trousers

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.

Cheers. Perhaps some of the folk on here that say "we should avoid administration at all costs" could explain why they think it would be 'all bad' and why they can't see the potential positives you have outlined from other examples.

Good question. No idea! Same place as SaintLee I guess....?