Consortium / Prospective buyer in now!

[Legod Third Coming]

I can't believe the number of people who expect us to land a 'benefactor'...

 

We need owners with a passion to turn us around, not a bloody patron!

 

Look at what has really happened at Liverpool, Aston Villa and United - owners intent on making a return have actually delivered managerial freedoms and improved results.

[jonah]

Care to disagree with that Jonah? What a complete & utter waste of football club money!

 

Maybe you should ask UP that question first, here's what he's said about it:

 

Currently as a PLC we have a duty to reward investors and therefore there is nothing wrong with dividend payments

 

Keeping that money may well have saved us? What is quite interesting is how close the number is to the overdraft we had with Barclays.

 

Or maybe that's the difference between keeping on the good side of "the City" and simply spending money we don't have and then trying to scrape survival from a losing position? FWIW, I think the divvies/buybacks were correct in the early years as they would have affected credit ratings and loan rates on the stadium notes. Reward for the Cup Final and Europe also seems appropriate, after all the entire club was incentivised like that from execs to players. After that... well I can see the reasons for stopping them, and would not have minded if they had been stopped. But 0.5p divvie is £140k paid out from a company with £50m turnover, it's hardly going to change the club's fortune to spend 0.3% on that.

 

As for "that money may well have saved us", that is a bit daft - we paid out 0.3% in dividends when we could afford to in the Premiership. We weren't paying it out whilst trying to scrape enough to pay salaries.

 

Meanwhile, shareholders are always at liberty to decline their dividend and leave the cash in the company - Corbett, McMenemy, Gordon, Wiseman and Hunt owned around 4m shares between them so they pocketed nearly half a million quid. They never declined a penny.

 

If you're worried about dividends from our days in the Premiership, I have to wonder why you weren't worried about the changes to the SFC Articles Of Association that were made whilst Wilde was in charge. These included the ability to start paying Directors of SFC (I wonder who they included), and discretionary payments to be made in a variety of forms including trust funds or donations to be made to Directors, ex-Directors, their family or any other persons without requiring the approval of a resolution by the company. Do you think this is a more likely source of cash drainage when it was really needed?

[jonah]

Oracle, one of the worlds largest software companies, has just paid its' first dividend after 23 years of being a listed company. These guys make billions in profits every year and they've not paid out dividends before.

 

Arghhhh. Oracle do buybacks instead! Billions of dollars worth. Buybacks are just tax efficient equivalents of dividends that effectively force the payout in the form of increased shareholding. eg:

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/companyNewsAndPR/idUSWEN642720070412

[ottery st mary]

better tahn showing thm a picture of himself or any other man who has used the club for ego or profit.

Should have shown him the old Bellemoor School Dancing troupe picture....Or were you at Hounsdown School troupe team.

[JohnnyFartPants]

I can't believe the number of people who expect us to land a 'benefactor'...

 

We need owners with a passion to turn us around, not a bloody patron!

 

Look at what has really happened at Liverpool, Aston Villa and United - owners intent on making a return have actually delivered managerial freedoms and improved results.

 

Not to mention also increased debt at at least two of those clubs. Not sure they are role models for us at all.

[Johnny Bognor]

Arghhhh. Oracle do buybacks instead! Billions of dollars worth. Buybacks are just tax efficient equivalents of dividends that effectively force the payout in the form of increased shareholding. eg:

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/companyNewsAndPR/idUSWEN642720070412

 

 

Fair enough (I had missed that), but it doesn't change the fact that businesses HAVE to pay dividends. A well run business pays out dividends off of the back of making profits.

 

Indeed the Articles of Assoication state:

 

(f) Entitlement to Profits

(i) The Company may, by ordinary resolution, declare dividends out of the profits of the Company available for distribution but no dividend shall be payable in excess of the amount recommended by the Directors

 

As I said, a small number of people held a substantial amount of the shares and so it wouldn't have been too difficult for the Directors to recommend not take dividends say, for example, post relegation when a substantial loss in revenue was going to occur.

Edited 7 April, 2009 by Johnny Bognor

[OldNick]

Should have shown him the old Bellemoor School Dancing troupe picture....Or were you at Hounsdown School troupe team.

