trousers

Would be interesting to compare SLH's graph with that of the AIM 'Leisure' sector as a whole.

Southampton dodge administration (for now) but dark clouds hover over football Posted By: Sam Green at Mar 26, 2009 at 21:38:54 [General] Great to see that the conspiracy theories did not become reality when Thursday's 5pm deadline passed without Southampton opting to go into administration in order to get the 10-point penalty out of the way before next season. Under Football League rules, any clubs who go into administration between now and end of the season and get relegated, will have their 10-point deduction applied at the start of next term. If they finish above the relegation line, 10 points will be deducted immediately and they may well go down. The rule was brought in to prevent the type of scams pulled by Leeds, who went into administration and accepted their 10-point deduction after realising they were doomed to demotion, thus starting the new season with a clean slate. Then there was Boston, who made a move of such shameless audacity that it would cause a banker to blush - they went into a Company Voluntary Agreement at half-time on the final day of the season as they were losing at Wrexham and knew the drop was inevitable. It had been suggested that Southampton, perhaps under pressure from their creditors or instruction from their bankers, might throw in the towel on this season, take the points hit, and start next season in a better financial position and on a level playing field. It can only be good news that they will be fighting for their survival on the field of sport, not in boardrooms or courts. Not that you will find many Saints fans jumping for joy at the moment. Many believe the club cannot progress under the present ownership and that administration at some point, plus relegation this season - and maybe even next - are inevitable. But the reality is that they are just two points below the dreaded dotted line, with a game in hand and more than a month of the season to play. And their striker, David McGoldrick, displayed a lovely show of confidence in the face of adversity this week, declaring that Southampton were "in the driving seat". Such youthful exuberance could prove crucial if the battered St Mary's bandwagon is not going to career off into oblivion. And Southampton are not the only club who should be shuddering. Far from it. League chairman Lord Mawhinney has warned that the effects of the recession are not yet being felt by clubs, because their current commercial deals were negotiated in the good times. Meanwhile, Wigan chairman Dave Whelan has predicted that a Premier League club will go under. So at least Southampton are not alone. And maybe they can take some comfort from the financial difficulties, although more modest, that are bubbling under at Portsmouth. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/samgreen/blog/2009/03/26/southampton_dodge_administration_for_now_but_dark_clouds_hover_over_football (Thanks to BGF for spotting this one)

Worth a thread on its own IMO. One sec....

Although, to be fair, there aren't many financial services companies making a mint at the moment

What, even though he picked the wrong expensive striker to keep....?

By the way, WH Ireland shares have slumped from 72.5p on Tuesday to 59p today. Their preliminary results were published this week - Loss before tax of £4.02m (2007: profit of £3.93m) http://www.londonstockexchange.com/LSECWS/IFSPages/MarketNewsPopup.aspx?id=2119957&source=RNS

Share price down 7.14% today. 25,000 shares traded at 12p. Bid price = 11p; Offer price = 15p Single figure here we come?

Ah....so that's why we see batches of 5 figure share trades every now and then.... Or maybe not....

.

Any news?

How did the golf go?

And here was me thinking that internet message boards and conjecture went hand in hand....

Not forgetting this one from November of course.... "I think you will find when we sell Spiderman / Lalana / Surman in January, that will free up the funds to pay the wages of one of our on loan strikers, who we currently cannot afford." http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?p=102572#post102572 Not that you're being stalked or anything like that....

http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/search/?mode=movenav&page_id=3261 Saints Academy have wrapped up a deal for Notts County's talented young striker David McGoldrick. Subject to a medical, the 16 year old front man will sign for Saints as a first year scholar tomorrow. McGoldrick made his first team debut for County last season in a 2-1 defeat against Swindon but after rejecting a scholarship with the Magpies his services were coveted by several Premiership clubs. The teenage forward had trials with Blackburn, Fulham and Everton during pre-season but despite interest from all those clubs McGoldrick chose to link up with former strike partner Leon Best on the south coast. Saints will have to pay the Nottinghamshire outfit compensation for the training and education he received while he was at County with a fee to be decided between the two clubs. Academy manager Huw Jennings commented: "We are delighted to be signing a young player with a lot of potential. "David is a striker who can play with his back to goal and links the play well. He is a natural second striker and could provide an excellent partner for the likes of Nathan Dyer in our youth teams."

