Window Cleaner Posted 15 February, 2009 Posted 15 February, 2009 One of the problems is the little chavs going round smashing things up which is a major drain on funds. Sounds like the same problem as the entire economy then. Smash up, knock up, shoot up, the 3 horsemen of the apocalypse.
Amesbury Saint Posted 15 February, 2009 Posted 15 February, 2009 Look at the legal model of community interest company http://www.cicregulator.gov.uk/Leaflets/OverviewLeafletMarch2008.pdf in it, it talks about the use of this type of company for partnerships between local authorities, businesses and other stakeholders
teamsaint Posted 15 February, 2009 Posted 15 February, 2009 I would have thought that the power that SCC DO have is to make it very clear to norwich Union that Football/sport (?! that would be nice for a change) is the ONLY activity that the planning dept will allow at SMS. NU will then just have to negotiate the best deal they can, on the basis that some income is better than none. I suspect though that NU have already cut a deal with Lowe, in the knowledge that they may have to keep renegotiating as we slide.
StuRomseySaint Posted 15 February, 2009 Posted 15 February, 2009 When did the Saints Trust canvass their members before deciding to make this proposal public? Does it have the majority support from it's members? It couldn't be that the board of ST have steamed ahead with this, without even consulting their members, could it? Doesn't show much respect from Saints Trust for their members, does it?
Gemmel Posted 15 February, 2009 Posted 15 February, 2009 (edited) If the echo story is correct, then the lame duck that is the Saints Trust is dead forever. Did anyone at the trust bother to do any research into the financial state of affairs at SCC before making such a public proposal???? SCC would struggle to justify the cost of a burger at half time, let alone throw 23 million at something they wouldnt see a return on for over 12 years. SCC is skint...super skint and trying to explain to central goverment why they can't meet last years shortfall with this years money. They dont have two pennies to rub together and even if they did, buying a football stadium would be the last thing on their list. I would have really loved the Saints Trust to have worked, good meaning Saints fans doing their bit, but for whatever reason it hasnt and its time to scrap it and start again Edited 15 February, 2009 by Gemmel
corsacar saint Posted 15 February, 2009 Posted 15 February, 2009 As Gemmel says in the above post, where the hell would the council get the money from.
StuRomseySaint Posted 15 February, 2009 Posted 15 February, 2009 As Gemmel says in the above post, where the hell would the council get the money from. I am more concerned about the fact there is a little gang of about 4 or 5 people who are coming up with all these proposals without even consulting and getting the consent of their paying members. Doesn't sound very right to me.
FloridaMarlin Posted 15 February, 2009 Posted 15 February, 2009 Sounds like the same problem as the entire economy then. Smash up, knock up, shoot up, the 3 horsemen of the apocalypse. There used to be FOUR Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Is one currently hospitalised after being beaten up by the aforementioned chavs?
Gemmel Posted 15 February, 2009 Posted 15 February, 2009 I am more concerned about the fact there is a little gang of about 4 or 5 people who are coming up with all these proposals without even consulting and getting the consent of their paying members. Doesn't sound very right to me. srs, If they had bothered to ask more than 5 people someone might have been able to tell them that there was more chance of winning successive lotteries on Wednesday, Friday and Saturday for the next year, than SCC having the money to buy SMS.
StuRomseySaint Posted 16 February, 2009 Posted 16 February, 2009 srs, If they had bothered to ask more than 5 people someone might have been able to tell them that there was more chance of winning successive lotteries on Wednesday, Friday and Saturday for the next year, than SCC having the money to buy SMS. I don't understand how a Trust with over 800 members according to their site ( lol ) , can not attempt to make ANY sort of communication with these members to see their thoughts, and to gain their approval before making the proposal public. It just proves once again that it is being run by a small group of people who are more interested in themselves and the benefits they can reap rather than the good of SFC and they certainly do not give a toss about their 'members' The Trust is a joke, shut it down and stop claiming to represent the fans of SFC in the press. If the board members want to continue with all their ideas then fair enough, but don't decieve people by claiming to represent anyone other than yourselves. Saints Trust is a joke, finish it now, seriously, it's getting ******* tedious now.
