apparently its the banks fault

[JustMike]

according to Wilde

 

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/4254557.Ex_chairman_blames_bank_for_Saints_position/

[skintsaint]

lol'age

[Saint_clark]

What the heck just happened Pancake?

[Topcat]

I agree it is the banks fault for letting Lowe back in!

[JustMike]

this got locked then it re-appeared :-) Magic

[Pancake]

What the heck just happened Pancake?

 

Apathy, I cant be arsed as no one is listening. Blame yourselves when this places goes into melt down in 13 minutes. **** you all.

[saints_is_the_south]

Trust Wilde to start blaming others when the blame should fall soley at his, Lowe & Askham's door.

 

An absoloute c*nt of the highest order. Now f*ck off!

[JustMike]

Apathy, I cant be arsed as no one is listening. Blame yourselves when this places goes into melt down in 13 minutes. **** you all.

 

sorry :-(

[St Landrew]

Apathy, I cant be arsed as no one is listening. Blame yourselves when this places goes into melt down in 13 minutes. **** you all.

Tired and overwrought simple old mod, that you are - you can tell me.

 

I find Wilde's logic fascinating. The PLC has an overdraft limit of £4m that they cannot go over, or they could suffer the consequences. Are these limits something which the PLC just skips over and then expects another higher limit to be placed on them..?

 

No. Live in the real world. At some point Barclays were going to pull the plug. The PLC gave them the best excuse possible.

[VectisSaint]

Are we in Administration now then? The Echo says we are so I guess we must be. As for Wilde, try to show some sense of contrition, you are the main reason why we are in the **** now, not just for what you did after Lowe lead us to relegation but by compunding the error by letting Lowe back in. You are a bigger problem in my view than even Lowe.

[70's Mike]

Tired and overwrought simple old mod, that you are - you can tell me.

 

I find Wilde's logic fascinating. The PLC has an overdraft limit of £4m that they cannot go over, or they could suffer the consequences. Are these limits something which the PLC just skips over and then expects another higher limit to be placed on them..?

 

No. Live in the real world. At some point Barclays were going to pull the plug. The PLC gave them the best excuse possible.

 

 

it begs the question which incompetent let the payment go out, surely we could have stalled a smaller creditor rather than send out a payment which took us over the top with barclays

[skintsaint]

could of been bank charges...end of month and all that

[St Landrew]

Are we in Administration now then? The Echo says we are so I guess we must be. As for Wilde, try to show some sense of contrition, you are the main reason why we are in the **** now, not just for what you did after Lowe lead us to relegation but by compunding the error by letting Lowe back in. You are a bigger problem in my view than even Lowe.

 

Same old Saints. We never actually quite know what they are upto. That's the usual openness and transparity. I blame the Fans Parliament.

[LostBoys]

Please please please Mr Wilde Mr Lowe Mr Askham and the rest JUST GO. No excuses just disappear let us see if we can rescue anything from the debris.

 

I am sorry that you have actually lost real money Mr Wilde but you put the cabal back in - did you really think that the supporters would just roll over and all carry on turning up and paying the money. Naive at best. No more stories leaked to the Echo or BBC to retreive your reputations - you have none - just disappear please. If you want to come to the games buy your seat or your box but no more perceived wisdom.

[jonah]

As much as I dislike Wilde and everything he has done (if that wasn't clear enough from the day he first infiltrated S4E), putting aside the resentment towards him he does actually have a point.

 

There are 2 main creditors - NU and Barclays. The NU loan notes, as far as I'm aware, are not up for renewal - the way they are structured is that Saints have to pay the interest and repayment element on an *annual basis*. The way this is structured is that the annual payment has to be placed into a separate treasury deposit account with Barclays in May, and it remains there until paid in August. Normally this is around £2.5m and is funded through advance ST sales. So in terms of the NU notes, we can't be in breach unless they have some really weird clauses in there (and I doubt it).

 

So that leaves Barclays. We know the agreed overdraft was about £4m, and we know that it peaked at around £6m whilst Crouch was in charge. So Barclays have allowed flexibility there before. To suddenly be unable to continue as a viable business can only mean (IMO) that Barclays have thrown their toys out of the pram when we exceded the agreed level by £110k and cancelled the entire overdraft. So now we are left needing to find £4.1m to repay them, probably at very short notice too (1 month I expect).

 

Ignore the muppets around the boardroom for a moment - as far as I can see it's Barclays who are the ones forcing our situation here, nobody else. Without that overdraft facility the club is not a going concern - hence no accounts can be signed off, hence administration.