Thank god Im not Jill Dando as I have a stalker.

[OldNick]

Fair enough (I had missed that), but it doesn't change the fact that businesses HAVE to pay dividends. A well run business pays out dividends off of the back of making profits.

 

As I said, a small number of people held a substantial amount of the shares and so it wouldn't have been too difficult to get shareholder approval to not take dividends say, for example, post relegation (see Sep 2005) when a substantial loss in revenue was going to occur.

Johnny i think you will find that there were no dividends paid post rlegation as there were no profits

[OldNick]

the changes to the SFC Articles Of Association that were made whilst Wilde was in charge. These included the ability to start paying Directors of SFC (I wonder who they included), and discretionary payments to be made in a variety of forms including trust funds or donations to be made to Directors, ex-Directors, their family or any other persons without requiring the approval of a resolution by the company. Do you think this is a more likely source of cash drainage when it was really needed?

Jonah, if those are as open ended as they at first look it is scary.

On first look it reads like the FSA drew it up!!

[um pahars]

So, what to conclude? Did Um Pahars really talk to DJ at all? It doesn't look like it. If he did talk to him, did he deliberately lie about what he'd been told or did he just not understand? It's hard to explain, especially with someone who so quickly criticises everyone's figures without providing his own.

 

LMFAO.

 

Of course I spoke to David Jones, he's a very nice guy and I can remember the phone conversation vividly. He was very helpful (as usual) and went out of his way to provide various pieces of information, as well as confirm most of what I thought was indeed correct.

 

I've been correcting you for ages on here (and I notice you conveniently ignored me picking you up with regards the overdraft a couple of days ago). It's your typical style of bluster and knee jerk posting, only to go away and realise that actually you weren't exactly right. That is then followed by your finest trait of never admittig you were wrong and then conveniently try to divert and deflect attention away from your errors and false assumptions.

 

And I've also provided numerous facts and figures on here, very often to counteract your false claims, so to suggest I never provide my own figures really is fantasy stuff (In fact I'm sure some people are bored of all the figures I sometimes quote up on here).

 

The latest being regards the overdraft a couple of days ago and before that I have provided a variety of figures e.g. all the figures relating to the initial construction loan and long term loans to the eventual loan notes which you were extremely confused with and continued to misinterpret (or maybe you've conveniently forgotten how you claimed the £8m increase in "loans" as an injection of capital in your analysis).

 

I'm sure I don't have the facts and figures for everything Saints related and I'm sure I have got some stuff wrong in the past and not understood others, there's nothing wrong with admitting that, after all we're all fallible.

 

However, with you it's no wonder you're so closely allied to Lowe as you would appear to share so many of the same personality traits. And if we're calling other people's judgement in to question, then maybe you need to look closer to home to see how your support for Lowe is just as poor (if not poorer) as he failed us miserably, not once, but on two occasions (then agan, like Lowe you probably htink it is everyone elses fault).

 

So to end, how about answering the question regarding the overdraft during Crouch's tenure, as you seem to have overlooked it (again)

Edited 7 April, 2009 by um pahars
GM is a very good sub editor / proof reader!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Guided Missile]

I'm sure I don't have the facts and figures for everything Saints related and I'm sure I have got some stuff wrong in the past and not understodd others, there's nothing wrong with admitting that, after all we're all infallible.

A Freudian slip, if ever I read one....

[Guided Missile]

Johnny i think you will find that there were no dividends paid post rlegation as there were no profits

Lowe took a 50% pay cut post relegation, as far as I remember.

[um pahars]

A Freudian slip, if ever I read one....

 

LMFAO

 

I think that actaully proves my point exactly (plus I can't spell viscous!!!!)

[Johnny Bognor]

Johnny i think you will find that there were no dividends paid post rlegation as there were no profits

 

 

It depends how you spin it. The dividend realting to the FY ending 2005 was paid on the 4th November 2005. Forgive me if I am wrong, but we were relegated in May 2005.

