JohnnyFartPants Posted 30 January, 2009 Share Posted 30 January, 2009 Unfortunately, it would NOT herald the exit of Lowe and Wilde ........ It would make it easier for them to PURCHASE what remains for themselves ..... OH JOY !!!!!! I don't get that. That would make it in the interests of anyone who is a major shareholder in a business to run it badly to gain full control? Can someone explain how this works please? I would have thought there would be rules in place against this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wopper Posted 30 January, 2009 Share Posted 30 January, 2009 To be honest mate -I don't think he cares about the protests. He is so arrogant he will still think he is right and "you poor people just don't know the facts" I agree he likes publicity and seeing his face on TV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bad Bob Posted 30 January, 2009 Share Posted 30 January, 2009 I don't get that. That would make it in the interests of anyone who is a major shareholder in a business to run it badly to gain full control? Can someone explain how this works please? I would have thought there would be rules in place against this. e.g. Ken Bates at Leeds. I suppose that was helped by the fact that companies Ken owned were the major creditors... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 30 January, 2009 Share Posted 30 January, 2009 e.g. Ken Bates at Leeds. I suppose that was helped by the fact that companies Ken owned were the major creditors... That's the big difference between Leeds and us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 30 January, 2009 Share Posted 30 January, 2009 e.g. Ken Bates at Leeds. I suppose that was helped by the fact that companies Ken owned were the major creditors... ...and that Bates refused to let any of the other potential bidders conduct any sort of due dilligence on the accounts. Needless to say, HMRC, the other major creditor, were absolutely fuming as they were led to believe many of the other bidders were willing to offer more money, hence why they now, by default, vote against all football club CVAs (as well as their argument against the whole "preferred creditor" nonsense). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oz Posted 30 January, 2009 Share Posted 30 January, 2009 forester is well known for starting rumours Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santo_michele Posted 30 January, 2009 Share Posted 30 January, 2009 I really don't care anymore. for ever adv. - b. in phrases, for ever: for all future time, for eternity, in perpetuity; hence (chiefly in colloq. use), incessantly, interminably. ...ahh the irony... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graymalkin33 Posted 30 January, 2009 Share Posted 30 January, 2009 would you accept administration if it got rid of Alpine?..... it would certainly represent a very tempting scenario in my eyes. I don't believe this rumour personally. :smt043 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eelpie Posted 30 January, 2009 Share Posted 30 January, 2009 Well, one thing we can guarantee. Lowe will blame 'absent' fans. Conveniently ignoring the reasons why there have been 5,000 fans less per match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puddings and Monkeys Posted 30 January, 2009 Share Posted 30 January, 2009 I agree he likes publicity and seeing his face on TV FFS!! Yes...that's why he's all over the web site, tv, radio etc all the time isn't it? Oh...he's not is he? A short while ago people on here were berating him for not being visible and for "sitting back while Rome burns". Some people hate him just because he's Rupert Lowe - not because of what he does or doesn't do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 30 January, 2009 Share Posted 30 January, 2009 FFS!! Yes...that's why he's all over the web site, tv, radio etc all the time isn't it? Oh...he's not is he? A short while ago people on here were berating him for not being visible and for "sitting back while Rome burns". Some people hate him just because he's Rupert Lowe - not because of what he does or doesn't do. I agree that criticising someone for both 'being there' and 'not being there' can on the surface seem somewhat hypocritical and/or inconsistent but this can be logically justified if each scenario is put into context. For example, if someone believes Lowe shouldn't be "interferring" with shop floor level team affairs then they would be entitled to say "I wish he would stay in the background more". Conversely, if the same person believes that Lowe should have attended a press conference to introduce our new manager then they would be entitled to say "I wish he wouldn't stay in the back ground so much". There you have two seemingly opposing views from the one person, yet, in context they are completely viable opinions about the same person because they related to different aspects of his role in the club. I'm on the cusp of explaining this very well.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1965onwards Posted 30 January, 2009 Share Posted 30 January, 2009 Lowe luvvies plants don't like logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amesbury Saint Posted 2 February, 2009 Share Posted 2 February, 2009 Yeah, ive also heard an announcement in the first week of feb. Real shame if its true bump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 2 February, 2009 Share Posted 2 February, 2009 We've signed an Hungarian U21 international on loan so we're obviously not going into admin.:smt043 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintwarwick Posted 2 February, 2009 Share Posted 2 February, 2009 We've signed an Hungarian U21 international on loan so we're obviously not going into admin.:smt043 Along with size, Molyneux, keeping Saganowski, Euell and Skacel, yep definately not going into admin. I'm glad you can see the bigger picture now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 2 February, 2009 Share Posted 2 