Window Cleaner

Will that affect Citeh ???

I see the Dubai government aren't too flush with cash either. Bet they wish they hadn't squandered 20 million on fireworks and Kylie now; Just like we wish we hadn't squandered all that money on Saga,John and Euell.

Selling Morgan for 3 million makes no sense. We'll have to pay up the rest of the 1.5 million euros plus the knock on to Strasbourg. With the exchange rate they'll get 1.2 million plus 15% of 1.8 million and we'll get the rest. We'll be left with a great little player less and a smack in the balls 1.5 million instead. We have to ship out the junk first and then Lallana as he is more easily replaceable and his transfer will bring in much more at the end of the day.

Yes logically but when you want them to lose are you still a Saint? This is an interesting philosophical question, does being a supporter allow you to wish for bad results in order to obtain uncertain satisfaction on a point you don't agree with. It's not a new theme,certainly but applied to something as insignificant as football it probably is. If you as a person wanted your country to lose a war,even if it meant bringing it to an early conclusion, are you a traitor. I can't remember what was said at the time of Vietnam in philosophical circles but it's an interesting point. Does the means justify the end? Who knows.

Well there are 23 other sides in our division and we want to beat all of them. Unfortunately they all want to beat us as well so it's a bit iffy on that front; Most supporters want us to win all of our matches, there are a few with agendas who want the others to win, but then they're not supporters at that moment in time are they. Perhaps the sabbatical period for the average football supporter has been invented by Stanley and Long Shot. I'm a saint's supporter but they're broke and crap and I don't agree with the board's policy so I'm on a break. Yep, sounds good.Perhaps we could have counselling for disillusioned fans to help them face their troubles and eventually move on and support Skate or Man U. Many manage it, perhaps the club could get a government grant for it.

Yep see what you mean. Anway football club management without significant funding is always a no-win process; If you don't spend you're phoqued because you don't get any results and if you do spend you're phoqued because you don't get any results; Unless you have access to unlimited cash (or unlimited debt in our era) you're always reliant on a bunch of often lazy assed,inconsistent,overpaid and I've stacks of cash so I'm alright and phuck you mate footballers who may or may not perform as required.Better to underpay them and lose than overpay them and still lose;

It's not even 51p for ST holders though is it.At £380 for the 23 game ST it's only about £13.63 before VAT making a 2.5% reduction about 30p. Cheap tickets for ST holders for the first home cup game should about iron it out.

If we can keep Cork and that's by no means a foregone conclusion. Of the loan players that we have only Gasmi is here for the season. The rest are up until the end of December.

Can't see that really. Gasmi can probably replace Lallana more or less but don't see that Pulis can replace Morgan . I don't think Morgan will go in January anyway, Surman perhaps but I hope we could avoid that by wheeling and dealing for the deadweight first. I see Lallana and John as definite sales (although we'll not get much for John) with perhaps Euell and Saga out on loan again. The 3.5 million which we might get for L + J might be enough if we can keep costs down.

The accounts would tend to suggest that we paid more than 600K for Saga, I thought the price was fixed at a million euros but how we could spend 4.8 million would then stump me; Safri cost about 250K Thomas 1.25 million Davies 1 million Schneiderlin -think its about 800K (or less at present) so that leaves 1.8 million for Saga, John and Euell. If we actually paid 1.2 million for John and Euell, that's scandalous. Their only attraction to offset their huge salaries were that they were free of charge.

Mortgage is fixed rate at 8.35% unless it's been renegociated recently.

Yes but it isn't the same as "feathering their own nests" with an eventual VAT reduction is it? They are paid a salary, pro-rata in the case of Lowe as he is not on a full time basis. If a company you work for unilaterally breaches your contract of employment,as was the case with "Going Wilde" then you are entitled to monetary compensation, it's employment law; If those that ousted you ****** up and you come back in to try to clean up the mess then that's nothing to do with the first case. Plenty of people have been rehired after being dismissed or made redundant. Why in some countries a company has to offer suitable new posts that come up down the line to those who they have previously made redundant;It is never expected that you pay back severance pay, if you do more the fool you. I don't know what your employment status is Stanley, whether you've ever been summarily dismissed or made redundant but I bet you wouldn't give them their lucre back if they rehired you. So before making outrageous claim you need to read up on employment law; As you're not actually going to SMS just now it's not your money that's paying them anyway. don't think you have the same nuisance value a say long shot but I'd be careful enough about what I say even on a public forum.

We have an overdraft that's all, we spent money we didn't have.

