saintjay77 Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 No. I am simply asking why SLH failed to generate a profitable income separate to its football holding. It did though. That is why I think the FL deem the football club to be the reason behind the administration. Take the football club away and the stadium alone brings in enough revenue to service its own debt, The Health, Catering, Insurance and Radio and other little bits and bobs didnt make enough money to keep the football club afloat like they were probably supposed to but without the football club the PLC would have been opperating in proffit. Losing the radio and insurance on paper wont have done much to the books but it makes the holding company look like it is only there for the football club which makes it a catch 22 for the -10 points I believe. Cant really say if it would have made any difference and as the league make things up as they go along i doubt it would have. but the PLC was doing what it was supposed to be doing for a long time and only recently been more concentrated on the football club. I wonder what would happen if the football club now went into admin because it couldnt keep paying the wages or something? Would we then get another -10 or would the FL retract the original points and give us a seperate -10? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SW11_Saint Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 What does he mean "if he had the chance" - he had the chance TWICE! - and blew it royally both times. First time bringing in a bunch of corporate autocrats, and the second time he was happy to play Lowe's lap dog. The guy is a total and utter invertebrate, let's hope we've seen the last of him along with Lowe, Cowan & Co. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 It's funny because there are pro and anti Lowe but absolutely no pro Wilde. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 It's funny because there are pro and anti Lowe but absolutely no pro Wilde. LOL. TBH with Lowe and Crouch you can see both the good and the bad - and our standpoints just depends on how we rate or acknowledge these criteria - or in some cases how open we are to acknowledging merit where at first glance there appears to be none or hindsight/history/experience delivers a blow against it.... but with Wilde, he whipped up a frenzy, 'went Wilde' and did precisely feck all.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Uhm... a rather simlistic view? Sure the inevitability of losing 30 mil of TV revenue is a difficult oe for any business to cope with' date=' [b']especially for one that sees this compounded by an additional 30% reduction in revenue from fans[/b]... but not made any easier by spending 7 mil on a promotion or bust campaign... its more complex than we realise and its easy to blame without all the facts, but I dont think any of the protagonists in this are blameless - Yet are we to in need of someone to 'blame'? Is it not our own hurt pride that causes that? Made worse by the dire financial consequences. When we were relegated under LM, it was with a young inexperienced manager who did not have a football background to the extent of the competition - the difference was twofold, 1) the club stuck by him and let him learn his trade and build on the strong foundations, and 2) this was possible because there was no big financial loss as a result of relegation... Nice to see the fans still getting the blame for everything It's like Lowe never left Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 The only people dissuaded by the share price were people without 2 brass farthings to rub together. As evidenced by the fact nobody is buying the club even when it's dirt cheap in administration. In reality the share price was low and this actually prevented rights issues and placing from being more viable (not that Wilde & Co were ever going to do that as they'd have to invest their money as promised). You have evidence that nobody is going to buy the club? Pray, do share it with us; we really would like to be party to your information. As it stands at the moment, most of us were under the impression that there might be as many as three interested parties/consortia and that one of them had made an offer and the other two were serious about putting one together. But if you know otherwise, please do us all a favour and put us out of our misery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Nice to see the fans still getting the blame for everything It's like Lowe never left Eh? WTF? NOt sure how you read fan blame into this... it was and is a fact of life and football that EVERY club gets drop off when going down the leagues and wise management will budget for this - and dont forget that part of this figure is made up of ticket price reductions ..... so not sure what you point is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eelpie Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 It did though. That is why I think the FL deem the football club to be the reason behind the administration. Take the football club away and the stadium alone brings in enough revenue to service its own debt, The Health, Catering, Insurance and Radio and other little bits and bobs didnt make enough money to keep the football club afloat like they were probably supposed to but without the football club the PLC would have been opperating in proffit. Losing the radio and insurance on paper wont have done