Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 150 of 273

Thread: Gao FT article

  1. #101

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    In the doghouse...again
    Posts
    3,006

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by benjii View Post
    What's your point? I'm really not sure what argument you are trying to advance.

    Is it disappointing to be financially outdone by tinpot clubs like Bournemouth and Watford? Yes.

    Is it disappointing to be owned by a foreigner with no connection, no ambition, no desire to build bridges, no empathy and no plan? Yes.

    This FT interview reinforces those disappointments.

    I don't see people clamouring for hundreds of millions to be poured in. I just see people despondent that their football team, one of their city's prizes assets, an important part of the community, has been sold down the river to a remote chancer whose motives seem ambivalent at best.

    If you can't see a problem with that then you're the problem.
    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.

  2. #102

    Default

    The issue with that is the likelihood that we will fall behind and eventually be relegated if most other clubs are not operating under such a constraint. By the sound of it, you'd prefer to see Saints relegated as long as it improved Gao's chance of a positive ROI.

  3. Default

    Don’t buy the car in the first place if you can’t afford to run it.

  4. #104

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by verlaine1979 View Post
    The issue with that is the likelihood that we will fall behind and eventually be relegated if most other clubs are not operating under such a constraint. By the sound of it, you'd prefer to see Saints relegated as long as it improved Gao's chance of a positive ROI.
    Who, apart from City, isn't operating under such a constraint? Wolves, maybe. Everton spent Lukaku and Stones money along with a Chinese bank loan. Leicester haven't been funded by their owners since their first season back, same with Brighton. As far as I'm aware the vast majority of clubs in this league spend what they earn. Is the £150m we get a year not enough? I'm fine with him not putting his money in as long as he doesn't take any out, and there is nothing in that article that suggests he will. Sure, it would be good to have more money, but we would be better off not wasting the money we do have the way we have done in the last few years.

  5. #105

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cartman View Post
    Who, apart from City, isn't operating under such a constraint? Wolves, maybe. Everton spent Lukaku and Stones money along with a Chinese bank loan. Leicester haven't been funded by their owners since their first season back, same with Brighton. As far as I'm aware the vast majority of clubs in this league spend what they earn. Is the £150m we get a year not enough? I'm fine with him not putting his money in as long as he doesn't take any out, and there is nothing in that article that suggests he will. Sure, it would be good to have more money, but we would be better off not wasting the money we do have the way we have done in the last few years.
    You obviously haven't checked your facts. Tony Bloom not only paid for Brighton's stadium out of his own pocket, but if you look at the club's annual accounts, there is an entry every year for his 'owner's contribution'. Since I started watching football in the 1960s, that's the way most good football club owners have operated.

    They used to be local businessmen made good who wanted to put something back into the community by spending money on the local football team, like Jack Walker, but nowadays they are mostly international billionaires competing against each other by buying glory for their football teams, like Sheikh Mansour and Roman Abramovich. Race horse owners are the same. They are rich people whose hobby is winning vicariously at sport. Anyone who wants to view football as just another business is blind to this reality.

  6. #106

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    In the doghouse...again
    Posts
    3,006

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by verlaine1979 View Post
    The issue with that is the likelihood that we will fall behind and eventually be relegated if most other clubs are not operating under such a constraint. By the sound of it, you'd prefer to see Saints relegated as long as it improved Gao's chance of a positive ROI.
    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.
    Last edited by egg; 10-06-2019 at 07:36 AM.

  7. #107

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    In the doghouse...again
    Posts
    3,006

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cartman View Post
    Who, apart from City, isn't operating under such a constraint? Wolves, maybe. Everton spent Lukaku and Stones money along with a Chinese bank loan. Leicester haven't been funded by their owners since their first season back, same with Brighton. As far as I'm aware the vast majority of clubs in this league spend what they earn. Is the £150m we get a year not enough? I'm fine with him not putting his money in as long as he doesn't take any out, and there is nothing in that article that suggests he will. Sure, it would be good to have more money, but we would be better off not wasting the money we do have the way we have done in the last few years.
    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.