 

The annual report was signed off 1st September 2005, after relegation. Therefore I would suggest that the dividend WAS paid post relegation (albeit relating to the previous financial year) when it was known that revenues would be hit by relegation. Perhaps a more prudent chairman might not recommend such a dividend when it was known that the financials would get worse.

[um pahars]

It depends how you spin it. The dividend realting to the FY ending 2005 was paid on the 4th November 2005. Forgive me if I am wrong, but we were relegated in May 2005.

 

The annual report was signed off 1st September 2005, after relegation. Therefore I would suggest that the dividend WAS paid post relegation (albeit relating to the previous financial year) when it was known that revenues would be hit by relegation. Perhaps a more prudent chairman might not recommend such a dividend when it was known that the financials would get worse.

 

But it was a much reduced dividend, and I think 0.5p from memory which would be just under £150,000 so not massive, but at the same time given the ensuing massive reduction in income, it may not have been the best message to be sending out.

[Johnny Bognor]

Lowe took a 50% pay cut post relegation, as far as I remember.

 

Not sure, the only thing I can find is....

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/2359760/Lowe-shares-round-blame-for-Saints-demise.html

 

Lowe is believed to earn between £300,000 and £400,000 a year as a full-time employee and when asked if he would follow his players and take a pay cut, he said: "I think that's a matter for the board but I think it is fair to say that everybody will accept and shoulder their share of whatever pain we have to take. If that is a cut in my salary then that is something for the board to look at and discuss."

 

So rather than taking the pay cut, he left it to others to decide.

 

There's nothing like leading from the front.

[Wes Tender]

LMFAO

 

I think that actaully proves my point exactly (plus I can't spell viscous!!!!)

 

Viscous is the correct spelling. But what exactly are you talking about?

[corky morris]

Maybe you should ask UP that question first, here's what he's said about it:

 

 

 

 

 

Or maybe that's the difference between keeping on the good side of "the City" and simply spending money we don't have and then trying to scrape survival from a losing position? FWIW, I think the divvies/buybacks were correct in the early years as they would have affected credit ratings and loan rates on the stadium notes. Reward for the Cup Final and Europe also seems appropriate, after all the entire club was incentivised like that from execs to players. After that... well I can see the reasons for stopping them, and would not have minded if they had been stopped. But 0.5p divvie is £140k paid out from a company with £50m turnover, it's hardly going to change the club's fortune to spend 0.3% on that.

 

The problem with that though Jonah is that the city did not own the shares! IP was the largest institutional shareholder & was not mandated to look for divi's. I worked there mate at the time & Andy Crossley did not really want them.

Out of interest what was our credit rating? Did we indeed pay for one? I simply dont buy that argument at all. A vast majority of the number of shareholders were in the comets tail. Saints fans with a couple of quid in them. The majority were owned by Lowe & his cronies & I fundementally believe the money could have been better allocated to other areas of the club. ie players, coaches etc not dividends.

 

IMHO opinion we never had to pay the divi - ever.

 

Actually while I think about it Jonah. Why did we move from the main exchange to AIM? Is the information required the same in the accounts?

[jonah]

IP was the largest institutional shareholder & was not mandated to look for divi's. I worked there mate at the time & Andy Crossley did not really want them.

 

Well of course he didn't, he was a fund manager! Dividends are generally a pain in the arse for fund managers as they have to be reinvested as they drip in from various companies, that's why buybacks became more popular in the City - no extra work for fund managers but the "value" is absorbed into the existing shareholding. I'm sure Andy Crossley didn't object to dividends out of the goodness of his heart!!

 

As mentioned yesterday (?), that's why Oracle have traditionally done buybacks, they are obviously mostly held at an institutional level.

 

Out of interest what was our credit rating?

 

I have no idea. But I bet the following did:

 

MeesPierson NV

Deutsche Genossenschaftsbank AG

Sovereign Finance Plc

Norwich Union

 

Anybody who issues bonds or loan notes (like Saints did) has to have a credit rating - it's what all the credit crunch and mortgage-backed-security problems have been about (simplistically!). It's the area I work in [cue the comments] and Credit Default Swaps (CDS) and their derivatives are all to do with companies hedging the credit risk of issuers like SLH. You effectively need a credit rating to price the Credit instruments.