 

If I had a Barclays account (sadly I don't), I would be telling them exactly what I thought and moving my account elsewhere.

[saintjay77]

Tired and overwrought simple old mod, that you are - you can tell me.

 

I find Wilde's logic fascinating. The PLC has an overdraft limit of £4m that they cannot go over, or they could suffer the consequences. Are these limits something which the PLC just skips over and then expects another higher limit to be placed on them..?

 

No. Live in the real world. At some point Barclays were going to pull the plug. The PLC gave them the best excuse possible.

 

The OD was up to 6.5 mil at the start of the season so the club have been doing as was asked and getting the OD back down. Missing out by 100K ish when they are dealing in Millions seems a bit harsh IMO.

 

Still the blame isnt there as it was clear yesterday that the Shares were suspended due to the half year accounts not being published in time. As soon as that happens everyone loses confidence and shuts up shop. Cant blame the bank for the reaction to the clubs failings.

[alpine_saint]

So, the finger-pointing in every direction but the correct one has started, before any official announcments...

[trousers]

If I had a Barclays account (sadly I don't), I would be telling them exactly what I thought and moving my account elsewhere.

 

I feel a (legal) protest coming on in Southampton City center on Saturday before the game...?

[70's Mike]

As much as I dislike Wilde and everything he has done (if that wasn't clear enough from the day he first infiltrated S4E), putting aside the resentment towards him he does actually have a point.

 

There are 2 main creditors - NU and Barclays. The NU loan notes, as far as I'm aware, are not up for renewal - the way they are structured is that Saints have to pay the interest and repayment element on an *annual basis*. The way this is structured is that the annual payment has to be placed into a separate treasury deposit account with Barclays in May, and it remains there until paid in August. Normally this is around £2.5m and is funded through advance ST sales. So in terms of the NU notes, we can't be in breach unless they have some really weird clauses in there (and I doubt it).

 

So that leaves Barclays. We know the agreed overdraft was about £4m, and we know that it peaked at around £6m whilst Crouch was in charge. So Barclays have allowed flexibility there before. To suddenly be unable to continue as a viable business can only mean (IMO) that Barclays have thrown their toys out of the pram when we exceded the agreed level by £110k and cancelled the entire overdraft. So now we are left needing to find £4.1m to repay them, probably at very short notice too (1 month I expect).

 

Ignore the muppets around the boardroom for a moment - as far as I can see it's Barclays who are the ones forcing our situation here, nobody else. Without that overdraft facility the club is not a going concern - hence no accounts can be signed off, hence administration.

 

If I had a Barclays account (sadly I don't), I would be telling them exactly what I thought and moving my account elsewhere.

 

IT still begs the question who sent out that payment surely it could have waited until Monday when the income from Saturday would have been banked ?

[stevegrant]

I don't understand Barclays' logic on this, to be honest. They seem to be cutting their nose off to spite their face.

 

The overdraft has been reduced by £2m+ in the last 12-18 months, so it's moving in the right direction, and yet they've decided to pull the plug for the sake of what is a relatively small amount of money.

 

Now, it's entirely possible that they'll get back absolutely none of that money - I suspect it's not secured against anything - whereas if they'd continued working with the club, they could have recouped all of it plus interest over the next few years.

[Pancake]

I don't understand Barclays' logic on this, to be honest. They seem to be cutting their nose off to spite their face.

 

The overdraft has been reduced by £2m+ in the last 12-18 months, so it's moving in the right direction, and yet they've decided to pull the plug for the sake of what is a relatively small amount of money.

 

Now, it's entirely possible that they'll get back absolutely none of that money - I suspect it's not secured against anything - whereas if they'd continued working with the club, they could have recouped all of it plus interest over the next few years.

 

Maybe why we havent heard anything yet today? (where is that straw?)

[Katalinic]

I don't understand Barclays' logic on this, to be honest. They seem to be cutting their nose off to spite their face.

 

The overdraft has been reduced by £2m+ in the last 12-18 months, so it's moving in the right direction, and yet they've decided to pull the plug for the sake of what is a relatively small amount of money.

 

Now, it's entirely possible that they'll get back absolutely none of that money - I suspect it's not secured against anything - whereas if they'd continued working with the club, they could have recouped all of it plus interest over the next few years.

 

I would suggest it came as a complete surprise to the board - Wilde was still on his Fans parliament trip only a few days ago. I wonder if something has happened behind the scenes - perhaps there is an interested party but the existing board were a barrier to anything happening - perhaps Barclays have forced therefore forced the board's hand? It does seem odd over such a small amount after all this time.