February, 2009 this is absolutely reliable - plc board will announce 1st week of feb that company is entering administration. This is info i have obtained this afternoon from a wholly credible source. An absolutely massive blow, as i read this as relegation now a certainty. While it may in the long term prove a blessing in disguise, this will prove the absolutely bottom point we have reached for many decades. I am gutted tonight **** talking out of your ass **** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 2 February, 2009 Share Posted 2 February, 2009 We've signed an Hungarian U21 international on loan so we're obviously not going into admin.:smt043 And we've got Saga back on the payroll and we haven't sold anybody. What's Saga and this new guy (Combined) on a week 10k? That's an additional half a million pounds worth of expenditure or 1500 season tickets. Sorry if it's not what you want to hear Stanley, but a club on the brink of Administration would not be in a position to make those commitments. I have to admit I'm surprised nobody has gone and that we appear to be better off than we all thought, but from where i'm looking, Admin is not relevant in the short term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amesbury Saint Posted 2 February, 2009 Share Posted 2 February, 2009 perhaps Wilde has done a deal with LC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 2 February, 2009 Share Posted 2 February, 2009 I think the biggest indicator that we were not selling anyone and that perhaps a deal has been struck with bank is that Lowe is on holiday... whatever you think of him, he is not the kind of bloke to let others rule the roost over such things as money... he wants to save hihs investment and believes he is teh best one to do it.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Strover Posted 2 February, 2009 Share Posted 2 February, 2009 Originally Posted by forester View Post this is absolutely reliable - plc board will announce 1st week of feb that company is entering administration. This is info i have obtained this afternoon from a wholly credible source. An absolutely massive blow, as i read this as relegation now a certainty. While it may in the long term prove a blessing in disguise, this will prove the absolutely bottom point we have reached for many decades. I am gutted tonight **** talking out of your ass **** Yup! As usual most of the dead fact certainties posted on here are absolute guff along with the Hungarian friendly which was for a multi-millionaire investor to look over the Saints - no it wasn't it was to look at the 6' 4" centre back that Ujpest had on their books. Ho hum as it ever was...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wopper Posted 2 February, 2009 Share Posted 2 February, 2009 Nice to know Crouchie is in the background watching the idiots every move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintBobby Posted 2 February, 2009 Share Posted 2 February, 2009 This rumour is almost certainly untrue. And it may not just be the mods taking an interest in Forrester's IP. If his information is accurate (which it almost certainly isn't), my understanding is that the police will probably want to know the source. It would be insider trading. SLH will need to make an announcement to the stock exchange before it opens if the rumour is true, so we'll know by first thing in the morning. The financial situation is obviously dire, but I'm willing to bet anyone (who PMs me) £100 at evens that we don't go into admin this week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micky Posted 2 February, 2009 Share Posted 2 February, 2009 This rumour is almost certainly untrue. And it may not just be the mods taking an interest in Forrester's IP. If his information is accurate (which it almost certainly isn't), my understanding is that the police will probably want to know the source. It would be insider trading. SLH will need to make an announcement to the stock exchange before it opens if the rumour is true, so we'll know by first thing in the morning. The financial situation is obviously dire, but I'm willing to bet anyone (who PMs me) £100 at evens that we don't go into admin this week. Errr so which is it - the Police will want to know if his information is accurate? Or the Police will want to know if his information is inaccurate? Either way all very dramatic really - I doubt the Police give two hoots what some numpty has written on a sparsely populated 'Football Fans Forum', honestly I really dont. I sincerely hope that good old 'Plod' are out catching muggers, rapist, murderers and thieves than pouring over some of this drivel, I really do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintBobby Posted 2 February, 2009 Share Posted 2 February, 2009 Errr so which is it - the Police will want to know if his information is accurate? Or the Police will want to know if his information is inaccurate? Either way all very dramatic really - I doubt the Police give two hoots what some numpty has written on a sparsely populated 'Football Fans Forum', honestly I really dont. I sincerely hope that good old 'Plod' are out catching muggers, rapist, murderers and thieves than pouring over some of this drivel, I really do. If a source within SLH has leaked share-sensitive information, this is a crime on the scale of tens or hudreds of thousands of pounds. Okay, not rape or murder, but pretty damned serious. I conclude that it is much more likely that it's just yet another fantasist making stuff up, in which case PC Plod - or the SFO - need not be detained. I assume most others agree - as no one (including the original poster) has taken me up on my bet yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micky Posted 3 February, 2009 Share Posted 3 February, 2009 If a source within SLH has leaked share-sensitive information, this is a crime on the scale of tens or hudreds of thousands of pounds. Okay, not rape or murder, but pretty damned serious. I