Was it in the hairdressers? http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?p=71453#post71453

Yes....nobody thought of that HTH

http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=11410

Why is "staying up" the key per se? I see it as a factor but not necessarily the pivotal one IMHO. If it was "key" then why would the bank and/or noteholder make it as difficult as possible to secure survival by whipping the carpet (aka 'the more expensive players') from under our feet? Try telling a juggler not to drop his balls whilst poking him from behind.... My interpretation of the "going concern" footnote on last year's financial report (copy below for reference) is that the 'key' is "complying with the terms of the new overdraft facility being discussed" which, perversely, might be easier to comply with by cutting our cloth so thinly that we are unable to compete in a league where the very revenues the banks require are more achievable. (i.e. relegation could actually = survival because, by definition, we have to punch above our financial weight to survive in this league, an overspending which the banks have told us they won't tollerate?) As a refresher, here's Lowe's statement on our "going concern" credentials (from Nov 2008 ): http://www.advfn.com/news_Annual-Report-and-Accounts_29472833.html "Going concern The Directors have prepared cash flow forecasts for the period to 30 November 2009 which include the sales of various assets, further cost reductions and deferrals, and rely on the support of the bank and loan note holder. The Group currently manages its working capital through a bank overdraft facility and in addition has issued long term loan notes to finance the development and construction of the St Mary's Stadium. Whilst the Group presently has an overdraft facility, for £4.5m, the Board remain in negotiations with Barclays Bank, who are seeking a progressive reduction in their position, and the loan note holder. These negotiations involve the Group having to achieve further significant asset sales in 2009, which the Board are confident they can achieve, but there can be no certainty at this time. Furthermore the Group are seeking to reschedule the payment of certain current liabilities, and the Board are confident that these will be successfully negotiated. In the event that the Group do not comply with the terms of the new overdraft facility being discussed and the agreement still to be reached with the loan note holder such that the facilities would be withdrawn, alternative financing would need to be found for the Group to continue as a going concern. The Directors would then consider seeking additional opportunities for finance from internal sources. The Board continues to explore avenues for external funding. Based on the above, the Board consider it appropriate to prepare the accounts on a going concern basis. The above matters indicate the existence of a material uncertainty which may cast material doubt over the Group's ability to continue as a going concern. The accounts do not include any adjustments that would result if the Group is unable to continue as a going concern. The auditors have reported on those accounts; their report was unqualified and did not contain statements under Section 237 (2) or (3) of the Companies Act 1985. However, it did contain an emphasis of matter paragraph which drew attention to the material uncertainties surrounding the going concern assumptions as set out above."

Nice to hear straight talk but a tad presumptuous I'd have thought? http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/articles/article.php?page_id=11545 "It's not easy to look ahead to next season already. I will stay in charge if we stay up, so I have my plan ready for next year"

Well that's one way of describing the act of clambering out of a large hole he helped to dig

The quote from the Notts County chairman on Monday just said it was a "6 figure sum". Although he did also say it was "one of the David McGoldrick transfer payments" which implies there are more to come (?)

Crazy theory alert... Perhaps there was a 'free recall' clause buried in our contract with Notts County such that they could buy him back at next to nothing if he didn't reach a certain number of appearances by, say, within 5 years of joining us (which happens to be this summer). Might explain what some people believe about him being 'first name on the teamsheet' every game....there again, it might not explain anything whatsoever....

Well, according to the 'timely' article in the Echo everything is OK on the finances front....

So why didn't we pay Notts County what we owe them last month if we're still a "going concern"? Something doesn't add up.