RinNY Posted 26 February, 2009 Share Posted 26 February, 2009 I'm afraid that you're the one who is making the basic mistake here. It is all very well mentioning that we may have assets collectively worth more than our Market Capitalisation, but you have missed out a slightly bigger and more concerning number i.e. our debts and creditors. Being close to £30m in debt has somewhat more of an impact on the value of the Club than a few assets which would never cover this figure. As with most Club's in debt to the tune we are, our value is negligible, demonstrated by the fact that most Championship Clubs that have been sold recently, have been for nominal amounts, with the real cost being the acceptance of the massive debts. Our negligible value is down to our relegation from the top flight and the fact we continue to trade in this division (a division where the current Football Club Chairman believes we cannot wash our face on normal business). Therefore those who oversaw relegation and the failure to get promotion are arguably responsible for our current value (or lack of it), how much and where you divy that all up is very much an individual opinion. As you must well know, the vast majority of the ca. 30 million debt you mention is a mortgage on the stadium, and if defaulted on would leave the mortgage holder with a stadium and SLH with that debt gone. The club has other assets to set against the overdraft (players, academy, Staplewood, Jackson's Farm, whatever); and its intrinsic value (whatever that may be) as a member of the Football League and an established professional football club. Unless we go into administration, which remains a possibility, I think you'll find that the club will not be bought/sold for any 4 million, regardless of the present share price. Perhaps your view of the matter, that SLH in fact has basically a negative worth, is correct: either way, it remains true that the share price is not an accurate indicator of worth, but only of theoretical purchasing price. As to relegation: you (and a heck of a lot of others around here) might reflect that every single season three clubs get relegated from the Premiership, and that there has always been an intrinsic possibility that in one year or another, Saints would be one of the clubs affected. If you really mean to say that relegation is the chairman's/board's fault, then every year there are three utterly incompetent and widely hated chairmen and boards in English football ... or rather 12, to take into account clubs relegated from the CCC and League's 1 & 2 too. It cannot be otherwise. Again, a little perspective: obviously mistakes were made during our relegation season, by Lowe among others. But at the end of the day, the team's inability to hang on to leads in crucial matches -- most vitally the home game against Aston Villa -- was more to blame than anything else, and that is down to the players in the end; the manager too if you like (though, much as we may dislike him, Redknapp is a good manager), but hardly the board or the chairman. Truth is, relegation is one of those things that happens, due to a variety of factors, some that one can control, and some that one cannot. In so far as relegation is the cause of our current plight, and share price, Lowe's blame, or any one person's blame, is hardly all that great. I've been reading these fan boards since our FA Cup final year, and the plain fact is that the same mindless vitriol has been spewed at Lowe throughout those years, in good years and bad, and that tells me that at bottom it has absolutely nothing to do with how the team, is doing, what division we are in, how we are playing. There are people who simply loathe Rupert Lowe. One can speculate as to the reasons for that: some are perhaps reasonable, some are clearly not. But the club's present situation is an excuse to spew more venom Lowe's way, not the reason for doing so, and certainly not a valid reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 26 February, 2009 Share Posted 26 February, 2009 As you must well know, the vast majority of the ca. 30 million debt you mention is a mortgage on the stadium, and if defaulted on would leave the mortgage holder with a stadium and SLH with that debt gone. The club has other assets to set against the overdraft (players, academy, Staplewood, Jackson's Farm, whatever); and its intrinsic value (whatever that may be) as a member of the Football League and an established professional football club. Unless we go into administration, which remains a possibility, I think you'll find that the club will not be bought/sold for any 4 million, regardless of the present share price. Perhaps your view of the matter, that SLH in fact has basically a negative worth, is correct: either way, it remains true that the share price is not an accurate indicator of worth, but only of theoretical purchasing price. As to relegation: you (and a heck of a lot of others around here) might reflect that every single season three clubs get relegated from the Premiership, and that there has always been an intrinsic possibility that in one year or another, Saints would be one of the clubs affected. If you really mean to say that relegation is the chairman's/board's fault, then every year there are three utterly incompetent and widely hated chairmen and boards in English football ... or rather 12, to take into account clubs relegated from the CCC and League's 1 & 2 too. It cannot be otherwise. Again, a little perspective: obviously mistakes were made during our relegation season, by Lowe among others. But at the end of the day, the team's inability to hang on to leads in crucial matches -- most vitally the home game against Aston Villa -- was more to blame than anything else, and that is down to the players in the end; the manager too if you like (though, much as we may dislike him, Redknapp is a good manager), but hardly the board or the chairman. Truth is, relegation is one of those things that happens, due to a variety of factors, some that one can control, and some that one cannot. In so far as relegation is the cause of our current plight, and share price, Lowe's blame, or any one person's blame, is hardly all that great. I've been reading these fan boards since our FA Cup final year, and the plain fact is that the same mindless vitriol has been spewed at Lowe throughout those years, in good years and bad, and that tells me that at bottom it has absolutely nothing to do with how the team, is doing, what division we are in, how we are playing. There are people who simply loathe