows?

[Nolan]

Given that the loans are most likely solely a method to reduce the amount of profit that corporation tax had to be paid. (A fully legal thing that a lot of companies do). Does it really matter.?

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[hutch]

Given that the loans are most likely solely a method to reduce the amount of profit that corporation tax had to be paid. (A fully legal thing that a lot of companies do). Does it really matter.?

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

I don't think that comes across the way you meant it. But anyway the point was made that Vectis' statement that date of registration of a charge at Companies House is the same as the date the loan was taken out is nonsense.