  8. #108

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Right here, right now
    Posts
    1,457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by egg View Post
    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.
    For the whole quote
    For the bit in bold

  9. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by egg View Post
    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.
    The issue is simply "What are his motives?", his struggle to raise 80 percent and his shady background begs this question.

    Until we know why he bought this club I will take everything he says with a pinch of salt.

  10. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by egg View Post
    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.
    The only possible way to be self-sustaining is to make significant monies from transfers. Unfortunately our academy conveyor belt has dried up and our recruitment the last 2 plus years has, on the whole, been dire. Until he get's both these addressed the Club will suffer on the pitch. Self-sustaining is great and I think has been our model for some time but there are occasions when the well runs dry and cash input is required. It doesn't look like he can provide the cover if needed.

  11. #111

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    hiding in shadows where I don't belong
    Posts
    31,098

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dusic View Post
    The real question is, why did KL make out like Gao could take us forward when he obviously can't?
    Obvious since day 1 of her "reign". Wanted (or needed) the money and nothing was to stand in her way of getting it...eventually.

  12. #112

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South of the middle of Mid Devon
    Posts
    642

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by egg View Post
    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.
    I think you make a fair point.

    10 years ago, our club nearly went out of existence altogether. We have been on an incredible run in those 10 years, but have lost our way somewhat over the past 2-3 seasons.

    It's not like we haven't been spending money, the problem is that money has gone on players who, by and large, haven't lived up to the standards of the classes of 2012-2016. Then you couple that with a few managerial appointments that haven't really worked out, and it's not hard to see why we have struggled.

    RH is clearly a decent manager with a plan, and we saw players like Valery and Obafemi break through into the first team last year. JWP was a mini revelation too, PEH took to the captaincy like a duck to water. Even Redmond had a better year last year.

    We just need to get one or two signings spot on this summer and I believe we'll do alright this season coming.

  13. #113

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rothschild and Soros HQ
    Posts
    19,113
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nordic Saint View Post
    You obviously haven't checked your facts. Tony Bloom not only paid for Brighton's stadium out of his own pocket, but if you look at the club's annual accounts, there is an entry every year for his 'owner's contribution'. Since I started watching football in the 1960s, that's the way most good football club owners have operated.

    They used to be local businessmen made good who wanted to put something back into the community by spending money on the local football team, like Jack Walker, but nowadays they are mostly international billionaires competing against each other by buying glory for their football teams, like Sheikh Mansour and Roman Abramovich. Race horse owners are the same. They are rich people whose hobby is winning vicariously at sport. Anyone who wants to view football as just another business is blind to this reality.
    Most owners who lend the club money will charge a healthy amount of interest, so let’s not pretend they’re simply acting out of altruism. Our owner is obviously limited in what he can do as he hasn’t got a pot to pīss in and is seemingly heavily indebted. Another myth is that the only way to be profitable in the PL is by following our approach and winning the net spend title virtually every season. Of course, that doesn’t explain how clubs like Bournemouth have enjoyed a pre-tax profit since being promoted to the PL.

  14. #114

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    After moving around Kent, Surrey and Sussex have now settled on the edge of Romney Marsh
    Posts
    12,628

    Default

    Whether Gao takes us forward or not remains to be seen. We also have absolutely no idea where we would be right now if Marcus hadn’t passed away when he did. It is entirely possible that we would be in a similar position with him now getting the same flak that his daughter and Gao are getting. From what I can see very little has changed since he bought the club in terms of expenditure on the team. We were a self sustaining club under Marcus, under his daughter and now under Gao. As many have pointed out repeatedly, that has not been our problem. The problem has been recruitment. It looks like Gao is addressing the issues and if he is successful and we have a better season in 19/20, then perhaps he should get some credit?

  15. #115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by benjii View Post
    What's your point? I'm really not sure what argument you are trying to advance.

    Is it disappointing to be financially outdone by tinpot clubs like Bournemouth and Watford? Yes.

    Is it disappointing to be owned by a foreigner with no connection, no ambition, no desire to build bridges, no empathy and no plan? Yes.

    This FT interview reinforces those disappointments.

    I don't see people clamouring for hundreds of millions to be poured in. I just see people despondent that their football team, one of their city's prizes assets, an important part of the community, has been sold down the river to a remote chancer whose motives seem ambivalent at best.