much to the books but it makes the holding company look like it is only there for the football club which makes it a catch 22 for the -10 points I believe. Cant really say if it would have made any difference and as the league make things up as they go along i doubt it would have. but the PLC was doing what it was supposed to be doing for a long time and only recently been more concentrated on the football club. I wonder what would happen if the football club now went into admin because it couldnt keep paying the wages or something? Would we then get another -10 or would the FL retract the original points and give us a seperate -10? But the stadium, catering, and radio station are all inextricably linked to the football operations. That leaves Insurance (and these mysterious 'bits and bobs' which Jonah describes as 'healthcare, property and probably several other dormant companies' -which all sound quite piece-meal - as possibly the only non-football related activities. My point is that Lowe seems to have had no incentive for SLH to develop a serious separate business identity. (Whatever happened to the retirements homes business for example? Was it hived off or did it fail?). All these might well have been detailed in past accounts, but I cannot find them. To me it seems quite clear that Lowe had no incentive to pursue further, serious non-football related businesses within the SLH structure. Why should he, when he was earning a packet paying himself from the football club. Had he done so, his claim that SLH was a separate holding/business might have carried further weight with the FL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 It's funny because there are pro and anti Lowe but absolutely no pro Wilde. Wilde is a unifying factor in that respect. Universally disliked by everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonah Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 But if you know otherwise, please do us all a favour and put us out of our misery. Ahh Wes, many's the time I'd liked to have put you out of your misery and done everyone a favour. Unfortunately that seems to be illegal although apparently for just £15.99 I can get you spayed and given a tick bath? I used the phrase "nobody is buying", not to imply that it will never happen, but to show that even now after all these weeks and 30-something expressions of interest, we are really no nearer to finding anyone interested in buying the club. Until someone signs a contract there is no sale, no matter how you choose to interpret anything. Funnily enough Henry Winter in the Telegraph talks about Mark Fry looking for £15-20m which he (Winter) considers to be "relatively cheap". Interesting because the denser sections of this board have tried to imply that share prices around 10-20p put off potential investors when that corresponds to a market cap of only £2.8-£5.6m, a quarter of the bargain basement price we're on offer for now. Indeed, Lowe's old comment about someone buying the club for £25m, which so many enjoyed misinterpreting, clearly ties in with both Winter's and Fry's view of the value of the club even in these desperate times. But back to my original point, it is patently clear that the share price was no obstacle whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint1977 Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Ahh Wes, many's the time I'd liked to have put you out of your misery and done everyone a favour. Unfortunately that seems to be illegal although apparently for just £15.99 I can get you spayed and given a tick bath? I used the phrase "nobody is buying", not to imply that it will never happen, but to show that even now after all these weeks and 30-something expressions of interest, we are really no nearer to finding anyone interested in buying the club. Until someone signs a contract there is no sale, no matter how you choose to interpret anything. Funnily enough Henry Winter in the Telegraph talks about Mark Fry looking for £15-20m which he (Winter) considers to be "relatively cheap". Interesting because the denser sections of this board have tried to imply that share prices around 10-20p put off potential investors when that corresponds to a market cap of only £2.8-£5.6m, a quarter of the bargain basement price we're on offer for now. Indeed, Lowe's old comment about someone buying the club for £25m, which so many enjoyed misinterpreting, clearly ties in with both Winter's and Fry's view of the value of the club even in these desperate times. But back to my original point, it is patently clear that the share price was no obstacle whatsoever. The other perspective would be that the new purchasers, whoever they may be, don't want to waste millions sorting out SLH and Askham's carnage. Just because people are very wealthy, it doesn't mean they don't want to nail down the best deal for their purchase of a once-proud club that is now -10 in League 1, even if that means leaving it to the 11th hour. Nailbiting for us as fans of course but this is probably how the scenario will play out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Ahh Wes, many's the time I'd liked to have put you out of your misery and done everyone a favour. Unfortunately that seems to be illegal although apparently for just £15.99 I can get you spayed and given a tick bath? I used the phrase "nobody is buying", not to imply that it will never happen, but to show that even now after all these weeks and 30-something