Johnny Bognor Posted 2 April, 2009 Posted 2 April, 2009 http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article6018444.ece The Times link has been posted in THE FACTS thread. Is it just me or does this part of the article stick out like a sore thumb? It is thought that the administrators and Barclays, with which the club had exceeded its £4 million overdraft limit, believe that it will be easier to find a buyer for Southampton with the board gone.
70's Mike Posted 2 April, 2009 Posted 2 April, 2009 http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article6018444.ece The Times link has been posted in THE FACTS thread. Is it just me or does this part of the article stick out like a sore thumb. It is thought that the administrators and Barclays, with which the club had exceeded its £4 million overdraft limit, believe that it will be easier to find a buyer for Southampton with the board gone. the truth always comes out
spyinthesky Posted 2 April, 2009 Posted 2 April, 2009 I am both a Saints and Aviva shareholder. My (modest) shareholding in Saints is no more and my Aviva shares have gone south bigstyle as has the endowment policy I have with them. That said I would be more than happy for Aviva to take a pragmatic view on the Stadium debt bearing in mind that Aviva must have spent millions on a ridiculous ad campaign telling, no one in particular, that they are changing their name from Norwich Union
Nineteen Canteen Posted 2 April, 2009 Posted 2 April, 2009 http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/banking_and_finance/article6018444.ece The Times link has been posted in THE FACTS thread. Is it just me or does this part of the article stick out like a sore thumb? It is thought that the administrators and Barclays, with which the club had exceeded its £4 million overdraft limit, believe that it will be easier to find a buyer for Southampton with the board gone. Probably, but not as much as the fans and when we needed them most to boost our revenues in obviously difficult times they deserted the club. Why because the club couldn't afford to buy or keep players and management the deserting fans would have been happy with, whilst ignorantly ignoring the reality of the Wilde takeover. Many of our fans about 90% of alledged 200,000 on the ticket database have contributed to the decline in much the same way as Woolworths for example. Look forward to the rise of WellSaints FC from the ashes of SMS. We talk of buyers but should we discuss if we are actually a going concern worthy of purchase with barely 10% of our fanbase bothering to support the club?
Nineteen Canteen Posted 2 April, 2009 Posted 2 April, 2009 the truth always comes out I agree Mike the trick is making sure you believe the right source.
Weston Super Saint Posted 2 April, 2009 Posted 2 April, 2009 Probably, but not as much as the fans and when we needed them most to boost our revenues in obviously difficult times they deserted the club. Why because the club couldn't afford to buy or keep players and management the deserting fans would have been happy with, whilst ignorantly ignoring the reality of the Wilde takeover. Many of our fans about 90% of alledged 200,000 on the ticket database have contributed to the decline in much the same way as Woolworths for example. Look forward to the rise of WellSaints FC from the ashes of SMS. We talk of buyers but should we discuss if we are actually a going concern worthy of purchase with barely 10% of our fanbase bothering to support the club? Which one
WokingSaint Posted 2 April, 2009 Posted 2 April, 2009 However much blame attaches to Lowe, Wilde, Crouch et al, it seems that Barclays Bank have pulled the rug from under SLH for exceeding the £4m overdraft facility by a relatively small amount -£110K. If this is so I recommend a boycot of that bank and maybe a protest outside the Reading Branch that holds the account. Anyone agree?
krissyboy31 Posted 2 April, 2009 Posted 2 April, 2009 I think that you can only go cap in hand, so many times. Each time the overdraft was increased, Barclays would have needed assurances but obviously this time (at least) those assurances have not been met.
Weston Super Saint Posted 2 April, 2009 Posted 2 April, 2009 However much blame attaches to Lowe, Wilde, Crouch et al, it seems that Barclays Bank have pulled the rug from under SLH for exceeding the £4m overdraft facility by a relatively small amount -£110K. If this is so I recommend a boycot of that bank and maybe a protest outside the Reading Branch that holds the account. Anyone agree? LOL. I'm pretty sure they had a conversation along the lines of 'please don't exceed the [pretty generous] £4m overdraft', before they pulled the plug. Besides, didn't the accounts have a statement in them regarding 'needing' more investment to remain a going concern? Maybe you'd prefer the bank to carry on regardless and then go to the government to bail it out?
WokingSaint Posted 2 April, 2009 Posted 2 April, 2009 £4m was an Agreed Limit. So SLH have exceeded this by a small amount that might have been repaid after a full house on Saturday?
Weston Super Saint Posted 2 April, 2009 Posted 2 April, 2009 £4m was an Agreed Limit. So SLH have exceeded this by a small amount that might have been repaid after a full house on Saturday? Or might not.... I'm sure they've got more information on the repayment habits of SFC than you and I....
JohnnyFartPants Posted 2 April, 2009 Posted 2 April, 2009 However much blame attaches to Lowe, Wilde, Crouch et al, it seems that Barclays Bank have pulled the rug from under SLH for exceeding the £4m overdraft facility by a relatively small amount -£110K. If this is so I recommend a boycot of that bank and maybe a protest outside the Reading Branch that holds the account. Anyone agree? I agree, but cant make it as I have a bad back. Don't wear your best sandals. Yours, Reg.
VectisSaint Posted 2 April, 2009 Posted 2 April, 2009 Probably, but not as much as the fans and when we needed them most to boost our revenues in obviously difficult times they deserted the club. Why because the club couldn't afford to buy or keep players and management the deserting fans would have been happy with, whilst ignorantly ignoring the reality of the Wilde takeover. Many of our fans about 90% of alledged 200,000 on the ticket database have contributed to the decline in much the same way as Woolworths for example. Look forward to the rise of WellSaints FC from the ashes of SMS. We talk of buyers but should we discuss if we are actually a going concern worthy of purchase with barely 10% of our fanbase bothering to support the club? LOL. Club goes into administration due to the fans. You are joking right? Nothing to do with the appalling football, the results, the terrible decisions made by board and semi-pro coach. We are customers, as your lord and master has made clear many times, as customers we have a right to be treated reasonably and be provided with goods/services of merchantable quality. If customers have deserted Saints temporarily then the blame sits fairly and squarely on the sloping shoulders of Wilde and Lowe. The Bank has finally seen the light and realised that 2 failed business men are not fit to run this Club.
troutmask Posted 2 April, 2009 Posted 2 April, 2009 However much blame attaches to Lowe, Wilde, Crouch et al, it seems that Barclays Bank have pulled the rug from under SLH for exceeding the £4m overdraft facility by a relatively small amount -£110K. If this is so I recommend a boycot of that bank and maybe a protest outside the Reading Branch that holds the account. Anyone agree? Im all for trashing banks, theres a few thousand in London who'll be at a loose end after today
SaintRichmond Posted 2 April, 2009 Posted 2 April, 2009 I am both a Saints and Aviva shareholder. My (modest) shareholding in Saints is no more and my Aviva shares have gone south bigstyle as has the endowment policy I have with them. That said I would be more than happy for Aviva to take a pragmatic view on the Stadium debt bearing in mind that Aviva must have spent millions on a ridiculous ad campaign telling, no one in particular, that they are changing their name from Norwich Union I wonder whether the Bank, (Barclays) were ever fully aware of the considerable "negative" Lowe factor ?? He introduced his own doctrine regards Team format, brought in an untried Management Team etc etc, and, as per his previous Tenure, caused a massive Rift between Fans and Club Barclays, being a Bank, are fully aware of the term "Negative Equity" IMHO, Lowe has always been Saints "Negative Equity" from Day One Big crowds WILL return once Lowe & Wilde disappear ............ I just wonder whether Barclays finally realised what Millstones they have been
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