[trousers]

I don't understand Barclays' logic on this, to be honest. They seem to be cutting their nose off to spite their face.

 

The overdraft has been reduced by £2m+ in the last 12-18 months, so it's moving in the right direction, and yet they've decided to pull the plug for the sake of what is a relatively small amount of money.

 

Now, it's entirely possible that they'll get back absolutely none of that money - I suspect it's not secured against anything - whereas if they'd continued working with the club, they could have recouped all of it plus interest over the next few years.

 

Here's a ridiculous theory....

 

Barclays now have 'Middle-Eastern' investors pulling their financial strings...what if, said investors (or associates of theirs) wanted to buy an English football club at a knock down price and wanted to rid said club of certain historical obstacles in the boardroom in the cleanest/swiftest way possible....what better way than to move goalposts and pull rugs from under people's feet?

[trousers]

I would suggest it came as a complete surprise to the board - Wilde was still on his Fans parliament trip only a few days ago. I wonder if something has happened behind the scenes - perhaps there is an interested party but the existing board were a barrier to anything happening - perhaps Barclays have forced therefore forced the board's hand? It does seem odd over such a small amount after all this time.

 

Not a lot different to my wacky theory! (no offence )

[Katalinic]

Not a lot different to my wacky theory! (no offence )

 

I was thinking the same! Cue ITK hysteria.

[stevegrant]

I was thinking the same! Cue ITK hysteria.

Do we get to play noughts and crosses on Barry's jumper again?

[jonah]

IT still begs the question who sent out that payment surely it could have waited until Monday when the income from Saturday would have been banked ?

 

Who sent out what payment?

 

I think the important date in all this was 31st March as that's when the accounts had to be in. We were delisted because the accounts weren't in. The accounts weren't in because the accountants wouldn't sign us off as a going concern. My interpretation is that they wouldn't do that because Barclays called in the overdraft. It's also possible that being delisted put us in breach of the NU loan notes which combined with needing to find £4.1m to repay Barclays makes us pretty much bust. Thank you Barclays.

 

Hopefully the 1pm press conference will clarify the root cause.

[eelpie]

I feel a (legal) protest coming on in Southampton City center on Saturday before the game...?

 

I hope so. Who's going?

I am

[eelpie]

Who sent out what payment?

 

I think the important date in all this was 31st March as that's when the accounts had to be in. We were delisted because the accounts weren't in. The accounts weren't in because the accountants wouldn't sign us off as a going concern. My interpretation is that they wouldn't do that because Barclays called in the overdraft. It's also possible that being delisted put us in breach of the NU loan notes which combined with needing to find £4.1m to repay Barclays makes us pretty much bust. Thank you Barclays.

 

Hopefully the 1pm press conference will clarify the root cause.

 

Our ex-financial wizard Lowe should have been managing our day-to-day affairs as he is paying himself to do, and made sure that there was money to cover that £110.000, even if it meant putting the money in himself, so that the half year figures could have been published before deadline. He has now cost us an unnecessary 10 points next season in league 1. Twit.

[derry]

It's possible and I believe there was a meeting with the bank about the overdraft, where the directors were asked to invest but declined.

 

Crouch went public about putting in £2m if the other two did the same, it's possible that Crouch etc have a hand in this.

 

Just maybe the bank see this as a preliminary to money being invested and a way of getting rid of the blocking force to any realistic investment, allowing the sale of the company, reorganising the debt and getting their money back in due course.

[Channon's Sideburns]

Are we in Administration now then? The Echo says we are so I guess we must be. As for Wilde, try to show some sense of contrition, you are the main reason why we are in the **** now, not just for what you did after Lowe lead us to relegation but by compunding the error by letting Lowe back in. You are a bigger problem in my view than even Lowe.

 

Amen to that - Wilde is only surpassed by Askham in terms of ar$edom.

[derry]

Our ex-financial wizard Lowe should have been managing our day-to-day affairs as he is paying himself to do, and made sure that there was money to cover that £110.000, even if it meant putting the money in himself, so that the half year figures could have been published before deadline. He has now cost us an unnecessary 10 points next season in league 1. Twit.

 

As long as the football club remains trading out of administration the FA can do sod all. They insisted the club was set up as a separate entity with it's own directors and finances subservient to FA rules, it is owned by the PLC but solvent and operating within the rules.

[SaintRobbie]

Its the banks fault we're about to see Wilde and Lowe potentially leave forever.