expressions of interest, we are really no nearer to finding anyone interested in buying the club. Until someone signs a contract there is no sale, no matter how you choose to interpret anything. Funnily enough Henry Winter in the Telegraph talks about Mark Fry looking for £15-20m which he (Winter) considers to be "relatively cheap". Interesting because the denser sections of this board have tried to imply that share prices around 10-20p put off potential investors when that corresponds to a market cap of only £2.8-£5.6m, a quarter of the bargain basement price we're on offer for now. Indeed, Lowe's old comment about someone buying the club for £25m, which so many enjoyed misinterpreting, clearly ties in with both Winter's and Fry's view of the value of the club even in these desperate times. But back to my original point, it is patently clear that the share price was no obstacle whatsoever. Ah! So you cannot provide ANY evidence to support your assertion that nobody is buying the club. As usual, it is all bluster from you, this time tied up with insults. One always knows when somebody is floundering in a debate when they have to resort to insults and you haven't disappointed. If nobody buys the club in the next couple of weeks, then feel free to come on here and crow about how right you were. In the meantime, wiser people will keep their counsel and see what transpires. Such a pity for you at a time when you might have been a good source of advice about matters financial, that you have chosen to illustrate such shallowness and Clapham Saint appears on the scene seemingly to demonstrate a far greater depth of expertise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solentstars Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Having those views is one thing comrade' date=' feeling the need to comment whne not actually cotributing to the debate - but just to try and ridicule is what I find most juvenile ;-)[/quote'] agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legod Third Coming Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Ahh Wes, many's the time I'd liked to have put you out of your misery and done everyone a favour. Unfortunately that seems to be illegal although apparently for just £15.99 I can get you spayed and given a tick bath? I used the phrase "nobody is buying", not to imply that it will never happen, but to show that even now after all these weeks and 30-something expressions of interest, we are really no nearer to finding anyone interested in buying the club. Until someone signs a contract there is no sale, no matter how you choose to interpret anything. Funnily enough Henry Winter in the Telegraph talks about Mark Fry looking for £15-20m which he (Winter) considers to be "relatively cheap". Interesting because the denser sections of this board have tried to imply that share prices around 10-20p put off potential investors when that corresponds to a market cap of only £2.8-£5.6m, a quarter of the bargain basement price we're on offer for now. Indeed, Lowe's old comment about someone buying the club for £25m, which so many enjoyed misinterpreting, clearly ties in with both Winter's and Fry's view of the value of the club even in these desperate times. But back to my original point, it is patently clear that the share price was no obstacle whatsoever. But surely the £10-£15m Winter refers to means writing off all or a significant proportion of the debt?? Had you had to buy the shares, you would then also have to honour ALL the club's debt. So are you comparing like with like? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonah Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 The other perspective would be that the new purchasers, whoever they may be, don't want to waste millions sorting out SLH and Askham's carnage. Just because people are very wealthy, it doesn't mean they don't want to nail down the best deal for their purchase of a once-proud club that is now -10 in League 1, even if that means leaving it to the 11th hour. Nailbiting for us as fans of course but this is probably how the scenario will play out. I'm not sure how you see that working out though, they can't really buy SFC without the stadium and Jackson's Farm has a fairly fixed value to it. So that's 90% of the package anyway - closing down SLH and winding up a few minor companies is no effort. But if they wait too long surely all that will happen is Mark Fry will start a fire sale of our better players to fund his bill for another month and pay the staff their wages. ie. it will decimate the value of SFC as all the value will be extracted and no value retained. The only people who win from that situation are the administrators, staff don't care how they get paid so no difference to them, and for the buyers and fans it's a disaster. Given the wages deadilne in 15 days time, I'd say we need to have a buyer signing on the dotted line by next Monday at the latest otherwise we'll be little more than SFC by name whoever buys us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintbletch Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 ...Henry Winter in the Telegraph talks about Mark Fry looking for £15-20m which he (Winter) considers to be "relatively cheap". Interesting because the denser sections of this board have tried to imply that share prices around 10-20p put off potential investors when that corresponds to a market cap of only £2.8-£5.6m, a quarter of the bargain basement price we're on offer for now. Indeed, Lowe's old comment about someone buying the club for £25m, which so many enjoyed misinterpreting, clearly ties in with both Winter's and Fry's view of the value of the club even in these desperate times. But back to my original point, it is patently clear that the share price was no obstacle whatsoever. But aren't you comparing apples and oranges here? Surely Winter's £15-£20M includes buying the "club" and owning outright the asset of the stadium, whereas the market cap figures you cite would mean acquiring the Plc which in turn would still have the stadium debt of ~£20M+. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghq Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 I don't know if infact Mr Winter is correct in his valuation of the Saints set up. What I do know is that if I had 15-20 million lying around, I sure as hell wouldn't invest it in the absolute shambles that has been left of Southampton FC. I reckon that it will end up as a fire sale. Only an opinion or course Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 But the stadium, catering, and radio station are all inextricably linked to the football operations. That leaves Insurance (and these mysterious 'bits and bobs' which Jonah describes as 'healthcare, property and probably several other dormant companies' -which all sound quite piece-meal - as possibly the only non-football related activities. My point is that Lowe seems to have had no incentive for SLH to develop a serious separate business identity. (Whatever happened to the retirements homes business for example? Was it hived off or did it fail?). All these might well have been detailed in past accounts, but I cannot find them. To me it seems quite clear that Lowe had no incentive to pursue further, serious non-football related businesses within the SLH structure. Why should he, when he was earning a packet paying himself from the football club. Had he done so, his claim that SLH was a separate holding/business might have carried further weight with the FL. Huh? How are they inextricably linked? On matchdays perhaps but how is a concert at the stadium linked to the football club? Lowe for all his sins created the Radio Station and Insurance companys in a crazy idea that they would generate money for the PLC which would mean it would then in turn be able to support the football club while the pressence of a sugar daddy was yet to appear. The catering, Health care and Stadium companys are all using the saints brand name but are run from the PLC and not the football club and again are there to try and draw funds into ther PLC so it can pay the way of all its companys and so on. The bits and bobs could be anything or could be nothing but it wouldnt surprise me if there are other areas that the PLC has a hand in and the retirement company could well be one of them. I hate sounding like im defending the rosey faced tw at but was it not while he was gone that the radio station and insurance company were passed off elsewhere? so your accusation lowe not having the incentive to pursue non football buisness within the SLH model doesnt hold up. just because these other branches used the Saints brand name doesnt mean they were directly linked to the football club. And just like everyone else I thought the other branches of radio and insurance was potty and was glad to see the back of them. only now it seems possible that they held more weight in the PLC then we thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonah Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 But surely the £10-£15m Winter refers to means writing off all or a significant proportion of the debt?? Had you had to buy the shares, you would then also have to honour ALL the club's debt. So are you comparing like with like? Fair point, it's not really the same given the change on the debts so probably not a great comparison. It all depends on what can be negoatiated on those debts of course... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Mockles Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Can't Wilde just shut the f*ck up and evaporate as no-one really gives a flying f*ck what he thinks, or who he wants to blame! Strewth! Media loving idiots, the lot of 'em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 But surely the £10-£15m Winter refers to means writing off all or a significant proportion of the debt?? Had you had to buy the shares, you would then also have to honour ALL the club's debt. So are you comparing like with like? If the club is still available on sat morning I will buy the club for 10mil and put aside 45 mil for the next 4 years kitty. This is of course dependant on me winning the jackpot on the euro millions and knowing who i could get in as CEO cause i wouldnt have the 1st idea on how to run the club lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 If the club is still available on sat morning I will buy the club for 10mil and put aside 45 mil for the next 4 years kitty. This is of course dependant on me winning the jackpot on the euro millions and knowing who i could get in as CEO cause i wouldnt have the 1st idea on how to run the club lol Nor did Lowe and he managed to wing it for 10 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonah Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Surely Winter's £15-£20M includes buying the "club" and owning outright the asset of the stadium Do you know whether anyone stated the stadium would be owned outright as a result of this? I'm just wondering whether Norwich Union wouldn't be more interested in restructuring that debt rather than taking a significant recovery cut of say 50%? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Nor did Lowe and he managed to wing it for 10 years. im willing to risk that putting 45 mill in would get me a bit more fan support than lowe ever got Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mole Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 im willing to risk that putting 45 mill in would get me a bit more fan support than lowe ever got It's not the quantity, it's the quality, and Lowe had some prize girl guides in his brownie pack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintbletch Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Huh? How are they inextricably linked? On matchdays perhaps but how is a concert at the stadium linked to the football club? Lowe for all his sins created the Radio Station and Insurance companys in a crazy idea that they would generate money for the PLC which would mean it would then in turn be able to support the football club while the pressence of a sugar daddy was yet to appear. The catering, Health care and Stadium companys are all using the saints brand name but are run from the PLC and not the football club and again are there to try and draw funds into ther PLC so it can pay the way of all its companys and so on. The bits and bobs could be anything or could be nothing but it wouldnt surprise me if there are other areas that the PLC has a hand in and the retirement company could well be one of them. I hate sounding like im defending the rosey faced tw at but was it not while he was gone that the radio station and insurance company were passed off elsewhere? so your accusation lowe not having the incentive to pursue non football buisness within the SLH model doesnt hold up. just because these other branches used the Saints brand name doesnt mean they were directly linked to the football club. And just like everyone else I thought the other branches of radio and insurance was potty and was glad to see the back of them. only now it seems possible that they held more weight in the PLC then we thought. I'd agree that the other lines of business of the Plc are not inextricably linked but most have been disposed of. In fact I did make the point on another thread that you could make a case that our administration was down to not being able to host enough concerts at St. Mary's rather than the falling revenue from the football club. Not a very strong case though, and if I were Fry making this case in the appeal with the Football League, I'd keep my fingers tightly crossed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintbletch Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Do you know whether anyone stated the stadium would be owned outright as a result of this? I'm just wondering whether Norwich Union wouldn't be more interested in restructuring that debt rather than taking a significant recovery cut of say 50%? No, true that hasn't been explicitly stated, but surely there isn't enough intrinsic value in the club to justify talk of those figures otherwise. And the value of St. Mary's to Norwich Union outside of being a venue for a football team to rent once a fortnight and Bon Jovi to roll up to once every couple of years, seems minimal to me. Costs and potential planning restrictions limit the opportunity for redevelopment as does of course the current climate. For those reasons I would expect NU to be very realistic in their expectations of recovery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 It's not the quantity, it's the quality, and Lowe had some prize girl guides in his brownie pack. cant argue with that. cant say if i would do any better either and like i said i would have no idea on who i would get in as CEO to actually run the place. If I have the opertunity I guess I would be more like Roman at Chelsea. As in i provide the money and someone else does the work. I would want us to do well and play proper football. reckon it would be pure luck as to if i get the right peolpe in to make it happen though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRichmond Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 In today's Daily Echo apparently . . . http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/4344251.What_Wilde_would_do_differently_at_Saints/ Be very interesting to hear what he has to say! Worth buying an Echo today me thinks! He's just trying to pour oil on the water, as a precurser to Himself and Lowe coming back They had a Pact together, and there is unfinished Business. WHY did Lowe delay going into Admin , other than to ensure we would end up in Div1, and therefore be much much easier to pick up on the CHEAP Had we survived in the CCC, then we would have SERIOUSLY Big people hovering around to put REAL money into the Club, for a swift return to the Prem Forget all that now..... we are a no hope Div 1 outfit, no money, heavily in debt, and with a Bleak future ........ JUST the sort of Scenario that Lowe has been used to Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 I'd agree that the other lines of business of the Plc are not inextricably linked but most have been disposed of. In fact I did make the point on another thread that you could make a case that our administration was down to not being able to host enough concerts at St. Mary's rather than the falling revenue from the football club. Not a very strong case though, and if I were Fry making this case in the appeal with the Football League, I'd keep my fingers tightly crossed. yeah its kind of an ironic situation that we could actually do with still having the radio and insurance. To be fair if the powers that be knew the situation it could have been explained a little better as to why the PLC needs to have these other companys that we all thought were draining the club of its revenue. we just saw it as a stupid idea from rupes as he had no idea about football. which is the case obviously! I doubt that they realised the imprtance of the other parts at the time though or planned to be in this situation. all pie in the sky now though and like you say Fry's case is not water tight so who knows Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Eh? WTF? NOt sure how you read fan blame into this... it was and is a fact of life and football that EVERY club gets drop off when going down the leagues and wise management will budget for this - and dont forget that part of this figure is made up of ticket price reductions ..... so not sure what you point is? Then perhaps you could have written : especially for one that sees this compounded by an additional 30% reduction in revenue And not bothered with the 'from fans' bit at the end... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 I used the phrase "nobody is buying", not to imply that it will never happen, but to show that even now after all these weeks and 30-something expressions of interest, we are really no nearer to finding anyone interested in buying the club. Until someone signs a contract there is no sale, no matter how you choose to interpret anything. Funnily enough Henry Winter in the Telegraph talks about Mark Fry looking for £15-20m which he (Winter) considers to be "relatively cheap". Interesting because the denser sections of this board have tried to imply that share prices around 10-20p put off potential investors when that corresponds to a market cap of only £2.8-£5.6m, a quarter of the bargain basement price we're on offer for now. Indeed, Lowe's old comment about someone buying the club for £25m, which so many enjoyed misinterpreting, clearly ties in with both Winter's and Fry's view of the value of the club even in these desperate times. But back to my original point, it is patently clear that the share price was no obstacle whatsoever. Some thing can only be bought if it is actually for sale. Your Rupert made sure it wasn't... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonah Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Some thing can only be bought if it is actually for sale. Your Rupert made sure it wasn't... Yeah those listed companies are a real bugger to buy, it's not like there's an orderly regulated market place to buy your shares, house brokers and a well-defined formal process by which to make an offer for the company irrespective of the wishes of minor shareholders. Yep, you got me there good and proper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Yeah those listed companies are a real bugger to buy, it's not like there's an orderly regulated market place to buy your shares, house brokers and a well-defined formal process by which to make an offer for the company irrespective of the wishes of minor shareholders. Yep, you got me there good and proper. Don't you need 51% of the shares to force a takeover? How many shares were truly 'available'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bartosz Bialkowski Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Then perhaps you could have written : And not bothered with the 'from fans' bit at the end... Then he would need to recalculate the percentage. I took it to read a 30% reduction in income from fans. Meaning 30% aside from the obvious reduction in TV revenue, corporate sales and advertising. But hey, I'm not looking to pigeon hole him as a "luvvie" so maybe i'm not fit to comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Then he would need to recalculate the percentage. I took it to read a 30% reduction in income from fans. Meaning 30% aside from the obvious reduction in TV revenue, corporate sales and advertising. But hey, I'm not looking to pigeon hole him as a "luvvie" so maybe i'm not fit to comment. Why? He'd already quoted the amount that would be lost from the TV deal. Anyone with half a brain can make an educated guess where the further 30% reduction in revenue would come from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Don't you need 51% of the shares to force a takeover? How many shares were truly 'available'? Isnt it allot less than that before you have to make your intentions known? I thought thats why the main 3 never really wanted to increase what they had as that would have meant they were close to having to go for the whole lot or something? Still I see your point in that the available shares would not have been enough to put a new person in a position to force the hand of anyone. But I think what Jonah was saying was that as a public company anyone that wanted to put an offer in had plenty of ways to do it and wouldnt need Rupes go ahead to do so. If I had the money and put an offer in that was blocked I would have made it public and as long as the fans thought i was worth backing then i doubt it would be long before the blockage would have been flushed. dont think anyone really came forward in any way though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Why? He'd already quoted the amount that would be lost from the TV deal. Anyone with half a brain can make an educated guess where the further 30% reduction in revenue would come from. drop in quality of the award winning catering? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonah Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Don't you need 51% of the shares to force a takeover? How many shares were truly 'available'? Well as Wilde capably demonstrated it was very easy to get 30% which is enough to be required to make a formal offer. None of which precludes *anyone* from choosing to make a formal offer at any time - the existing board simply present the offer together with their recommendation... unless, like in the case of SISU, they can ascertain pdq that a majority don't want it and hence reject it without the costs of formalities. It would be interesting to know what it was that caused them all to reject it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Well as Wilde capably demonstrated it was very easy to get 30% which is enough to be required to make a formal offer. None of which precludes *anyone* from choosing to make a formal offer at any time - the existing board simply present the offer together with their recommendation... unless, like in the case of SISU, they can ascertain pdq that a majority don't want it and hence reject it without the costs of formalities. It would be interesting to know what it was that caused them all to reject it. a) SISU deal was to benifit the execs and not the club? b) SISU deal wouldnt have benifited the shareholders? c) SISU were SISSY's and only showed interest in us to twist the arm of Cov? take your pick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Can't Wilde just shut the f*ck up and evaporate as no-one really gives a flying f*ck what he thinks, or who he wants to blame! Strewth! Media loving idiots, the lot of 'em. I agree, I too wish he would shut up - BUT if we are all 'desperately waiting' for 'revelations' from Pearson or others about 'what went on' then surely its only right that ALL factions have their say and pesent their side? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eelpie Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Huh? How are they inextricably linked? On matchdays perhaps but how is a concert at the stadium linked to the football club? Lowe for all his sins created the Radio Station and Insurance companys in a crazy idea that they would generate money for the PLC which would mean it would then in turn be able to support the football club while the pressence of a sugar daddy was yet to appear. The catering, Health care and Stadium companys are all using the saints brand name but are run from the PLC and not the football club and again are there to try and draw funds into ther PLC so it can pay the way of all its companys and so on. The bits and bobs could be anything or could be nothing but it wouldnt surprise me if there are other areas that the PLC has a hand in and the retirement company could well be one of them. I hate sounding like im defending the rosey faced tw at but was it not while he was gone that the radio station and insurance company were passed off elsewhere? so your accusation lowe not having the incentive to pursue non football buisness within the SLH model doesnt hold up. just because these other branches used the Saints brand name doesnt mean they were directly linked to the football club. And just like everyone else I thought the other branches of radio and insurance was potty and was glad to see the back of them. only now it seems possible that they held more weight in the PLC then we thought. Try telling that to the Football League Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintjay77 Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Try telling that to the Football League think thats where the ground gets shakey. they came out and said the holding company can go into admin and it wouldnt effect the club cause they are seperate then on the back of grumbles changed their stance. the independant finacial review thingy was tasked with finding info out based on certain circumstances and when they tried to look at stuff that was outside the request they were told to get stuffed. the league came up with the decission under pressure from other clubs and if we do get to appeal somehow I think we have a good chance of rolling them over. that said we must be in a weeker position without the extra companies of the station and insurance so there is possibly enough there for them to win? im more interested in hearing about a new buyer and what they have to say than what wilde lowe and crouch have to say now though TBH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Well as Wilde capably demonstrated it was very easy to get 30% which is enough to be required to make a formal offer. None of which precludes *anyone* from choosing to make a formal offer at any time - the existing board simply present the offer together with their recommendation... unless, like in the case of SISU, they can ascertain pdq that a majority don't want it and hence reject it without the costs of formalities. It would be interesting to know what it was that caused them all to reject it. I've highlighted the pertinent word.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonah Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 I've highlighted the pertinent word.... If only I could highlight a pertinent piece in your posts this would all be so much easier... So now you're basically saying with Lowe in charge for 10 years it was actually easy to acquire a large shareholding and buy out the club (that should draw some good replies), but that once Wilde bought 15% it became impossible?! Bearing in mind most of that 15% came straight from Paul Thompson, there was bugger all difference in terms of stock available and the other 85% was still there. But all of this conveniently ignores the point that you don't need to own a single share to make a formal bid - as shown by SISU - and hence it's all a load of nonsense propagated by the anti-Lowe brigade over a long period of time to try to make people believe that lack of investment was down to Lowe being in charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bartosz Bialkowski Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 If only I could highlight a pertinent piece in your posts this would all be so much easier... So now you're basically saying with Lowe in charge for 10 years it was actually easy to acquire a large shareholding and buy out the club (that should draw some good replies), but that once Wilde bought 15% it became impossible?! Bearing in mind most of that 15% came straight from Paul Thompson, there was bugger all difference in terms of stock available and the other 85% was still there. But all of this conveniently ignores the point that you don't need to own a single share to make a formal bid - as shown by SISU - and hence it's all a load of nonsense propagated by the anti-Lowe brigade over a long period of time to try to make people believe that lack of investment was down to Lowe being in charge. It was! They didn't like the fact he shot ducks and spoke posh like Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex Lion Tamer Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 So does anyone know what he has said yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 If only I could highlight a pertinent piece in your posts this would all be so much easier... So now you're basically saying with Lowe in charge for 10 years it was actually easy to acquire a large shareholding and buy out the club (that should draw some good replies), but that once Wilde bought 15% it became impossible?! Bearing in mind most of that 15% came straight from Paul Thompson, there was bugger all difference in terms of stock available and the other 85% was still there. But all of this conveniently ignores the point that you don't need to own a single share to make a formal bid - as shown by SISU - and hence it's all a load of nonsense propagated by the anti-Lowe brigade over a long period of time to try to make people believe that lack of investment was down to Lowe being in charge. I'm sure you could find a pertinent point if you looked hard enough and maybe even took off your blinkers. No, I'm not saying it was easier to acquire shares with Lowe in charge for 10 years. I'm saying it was easier until Wilde bought his shares, and then the shop closed, unless of course you can show me that there were significant shares available to buy after that point.... And yes, anyone can make an offer - look at Marc Jackson and Bournemouth FFS - but at the same time anyone can p155 into the wind if they want to, but both events will probably have the same result!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SW11_Saint Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 No, what he stated as fact was that they were separate legal entities - which they are. Of course Crouch Potato then stuck his foot in it on Five Live by claiming Mystic Meg abilities over our corporate structure 8 years before the points penalties were introduced, but the fact remains that holding company controlled a stadium company, football company, catering, radio, insurance, healthcare, property and probably several other dormant companies. So to turn your question back around, it's you who hasn't explained what the hell you are talking about... Separate legal entities they may be, but that doesn't mean diddly-squate to the Football League, and even the most rabid among us must admit that the Plc and the FC are clearly closely tied economically. However Lowe & Co. have tried to dress it up, smokescreen etc. it was never going to wash with the FL... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpturner Posted 6 May, 2009 Share Posted 6 May, 2009 Separate legal entities they may be, but that doesn't mean diddly-squate to the Football League, and even the most rabid among us must admit that the Plc and the FC are clearly closely tied economically. However Lowe & Co. have tried to dress it up, smokescreen etc. it was never going to wash with the FL...I think most people agree that in the spirit of the FL rules we should be deducted 10 points. However, the rules present a loophole which SFC attempted to exploit, and the FL have now stretched the remit of the rule to cover the circumstances. Loopholes need to be closed, but you can't close them and then retrospectively impose them on the people who benefitted from them, any more than the Inland Revenue can close tax avoidence loopholes and retrospectively demand money from those who took advantage. IMHO the FL have dropped a clanger....but I doubt they care what I think 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