conclude that it is much more likely that it's just yet another fantasist making stuff up, in which case PC Plod - or the SFO - need not be detained. I assume most others agree - as no one (including the original poster) has taken me up on my bet yet. Exactly - so what was your first post intended to do - flush out the originators source, or merely try to scare the crap out of him. Most posters here would be in nick by now if the 'accuracy' of thier information was checked out be the 'Old Bill' - most is wild speculation at best. As for sources - most of the 'Cabbies', 'Stewards', 'Landlords' and 'Friend or a friend' would also be detained at HM pleasure for some of the 'scoops' on this forum. Let's be honest this board has more leaks than our current defence and is about as reliable as a chocolate fireguard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintBobby Posted 3 February, 2009 Share Posted 3 February, 2009 Exactly - so what was your first post intended to do - flush out the originators source, or merely try to scare the crap out of him. Most posters here would be in nick by now if the 'accuracy' of thier information was checked out be the 'Old Bill' - most is wild speculation at best. As for sources - most of the 'Cabbies', 'Stewards', 'Landlords' and 'Friend or a friend' would also be detained at HM pleasure for some of the 'scoops' on this forum. Let's be honest this board has more leaks than our current defence and is about as reliable as a chocolate fireguard. Don't be utterly ridiculous. Posting "I hear that XXX is signing for us from YYY" is clearly not a criminal matter. Releasing specific share-price sensitive information is. If the information turns out to be accurate, his source has committed a serious offence. For this reason, and several others, I take the story to be impausible. If people do really have rumours etc., post away. But most turn out to be worse than random guesses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 3 February, 2009 Share Posted 3 February, 2009 I've re-read the 'going concern' section of the recent annual report. It says that assets will need to be sold in 2009 to "comply with the terms of the new overdraft facility being discussed". I must admit, I thought I'd remembered reading that it had been more specific in terms of dates, i.e. that we needed to sell some of these "assets" - a.k.a. 'players'(?) - in a much shorter timeframe, but it doesn't say when in 2009 we need to start asset stripping.... Would this help explain why there wasn't any of the forecast 'panic selling' in January? http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail%3Fcode%3Dcotn:SOO.L&it%3Dle Going concern The Directors have prepared cash flow forecasts for the period to 30 November 2009 which include the sales of various assets, further cost reductions and deferrals, and rely on the support of the bank and loan note holder. The Group currently manages its working capital through a bank overdraft facility and in addition has issued long term loan notes to finance the development and construction of the St Mary's Stadium. Whilst the Group presently has an overdraft facility, for £4.5m, the Board remain in negotiations with Barclays Bank, who are seeking a progressive reduction in their position, and the loan note holder. These negotiations involve the Group having to achieve further significant asset sales in 2009, which the Board are confident they can achieve, but there can be no certainty at this time. Furthermore the Group are seeking to reschedule the payment of certain current liabilities, and the Board are confident that these will be successfully negotiated. In the event that the Group do not comply with the terms of the new overdraft facility being discussed and the agreement still to be reached with the loan note holder such that the facilities would be withdrawn, alternative financing would need to be found for the Group to continue as a going concern. The Directors would then consider seeking additional opportunities for finance from internal sources. The Board continues to explore avenues for external funding. Based on the above, the Board consider it appropriate to prepare the accounts on a going concern basis. The above matters indicate the existence of a material uncertainty which may cast material doubt over the Group's ability to continue as a going concern. The accounts do not include any adjustments that would result if the Group is unable to continue as a going concern. The auditors have reported on those accounts; their report was unqualified and did not contain statements under Section 237 (2) or (3) of the Companies Act 1985. However, it did contain an emphasis of matter paragraph which drew attention to the material uncertainties surrounding the going concern assumptions as set out above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Saint Posted 3 February, 2009 Share Posted 3 February, 2009 We have avoided the "fire sale" but we are still in severe financial difficulty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 3 February, 2009 Share Posted 3 February, 2009 One also notes that, following the recent dip in share price to 16p, our market capital worth isn't far away from undertaking the overdraft amount (i.e. £5.20m vs £4.5m). Would that be a significant moment in time? Especially given the following statement: "The Group currently manages its working capital through a bank overdraft facility". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheff Saint Posted 3 February, 2009 Share Posted 3 February, 2009 Can someone answer me how Sheffield Wednesday have avoided administation for so many years despite debts of near £30million. Yet we think we are 'on the verge' of administration due to an agreed £4.5 million overdraft. And come someone also clarify if, since Wupert's flogged off all the high earners if we are still losing money, or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintinlondon Posted 3 February, 2009 Share Posted 3 February, 2009 this all just bull**** spun from Crouch and the likes and welcomed by many as another reason to vent their anger at lowe. have been told on good authority that we are not near administration and that the club's financial situation has been steadied for now. two months ago we were definitely going to have to offload at least a couple of our more valuable youngsters and this hasn't happened. Saga and others have come back in. doesnt sound like a team in too bad a situation. think about it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 3 February, 2009 Share Posted 3 February, 2009 Looks to me like we have until the summer when teh OD will be reassessed based on several things.... the division we are in, and the advanced ST sales for next season... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheff Saint Posted 3 February, 2009 Share Posted 3 February, 2009 this all just bull**** spun from Crouch and the likes and welcomed by many as another reason to vent their anger at lowe. have been told on good authority that we are not near administration and that the club's financial situation has been steadied for now. two months ago we were definitely going to have to offload at least a couple of our more valuable youngsters and this hasn't happened. Saga and others have come back in. doesnt sound like a team in too bad a situation. think about it Seems like Rupert's spin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintBobby Posted 3 February, 2009 Share Posted 3 February, 2009 I have offered the original poster a wager of anything up to £10,000 that his "absolutely reliable" information is wrong. But he has yet to get back to me. Wonder why... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 3 February, 2009 Share Posted 3 February, 2009 this all just bull**** spun from Crouch and the likes and welcomed by many as another reason to vent their anger at lowe. have been told on good authority that we are not near administration and that the club's financial situation has been steadied for now. two months ago we were definitely going to have to offload at least a couple of our more valuable youngsters and this hasn't happened. Saga and others have come back in. doesnt sound like a team in too bad a situation. think about it Fair enough. But if we are "on good authority....not near administration" what has changed since the tail end of 2008 (as per annual report) and now? And why would "Rupert's mouthpiece" report in the Daily Mail that things were still bad only a couple of weeks ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 3 February, 2009 Share Posted 3 February, 2009 Seems like Rupert's spin. 'He' seems pretty well informed though.... http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?p=151939#post151939 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 02-01-2009, 05:30 PM saintinlondon Registered User Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 6 not that it is of much use to anyne without revealing source but was told that there would be no saints players leaving in the transfer window. same person told me that molyneux was coming but did not mention anything about cork leaving so who knows what to think but can assure they are well informed. in particular did mention that it looks as though drew, lallana and schneiderlin will all stay though. fingers crossed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie@home Posted 3 February, 2009 Share Posted 3 February, 2009 Isn't the payment for staying in the Championship going up considerably for next season to something like £3m? Perhaps the club have pleaded successfully that it will be more beneficial to the banks if we are at least given a good chance of staying up until the end of the season. If we then don't succeed, the inevitable sales will take place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 3 February, 2009 Share Posted 3 February, 2009 Isn't the payment for staying in the Championship going up considerably for next season to something like £3m? Perhaps the club have pleaded successfully that it will be more beneficial to the banks if we are at least given a good chance of staying up until the end of the season. If we then don't succeed, the inevitable sales will take place. Makes sense, there is no point the bank demanding the sale of players that will mean certain relegation. If we were 10 points adrift or 10 points clear of relegation it would probably be a different story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintinlondon Posted 3 February, 2009 Share Posted 3 February, 2009 Seems like Rupert's spin. yawn. i do want him out but have a much more balanced and unbiased view than most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 3 February, 2009 Share Posted 3 February, 2009 We haven't sold players in the window the media says we are close to admin Is there supposed to be a day long board meeting on matchdays? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 3 February, 2009 Share Posted 3 February, 2009 Is there supposed to be a day long board meeting on matchdays? Wouldn't they be better off choosing a day when more than one of them is going to be there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channon's Sideburns Posted 3 February, 2009 Share Posted 3 February, 2009 yawn. i do want him out but have a much more balanced and unbiased view than most. Correct me if I am wrong but it was you that attributed the admin comments to only Crouch???? Seeing as the only real comment on our situation has come through Charles Sale at the Mail (Rupey's only Friend) how can it not be Rupert's spin.. Unless you are Charlie Sale of course... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joesaint Posted 3 February, 2009 Share Posted 3 February, 2009 If we got relagated and then went into admin that would be far far worse surley! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintinlondon Posted 3 February, 2009 Share Posted 3 February, 2009 Correct me if I am wrong but it was you that attributed the admin comments to only Crouch???? Seeing as the only real comment on our situation has come through Charles Sale at the Mail (Rupey's only Friend) how can it not be Rupert's spin.. Unless you are Charlie Sale of course... think you are implying that i am biased against Crouch. in a sense that is true. can't stand the bloke and definitely don't think he is the right man for the job. however to a slightly lesser extent i would say the same about lowe although since coming in he has done exactly as he said. if you believe my comments earlier then you can see that we are financially more secure (this is the only point i am trying to get across - for the good of all us worried souls!) but then he also is responsible for the appointment of JP so with his successes come faults. i reserve making any serious judgement on him til we know where we are going to be come next season.! HTH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micky Posted 3 February, 2009 Share Posted 3 February, 2009 (edited) Don't be utterly ridiculous. Posting "I hear that XXX is signing for us from YYY" is clearly not a criminal matter. Releasing specific share-price sensitive information is. If the information turns out to be accurate, his source has committed a serious offence. For this reason, and several others, I take the story to be impausible. If people do really have rumours etc., post away. But most turn out to be worse than random guesses. I think you'll find that if anybody is being 'utterly ridiculous' - 'tis not I. Nobody has released any specific share-price sensitive information. A poster here has merely perported to hear from (ohhh here we go again) a 'creditable source' that we will go into administration. On one hand you go off on one saying that tis a serious, serious crime whilst in the next sentence you say that you take the story to be imp(l)ausible. So which is it, crime of the century has just been committed or yet another poster on here has spouted off before engaging brain. However, I'm sure plod has nothing better to do and is probably tracking down Forresters 'source' as we speak (type)...! This rumour is no more credible than the 1000 or so rumours that have gone before it - nor does it warrant any sort of intervention from the local police. Edited 3 February, 2009 by Micky Serious credibility issue, well more or less ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintBobby Posted 3 February, 2009 Share Posted 3 February, 2009 I think you'll find that if anybody is being 'utterly ridiculous' - 'tis not I. Nobody has released any specific share-price sensitive information. A poster here has merely perported to hear from (ohhh here we go again) a 'creditable source' that we will go into administration. On one hand you go off on one saying that tis a serious, serious crime whilst in the next sentence you say that you take the story to be imp(l)ausible. So which is it, crime of the century has just been committed or yet another poster on here has spouted off before engaging brain. However, I'm sure plod has nothing better to do and is probably tracking down Forresters 'source' as we speak (type)...! This rumour is no less credible than the 1000 or so rumours that have gone before it - nor does it warrant any sort of intervention from the local police. Either (A) The rumour is totally false or (B) a serious criminal offence has been committed There are no circumstances in which © it is true and a criminal offence has not been committed. As I indicated, my strong belief is that (A) is true. If, however, (B) turns out to be true, you can expect the legal authorities to take it reasonably seriously - and rightly so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micky Posted 3 February, 2009 Share Posted 3 February, 2009 (edited) This is absolutely reliable - PLC board will announce 1st week of Feb that company is entering administration. This is info I have obtained this afternoon from a wholly credible source. An absolutely massive blow, as I read this as relegation now a certainty. While it may in the long term prove a blessing in disguise, this will prove the absolutely bottom point we have reached for many decades. I am gutted tonight Either (A) The rumour is totally false or (B) a serious criminal offence has been committed There are no circumstances in which © it is true and a criminal offence has not been committed. As I indicated, my strong belief is that (A) is true. If, however, (B) turns out to be true, you can expect the legal authorities to take it reasonably seriously - and rightly so. Now where does it say anything about anybody releasing specific share-price sensitive information..? It doesn't - you have made that assumption. In fact just what does it say - not a lot really does it - more idle gossip for us to twist and regurgitate in whatever form pleases us. So long as you play only judge and jury it is perhaps not too bad - but if you were the executioner then a few fools would have been 'seen too' merely for 'mouthing off'. It is nothing more than wild speculation from a poster whose source is probably 'Betty at the bar after 3 pints and a G & T, who overheard Alex in the Mens Room'. Edited 3 February, 2009 by Micky Failed to multiquote...!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 3 February, 2009 Share Posted 3 February, 2009 We've changed manager, and that hasnt worked. Its time for plan Z. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Saint Posted 3 February, 2009 Share Posted 3 February, 2009 We haven't sold players in the window the media says we are close to admin Is there supposed to be a day long board meeting on matchdays? Sounds grim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 4 February, 2009 Share Posted 4 February, 2009 We've changed manager, and that hasnt worked. Its time for plan Z. Fair enough but what is plan Z? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts