The9 Posted 29 May, 2009 Share Posted 29 May, 2009 ....other than the fact that they fell over themselves to lend the money, acting like bloody salesmen. That doesn't excuse the stupidity of taking it when you cannot pay it back though. Wouldn't the alternative have been all this happening a few years earlier ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpturner Posted 29 May, 2009 Share Posted 29 May, 2009 Wouldn't the alternative have been all this happening a few years earlier ?No - the money that has finally crippled SFC was borrowed to fund Burley's promotion push (after Lowe had been booted out), and it was borrowed based on the assumption that Wilde and co were bringing in new investment. We failed to get promotion - the rest is history. Now, if we hadn't borrowed the money and paid unsustainable wages to the new players we may have been relegated instead of being in the play-offs - so if that is what you mean then yes it could have happened earlier. It is more likely our decline to this position would have been slower (albeit inevitable) if we had not borrowed that money from Barclays IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 29 May, 2009 Share Posted 29 May, 2009 (edited) However if you are comfortable with Barclays PR machine paying out millions to football on the one hand, and not allowing staff too be paid at SMS for the wont of a few thousand on the other thats your politics. Sorry, its not "my politics". It's your dopey logic pulling to completely seperate elements: 1) Barclays Marketing Budget and 2) the same bank dealing with a business in administration. There is no relationship between the two things and you making out there is one is just lunacy. More relevant would be two elements that are related ie a) how Barclays deals with businesses in administration and b) how Barclays deals with Southampton Leisure Holdings. Sorry, these two things should be the same and you saying SLH should get preferential treatment is a slap in the face to all the ordinary people out there working for companies that don't happen to be football clubs. That's my politics - it's about being fair. Edited 29 May, 2009 by CB Fry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 29 May, 2009 Share Posted 29 May, 2009 There are thousends of people being repossessed all over the Country by all the major banks.There are thousends of business' going into admin all over the Country. Why should SLH be treated differently than any of them? Particulary when you consider what our turnover was 4 years ago. As painful as the present situation, I fail to see what Barclays have done wrong. Since 1997 we have been constantly told that we're a business, Barclays treated us as such, to then demend special treatment is wrong. IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyFartPants Posted 29 May, 2009 Share Posted 29 May, 2009 ....other than the fact that they fell over themselves to lend the money, acting like bloody salesmen. That doesn't excuse the stupidity of taking it when you cannot pay it back though. The bank cannot be expected to work out with 100% accuracy the outcome of every business plan put before them. For this reason contracts are drawn up with rules. We broke the rules. Case closed M'lud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ooohTerryHurlock Posted 29 May, 2009 Share Posted 29 May, 2009 you're a slow learner, but welcome aboard at last Unity between Jelly man and ooohmugpunter!!!! This must be a new beginning..... a honeymoon period!!!! So which way is the boat pointing now? towards calm tropical seas I hope...... What else can we find to agree on:confused: still think we should have bought the stadium though!....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordswoodsaints Posted 29 May, 2009 Share Posted 29 May, 2009 barclays are chuff monkeys.........ive got my business account with them,they promise you the world but only deliver margate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docker-p Posted 29 May, 2009 Author Share Posted 29 May, 2009 Sorry, its not "my politics". It's your dopey logic pulling to completely seperate elements: 1) Barclays Marketing Budget and 2) the same bank dealing with a business in administration. There is no relationship between the two things and you making out there is one is just lunacy. More relevant would be two elements that are related ie a) how Barclays deals with businesses in administration and b) how Barclays deals with Southampton Leisure Holdings. Sorry, these two things should be the same and you saying SLH should get preferential treatment is a slap in the face to all the ordinary people out there working for companies that don't happen to be football clubs. That's my politics - it's about being fair. You're changing your argument petal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 29 May, 2009 Share Posted 29 May, 2009 Barclays removed Lowe. We now have a new owner. I like Barclays Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 29 May, 2009 Share Posted 29 May, 2009 I doubt you would have been crowing yesterday Robbie Let's not count our proverbial chickens just yet. 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