Rupert Lowe. One can speculate as to the reasons for that: some are perhaps reasonable, some are clearly not. But the club's present situation is an excuse to spew more venom Lowe's way, not the reason for doing so, and certainly not a valid reason. all to do with how he slipped in through the back door in 1997 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 26 February, 2009 Share Posted 26 February, 2009 (edited) As you must well know, the vast majority of the ca. 30 million debt you mention is a mortgage on the stadium, and if defaulted on would leave the mortgage holder with a stadium and SLH with that debt gone. The club has other assets to set against the overdraft (players, academy, Staplewood, Jackson's Farm, whatever); and its intrinsic value (whatever that may be) as a member of the Football League and an established professional football club. Unless we go into administration, which remains a possibility, I think you'll find that the club will not be bought/sold for any 4 million, regardless of the present share price. Perhaps your view of the matter, that SLH in fact has basically a negative worth, is correct: either way, it remains true that the share price is not an accurate indicator of worth, but only of theoretical purchasing price. No offence, but I'm afraid your first notion just undermines how little you know about the situation. If you think that if we defaulted on the loan, the "mortgage" lender would just take over the stadium and this would leave us debt free, then you're extremely wide of the mark. It simply would not work like that. If you want me to go into greater detail as to why this is not the case, then I will happy to do so,or alternatively I'm sure there are others who coluld list the errors in yuour rationale, as I have to go to work in a min. A quick analogy would be when an individual defaults on a house mortgage. Very often the lender will sell the house for less than the mortgage and the lendee is then still responsible for the deficit. We owe circa £20m+ on the stadium and there is no way on earth that Norwich Union would raise that much from it's sale (either for development land or as a second hand stadium to the phoenix AFC Southampton). The share price is a "theoretical purchasing price", but my response was aimed at your statement below: Because of course, the club has assets, still, that are collectively worth (in the sense of potentially saleable for) a good deal more than the 4 or 5 million the share prices presently values the club at. As to relegation: you (and a heck of a lot of others around here) might reflect that every single season three clubs get relegated from the Premiership, and that there has always been an intrinsic possibility that in one year or another, Saints would be one of the clubs affected. If you really mean to say that relegation is the chairman's/board's fault, then every year there are three utterly incompetent and widely hated chairmen and boards in English football ... or rather 12, to take into account clubs relegated from the CCC and League's 1 & 2 too. It cannot be otherwise. Again, a little perspective: obviously mistakes were made during our relegation season, by Lowe among others. But at the end of the day, the team's inability to hang on to leads in crucial matches -- most vitally the home game against Aston Villa -- was more to blame than anything else, and that is down to the players in the end; the manager too if you like (though, much as we may dislike him, Redknapp is a good manager), but hardly the board or the chairman. Truth is, relegation is one of those things that happens, due to a variety of factors, some that one can control, and some that one cannot. In so far as relegation is the cause of our current plight, and share price, Lowe's blame, or any one person's blame, is hardly all that great. In my post, I was quite clear to avoid apportioning blame, instead I just reflected that the net worth, value, market capitalisation, whatever was massively affected by relegation and a prolonged stay. The blame, reasons, rationale, fault, whatever has been done to death (and will continue to be done to death) on a number of threads, and considering I clearly stated, "how much and where you divy that all up is very much an individual opinion.", I'm surprised you've decided to go down this route. Of course if you want reasons for why I believ Lowe was the major factor in relegation (managerial appointments, transfer policy, squad size etc etc etc), then I'm more than happy to share my thinking with you, but then again, given your next paragraph, it's probably just mindless vitriol being spewed and my venom being aimed at someone I loathe. I've been reading these fan boards since our FA Cup final year, and the plain fact is that the same mindless vitriol has been spewed at Lowe throughout those years, in good years and bad, and that tells me that at bottom it has absolutely nothing to do with how the team, is doing, what division we are in, how we are playing. There are people who simply loathe Rupert Lowe. One can speculate as to the reasons for that: some are perhaps reasonable, some are clearly not. But the club's present situation is an excuse to spew more venom Lowe's way, not the reason for doing so, and certainly not a valid reason. If anything is mindless, it's the way you have deemed every argument, reason, rationale as to why Lowe is possibly/definitely not the right person to take this Club forward as mindless vitriol, spewed and then throw in loathe, venom etc etc etc. What you accuse some supporters of doing to Lowe is exactly the same thing you are doing to them, and in doing so you are attacking/smearing the vast majority of supporters who validly hold and espouse genuine reasons that Lowe is not the best leader for this Club. If you believe that Lowe is right for the Club, then whilst I may vehemently disagree with the sentiment, you are more than entitled to hold and espouse that genuine opinion and it would wholly wrong to dismiss it for whatever reason. I may argue with some of your lines of thinking, but I would never lazily brand it as vitriolic etc etc etc. Edited 26 February, 2009 by um pahars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genghis78 Posted 26 February, 2009 Share Posted 26 February, 2009 Very detailed research. And you registered a new user name just to post that. I guess the PR war is very much on. I wonder who was instructing Genghis to post that info? I wouldn't expect anything less than suspicion and cynicism in response to my first