 

IMHO opinion we never had to pay the divi - ever.

 

Well like I say, I think you'll find it benefitted our financing arrangements. Beyond that, I can see the argument for why they should stop, especially once smaller shareholders moved in - I wonder why nobody moved to reject the dividends then?

 

Actually while I think about it Jonah. Why did we move from the main exchange to AIM? Is the information required the same in the accounts?

 

What information, re dividends? Yes as far as I know it's the same, the reason for moving was to lessen the administrative burden/costs - why did we have a full listing? It was required to help raise the finance for the stadium, see above!

[Draino76]

Well of course he didn't, he was a fund manager! Dividends are generally a pain in the arse for fund managers as they have to be reinvested as they drip in from various companies, that's why buybacks became more popular in the City - no extra work for fund managers but the "value" is absorbed into the existing shareholding.

 

As a fund manager, with a high IQ, I can assure you that dividends are not a pain in the arse.

[Oz]

exit2

 

your 'scoop' is old hat, Mark revealed that yesterday

[miserableoldgit]

exit2

 

your 'scoop' is old hat, Mark revealed that yesterday

Er... have you checked the date of Exit`s post?:confused:

[ottery st mary]

Thank god Im not Jill Dando as I have a stalker.

Sorry nick missed which was your school..Thought you were a Bellemoor boy?

 

Jill Dando...God bless her....Your more a Dandy by all accounts..An ancient Dandy. Our main man Rupert, on TV again today. Suggest he take Leon on and sort it out once and for all....The old cage fisticuffs would allow the winner to take the spoils.

[miserableoldgit]

Sorry nick missed which was your school..Thought you were a Bellemoor boy?

 

Jill Dando...God bless her....Your more a Dandy by all accounts..An ancient Dandy. Our main man Rupert, on TV again today. Suggest he take Leon on and sort it out once and for all....The old cage fisticuffs would allow the winner to take the spoils.

Now I quite like Leon Crouch and I quite like Rupert Lowe. But which is best? Only one way to find out..............

 

THAT would be worth watching!

[ottery st mary]

Now I quite like Leon Crouch and I quite like Rupert Lowe. But which is best? Only one way to find out..............

 

THAT would be worth watching!

 

We have all said this about Saints...Even when it was near the edge of the cliff...The big boys still couldn't come together for the good of Saints...

 

Some tried but someone + Michael never entertained the idea:(

That someone would lose to Leon ......Rupert is so damn paranoid about Leon and Lawrie.....With Michael, it is just his hang up with Leon.

 

 

Rupert, what have you done to this Football club of ours:mad:

[Legod Third Coming]

Not to mention also increased debt at at least two of those clubs. Not sure they are role models for us at all.

 

I doubt very much if you'll find a football club bought for cash...

 

Not Arry are you?

[corky morris]

Well of course he didn't, he was a fund manager! Dividends are generally a pain in the arse for fund managers as they have to be reinvested as they drip in from various companies, that's why buybacks became more popular in the City - no extra work for fund managers but the "value" is absorbed into the existing shareholding. I'm sure Andy Crossley didn't object to dividends out of the goodness of his heart!!

 

As mentioned yesterday (?), that's why Oracle have traditionally done buybacks, they are obviously mostly held at an institutional level.

 

 

 

I have no idea. But I bet the following did:

 

MeesPierson NV

Deutsche Genossenschaftsbank AG

Sovereign Finance Plc

Norwich Union

 

Anybody who issues bonds or loan notes (like Saints did) has to have a credit rating - it's what all the credit crunch and mortgage-backed-security problems have been about (simplistically!). It's the area I work in [cue the comments] and Credit Default Swaps (CDS) and their derivatives are all to do with companies hedging the credit risk of issuers like SLH. You effectively need a credit rating to price the Credit instruments.

 

 

 

Well like I say, I think you'll find it benefitted our financing arrangements. Beyond that, I can see the argument for why they should stop, especially once smaller shareholders moved in - I wonder why nobody moved to reject the dividends then?