 

I like the bank.

[Legod Third Coming]

Its the banks fault we're about to see Wilde and Lowe potentially leave forever.

 

I like the bank.

 

Agreed.

 

Also, when the feck have they invested millions???!!!!

 

Bought shares maybe - in a business they fecked up. Good luck to them - not!

[70's Mike]

Who sent out what payment?

 

I think the important date in all this was 31st March as that's when the accounts had to be in. We were delisted because the accounts weren't in. The accounts weren't in because the accountants wouldn't sign us off as a going concern. My interpretation is that they wouldn't do that because Barclays called in the overdraft. It's also possible that being delisted put us in breach of the NU loan notes which combined with needing to find £4.1m to repay Barclays makes us pretty much bust. Thank you Barclays.

 

Hopefully the 1pm press conference will clarify the root cause.

 

the payment which took us over an agreed overdraft limit, it is basic cash control do not **** off your bank

[cambsaint]

It is pretty obvious that the current shareholders who stand to lose a great deal consider The Club to be a basket case unless they attract another investor.

It beggars belief that a consortium of directors couldn't have lent the club a million for short-term working capital.

The only hope is that either the shareholders are so divided as to be irreconcilable, or that they realise that new investment won't come in while they are in place and they hope to rescue something by getting out.

[Window Cleaner]

It is pretty obvious that the current shareholders who stand to lose a great deal consider The Club to be a basket case unless they attract another investor.

It beggars belief that a consortium of directors couldn't have lent the club a million for short-term working capital.

The only hope is that either the shareholders are so divided as to be irreconcilable, or that they realise that new investment won't come in while they are in place and they hope to rescue something by getting out.

 

 

 

I love the way so many people bandy a million £ about as a sum people are likely to have in their back pocket waiting for something to spend it on.

Many of you will would never handle a million £ in your whole life, yet guys are supposed to have it in readies waiting for the day they need it.

Average Southampton salary 22K£x 40 years at work=880K so you're still short of a couple of bob.

[jonah]

the payment which took us over an agreed overdraft limit' date=' it is basic cash control do not **** off your bank[/quote']

 

Eh? Have you read anything on this thread? The overdraft was at £6.5m when Lowe came back in - it has been reduced by £2.4m but it seems that wasn't enough. So "the payment which took us over an agreed overdraft limit" would be one of the costs incurred by Wilde & Crouch's lot - take your pick from Hone, Hoos, Oldknow, Dulieu, Vantis, Mike Osman, Lawrie and all the overpaid has-beens we started playing over the last 2 years. The time to worry about "basic cash control" was then, not now.

[WealdSaint]

Its pretty lame that the existing directors could'nt have put the £110K in to bring the overdraft back below the limit. There are literally hundreds of thousands of similar companies in the country where the directors are doing similar.

 

I also suspect that if Lowe & Wilde offered to proxy their share to Leon for a year and let him rejoin the board he would have got his cheque book out and paid the £110K like a shot!

[70's Mike]

Eh? Have you read anything on this thread? The overdraft was at £6.5m when Lowe came back in - it has been reduced by £2.4m but it seems that wasn't enough. So "the payment which took us over an agreed overdraft limit" would be one of the costs incurred by Wilde & Crouch's lot - take your pick from Hone, Hoos, Oldknow, Dulieu, Vantis, Mike Osman, Lawrie and all the overpaid has-beens we started playing over the last 2 years. The time to worry about "basic cash control" was then, not now.

 

Have you read anything on this thread because apparently it was a recent payment of £110k which took us over the agreed £4m , per Mr Wilde spouting off in the Echo.

What that has to do with the last two years i do not know.

 

The point is that someone must have known we were exceeding the bank, they must have known and been warned of the consequences , so imo this was a delibrate act to test the bank.

 

All businesses operate within overdraft limits , you sit on payments until you can afford to pay for them.

[jonah]

Have you read anything on this thread because apparently it was a recent payment of £110k which took us over the agreed £4m

 

And where does it say that? Not on the Echo website.

 

All businesses operate within overdraft limits , you sit on payments until you can afford to pay for them.

 

And if you try to make a new payment which would exceed your agreed overdraft the bank would refuse the payment... which suggests it wasn't a new payment at all, it was still being paid down from £6.5m.

 

What does this have to do with the last 2 years? I can only assume you've had your head buried somewhere dark and quiet.

[Alain Perrin]

I love the way so many people bandy a million £ about as a sum people are likely to have in their back pocket waiting for something to spend it on.