post! Thank you! No PR, no-one's instructed me, I'm just trying to think of ways of getting rid of Lowe. I took my 10 yr old son to a game before xmas (can't even remember which one it was so terrible) and to be honest if he turned round to me and said he was going to support Man Utd from now on because Saints are naff, I couldn't argue with him. Thats the worst thing about all this - the team are going to lose a generation of supporters unless some wholesale changes are made, and it has to start with that man at the top, same as any other business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 26 February, 2009 Share Posted 26 February, 2009 I wouldn't expect anything less than suspicion and cynicism in response to my first post! Thank you! No PR, no-one's instructed me, I'm just trying to think of ways of getting rid of Lowe. I took my 10 yr old son to a game before xmas (can't even remember which one it was so terrible) and to be honest if he turned round to me and said he was going to support Man Utd from now on because Saints are naff, I couldn't argue with him. Thats the worst thing about all this - the team are going to lose a generation of supporters unless some wholesale changes are made, and it has to start with that man at the top, same as any other business. 1. Apart from the odd exception, they have all been terrible. 2. The first lesson for a young supporter is that there is no satisfaction in following a successful team. You have to sit through years of mediocrity and dross in order to fully appreciate the rare bright shaft of sunlight. I remember leaving Old Trafford (it might have been Anfield) after we had been stuffed as usual and one Saints follower turned to his little boy who looked completely stunned and said "that's what it's all about, son". Think of it as a valuable lesson in life and disappointment that will help him navigate the storms and whirlpools that lie ahead of him. 3. Yup, I agree 100%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RinNY Posted 26 February, 2009 Share Posted 26 February, 2009 No offence, but I'm afraid your first notion just undermines how little you know about the situation. If you think that if we defaulted on the loan, the "mortgage" lender would just take over the stadium and this would leave us debt free, then you're extremely wide of the mark. It simply would not work like that. If you want me to go into greater detail as to why this is not the case, then I will happy to do so,or alternatively I'm sure there are others who coluld list the errors in yuour rationale, as I have to go to work in a min. A quick analogy would be when an individual defaults on a house mortgage. Very often the lender will sell the house for less than the mortgage and the lendee is then still responsible for the deficit. We owe circa £20m+ on the stadium and there is no way on earth that Norwich Union would raise that much from it's sale (either for development land or as a second hand stadium to the phoenix AFC Southampton). The share price is a "theoretical purchasing price", but my response was aimed at your statement below: In my post, I was quite clear to avoid apportioning blame, instead I just reflected that the net worth, value, market capitalisation, whatever was massively affected by relegation and a prolonged stay. The blame, reasons, rationale, fault, whatever has been done to death (and will continue to be done to death) on a number of threads, and considering I clearly stated, "how much and where you divy that all up is very much an individual opinion.", I'm surprised you've decided to go down this route. Of course if you want reasons for why I believ Lowe was the major factor in relegation (managerial appointments, transfer policy, squad size etc etc etc), then I'm more than happy to share my thinking with you, but then again, given your next paragraph, it's probably just mindless vitriol being spewed and my venom being aimed at someone I loathe. If anything is mindless, it's the way you have deemed every argument, reason, rationale as to why Lowe is possibly/definitely not the right person to take this Club forward as mindless vitriol, spewed and then throw in loathe, venom etc etc etc. What you accuse some supporters of doing to Lowe is exactly the same thing you are doing to them, and in doing so you are attacking/smearing the vast majority of supporters who validly hold and espouse genuine reasons that Lowe is not the best leader for this Club. If you believe that Lowe is right for the Club, then whilst I may vehemently disagree with the sentiment, you are more than entitled to hold and espouse that genuine opinion and it would wholly wrong to dismiss it for whatever reason. I may argue with some of your lines of thinking, but I would never lazily brand it as vitriolic etc etc etc. Well, like you I could potentially go into much more detail on the mortgage thing etc., but like you I have limited time for this, and it really isn't relevant to my basic point about share price vs. worth, and it's probably best to avoid more simplification here. I'll just say that I don't claim that Lowe is the best person to run Saints, nor do I say anything definite about him as Saints Chairman other than two things: he has made mistakes, clearly; I don't see a viable alternative or viable alternative fiscal policies, with all they entail, out there for SLH and Saints. As to the vitriol, I can only say that you are clearly being disingenuous. You may not spew the vitriol yourself, but you are around this board more than enough to know that what I have said is true. I could list a whole set of posters on this forum who are guilty of it, and have been for a long time, starting with the likes of Stanley and alpine, but I really can't be bothered to type that many names. And the way you casually announce that "the vast majority" of supporters believe this or that does a disservice to your otherwise reasonable and rational tone. Because you do not know what the "vast majority" of supporters really believe, any more than I do. I'll just say that while there have been some substantial protests against Lowe, the numbers involved do not by any means amount to a "vast majority" of Saints supporters. For what it's worth, in my view, the "vast majority" of supporters do not much care who is Chairmsan of SLH, never have, and never will. They just want success on the field, and will express a natural anger and frustration at those in charge when that doesn't come, and largely ignore those in charge when it does. The virulent anti-Lowe crowd seem to