 

 

 

What information, re dividends? Yes as far as I know it's the same, the reason for moving was to lessen the administrative burden/costs - why did we have a full listing? It was required to help raise the finance for the stadium, see above!

 

Jonah you are plain wrong mate - John Lewis do not have a credit rating & will not pay for one. Good fund managers do their own due diligence mate (that is where i work). The credit rating agencies are always behind the curve. That is why we have not owned any equity in the banks since late 2007 (except Standard)

Crossley had his holding having managed to get a hold of it pre-listing along with Paul Cramp & Threadneedle. Cramp stagged his - Crossley wished he had too!

Income funds love dividends - it is their purpose!

That money could have cut debts if RL did not want to spend it on the team. By debts I dont mean equity - I mean loans - paid them down even the bl00dy stadium.

The accounting procedures on AIM are a lot less than those of FTSE. If it was more relevant for us to be on AIM why did he not place us there in the first place?

Come on mate. I dont blame Lowe for everything, but his agenda has always been about self promotion & personal financial gain. If that linked to success on the pitch - great, but clearly the decisions he made relegated us from the PL. He was paid to make those decisions by the way & was rewarded for failure.

He came back & made further mistakes. I never wanted administration, but according to the people i spoke to prior to the situation we are in now the single biggest obstacle was having to pay for worthless equity. I say worthless because that is what it is now! Worthless.

Please stop defending him mate. I am not a loony who is anti public school or anything like that. Not interested in shooting, but each to their own. Whenever I have spoken to Lowe he has always been very condescending & actually FWIW he never comes accross as articulate or considered as you do.

I dont like the man. Why? For the way he has been the main contributor to the administration we are in now,

[jonah]

Jonah you are plain wrong mate - John Lewis do not have a credit rating & will not pay for one.

 

They are different, they are not listed. I admit the companies we have exposure to are billion-dollar ones with typically billion-dollar reference obligations, but as far as I was aware the same would be true down the chain. How can an SPV issue loan notes without a rating? I didn't think that was allowed?

 

Good fund managers do their own due diligence mate (that is where i work).

 

Agreed, they also hedge with CDS instruments right? And they have certain criteria in terms of what they can and can't hold in their funds (eg. for pensions), and those include credit ratings - which is why when AAA companies get downgraded it causes such a problem as some funds have to sell up.

 

The credit rating agencies are always behind the curve. That is why we have not owned any equity in the banks since late 2007 (except Standard)

 

Credit Rating agencies are usually nowhere near the curve are they? :-)

 

Income funds love dividends - it is their purpose!

 

Of course, but Crossley wasn't running an income fund was he? (question, not rhetorical! :-))

 

That money could have cut debts if RL did not want to spend it on the team. By debts I dont mean equity - I mean loans - paid them down even the bl00dy stadium.

The accounting procedures on AIM are a lot less than those of FTSE. If it was more relevant for us to be on AIM why did he not place us there in the first place?

 

You know why, Secure had a full listing to start with and that was more relevant when raising the finance - do you think it would have been as easy on AIM?

 

Please stop defending him mate. I am not a loony who is anti public school or anything like that. Not interested in shooting, but each to their own. Whenever I have spoken to Lowe he has always been very condescending & actually FWIW he never comes accross as articulate or considered as you do.

 

I don't defend him, at least I don't intend that to be the interpretation - I will defend the things I think he got right on the basis they were the right things to do at the time, nothing to do with it being *his* decision any more than it was Cowen's or anybody else's. FWIW, I've never spoken to the guy - maybe I'd think he was a condescending arse if I did, but on the other hand it means I'm just judging an action for what it is, not to be awkward or to try to support someone I've never even met.

[um pahars]

You know why, Secure had a full listing to start with and that was more relevant when raising the finance - do you think it would have been as easy on AIM?

 

On this issue and with reference to our credit rating, when I spoke to Dave Jones he didn't believe that our FTSE listing was a major factor in arranging the finances for St Mary's.

 

Many other Clubs managed to raise finances through and from a variety of sources and means, and the overrinding factor at that time was the money coming into the game, primarily through televison rights.