eelpie Posted 16 February, 2009 Posted 16 February, 2009 I agree about what it would mean, and also the likelihood of it happening. BUT My question was to ask what it means about the club ownership. No way should Lowe or Wilde be able to make money from this. Surely Wilde would not get as much as he paid for the shares in the first place. Shares were selling at around 56p when he bought in. Now they are worth 17.5p. And must be worth less when we are in League 1. Lowe has already made a mint out of his involvement in the club, but he would only get the same price. The trouble is, only they know how close we are to administration. If that were to happen, then that would be the best time for the council to acquire the club, surely.
eelpie Posted 16 February, 2009 Posted 16 February, 2009 Probably less than that. Years ago the council wanted to build a municipal stadium behind the new docks. This fell through because the club demanded sole use, or they wouldn't support it. The idea was abandoned. If SCC were to buy in, the club would not have a say as to who uses St Mary's - and the Dome.
eelpie Posted 16 February, 2009 Posted 16 February, 2009 Is it only coincidence that our loss of Premiership status and Portmouth's rise now means that where it was always Southampton located on the BBC's weather maps it is now Portmouth? Not true. The BBC do rotate both towns on the weather map, though I do grate when I see Portsmouth there.
Gemmel Posted 16 February, 2009 Posted 16 February, 2009 If SCC were to buy in, the club would not have a say as to who uses St Mary's - and the Dome. SCC wll not be buying into SFC
northam soul Posted 16 February, 2009 Posted 16 February, 2009 I would of thought Barclays would not be too happy either as our overdraft however big it is now would be lent on the assetts of the club or personal guarantees. Now i am pretty sure none of our directors have put up personal guarantees so i would assume Barclays would want their overdraft paid back immediatley if this were to happen. A rent would have to be charged so how much would the savings be compared to our mortgage payments.
JohnnyFartPants Posted 16 February, 2009 Posted 16 February, 2009 stanley...what did you do to lowes face in your other picture Came all over it?
Window Cleaner Posted 16 February, 2009 Posted 16 February, 2009 There used to be FOUR Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Is one currently hospitalised after being beaten up by the aforementioned chavs? Ah sorry, forgot to mention government **** up as the 4th one.
buctootim Posted 16 February, 2009 Posted 16 February, 2009 The biggest thing SCC could do for the club is to renegotiate the £2.5m annual rates bill. Interestingly if we had a not for profit set up the club would get an automatic 75% discount.
Window Cleaner Posted 16 February, 2009 Posted 16 February, 2009 The biggest thing SCC could do for the club is to renegotiate the £2.5m annual rates bill. Interestingly if we had a not for profit set up the club would get an automatic 75% discount. 2.5 million eh, takes 6000 fans per home game just to pay the rates?? sounds a bit steep really. When would that bill be due then?
um pahars Posted 16 February, 2009 Posted 16 February, 2009 The biggest thing SCC could do for the club is to renegotiate the £2.5m annual rates bill. Interestingly if we had a not for profit set up the club would get an automatic 75% discount. We haven't got a £2.5m rates bill.
Window Cleaner Posted 16 February, 2009 Posted 16 February, 2009 We haven't got a £2.5m rates bill. Thought not. How much is it exactly (or roughly)?
Saint Richard of Woolston Posted 16 February, 2009 Posted 16 February, 2009 SCC is running a massive budget deficit after years of chronic mismanagement. Anybody suggesting that they stump up a row of beans towards the Club is discussing the biggest non-starter since a dead horse lined up for the Grand National.
buctootim Posted 16 February, 2009 Posted 16 February, 2009 2.5 million eh, takes 6000 fans per home game just to pay the rates?? sounds a bit steep really. When would that bill be due then? It is incredibly steep given the premises are mainly only occupied for 23 days a year so the level of council services provided is quite small. No idea when the rates are due or how they are paid.