me to be, instead, a vocal and obsessive minority. And you keep claiming that all sorts of good and rational reasons for getting rid of Lowe, and good and reasonable alternative policies for running Saints have been posted on this forum, but I read this forum quite frequently, and I can only say that they have been very well concealed, because I have not seen them, and you have not given them. And for what it's worth finally, I have long been on record, for some 2 years now, as fervently wishing that the entire present triumvirate of Lowe/Crouch/Wilde and all their supporters (Askham, Corbett, Richards, Cowen etc.) could be removed from any influence at Saints and a totally new regime and ownership brought in. But I'm not much inclined to confuse pie-in-the-sky wishes with what is actually likely to happen, especially after the past years of pointless changes and rampant speculation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eelpie Posted 26 February, 2009 Share Posted 26 February, 2009 Currently at 14.75p. Can anyone guesstimate what this values the SFC's' total selling price at? And if by chance we hadn't been a plc and were owned by one person, would anyone like to guess what Saints could be realistically worth, were it to be a non plc transaction? I'm just wondering if SLH pc is worth less than SFC if it were not a plc. (ps -apols for interrupting the arguement) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmel Posted 26 February, 2009 Share Posted 26 February, 2009 Currently at 14.75p. Can anyone guesstimate what this values the SFC's' total selling price at? And if by chance we hadn't been a plc and were owned by one person, would anyone like to guess what Saints could be realistically worth, were it to be a non plc transaction? I'm just wondering if SLH pc is worth less than SFC if it were not a plc. (ps -apols for interrupting the arguement) Just under 5 million, but i don't think that even if you offered the major shareholders twice the share price that they would sell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 26 February, 2009 Share Posted 26 February, 2009 (edited) Well, like you I could potentially go into much more detail on the mortgage thing etc., but like you I have limited time for this, and it really isn't relevant to my basic point about share price vs. worth, and it's probably best to avoid more simplification here. Sorry, but your underlying premise that we have assets that inflate our worth, or the subsequent claim that we could just default and erase the financial liabilities of the loan are just simply not correct, and shouldn't go unchallenged. In fact, they are in akin to those who believe Administration would be a cosy solution of extracting us from the current financial pickle and so create a very false position that some people might fall for. To suggest the Club is worth more just because we have a list of assets, but failing to include any liabilities and/or amounts owing is simply wrong and only tells half the story. Similarly, the notion that wer can just default and erase £20m+ liabilities is wishful thinking and something that should not be construed as fact. As to the vitriol, I can only say that you are clearly being disingenuous. You may not spew the vitriol yourself, but you are around this board more than enough to know that what I have said is true. I could list a whole set of posters on this forum who are guilty of it, and have been for a long time, starting with the likes of Stanley and alpine, but I really can't be bothered to type that many names. And the way you casually announce that "the vast majority" of supporters believe this or that does a disservice to your otherwise reasonable and rational tone. Because you do not know what the "vast majority" of supporters really believe, any more than I do. I'll just say that while there have been some substantial protests against Lowe, the numbers involved do not by any means amount to a "vast majority" of Saints supporters. For what it's worth, in my view, the "vast majority" of supporters do not much care who is Chairmsan of SLH, never have, and never will. They just want success on the field, and will express a natural anger and frustration at those in charge when that doesn't come, and largely ignore those in charge when it does. The virulent anti-Lowe crowd seem to me to be, instead, a vocal and obsessive minority. One or two obvious nutters, trolls or wind up merchants is not particularly something that I would advise getting too worked up over and certainly not something that I would use to justify the comments you have made. A sledgehammer to crack some nuts springs to mind. If it helps you to understand, then most things espoused on this forum are people's individual opinions, unless of course we're dealing in facts, so when I (or others) post stuff, then it's fair to assume that it is our own opinion. If it is really required (for the pendants [sic] out there), then maybe the Admin's should ensure that every post/opinion is suffixed or prefixed by IMHO!!!!!!!! (Just in case it helps, my assertion that, "and in doing so you are attacking/smearing the vast majority of supporters who validly hold and espouse genuine reasons that Lowe is not the best leader for this Club." was not for one minute suggesting the vast majority of supporters hold this view, after all how would I know, instead it is IMHO more that you are besmirching the vast majority of those who do actually hold that view and do so for more than the vitriolic reasons you have suggested). I have no idea why you're working yourself into a frenzy here, as I have simply tried to correct a few assumptions about how we as Club are valued, our liabilities and how it is not as easy to restructure our finances as you have claimed. Nothing personal, I just don't think incorrect stuff like that should be left unchallenged as it could well be picked up and run with by people who will get the wrong end of the stick. And you keep claiming that all sorts of good and rational reasons for getting rid of Lowe, and good and reasonable alternative policies for running Saints have been posted on this forum, but I read this forum quite frequently, and I can only say that they have been very well concealed, because I have not seen them, and you have not given them. And now you're just being silly (probably because you're slightly wound up, so I suggest you probably just need to wind things in). I, and others, have posted a multitude of reasons / explanations / strategies to remove / keep / enhance Lowe & co or