egg

What are you actually advocating if it's not a theory/concern/conjecture that the club are somehow in jeopardy/exposed by something to do with Gao? Frankly I haven't got a clue what your point is, and if you have one, what is based on.

Benjii, where's the link between some apparent loan overseas and the club? And don't say Gao, I mean an actual relevant financial/contractual link that would jeopardise the club if the apparent loan was not serviced. A sensible/factual response would make a welcome change.

You say: "If the HK company defaults then Saints could end up being owned by the HK bank" That's the kind of scare mongering that makes threads like this carry on. It's wrong. Individuals and companies are entirely separate legal things and unless there are charges, debentures, loan agreements or other contractual links they have no impact upon each other. There is no evidence to suggest a link, just conjecture on here.

Wow, proper sentence is that and nothing less than he deserves. I know a lad involved in this and the impact of Higgins behaviour has changed lives but hopefully all victims can now have a degree of closure. Big respect to Merrington too. Had he not stopped the bus that day and demanded answers from those boys, and then blown the whistle, this would have carried on.

Ha!! Your wish to scare monger and suggest it's armageddon does you no favours. As has been pointed out, our club has no registered security to Gao. None. Nil. Zero. Yet despite that idiots like you seek to suggest that we are/may be/could be exposed by our mysterious owner. Why? What is the basis of your worry? Ignorance probably. When you have some evidence that we as a club are financially exposed come back with a link to the evidence. If Gao has issues (if) it doesn't mean the club has to worry - it is self sufficient and doesn't need outside money despite our spoiled fans believing our "community club" deserves it cos Bournemouth got cash form their owner. In what way is Gao "useless". Binning off Hughes? Securing Ralph? How about moving Les and the other Ralph out of our club? That's all useful imo. Let's assume Gao is indebted (of which we have no proof). How does that impact on our unsecured club? Please remember that Gao and teh club are separate legal entities so if Gao has personal debt then that's not the club in debt. There's been a few sensible posts above re the clubs lack of security. Try reading them. If you don't understand what they mean ask and people who do understand will explain. Apologies if that's condescending but for a fella who likes to shout the odds and patronise you seem to lack understanding. In the meantime, wind your neck in and don't shoot down people who look at the facts rather than forming misguided opinion.

Undoubtedly it's very likely. We know that there is no secured borrowing against the club, but that doesn't mean no borrowing / directors loans. If there is its nothing unusual - businesses borrow and directors loan money. There really is a load of worrying over nothing here.

Yep, seriously. Businesses borrow. Business owners loan monies to their businesses. Those businesses repay that borrowing. It's tax efficient to do so. Assuming (and that's all we can do) that we are repaying an affordable amount to our owner to repay monies dues, I repeat the question, what is the issue?

Just catching up with the thread. What's the issue with him borrowing to fund the purchase and the club then repaying his loan? If the club can afford to do so I'm struggling to understand the issue.

Some sense at last. The article promotes self sufficiency which is fine. If he takes cash to the detriment of the club he's ripe for a kicking but until then I don't understand the issue.

Why on earth would you presume that I would prefer to see us relegated, if you want a discussion, at least be sensible. I don't want us to be relegated and with our management and budget, we can be competitive in that mini league below the top 6. If you stand back and look at things objectively that's possible. The issue over the last couple of years has not been the mysterious owner, its been shocking management and poor player purchases. Had Hoedt, Carillo, Boufal, Ings, Moi etc been the players we all expected, we'd have had a cracking season last year. The fact that the signings were all rubbish and we under performed isn't down to Gao (who released the cash for those signings) but let's not let the truth get in the way of personal agenda.

What's my point? The FT article highlights that Gao thinks we should be self sufficient. I have asked what the issue is with that. The responses go on about net spend winners, Bournemouth, community club, etc. None of thay has any relevance to the point about the club owner wanting his (not our) club to be self sufficient. Accept it, moaning won't change anything. Anyone with a degree of business acumen can understand where Gao is coming from. Putting X millions into the club will not yield a return for him. I understand that, and my pointing out the obvious does not make me "the problem". The problem is naive and expectant fans who can't comprehend why somebody doesn't want to sink millions into a football club that he won't get back. Gao motives are not "ambivalent". He's a Chinese business man. He wants status. He has it. He wants a long term blue chip investment. He has it. Whether he has other motives, who knows, but in his time with us he's had the balls to wield the axe when needed, he's hired a fantastic manager, he's spent money last summer, we (apparently) are busy already this summer. Stop flapping.

All very wordy pal but we're back to this perception that the owner is obliged to put his hand in his pocket and throw money at the club. Let's suppose that the Bournemouth and Leicester owners have done that, why must Gao have that obligation. I get that we all want our club to kick on, and that money may make that happen, but why does the owner have that obligation? What's in it for him? How will be get a return? And please won't reply with this 'net spend winners' stuff - you, Turkish and others are confusing / conflating spending our money with injection on money by the owner.

You're not supposed to look at the actual facts mate, just the bits that make us look like we don't spend. The fact that we spent more last summer than we received is irrelevant also, apparently.

Del, you've always come across as a bright fella. You know better than to confuse investment of owners funds (which is what I'm talking about) and utilising revenue (which is what you're talking about). You're comparing apples with cauliflowers mate.

Nobody "invests" in a business without a return. Explain to me how gifting X million to our club will result in added of value of at least X. I'll save you the time - it won't. Whatever gets spent, we'll still be a club who's best possible season will see us finish 7th. The last couple of seasons will not reassure Gao that "investing" in players is sensible - carillo, hoedt, boufal, etc, ain't an investment.

In other words you feel that the obligation of the owner is to inject cash rather than have a self sufficient club. If this "daddy I want another pony" attitude is typical of our fanbase we've become a spoiled bunch.

So your expectation is not self sufficiency, but repeated capital introductions from the owner?

There's no evidence that the club has borrowed - that's self suffiency on my book. I repeat the question, what is wrong with self sufficiency?

It doesn't say that he's used the club as security to buy the club. I repeat my question - what is the problem with us being a self sufficient club? I ask as I get the impression that many posters seem to think that the club owner is somehow obliged to throw many millions at the club/team.

I've read it, and read this thread. Could someone please explain the negatives of us wanting to be a self sufficient club? Seems better than a debt laden club to me.

Yep. Ramsey is not a wing back type. He's very defensive and a CB who has been pushed to RB. I like him personally, I think he's got something about him and he's got a chance.

There's nothing wrong with the mobile version of the site using chtome - fits perfectly on one page (as per Tapatalk) but it's not **** like Tapatalk.

If other clubs are interested, as rumoured, and we go in with a mickey mouse offer we stand to lose the player. Business deals don't get over the line by insulting the other party, especially if someone else is prepared be more realistic. By all means chance your arm with an offer, but you can't take the p1ss.

Very good point. You surely don't stick a footballer on a 7 hour flight for a medical when you can get to him. I'm taking the rumour with a pinch of salt.

If we expect to sign him it's a pathetic offer.