How so? Come on Stanley you're beginning to get on my tits just now; How will Lowe feather his own nest, it's not his money and taking it would rend him liable to embezzlement charges. Are you actually suggesting that Rupert Lowe takes money from the club which his is not entitled to?. Simple answer Yes or No. In the first case-well,I guess you'll be hearing more from the club about it; In the second case shut the f**k up;

Well the accounts are now 5 months old so nothing they say is particularly indicative of the current point in time. The tax debts would show up in "trade and other payables" ie part of the 8.52 million, but exactly what's what in there I couldn't say. I think ST sales count in there somewhere, ie the club owes money to the supporters against promise to provide football. I'm not an accountant though (good job ,they all cry) but I've a working knowledge of budgetary presentation and it's meandering. So if you count say 4.5 million at St Sales, that leaves about 4 million. Part of that may be outstanding instalments on players (like Schneiderlin or even Davies) so I wouldn't have thought our tax debt was particularly high. Coming now to our overdraft. 6.63 million at that time (unless of course we had an outstanding payment on the stadium which had been rescheduled-which is entirely possible).It could mean we've paid our tax bill and negociated with the bank and Aviva rather than have tax debt outstanding which leads to Administration more often than not;

No doubt it was part of the plan but just now isn't a great time for rights issues. If itbecomes absolutely necessary no doubt it will happen but what will be the outcome remains to be seen. I wouldn't have thought that Lowe,Wilde,Wither,Cowan etc would want large blocks of unsubscribed shares becoming available to Loose Cannons and Dissenters like Fulthorpe et al; They'd have to be pretty sure that they could take up their share at least and know where the other 54% might end up;Big risk for a few swans that you can raise elsewhere. Hence the overdraft as long as possible.

I mean do we pay the VAT on the season tickets when we sell them or on an ongoing prorata basis. I know that for Administration purposes only the elapsed part of a ST is considered as spent, the outstanding matches are considered as a debt to the holder by the club. So if we'd say sold 10K STs at 450£ ie 4.5 million, taken at a time of sale point the VAT comes to about 750K. Taken on an ongoing basis with a rate of 15% instead of 17.5% for half the matches it would be about 50 or 55K less. Not much but every penny counts apparently.

This is why we got relegated Marco. This and this only, why I think Lowe could have donned his boots and done a better job than some of these blokes. Our relegation was decided by being 2-0 up and throwing it away and capitulating at Nottarf, nothing that Lowe might have done would have changed that. We had a get out of jail card, even after the Wigley and Sturrock f*cks up, we lost 2 matches because the players were **** poor on the day and cost the club it's 28 year top flight stretch. For those claiming Niemi was Saints best ever keeper look at the note he got here. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/article382141.ece

Tosser is a much used word,why in NYC you have two of the biggest "Tossers" known to humanity ie Favre and Eli Manning, or so you would surmise by reading various "football" sites. The fact that they're doing such great jobs makes calling Long Shot a "tosser" seem like a compliment, he should be proud.

Do you want us to lose again tomorrow then Stanley and Long Shot, or was it just a one off against Wolves for personal enrichment purposes by way of betting?

The Lowe and Cowan pay offs figure in the 2007 accounts yes. The statutory accounts (which appear in time in the Annual report section of the OS) are different to these. Usually happens after the AGM. They are nicely presented, about 20/30 pages long with photos and detailed accounts. Check those for Year to 30th June 2007 out on the OS if you want to see what I mean. Shareholders get them in the post, or at least I did.

I think the statutory accounts that go to companies house are far more detailed than those that are issued to the LSE. These accounts aren't particularly detailed compared to previous ones, no directors emoluments and all that, no highest earner,no player salary mass.

I think he might be astute enough to prepare a capital reserve in the event of a rights issue yes. A rights issue dilutes current share holding. If you read the provisos which exist on the proposed 2 million investment some time ago ,it states that, in the event of a rights issue the 2 million would count against new shares. He has a 16.46 holding, he doesn't want it diluted to an 8 or 10% holding in the event of a RI.If that happened and he couldn't ante up,well then Lowe,Crouch orUncle Tom Cobley could hoover up his rightful share. Not good for him at all as he would no longer be the kingmaker and we'd probably be back to the status quo pre June 2006.

I think it means an eventual rights issue but I'd not be sure on that. We need 4/5 million, spread over 28 million shares that would only be about 20p/share but whether there'd be a particularly big take up, I couldn't say. Obviously there are plenty of shareholders who would put a bit in but the club needs to be on a stable base first. 200K or so is nothing to blokes like Mike Withers but for Wilde to find a million might be less evident. Still if he's selling his Burley house perhaps there's a reason.

Why did he agree to that then? Because we promised to let him move on without a fee? because le loves the club? what? Or did he have a strange sort of contract that involved promotion to obtain continual high salary earning?, or as rumoured (once) his salary was only partially met by the club and that there was an outside element, sort of Tevez bis..