whatever. They have been genuinely held and espoused by both sides with regards this argument, so to suggest that you have not seen them sounds rather childish. Of course, you may not agree with them, but that's not really what you are saying here now is it. Edited 26 February, 2009 by um pahars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RinNY Posted 27 February, 2009 Share Posted 27 February, 2009 Sorry, but your underlying premise that we have assets that inflate our worth, or the subsequent claim that we could just default and erase the financial liabilities of the loan are just simply not correct, and shouldn't go unchallenged. In fact, they are in akin to those who believe Administration would be a cosy solution of extracting us from the current financial pickle and so create a very false position that some people might fall for. To suggest the Club is worth more just because we have a list of assets, but failing to include any liabilities and/or amounts owing is simply wrong and only tells half the story. Similarly, the notion that wer can just default and erase £20m+ liabilities is wishful thinking and something that should not be construed as fact. One or two obvious nutters, trolls or wind up merchants is not particularly something that I would advise getting too worked up over and certainly not something that I would use to justify the comments you have made. A sledgehammer to crack some nuts springs to mind. If it helps you to understand, then most things espoused on this forum are people's individual opinions, unless of course we're dealing in facts, so when I (or others) post stuff, then it's fair to assume that it is our own opinion. If it is really required (for the pendants [sic] out there), then maybe the Admin's should ensure that every post/opinion is suffixed or prefixed by IMHO!!!!!!!! (Just in case it helps, my assertion that, "and in doing so you are attacking/smearing the vast majority of supporters who validly hold and espouse genuine reasons that Lowe is not the best leader for this Club." was not for one minute suggesting the vast majority of supporters hold this view, after all how would I know, instead it is IMHO more that you are besmirching the vast majority of those who do actually hold that view and do so for more than the vitriolic reasons you have suggested). I have no idea why you're working yourself into a frenzy here, as I have simply tried to correct a few assumptions about how we as Club are valued, our liabilities and how it is not as easy to restructure our finances as you have claimed. Nothing personal, I just don't think incorrect stuff like that should be left unchallenged as it could well be picked up and run with by people who will get the wrong end of the stick. And now you're just being silly (probably because you're slightly wound up, so I suggest you probably just need to wind things in). I, and others, have posted a multitude of reasons / explanations / strategies to remove / keep / enhance Lowe & co or whatever. They have been genuinely held and espoused by both sides with regards this argument, so to suggest that you have not seen them sounds rather childish. Of course, you may not agree with them, but that's not really what you are saying here now is it. Hmmm, did I say that anything inflates our worth?? I don't think so. Did I suggest that administration would be a good way to solve our problems? I don't think so. Again, my basic point was simply that share price is not a direct reflection of worth, a point with which you appear to agree, so I'm not sure why you keep going on this, but ok, let's see. A mortgage is not the same as other, unsecured debt, and to lump it together with unsecured debt as "we owe 30 million" is a simplification. Fair enough, I have simplified too, but let's be clear: neither you nor I have anything remotely like the detailed knowledge of saints' assets and finances to settle just how much the club may be "worth". however, IF SLH were to default on the mortgage (and I am NOT advocating that as a solution to the club's fiscal problems), the only plausible scenario in which that could occur would be in the context of going into administration. And if we go into administration, other than their claim to the stadium as holding the mortgage on it, the credit union can whistle for its money. The rules are, all football debts (player and coacxh contracts, outstanding transfer fees, etc) get paid up first, and after that the credit union would be in line with the Treasury, the overdraft holders, and all other creditors. The experience of other clubs that have gone into administration, like Leeds for example, says that they would be lucky to get pennies on the pound. And at the end of that process, whatever the union got, they'd have no more claimk on the restructured SFC entity that emerged. Now did I enormously oversimplify in my original remark? Yes, I did. But it remains true that the mortgage is a separate category of debt, and that in the end, if Saints had to default on it, the credit union would be left with the stadium and not much more. Now, the case against Lowe: yes, there are numerous valid criticisms to be made of Lowe, as there are of many other persons connected to SLH anmd Saints, from various former and present directors, to former and present managers and coaches, to former and present players, to fans. If you have a real case to make as to why and how Lowe could not only be ousted, but replaced, and better policies for SFC put in place, don't just keep saying so: lay it out so we can see what these ideas are! Because I haven't seen you or anyone indicate how the requisite share-voting power to remove Lowe is going to be rounded up, nor what alternative policies (other than of the "let's hire a good old British CCC retread manager like Billy Davies" variety) would supposedly improve the club's fortunes. The charges one does see constantly against Lowe, yeah let's visit those here for a laugh: 1. Lowe's first name, unforgivably, is Rupert -- no man named Rupert should be associated with a football club 2. Lowe likes hockey -- no man who likes hockey should be involved with a professional football club 3. Lowe hunts ducks -- no man who enjoys duck-hunting should be allowed anywhere near a professional football club 4. Lowe went to a public school -- no public school type should be anywhere near a football club 5. Lowe has red cheeks -- no red-cheeked man should be allowed to run a football club (which, btw, would probably rule out more than half of all football chairmen) 