    If you can't see a problem with that then you're the problem.
    This is exactly it, and I share your concerns.

    As others as said, whilst we are Top Flight we will tick along...but as soon as we go down, the entire place will just come falling down on top of us. If we go down in the near future with Gao in charge, we will not be seeing top flight football for decades in my eyes. He offers us nothing, there is no connection and no meaning to his ownership. It's a token ownership and I can promise you when he realises he is losing money, he will try and tip us of the edge as quickly as he can to save his own skin.

    It's a very, very worrying future ahead for us. Everyone has the right to ask why Bournemouth are able to invest more into players than ourselves (without selling) - something has gone horribly wrong when that happens.
    Last edited by S-Clarke; 10-06-2019 at 10:59 AM.

  16. #116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by S-Clarke View Post
    This is exactly it, and I share your concerns.

    As others as said, whilst we are Top Flight we will tick along...but as soon as we go down, the entire place will just come falling down on top of us. If we go down in the near future with Gao in charge, we will not be seeing top flight football for decades in my eyes. He offers us nothing, there is no connection and no meaning to his ownership. It's a token ownership and I can promise you when he realises he is losing money, he will try and tip us of the edge as quickly as he can to save his own skin.

    It's a very, very worrying future ahead for us. Everyone has the right to ask why Bournemouth are able to invest more into players than ourselves (without selling) - something has gone horribly wrong when that happens.
    the way to ensure it all comes falling down would be to do the exact opposite of what he intends and follows the lead of some of you on here. spending money we don't have and running thing in a non self-sustaining way. just like when 'Saints went Wilde'

    if anything Gao's methods ensure our long term future. Id be much more concerned about what relegation would bring if I were a Bournemouth fan

    why all of sudden must we be a team that has an owner willing to pump millions and millions of their own money in?? we have never had that and we don't have it now (as with most clubs). so why all the wailing about it now?

  17. #117

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    West of Fareham
    Posts
    12,775

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by egg View Post
    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.
    I would be amazed if he wasn't taking money out, especially given his dodgy past (bribery, executions etc) and the fact that he's taken out a loan to buy the club.

  18. #118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RedFear View Post
    the way to ensure it all comes falling down would be to do the exact opposite of what he intends and follows the lead of some of you on here. spending money we don't have and running thing in a non self-sustaining way. just like when 'Saints went Wilde'

    if anything Gao's methods ensure our long term future. Id be much more concerned about what relegation would bring if I were a Bournemouth fan

    why all of sudden must we be a team that has an owner willing to pump millions and millions of their own money in?? we have never had that and we don't have it now (as with most clubs). so why all the wailing about it now?

    I don't think they do ensure our long-term future. You need investment to be a success, you can't run on income alone - not in this day and age. If he's not going to invest, then we will slip slide away.

    I'm not suggesting we go and splash zillions on mega players, but some ambition and some investment will be required if we want some fun and enjoyment. How are we going to compete in the NPC if we went down? He doesn't want to invest, so how can we compete? There's not enough income alone, and then you've got clubs down there splash £15m themselves on players now.

    So this belief that he doesn't have to invest into us is just tosh. He is being a lazy and unattached owner with no intentions to do anything with us, therefore he needs to **** off.

    And also....why is he talking to the FT and not fans of the club? We want to hear from him, we don't want to be searching other webistes to get info. He's an absolute charlatan.
    Last edited by S-Clarke; 10-06-2019 at 11:32 AM.

  19. #119

    Default

    I'm very worried. Can't sleep most nights.

  20. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by S-Clarke View Post
    This is exactly it, and I share your concerns.

    As others as said, whilst we are Top Flight we will tick along...but as soon as we go down, the entire place will just come falling down on top of us. If we go down in the near future with Gao in charge, we will not be seeing top flight football for decades in my eyes. He offers us nothing, there is no connection and no meaning to his ownership. It's a token ownership and I can promise you when he realises he is losing money, he will try and tip us of the edge as quickly as he can to save his own skin.