 

Around that time Football Club, with a variety of ownership models and shareholdings, were the darling of many instituitions (including the media giants) and a Listing was not a pre-requisite to access theses funds.

[Torres]

Around that time Football Club, with a variety of ownership models and shareholdings, were the darling of many instituitions (including the media giants) and a Listing was not a pre-requisite to access theses funds.

 

The only clubs that did get any kind investment from such institutions rather than private individuals/consortia that I can think of, off the very top of my head admittedly, were (owned by - hello Mr Mawhinney) PLC's.

 

There may be some who were not but I'd expect them to be in a minority, no?

[um pahars]

The only clubs that did get any kind investment from such institutions rather than private individuals/consortia that I can think of, off the very top of my head admittedly, were (owned by - hello Mr Mawhinney) PLC's.

 

There may be some who were not but I'd expect them to be in a minority, no?

 

You had better watch out what you mean by PLC's (as the pendants [sic] will be out in force). Would I be right in assuming you mean listed Clubs????

 

But if you look through Simon Inglis's book on Football Grounds and just go through the league tables you will see that many clubs were finding it fairly easy to secure loans, outside investment etc from a variety of sources and channeled into Clubs with a variety of ownership structures to get grounds built.

 

I would actually say that it is a minority of Clubs who play in older/non developed stadiums nowadays.

 

In the top flight - Everton, Fulham and Portsmuff. Off out to play cricket, but we can carry this list on I'm sure.

[Torres]

I still think you might struggle to find many clubs who managed to raise best part of £30m for a new ground who were not listed, but I may very well be wrong.

 

I'd also exempt the clubs "lucky" enough to have a sugar daddy owner perpared to invest his own money without looking for a return.

Edited 9 April, 2009 by Torres

[um pahars]

I still think you might struggle to find many clubs who managed to raise best part of £30m for a new ground who were not listed, but I may very well be wrong.

 

I'd also exempt the clubs "lucky" enough to have a sugar daddy owner perpared to invest his own money without looking for a return.

 

Here's a link for the listed Clubs:

 

http://www.footballeconomy.com/stats/stats_turnover_09.htm

 

and as you can see it is most definitely a minority of league clubs (and getting smaller).

 

Then put that against that all the Clubs who have developed or built their stadiums afresh and you have to ask yourself how they managed it if they're not on that link????

 

Of course some managed to find sugar daddies, nice councils or whatever but there are still a number of other clubs who raised funds without being listed. Two that spring to mind are Norwich and Ipswich.

 

Norwich for example managed to raise a £15m securitisation loan without a listing fairly recently.

 

Ipswich also managed to get £25m with a subsidiary of Norwich Union.

 

But I go back to when I spoke to David Jones (a year or so ago) who was most definitely at the sharp end in the late 90's when we were arranging the loans/funding etc and he was of the view that the full listing was not a pre requisite to access funds at that time.

[captainchris]

It's a shame that your posts while often correct manage to leave openings for you to be attacked.

 

The "fans are to blame" for not attending is a valid point - of course they deprived the club of needed revenues.

 

But the REASONS why they declined are always blurred on here - the boycott is the most often blamed.

 

But, the point that is always missed is that the majority of fans stayed away because they were FED UP paying out their money to watch garbage results. They became fed up of having the p8ss taken out of them at work after a televised game. The decisions taken with regard to the managerial structure resulted in us NOT WINNING FOOTBALL MATCHES and being an embarrassment on the television.

 

Chicken & Egg, self fulfilling

 

That is NOT a (should have kept NP type rant) it is merely observation, you pay peanuts you get monkeys, you build a Lapland in the New Forest you get a pikey rip off, you serve bad food in a restaurant you get no clients. we played bad football, the fans didn't go, we didn't earn enough revenue, the Bank said - whoa. Result

 

We're screwed unless rabbits get pulled out of hats

 

 

'Majority of fans' Where do you get this evidence from?