6. Lowe is pompous and arrogant -- no pompous and arrogant man must be permitted in professional football (and there go the majority of football directors and managers, I suspect) 7. Lowe was in charge when we got relegated -- no chairman of a relegated club should be allowed to stay in place or ever be permitted near a football club again 8. Lowe's nefarious and evil plan is to deliberately drive us into administration so he can then take total control of SFC for next to nothing Need I go on? Are you going to deny that all of these charges are seriously, not to say frequently, cast at Lowe on this forum? You can't, not honestly. There are at least 3 or 4 "Lowe out" threads, by the likes of Stanley and Channon's Sideburns and Johnny Fartpants up on the forum now: can you point to a single post on any of them that presents a reasoned argument for what specific policies of Lowe are mistaken and why, and what alternative policies both could and should be pursued instead? I'd be interested to see one. I'm not in a frenzy: just making the point that most of the anti-Lowe sentiment posted around here is purely ad hominem and offers no way forward for SFC at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 27 February, 2009 Share Posted 27 February, 2009 1. Lowe's first name, unforgivably, is Rupert -- no man named Rupert should be associated with a football club 2. Lowe likes hockey -- no man who likes hockey should be involved with a professional football club 3. Lowe hunts ducks -- no man who enjoys duck-hunting should be allowed anywhere near a professional football club 4. Lowe went to a public school -- no public school type should be anywhere near a football club 5. Lowe has red cheeks -- no red-cheeked man should be allowed to run a football club (which, btw, would probably rule out more than half of all football chairmen) 6. Lowe is pompous and arrogant -- no pompous and arrogant man must be permitted in professional football (and there go the majority of football directors and managers, I suspect) 7. Lowe was in charge when we got relegated -- no chairman of a relegated club should be allowed to stay in place or ever be permitted near a football club again 8. Lowe's nefarious and evil plan is to deliberately drive us into administration so he can then take total control of SFC for next to nothing Any one of those would be enough for me, tbh. You've left out a lot of others, how about abysmal man-management skills and no-existent motivational skills? We could go on, and I suspect that many will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningtonCrescent Posted 27 February, 2009 Share Posted 27 February, 2009 The charges one does see constantly against Lowe, yeah let's visit those here for a laugh: 1. Lowe's first name, unforgivably, is Rupert -- no man named Rupert should be associated with a football club 2. Lowe likes hockey -- no man who likes hockey should be involved with a professional football club 3. Lowe hunts ducks -- no man who enjoys duck-hunting should be allowed anywhere near a professional football club 4. Lowe went to a public school -- no public school type should be anywhere near a football club 5. Lowe has red cheeks -- no red-cheeked man should be allowed to run a football club (which, btw, would probably rule out more than half of all football chairmen) 6. Lowe is pompous and arrogant -- no pompous and arrogant man must be permitted in professional football (and there go the majority of football directors and managers, I suspect) 7. Lowe was in charge when we got relegated -- no chairman of a relegated club should be allowed to stay in place or ever be permitted near a football club again 8. Lowe's nefarious and evil plan is to deliberately drive us into administration so he can then take total control of SFC for next to nothing Need I go on? constantly - Hmmmmmm, i'd like to see your definition of "constant" LoL Need you go on? I think you have already defeated yourself! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RinNY Posted 27 February, 2009 Share Posted 27 February, 2009 constantly - Hmmmmmm, i'd like to see your definition of "constant" LoL Need you go on? I think you have already defeated yourself! And how pray do you make that out? My definition of constantly? Well, as long as I've been reading these fan forums, back to our cup final year, I've noted the tendency, when referring to Lowe, to include one or more of the above points -- always in a clearly critical and insulting way -- and apart from the time when Lowe was ousted, references to Lowe and threads about Lowe have been pretty much a daily, certainly a weekly occurrence. I said "constantly", I meant "constantly", and I stand by "constantly". You claim otherwise? Then you are either unaware of what gets posted or being disingenuous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wopper Posted 27 February, 2009 Share Posted 27 February, 2009 Rupert Lowe will never be accepted at this club so why is he hanging around like a spare pr**k . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 28 February, 2009 Share Posted 28 February, 2009 Again, my basic point was simply that share price is not a direct reflection of worth, a point with which you appear to agree, so I'm not sure why you keep going on this, but ok, let's see. I do agree with this point, and I said so a couple of times in the posts above. But what I took exception to was: (a) your idea that although we're only valued at circa £5m, this was understated because we have a number of other assets that would inflate this price, a rationale that doesn't bear up to any scrutiny given we've also got circa £30m worth of debts and creditors. If anything, given our debt, our loss making position and the recent history with regards the sale of Championship clubs, even that £5m is on the bullish side. (b) your idea that if we defaulted on the "stadium mortgage" we would become debt free with regards this loan (with the insinuation that these creditors and debts shouldn't really be included) is seriously simplifying the position. Indeed, all of those assets you referred to in your first post would go in a firesale in order to meet our obligations. Now did I enormously oversimplify in my original remark? Yes, I did. But it remains true that the mortgage is a separate category of debt, and that in the end, if Saints had to default on it, the credit union would be left with the stadium and not much more. And that's all I had a problem with, i.e. the over simplification of this area, something that sadly others do in a