buctootim

Are posters here on some kind of performance related fee for everytime they type 'firesale' and 'asset stripping'. If so wasnt it a contractual obligation that you had to look it up so you could know what it means and use it in context? hint: this isnt the right context

Well not the clear debt part, but yes we'll continue to lose players every year if we continue to do well, although not as many in one go.

Clear debt, lose players who have become disaffected, start afresh is my best guess.

Its hard to draw any meaningful conclusions from the accounts of a private company without the benefit of a detailed annual report explaining the context. Thats particularly true of a football club where the valuation of assets / liabilities is almost entirely subjective - how do you value two players signed for £10m on three year contracts one of whom has been outstanding but is 30 years old and the other has been crap, has a possible crocked knee but it only 22? Is one an asset and the other a nett liability? What if one gets a doubling in wages if hes called up for England? A PWC auditor sure as hell wont know. Multiply those variables by 25 odd first teamers and 40 or so academy and youth players and the margin for making the figures show what you want them to show is huge. For what its worth I think the board want to clean up the finances, accounting for them in the year they happened and clearing all loans, debt and staged liabilities like the Osvalso fee and Staplewood. As such I reckon we made a big loss for the year just ended 30th June, maybe £35m. The sales are to pay off all those liabilities and start afresh with a clean sheet.

They're in a little league with little money and low wages. We're in a big league with loads of money and massive wages. Same result. Losing 22 players is worse than losing 5 whichever way you slice it.

22 out and 1 in so far. Should put it in perspective for some (but won't).

"I have to tell you now that no such undertaking has been received, and that consequently this country is at war with Germany" seemed to change quite a lot. .

No it means we're much more likely to get a buyer when loaded up with debt, but that buyer will more likely be a potless chancer. Selling a club debt free is much harder because you need someone with big assets and a great credit rating who wants to turn real money into football never never money.

Those accounts covered a period between 13 months and 25 months ago. A lot has happened and been spent since then, including £37.5m of transfers in and £30m on Staplewood.

Seems to me the older fans are calmer and more phlegmatic and more of the younger ones are panicked and outraged. Older, calm and phlegmatic is great for loyal support, but the younger emotional ones who make most of the atmosphere are more likely to strop off in a huff.

Thats nonsense, clubs with debt are more attractive because a) they're cheaper b) It gives access to credit lines to purchasers who wouldnt otherwise be able to open them. There are thousands of people who will take on a £150m club with £160m debts for £1 in the hope of pulling a fast one or getting lucky. Not so many can stump up £150m to buy a debt free club outright.

All the seven teams above us scored more, some almost twice as many.

Sure Lambert's lack of mobility was a big part of it, but not that alone.

We weren't weak in defence or midfield, it was upfront we were lacking.

Move awaaay from the crack pipe. Did you not notice all those games last year where we lacked cutting edge or the ability to put a strong shot on target?

Thats just effing bananas. It wasnt good enough for us and we came 26 points behind them.

Most people who have got £200m to spend tend to notice if you remove £100m of value from their intended purchase. They do silly awkward things like lowering their offer accordingly.

Agree. Also the structure is unbalanced. Personally I'd downgrade GR to Director of Operations (ie head of non football side), have Les Reed on the same level and appoint an experienced football business man as CEO or Executive Director to work 2/3 days pw above both of them.

This. I think he blew the whistle and got rewarded.

Its not. Its perfectly possible for the Financial Director to keep good books and systems, produce accurate, relevant information but have a knob of an Execurive Chairman disregard advice and warnings and burn cash anyway.

Ive no idea if Les Reed is an arse or not - but given the source is banned from Saints and doesnt like Sibley or any of the rest of media team, maybe the personality flaws are with him?

Why not do a dirty protest in your room.

Ive got no idea if you were bull****ting or not, and nor will anybody else unless you say what you've been alluding to for weeks. If it was me Id say it and take the flak / kudos or shut up. I dont see the point of saying you have damaging information, taking the flak for that and then not delivering on what you promised.

You got Tourette's Frank? You've already said you've got no idea whats going on, but you dont let that influence your behaviour. Perhaps you're unable to control it? An opinion is one thing. Random venting is another.

Wheres that explanatory, boat rocking post you've been talking about?