 

There was an expected crowd at the ground against Charlton - masssive fixture, special prices you would have expected this size of crowd. ( Just a few more than the last discounted game!) There is no evidence the 'stay aways' are significant at all. As usual with these niche groups of 'Saints fans' they think they are significant and representative - THEY ARE NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Mr Saints]

Anyone heard any rumours over the last 48 hours?

 

Apart from Indian billionaires with red and white ties.

[saint lard]

Anyone heard any rumours over the last 48 hours?

 

Apart from Indian billionaires with red and white ties.

 

Yep,loads.

 

HTH.

[DaintyDave]

So we have an alleged fund manager telling us that buybacks and dividends are the same (they are not, very different in their impact on Cap Table, tax treatment etc), then same person saying Fund Managers don't like dividends (news to me, guess I've been doing it wrong all these years), and lastly that you need to have a credit rating to get a loan or issue a bond - absolute ******, credit agencies initiate coverage at their own behest and you can absolutely get a loan without a rating from Fitch or Moodys etc. The small light of accuracy is that certain investors (Pension Funds, some Trusts) are limited in the level of rating they can invest in - many would not, for example, buy a non-investment grade bond) but that is as relevant as custard to this situation since we were not issuing Corporate Bonds, we were simply taking out a mortgage against the stadium and then an overdraft afterwards. There was no bond offering, so someone who read a couple of Wikipedia articles and tried to hash together an argument based on a premise of being a Fund Manager (get real) has misled people on here.

 

That all said, his basic point is right, Lowe did not need to take dividends, and given Dividends are supposed to basically be money the business will never need, I think history has clearly shown that certainly in the past few years, we have had cash/liquidity reserves that were far too low.

 

That's my 3rd post of the day, can't be arsed to work out this PayPal nonsense, but hopefully some factual standards will be adhered to going forwards and people will stop playing "City big shot" whilst spouting ****** (last bloke to do that in Southampton is presently doing a media tour that makes Tony Blair look positively camera-shy).

 

Another "make or break" game tomorrow, amazing how many must wins we haven't won and we're still in it!

[Channon's Sideburns]

Now I quite like Leon Crouch and I quite like Rupert Lowe. But which is best? Only one way to find out..............

 

THAT would be worth watching!

 

I suggested a Three Way Dance in StMarys, I'd pay to see Leon beat the hell out of Wilde and Lowe....nice way to draw a line under things and raise some cash!!

[Wes Tender]

'Majority of fans' Where do you get this evidence from?

 

There was an expected crowd at the ground against Charlton - masssive fixture, special prices you would have expected this size of crowd. ( Just a few more than the last discounted game!) There is no evidence the 'stay aways' are significant at all. As usual with these niche groups of 'Saints fans' they think they are significant and representative - THEY ARE NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

That really was a bad example citing Charlton in an attempt to prove your point. The whole point of Phil's post was pre the departure of Lowe and the Quisling not post.

 

Anyway, I believe that you have taken it all out of context. If you read what Phil said and then it was phrased "the majority of fans who stayed away did it because, blah,blah, then I don't think that there is much to dispute about his comments.

[Wes Tender]

So we have an alleged fund manager telling us that buybacks and dividends are the same (they are not, very different in their impact on Cap Table, tax treatment etc), then same person saying Fund Managers don't like dividends (news to me, guess I've been doing it wrong all these years), and lastly that you need to have a credit rating to get a loan or issue a bond - absolute ******, credit agencies initiate coverage at their own behest and you can absolutely get a loan without a rating from Fitch or Moodys etc. The small light of accuracy is that certain investors (Pension Funds, some Trusts) are limited in the level of rating they can invest in - many would not, for example, buy a non-investment grade bond) but that is as relevant as custard to this situation since we were not issuing Corporate Bonds, we were simply taking out a mortgage against the stadium and then an overdraft afterwards. There was no bond offering, so someone who read a couple of Wikipedia articles and tried to hash together an argument based on a premise of being a Fund Manager (get real) has misled people on here.

 

That all said, his basic point is right, Lowe did not need to take dividends, and given Dividends are supposed to basically be money the business will never need, I think history has clearly shown that certainly in the past few years, we have had cash/liquidity reserves that were far too low.