similar way when discussing Administration. I just fear that it's a dangerous mindset to get into just saying, we can default, or we can go into administration and everything will be OK. The credit union might be left with a stadium and not much more, but IMHO we too would be left with fck all, because they would not sit meekly by and accept the situation. We would be put in administration and anything worth selling sold to pay off our debts. Or even if an agreement could be reached, what would be left from our side would not make pretty reading. Now, the case against Lowe: yes, there are numerous valid criticisms to be made of Lowe, as there are of many other persons connected to SLH anmd Saints, from various former and present directors, to former and present managers and coaches, to former and present players, to fans. If you have a real case to make as to why and how Lowe could not only be ousted, but replaced, and better policies for SFC put in place, don't just keep saying so: lay it out so we can see what these ideas are! Because I haven't seen you or anyone indicate how the requisite share-voting power to remove Lowe is going to be rounded up, nor what alternative policies (other than of the "let's hire a good old British CCC retread manager like Billy Davies" variety) would supposedly improve the club's fortunes. The charges one does see constantly against Lowe, yeah let's visit those here for a laugh: 1. Lowe's first name, unforgivably, is Rupert -- no man named Rupert should be associated with a football club 2. Lowe likes hockey -- no man who likes hockey should be involved with a professional football club 3. Lowe hunts ducks -- no man who enjoys duck-hunting should be allowed anywhere near a professional football club 4. Lowe went to a public school -- no public school type should be anywhere near a football club 5. Lowe has red cheeks -- no red-cheeked man should be allowed to run a football club (which, btw, would probably rule out more than half of all football chairmen) 6. Lowe is pompous and arrogant -- no pompous and arrogant man must be permitted in professional football (and there go the majority of football directors and managers, I suspect) 7. Lowe was in charge when we got relegated -- no chairman of a relegated club should be allowed to stay in place or ever be permitted near a football club again 8. Lowe's nefarious and evil plan is to deliberately drive us into administration so he can then take total control of SFC for next to nothing Need I go on? Are you going to deny that all of these charges are seriously, not to say frequently, cast at Lowe on this forum? You can't, not honestly. There are at least 3 or 4 "Lowe out" threads, by the likes of Stanley and Channon's Sideburns and Johnny Fartpants up on the forum now: can you point to a single post on any of them that presents a reasoned argument for what specific policies of Lowe are mistaken and why, and what alternative policies both could and should be pursued instead? I'd be interested to see one. I'm not in a frenzy: just making the point that most of the anti-Lowe sentiment posted around here is purely ad hominem and offers no way forward for SFC at all. With all due respect, you have gone off on one again here. There have been a number of posts, indeed threads, from a myriad of posters about alternatives (good and bad), about how this might be achieved, about what would be required, about how feasible (or unfeasible) it is, about compromises, about looking forward etc. Now of course you may not agree with them, but to suggest people have not engaged with this and put up their views and opinions is rather disengenuous. And in listing those stupid reasons, trotted out by a few posters, you have conveniently glossed over the majority of posters who want a change, who have expressed their thoughts and reasons in a much more elegant, well thought out and rounded way. It would be akin to me saying that all those who are Pro Lowe are of the same mind as the Scooby fella who used to post on here. But that would just be lame, lazy, ignorant and missing the very many validly held and espoused views by those supporters who do not believe there should be change at the top. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spyinthesky Posted 28 February, 2009 Share Posted 28 February, 2009 Hypothetically could a very rich benefactor buy the stadium debt off Aviva and then up to cost of borrowing against the debt to such a level that the club was unable to afford it, shares become virtually worthless, and the rich benefactor could then pick up the club for next to nothing. Didnt something like this happen at Crystal Palace some years ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RinNY Posted 28 February, 2009 Share Posted 28 February, 2009 I do agree with this point, and I said so a couple of times in the posts above. But what I took exception to was: (a) your idea that although we're only valued at circa £5m, this was understated because we have a number of other assets that would inflate this price, a rationale that doesn't bear up to any scrutiny given we've also got circa £30m worth of debts and creditors. If anything, given our debt, our loss making position and the recent history with regards the sale of Championship clubs, even that £5m is on the bullish side. (b) your idea that if we defaulted on the "stadium mortgage" we would become debt free with regards this loan (with the insinuation that these creditors and debts shouldn't really be included) is seriously simplifying the position. Indeed, all of those assets you referred to in your first post would go in a firesale in order to meet our obligations. And that's all I had a problem with, i.e. the over simplification of this area, something that sadly others do in a similar way when discussing Administration. I just fear that it's a dangerous mindset to get into just saying, we can default, or we can go into administration and everything will be OK. The credit union might be left with a stadium and not much more, but IMHO we too would be left with fck all, because they would not sit meekly by and accept the situation. We would be put in administration and anything worth selling sold to pay off our debts. Or even if an agreement could be reached, what would be left from our side would not make pretty reading. With all due respect, you have gone off on one again here. There have been a number of posts, indeed threads, from a myriad of posters about alternatives (good and bad), about how this might be achieved, about what would be