Window Cleaner Posted 16 February, 2009 Posted 16 February, 2009 It is incredibly steep given the premises are mainly only occupied for 23 days a year so the level of council services provided is quite small. No idea when the rates are due or how they are paid. Still sounds a lot to me. Using my usual "bums on seat to pay for it" principle we need (if the rates were 2.5 million/year) over 11K supporters at every home game to pay the rates and the stadium repayments. So if we were to descend to League 1 and only get say 12K on average we'd have nothing at all for a team from gate revenues. Boy as I've said before is this stadium lark a millstone.We should have stayed at the Dell,or waited until we could build some sort of multi-purpose complex to spread the cost over things other than football.Still hindsight is a rare gift..
buctootim Posted 16 February, 2009 Posted 16 February, 2009 Still sounds a lot to me. Using my usual "bums on seat to pay for it" principle we need (if the rates were 2.5 million/year) over 11K supporters at every home game to pay the rates and the stadium repayments. So if we were to descend to League 1 and only get say 12K on average we'd have nothing at all for a team from gate revenues. Boy as I've said before is this stadium lark a millstone.We should have stayed at the Dell,or waited until we could build some sort of multi-purpose complex to spread the cost over things other than football.Still hindsight is a rare gift.. It may not be as high as £2.5m but I was told a figure of £1.8m some years ago, so I'm assuming it is pushing towards that now.
um pahars Posted 16 February, 2009 Posted 16 February, 2009 It may not be as high as £2.5m but I was told a figure of £1.8m some years ago, so I'm assuming it is pushing towards that now. It's about a 1/4 of your guess. People were getting all mixed up with the rateable value or whatever a couple of years back, and for whatever reason that figure stuck. Hone was trying to get it reduced when he was in charge (not sure if ti was successful or not), but it's not a 7 figure sum.
jonah Posted 16 February, 2009 Posted 16 February, 2009 Jim Hone 2006: "Our rateable value is £1.6m per annum. Portsmouth's is 25 per cent of that figure."
buctootim Posted 16 February, 2009 Posted 16 February, 2009 Jim Hone 2006: "Our rateable value is £1.6m per annum. Portsmouth's is 25 per cent of that figure." Fair cop. Ive just called SCC (sad I know). The rate in the pound for 2008/09 is .462. ie on a rateable value of £1.6m the current years rate bill would be £739,000. Still an awful lot of money for a struggling club to find.
um pahars Posted 16 February, 2009 Posted 16 February, 2009 Jim Hone 2006: "Our rateable value is £1.6m per annum. Portsmouth's is 25 per cent of that figure." Rateable value being the key word. Buctootim you pay some p in the £ on that figure and I though our number was £3/4million (ish) - Just had a dig and can't find our exact figure (just seen your post above re the 46p in the £). Although many were tryin to claim we were paying around £1.5m to £2m, they were getting confused with the rateable value.
eelpie Posted 16 February, 2009 Posted 16 February, 2009 I don't understand how a Trust with over 800 members according to their site ( lol ) , can not attempt to make ANY sort of communication with these members to see their thoughts, and to gain their approval before making the proposal public. It just proves once again that it is being run by a small group of people who are more interested in themselves and the benefits they can reap rather than the good of SFC and they certainly do not give a toss about their 'members' The Trust is a joke, shut it down and stop claiming to represent the fans of SFC in the press. If the board members want to continue with all their ideas then fair enough, but don't decieve people by claiming to represent anyone other than yourselves. Saints Trust is a joke, finish it now, seriously, it's getting ******* tedious now. You are entitled to your view Stu, but is Saints Trust actually doing any harm? I'm no longer a member, but I can't see what there is to complain about of anyone trying to come up with proposals to try to move forward from the stalemate of a mess we are in. I don't care if their proposals are made by a cabal. Or anyone. All ideas, including yours, no matter how impractical they may seem add to the debate. And they are no dafter than other suggestions proposed on this site.
Window Cleaner Posted 16 February, 2009 Posted 16 February, 2009 You are entitled to your view Stu, but is Saints Trust actually doing any harm? I'm no longer a member, but I can't see what there is to complain about of anyone trying to come up with proposals to try to move forward from the stalemate of a mess we are in. I don't care if their proposals are made by a cabal. Or anyone. All ideas, including yours, no matter how impractical they may seem add to the debate. And they are no dafter than other suggestions proposed on this site. Trouble is that some of their proposals demonstrate their tenous grasp on reality and have a negative effect on their credibility.
