trousers

Wolves/Norwich score anyone?

Last question (possibly).... Why?

I'm starting a march through Southampton to protest. Facebook page being set up as we speak

I don't wish to hark on (honest!) but TSW has been fine for 6 months and has only gone down hill after a recent switch to another host....hence the question..."what was wrong with the previous host (of TSW, not TSF)"?

But I think the point being made is we could have made our hosts aware of it before switching over to them....?

Has Wotte done what Poorvliet would never do and change tactics to exploit the 1 man advantage?

Tickets sold or bums on seats?

No probs.....just a strange assumption to assume it was us who scored first...

Out of curiosity, why did we switch? The previous host seemed fine

Fair point

The link on page one of this thread works ok for me

ha ha!

...

...

Why did we move from something that was working fine? (asked Trousers, trying to take his mind off the game!)

FFS - leave my capital letters alone

Ffs

Just think of the refund though. Should cover a pint. Every cloud...

I think we're drifting off topic here

Wouldn't they be better off choosing a day when more than one of them is going to be there?

4-0 to Saints (due to a travel-weary Sheff Utd) Saga hat trick

'He' seems pretty well informed though.... http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?p=151939#post151939 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 02-01-2009, 05:30 PM saintinlondon Registered User Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 6 not that it is of much use to anyne without revealing source but was told that there would be no saints players leaving in the transfer window. same person told me that molyneux was coming but did not mention anything about cork leaving so who knows what to think but can assure they are well informed. in particular did mention that it looks as though drew, lallana and schneiderlin will all stay though. fingers crossed --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair enough. But if we are "on good authority....not near administration" what has changed since the tail end of 2008 (as per annual report) and now? And why would "Rupert's mouthpiece" report in the Daily Mail that things were still bad only a couple of weeks ago?

One also notes that, following the recent dip in share price to 16p, our market capital worth isn't far away from undertaking the overdraft amount (i.e. £5.20m vs £4.5m). Would that be a significant moment in time? Especially given the following statement: "The Group currently manages its working capital through a bank overdraft facility".

I've re-read the 'going concern' section of the recent annual report. It says that assets will need to be sold in 2009 to "comply with the terms of the new overdraft facility being discussed". I must admit, I thought I'd remembered reading that it had been more specific in terms of dates, i.e. that we needed to sell some of these "assets" - a.k.a. 'players'(?) - in a much shorter timeframe, but it doesn't say when in 2009 we need to start asset stripping.... Would this help explain why there wasn't any of the forecast 'panic selling' in January? http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail%3Fcode%3Dcotn:SOO.L&it%3Dle 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.