required, about how feasible (or unfeasible) it is, about compromises, about looking forward etc. Now of course you may not agree with them, but to suggest people have not engaged with this and put up their views and opinions is rather disengenuous. And in listing those stupid reasons, trotted out by a few posters, you have conveniently glossed over the majority of posters who want a change, who have expressed their thoughts and reasons in a much more elegant, well thought out and rounded way. It would be akin to me saying that all those who are Pro Lowe are of the same mind as the Scooby fella who used to post on here. But that would just be lame, lazy, ignorant and missing the very many validly held and espoused views by those supporters who do not believe there should be change at the top. I'll just say one more thing: have a sense of humour! When someone posts something "for a laugh", you can take it that it's not too seriously meant, yanno? I know there are plenty of serious criticisms of Lowe, I've made a few myself: but the kind I humorously put up there are constantly thrown around here, you have to admit. Anyway, in the end we agree more than disagree, and today was a good day! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 28 February, 2009 Share Posted 28 February, 2009 Hmmm, did I say that anything inflates our worth?? I don't think so. Did I suggest that administration would be a good way to solve our problems? I don't think so. Again, my basic point was simply that share price is not a direct reflection of worth, a point with which you appear to agree, so I'm not sure why you keep going on this, but ok, let's see. A mortgage is not the same as other, unsecured debt, and to lump it together with unsecured debt as "we owe 30 million" is a simplification. Fair enough, I have simplified too, but let's be clear: neither you nor I have anything remotely like the detailed knowledge of saints' assets and finances to settle just how much the club may be "worth". however, IF SLH were to default on the mortgage (and I am NOT advocating that as a solution to the club's fiscal problems), the only plausible scenario in which that could occur would be in the context of going into administration. And if we go into administration, other than their claim to the stadium as holding the mortgage on it, the credit union can whistle for its money. The rules are, all football debts (player and coacxh contracts, outstanding transfer fees, etc) get paid up first, and after that the credit union would be in line with the Treasury, the overdraft holders, and all other creditors. The experience of other clubs that have gone into administration, like Leeds for example, says that they would be lucky to get pennies on the pound. And at the end of that process, whatever the union got, they'd have no more claimk on the restructured SFC entity that emerged. Now did I enormously oversimplify in my original remark? Yes, I did. But it remains true that the mortgage is a separate category of debt, and that in the end, if Saints had to default on it, the credit union would be left with the stadium and not much more. Now, the case against Lowe: yes, there are numerous valid criticisms to be made of Lowe, as there are of many other persons connected to SLH anmd Saints, from various former and present directors, to former and present managers and coaches, to former and present players, to fans. If you have a real case to make as to why and how Lowe could not only be ousted, but replaced, and better policies for SFC put in place, don't just keep saying so: lay it out so we can see what these ideas are! Because I haven't seen you or anyone indicate how the requisite share-voting power to remove Lowe is going to be rounded up, nor what alternative policies (other than of the "let's hire a good old British CCC retread manager like Billy Davies" variety) would supposedly improve the club's fortunes. The charges one does see constantly against Lowe, yeah let's visit those here for a laugh: 1. Lowe's first name, unforgivably, is Rupert -- no man named Rupert should be associated with a football club 2. Lowe likes hockey -- no man who likes hockey should be involved with a professional football club 3. Lowe hunts ducks -- no man who enjoys duck-hunting should be allowed anywhere near a professional football club 4. Lowe went to a public school -- no public school type should be anywhere near a football club 5. Lowe has red cheeks -- no red-cheeked man should be allowed to run a football club (which, btw, would probably rule out more than half of all football chairmen) 6. Lowe is pompous and arrogant -- no pompous and arrogant man must be permitted in professional football (and there go the majority of football directors and managers, I suspect) 7. Lowe was in charge when we got relegated -- no chairman of a relegated club should be allowed to stay in place or ever be permitted near a football club again 8. Lowe's nefarious and evil plan is to deliberately drive us into administration so he can then take total control of SFC for next to nothing Need I go on? Are you going to deny that all of these charges are seriously, not to say frequently, cast at Lowe on this forum? You can't, not honestly. There are at least 3 or 4 "Lowe out" threads, by the likes of Stanley and Channon's Sideburns and Johnny Fartpants up on the forum now: can you point to a single post on any of them that presents a reasoned argument for what specific policies of Lowe are mistaken and why, and what alternative policies both could and should be pursued instead? I'd be interested to see one. I'm not in a frenzy: just making the point that most of the anti-Lowe sentiment posted around here is purely ad hominem and offers no way forward for SFC at all. you forgot the main reason many of us remember how he came in through the back door in 97 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 4 March, 2009 Share Posted 4 March, 2009 Share price back on the rise...slightly. http://www.londonstockexchange.com/en-gb/pricesnews/prices/system/detailedprices.htm?sym=GB0007922114GBGBXAIMI0792211SOO Oh happy days are here again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 4 March, 2009 Share Posted 4 March, 2009 Share price back on the rise...slightly. http://www.londonstockexchange.com/en-gb/pricesnews/prices/system/detailedprices.htm?sym=GB0007922114GBGBXAIMI0792211SOO Oh happy days are here again looks like I'm not the only one who thinks that a £200 punt at 14p might be in order then. 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