Saint_DB

Ok...crash course in company law: We can be sure the co issued a dividend on 1 July 2013. You can only issue a dividend out of distributable profits, meaning even cash-rich companies can't issue dividends where they don't have enough profits. To create profits to distribute to shareholders (e.g. Liebherrs) by dividend, you reduce capital (I.e. create a reserve of money from shares being cancelled - this doesn't affect equity shareholders as it is done in proportion to how much of the shares they hold. A 20% shareholder will still have 20% of the remaining shares). To reduce capital you either need a court order (annoying to apply for) or a statement of solvency, which is just the directors saying the co isn't going to go insolvent any time soon (the preferred route as it is much less hassle). The reduction takes place, the reserve money goes into a "share premium account" which is then paid out as a dividend. That accounts for everything on 1 July. Nothing to worry about. Re the loan, companies take loans for all sorts of reasons. The main one is normally that interest payments on loans are tax deductible (and dividends come out of taxed income, so you are paying more to repay an equity lender the same "interest"/dividend). Having a structure using a tax haven (like the BVI) reduces tax even further. That's not to say there's anything particularly dodgy about it. CFOs would just say that is smart accounting. As a business, the only thing that would make you choose to pay higher taxes is reputational, to show that you are fulfilling some kind of corporate responsibility. Otherwise, why pay more? Re the charge, what kind of lender would let you have millions of pounds without taking security? It is no big deal, I come across it every day. Secured lenders take priority to unsecured lenders and equity shareholders on insolvency. So, the club runs out of cash and can't pay its bills, the assets are sold and the bank gets its money back first. This is perhaps why the move from all-equity lending to getting debt again may have caused a rift with the liebherrs as their investment just got more risky. Satisfying a charge only to replace it with a new one (as has happened here) is normally an indicator of refinancing (like remortgaging home, you pay off the first lender's mortgage when you take out the next one). The most likely security in the charge document is a fixed charge over the assets (stadium, training ground, etc - stuff that is not going anywhere) and a floating charge over whatever is in the club's bank account from time to time (as the cash in there is changing all the time so you can't have fixed security). I haven't looked at any of the documents, but every entry on the companies house register looks perfectly normal and doesn't give me any concerns.

Will he bring the Khaleesi with him?

James McCarthy has got Liverpool £15m signing written all over him

Wasn't there some palava about corporate seats being taken up and not used earlier in the season? That could factor in to it as well.

So if Gazzaniga was the keeper Adkins wanted purely as a Bart replacement, then KD as number 1 makes a few mistakes. Gazza becomes number 1 but NC is unhappy about this because he told NA that a top class keeper was needed. Gazza plays a few games and makes a few mistakes. NC signs Boruc, a big name keeper in an "I told you so" fashion. NA tries Boruc out, doesnt play very well and bottle incident occurs. NA picks Gazzaniga for next few games and supports Gazzaniga in the press despite more mistakes in a kind of "I told you so" fashion. Gazzaniga makes more mistakes and picks up an "injury", NA eventually has to play Boruc, who has improved a lot recently, potentially vindicating NC's position. Does that make sense? If it played out like that it explains a lot in terms of stubbornness and friction, but it's pure speculation on my part.

I am interested, can you please give me a ring on 07748323853. Thanks

Quite a few of us in this boat then... I called the Saints ticket office earlier and they said that Chelsea have told Saints they can't use the Stamford Bridge box office for sales/collections. I said that was strange and they said that's all they knew. Incidentally I also called the coach company to ask if they could collect tickets from St Mary's and bring them on the coach but they said they have never done that before. Why is it so difficult, just take my money!!!

If it's not selling well then you'd think the ticket office would take the remainder up to Stamford Bridge and see what they can seel there? NOPE. Found out today that I could get time off tomorrow night, called them up today and apparently they're not taking any up and I would have to collect from St Mary's, even though I live in London. 1 ticket needed, can collect from ground

TBF I was in line as well and was sure the linesman got it right until I read this thread. Replays will be interesting. Great to see that Shaw is the real deal. Him and Cork have really helped us turn it around. Fonte MoM for me, followed by Ramirez and Lallana. Before the game I was thinking Gazzaniga isn't the sort of keeper that can win you points sometimes unlike Krul. Good to see I was wrong!

Definitely took a knock early in the second half after a tackle. Stayed down for a few seconds, got up gingerly, hobbled about a bit and seemed to try and get on with it. I think Adkins was being cautious while at the same time made a good tactical decision.

I believe he had a big fall-out with the national team management and declared himself unavailable for selection.

On the OS now. Good to hear we're not expecting such a scramble, was hoping to wait until the weekend to buy tickets for this. http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/news/article/everton-allocation-confirmed-363566.aspx

Same as me, I got mine in the end. The only explanation I can think of is that multiple accounts are trying to add the same seats to basket and only one can do it.

If it is sold out, one would think the 'Buy now' button should say 'Sold out' then rather than stringing everyone along...