Mole

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being discussed and the agreement still to be reached with the loan note holder such that the facilities would be withdrawn, alternative financing would need to be found for the Group to continue as a going concern.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. Enquiries: Southampton Leisure Holdings plc Tel: 0845 688 9448 Rupert Lowe/David Jones Seymour Pierce Tel: 0207 107 8000 Paul Davies, Nominated Advisor.

What do you call Lowe and Cowens demand for their pieces of silver on their exit the last time if it's not pocket lining? No wonder Lowe didn't want to "go into detail".

I would glady take administration and relegation if it meant the parasitical presence of Lowe was gone for good. Lowe is a pariah to many fans, myself included.

Our season ticket renewals nosedived on the back of the Echo leak that Judas was facilitating the return of the sneering Lowe. Many many fans have simply called it a day because they cannot abide our comunity institution being run by such greedy self serving egotist.

"We are not currently strong enough to indulge the small, but vocal, negative elements of our support base and need everybody to pull together while we recover our financial strength." Lowelife had better think again if he thinks crowds are going to recover whilst him and judas are at the club. Reading the article and this paragraph in particular reminds what a smug pompous arsehole he is.

Or a rattled Lowe Luvvie.

Well if you don't like your locals landlord you don't go in the pub. It's the same with Lowe and his PLC. By staying away i'm doing my bit towards the PLC crashing, it might not happen, but if it does i'll be chuffed to bits.

Yes i do hope we get low attenances at St Marys.

Why should we apologise. What should not be forgotton is that the countries we took under our wing that were in the dark ages before we arrived. Take India - thanks to British heros such as Clive of India - we left them with a fantastic infrastructure on which they could build. It's so sad that some people have to blame us for Indias third world status today when they were just as well placed as Canada and Australia to move forward.

So what's the explanation? Rhodesia was prosperous 20 years ago and is third world today. You like to blame the colonial borders but they worked alright 20 years ago. You like to blame the multinationals but they were there 20 years ago. The multinationals iinvested under white rule, but with Mugabe in situ that investment dried up - this was not because they were all nasty BNP members, it was because the country wasn't a stable place to invest in. You can go all over Africa from Kenya to Uganda and at best these counries have stood still since the British left (let's not talk about Idi Amin ) so i'm failing to see any logic to your arguments.

What about the £500K Lowe and his fag pocketed when they were ousted? I suppose it's a drop in the ocean by your reckoning and therefore not a issue.

I bet it doesn't.

Reading have no local rivals as such and need to muscle in on rivalries to feel like they belong. They see us in much the same way as Plymouth do - we are the big boys in their eyes.

The Lowe/Wilde axis needs gates higher than our 15,000 average or their investments go pear shaped. You may well be happy about the boycott, but a certain Rupert and Mike are certainly not.

A well written piece and i can see what you're getting at, but i think you are misguided with your views. The problem with Africa is tribalism, not foreign multinationals or the legacy of empire. They could have products to sell and we will buy their products - this makes them no different to Canada. They have areas of highly fertile land - this makes many nations far better on paper than Australia. But still they are poor. Like it or not Africa is poor because of the indiginous people - using empire as excuse is just a cop-out. If we'd still been running Rhodesia, Kenya, Zambia, Sudan that continent would be as affluent as North America or Australasia for the simple reason we would have managed the land properly. You could argue that we'd have acted superiously to the indiginous people but overall they would have had a far better standard of living than they'll ever get under self rule because tribal divisions makes a functional government impossible. I suggest you read Ian Douglas Smiths autobiography and you will learn something. He was fully prepared to gradually transfer rule in Rhodesia to the blacks, but the Labour lot in Britain thought we could just throw them the country and they'd be able to run it. It's because of people like you, Robsk II, that Rhodesia is in the mess it's in. Yes you mean well, but frankly your views are not workable in the real world.

How did Europe ruin Africa? This argument is just nonsense. Rhodesia under the great Ian Douglas Smith (my hero) was the bread basket of Africa. Now Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe is third world. He inherritted a prosperous economy so let's have none of this crap about us abandoning them in the ****. The real problem is that they were not ready for self rule - that is the only thing you can criticise Britain for when it comes to granting countries independance and you can blame the left wing Labour lot for that. P.S my avatar is of the great Cecil Rhodes. He did more for Africa than any man in history!

Patriots (racists isn't an appropriate word to use to describe BNP supperts) were actively encouraged during both world wars and during the glorious era of British imperialism. Being patriotic made this country great. Now this is actively discouraged as it's not politically correct to be proud of our country and its illustrious history. What really annoys me (and the BNP have said they'd halt it) is us giving handouts to third world countries. Why should we pay taxes to support countries that can't run themselves? There's no excuse for any country to be poor. Take Zimbabwe (formerly souther rhodesia) it was thriving a few years back, but now thanks to poor governence the people are starving. They've made their bed like all the other poor countries so it's their problem - not ours. Of course you still get a few people blaming imperialism all these years later, but the fact is we left countries like india with a brilliant infrastructure and 50 years on they're still running with the same trains (now delapidated) on the same tracks. This simply shows that, contrary to the PC myth, the British empire was brilliant for the world and us leaving places like india was a disaster for them. A question for those who blame the empire for certain countries poverty. Why is Canada, the USA, Australia and new Zealand prosperous? And why is Zimbabwe, Kenya, Ghana and Ethiopia relatively poor? All of the countries listed above have good soil to grow food - the cornerstone of a sucessful civilisation, so there must be another reason why one set are rich and the other set are poor.

Crouch's case has been put many many times and he's a far better option that than Lowe and snake.

That expression is so 80's.

I don't, nor will i spend a single penny at the club til him and Wilde are gone.

Why not Leon Crouch?

Well he is an option.

Hyperthecically, let's agree to disagree.