Frank's cousin Posted 16 February, 2009 Posted 16 February, 2009 rubbish the wrong decisions have been made since rupert came back, there were choices and he has constantly made the wrong ones. Even Wotte was meant to be the man he was after but appointed JP, brought in half the tyro league on loan , some of whom have never played. I accept finances were bad but our problem has been about how we used the little money we had not the lack of it, just as in 2003 we bought 10 squad players rather than 4 first team players Uhm Wrong decisons were made before lowe left, during Wilde and then Crouches tenure and now again under Lowe TBF...
Window Cleaner Posted 16 February, 2009 Posted 16 February, 2009 Uhm Wrong decisons were made before lowe left, during Wilde and then Crouches tenure and now again under Lowe TBF... The club has been making wrong decisions for the last 10 years at least. I'd put the first one down as letting Souness walk away and Lawrie following him. Might even have been sacking Chris Nicholl though.All those wrong decisions,compared to very few right ones, have had a nocive effect on the club. Comedy of Errors about sums it up.
saint1977 Posted 16 February, 2009 Posted 16 February, 2009 If the echo story is correct, then the lame duck that is the Saints Trust is dead forever. Did anyone at the trust bother to do any research into the financial state of affairs at SCC before making such a public proposal???? SCC would struggle to justify the cost of a burger at half time, let alone throw 23 million at something they wouldnt see a return on for over 12 years. SCC is skint...super skint and trying to explain to central goverment why they can't meet last years shortfall with this years money. They dont have two pennies to rub together and even if they did, buying a football stadium would be the last thing on their list. I would have really loved the Saints Trust to have worked, good meaning Saints fans doing their bit, but for whatever reason it hasnt and its time to scrap it and start again Spot on, SCC have a financial black hole the size of the Grand Canyon. Whoever thought this up at the Trust must have been smoking crack.
Toomer Posted 16 February, 2009 Posted 16 February, 2009 As I said in an earlier post both my Wife & Daughter work for SCC and they are looking at ways to make cut backs to cover their shorfall.
jonah Posted 16 February, 2009 Posted 16 February, 2009 Although many were tryin to claim we were paying around £1.5m to £2m, they were getting confused with the rateable value. Step forward one genius CEO Mr Jim "we're in a closed period" Hone who said: "I've asked the council to tell me how they spend that £1.6m."
saint1977 Posted 16 February, 2009 Posted 16 February, 2009 As I said in an earlier post both my Wife & Daughter work for SCC and they are looking at ways to make cut backs to cover their shorfall. As a lot of Local Authorities are Toomer. Tax revenues are down, benefits are up and Government policy is all over the shop. Not that the opposition looks any better either. It doesn't excuse years of SCC ineptitude (well poor Leadership really, the staff seem to try their best) as well but public services are not having a good time it seems. With this background, how anyone thinks SCC could buy SMS is beyond belief.
Window Cleaner Posted 16 February, 2009 Posted 16 February, 2009 As a lot of Local Authorities are Toomer. Tax revenues are down, benefits are up and Government policy is all over the shop. Not that the opposition looks any better either. It doesn't excuse years of SCC ineptitude (well poor Leadership really, the staff seem to try their best) as well but public services are not having a good time it seems. With this background, how anyone thinks SCC could buy SMS is beyond belief. Staff trying their best is insufficient.Doesn't matter how hard you "try" if you don't achieve results in an efficient manner. I know little about local government in the UK but I'd hazard a guess that the Peter Principle is confirmed on a fairly constant basis.
Charlie Wayman Posted 16 February, 2009 Posted 16 February, 2009 What a load of crap. Apart from football, what huge high value events run by the council require a stadium of the size of SMS to support it? Answer? Bugger-all. So there's you're answer as to how much credence should be given to this story Hull run pro-rugby and pro-soccer as well as summer athletics and music events at their city-backed stadium
INFLUENCED.COM Posted 16 February, 2009 Posted 16 February, 2009 I'd put the first one down as letting Souness walk away and Lawrie following him. From memory Souness resigned whilst on holiday in Isreal after what Lowe thought was a 'good meeting' so came as a shock to him, why would either of them have wanted to stay ? they had both cashed in their gifted shares increasing their wealth by a considerable amount so with money in the bank maybe they were just not up for the fight.
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