 

That's my 3rd post of the day, can't be arsed to work out this PayPal nonsense, but hopefully some factual standards will be adhered to going forwards and people will stop playing "City big shot" whilst spouting ****** (last bloke to do that in Southampton is presently doing a media tour that makes Tony Blair look positively camera-shy).

 

Another "make or break" game tomorrow, amazing how many must wins we haven't won and we're still in it!

 

Welcome to the forum, Dave. It's nice to have another contributor on here who has some professional knowlege of how the stock market works. Its a very intricate subject and most on here, me included, do not have enough know how to make a reasoned judgement on such matters. Good to hear opinions on the quality of response from those few who do claim some expertise.

[dubai_phil]

That really was a bad example citing Charlton in an attempt to prove your point. The whole point of Phil's post was pre the departure of Lowe and the Quisling not post.

 

Anyway, I believe that you have taken it all out of context. If you read what Phil said and then it was phrased "the majority of fans who stayed away did it because, blah,blah, then I don't think that there is much to dispute about his comments.

 

Thanks Wes

 

Seems that the forum has developed a new "arrgh word" alongside tyre kickers and ITK. Obviously majority now means you stop reading and assume it is a political post:rolleyes:

 

Chris - I was making the simple point that there are many reasons why people have not been going to SMS this season. And also following on a previous post that people could in fact correlate declines in attendance PRE Lowe/Quisiling/Crunch days when we were at the Dell

 

I certainly was NOT saying that the majority were staying away for politics = in fact I was "having a small dig" at NineteenCanteen because he has started to make some good and valid points but still unfortunately leaves room for others to attack him and turn good debates into arguments, simply because he doesn't quite finish his point off!

[trousers]

I was "having a small dig" at NineteenCanteen because he has started to make some good and valid points but still unfortunately leaves room for others to attack him and turn good debates into arguments, simply because he doesn't quite

 

Doesn't quite what?

 

(well, I thought I was being amusing and that's what matters at the end of the day)

[paris]

Who owns the big yacht tied up in Southamton this morning?

[Amesbury Saint]

Who owns the big yacht tied up in Southamton this morning?

 

US Government

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7984404.stm

[Gingeletiss]

Who owns the big yacht tied up in Southamton this morning?

 

What.....the big red one?????????..............that's a car boat mate;)

[dubai_phil]

Doesn't quite what?

 

(well, I thought I was being amusing and that's what matters at the end of the day)

 

No I think I got it right.....

 

:cool:

[JoeShmoe]

Who owns the big yacht tied up in Southamton this morning?

 

[sadoldgit]

Not the time me old mate - you may feel like gloating and you may have a point but today is not the time.

 

Quite, I doubt if Alpine has heard of the expression "Out of the frying pan into the fire" which is odd given what happened the last time Lowe went.

 

Let's wait and see what happens eh Alpine? Despite what you seem to believe, there are worse people out there than Rupert Lowe.

 

(PS, whatever happened to the mooted Paul Allen takeover Alpine?)

[jonah]

On this issue and with reference to our credit rating, when I spoke to Dave Jones he didn't believe that our FTSE listing was a major factor in arranging the finances for St Mary's.

 

Funny, cos he said the opposite in an article for that scintillating read "Accountancy Age":

 

Plc status gave the club access to funding to enable it to build its new stadium. Since listing we have raised £3m from shareholders and a £25m loan via a 25-year ticket securitisation issue - I'm sure the plc status helped in terms of negotiating that loan with the bondholders. The stock exchange listing is a perfectly sensible vehicle for football clubs, particularly those looking to raise finance for stadium development.

[Wes Tender]

Let's wait and see what happens eh Alpine? Despite what you seem to believe, there are worse people out there than Rupert Lowe.

 

 

Yes, of course there are worse people out there. It's just that none of them have been in control of our football club before. If somebody worse than Lowe should takeover we can have a good gripe, but failing that, let's be eternally grateful that we got shot of the worst chairman in the club's history so far, together with all that other dross that brought him here, those who allowed him to return again and others recently associated with us who have generally driven our club this low.