Many of you will would never handle a million £ in your whole life, yet guys are supposed to have it in readies waiting for the day they need it.

Average Southampton salary 22K£x 40 years at work=880K so you're still short of a couple of bob.

 

Sorry Window Cleaner, you are wrong.

 

Average Southampton salary 22K£ x 40 years at work=880K - less circa 30% tax (Basic + NI) so you'd only have about £660K.

[70's Mike]

And where does it say that? Not on the Echo website.

 

 

 

And if you try to make a new payment which would exceed your agreed overdraft the bank would refuse the payment... which suggests it wasn't a new payment at all, it was still being paid down from £6.5m.

 

What does this have to do with the last 2 years? I can only assume you've had your head buried somewhere dark and quiet.

 

 

Read the link on the first post on this thread

[Pancake]

And where does it say that? Not on the Echo website.

 

 

Errr....

 

MICHAEL WILDE has laid a large part of the blame for Southampton Leisure Holdings PLC falling into administration at the door of the club’s bankers Barclays.

The former football board chairman was today standing down as administrators took over the running of the PLC after the business could no longer be classed as a going concern.

The Daily Echo understands that Saints had breached the overdraft limit agreed with Barclays of £4m – but by not much more than £110,000.

[jonah]

Read the link on the first post on this thread

 

I have read it, and after translating it from English into English it still reads that the overdraft is in excess of the agreed limit. Banks are quite within their rights to state that an overdraft must be reduced to a certain level by a certain date - it doesn't mean to say that it was below £4m and then somebody accidentally sent a cheque to Notts County which Barclays deliberately cashed into order to make us breach the overdraft limit just so they could close us down. Geez.

[saintjay77]

Have you read anything on this thread because apparently it was a recent payment of £110k which took us over the agreed £4m , per Mr Wilde spouting off in the Echo.

What that has to do with the last two years i do not know.

 

The point is that someone must have known we were exceeding the bank, they must have known and been warned of the consequences , so imo this was a delibrate act to test the bank.

 

All businesses operate within overdraft limits , you sit on payments until you can afford to pay for them.

 

To be fair the only time I have seen 110K mentioned was when the echo believed that we were over the 4 mill by as little as that ammount. Havnt seen anywhtere suggesting that a payment of that much took us over.

 

I understood that he overdraft was up to 6.5 mill at the start of the season and has been reduced to the agreed 4 mill. So being over by 110K when talking about those sums of money seems a bit rough for the bank to pull the plug. Had it still been 6 mill then it would be understandable.

 

I tend to think that as they can see what goes in and what goes out they are predicting allot more going out between now and the new season than what may come in and therefor decided they wouldnt finance us. Do they wait till we owe 6 Mill and upwards before pulling the plug? Or do it when there is less to claw back?

[saintjay77]

Errr....

 

I think we are all looking for exact wording again as that doesnt say we made a payment to take us over just as much as it doesnt say we didnt get it under in time.

 

The Daily Echo understands that Saints had breached the overdraft limit agreed with Barclays of £4m – but by not much more than £110,000.

 

We know it was 6.5 earlier but we dont know if we ever got it below the new aggreed 4 mill?

[Gemmel]

Ive read the whole article (Theres two pages in the actual Echo) and not once, not even an ackonowledgement or a vague reference of an apology or recognition of his (Wildes) part in all of this.

[buctootim]

To be fair the only time I have seen 110K mentioned was when the echo believed that we were over the 4 mill by as little as that ammount. Havnt seen anywhtere suggesting that a payment of that much took us over.

 

I understood that he overdraft was up to 6.5 mill at the start of the season and has been reduced to the agreed 4 mill. So being over by 110K when talking about those sums of money seems a bit rough for the bank to pull the plug. Had it still been 6 mill then it would be understandable.

 

I tend to think that as they can see what goes in and what goes out they are predicting allot more going out between now and the new season than what may come in and therefor decided they wouldnt finance us. Do they wait till we owe 6 Mill and upwards before pulling the plug? Or do it when there is less to claw back?

 

Looks like we gave them the excuse to call in the facility by breaching the terms of overdraft. As 70s Mike said, bit incompetent - we should have managed cashflow better if that is the case.

[Ponty]

Looks like we gave them the excuse to call in the facility by breaching the terms of overdraft. As 70s Mike said, bit incompetent - we should have managed cashflow better if that is the case.

You'd feel a little hard done by if your house was repossessed because you went a quarter of a percent over your overdraft though.