    It's a very, very worrying future ahead for us. Everyone has the right to ask why Bournemouth are able to invest more into players than ourselves (without selling) - something has gone horribly wrong when that happens.
    Because we have a bloated squad with average players on big wages?

    Bmouth may have a smaller ground than us but that's almost irrelevant in an age where TV money dwarfs gate receipts

  21. #121

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    South Manchester
    Posts
    611

    Default

    As at the last financial accounts date he hasn't taken any money out. Doesn't mean he hasn't since though

    I don't have a problem with being self sufficient providing we reinvest all we make in a prudent manner. As someone else stated above if we are run in that manner we are much more secure in the long term. Just look at Bolton to see what can happen when an owner puts his own money in.

    What are Gao's motivations for buying us - no one knows but it is probably one of the following

    1) To secure decent asset outside of China and allow him to diversify his wealth
    2) To obtain status both inside and outside of China - lets be honest he was unheard of before he bought us -
    3) long term investment with expectation of selling for more in the future
    4) to facilitate other real estate transactions in the area
    5) As a play thing as he has plenty of cash
    6) To use the club as a vehicle to launder money
    7) To protect himself from assassination by the Chinese by being a high profile person

    Take your pick!

  22. #122

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Marbella drunk again
    Posts
    654

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by benjii View Post
    He's talking ****e and he's confused by the credit facility we take out every year.

    No Benji I am not confusing the black hole facility at all

    Let me ask you these three questions .

    1. What do you think the Bank has secured a 200 million loan against ? What else worth that money does Gao have ?
    2. Affordability of Loan ? The Loan interest Only will be costing Circa 10 m PA if its int+ Cap over say 10 years then it will be 30 M....a prerequisite of underwriting a loan is that the client can afford the repayments .....where is Gao gonna get the money if not from Saints income ?
    3. Securitization of repayments ......There is always another level of security on a loan to reduce the risk in the case of a default by the borrower this is normal. If a borrower had a monthly income from leases then the bank would lien against these in the event of a default ..... the only income they can do this against in this case is the premiership income.

    All normal bank structuring and the only way Gao could borrow the money tbh as he has no other asset barr 24% of Lander sports

    If we get relegated we have a huge problem

  23. #123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John D View Post
    As at the last financial accounts date he hasn't taken any money out. Doesn't mean he hasn't since though

    I don't have a problem with being self sufficient providing we reinvest all we make in a prudent manner. As someone else stated above if we are run in that manner we are much more secure in the long term. Just look at Bolton to see what can happen when an owner puts his own money in.

    What are Gao's motivations for buying us - no one knows but it is probably one of the following

    1) To secure decent asset outside of China and allow him to diversify his wealth
    2) To obtain status both inside and outside of China - lets be honest he was unheard of before he bought us -
    3) long term investment with expectation of selling for more in the future
    4) to facilitate other real estate transactions in the area
    5) As a play thing as he has plenty of cash
    6) To use the club as a vehicle to launder money
    7) To protect himself from assassination by the Chinese by being a high profile person

    Take your pick!
    Other than the last three which are clearly wrong isn't it possible it's a combination of all of the above, although you've missed out another which is expanding business interests in China using the brand of Southampton F.C by setting up satellite companies under it's name

  24. #124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saint Billy View Post
    Why else buy the club, he isn't going to make serious money out of little old saints.
    if you can keep the club in the top flight whilst remain self sufficient, he can sell the club at a profit when the time comes...it's very much like buying a house, having the SKY TV money pay the mortgage (wages) and with a rising market over the next ten years and it will be worth £300m instead of £200m.

  25. #125

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rothschild and Soros HQ
    Posts
    19,113
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ericb View Post
    Other than the last three which are clearly wrong isn't it possible it's a combination of all of the above, although you've missed out another which is expanding business interests in China using the brand of Southampton F.C by setting up satellite companies under it's name
    I thought you told us it was about entering the UK property and infrastructure market?

  26. #126

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fighting Messageboard injustice, Everywhere
    Posts
    2,878

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by charliemiller View Post
    No Benji I am not confusing the black hole facility at all

    Let me ask you these three questions .

    1. What do you think the Bank has secured a 200 million loan against ? What else worth that money does Gao have ?
    2. Affordability of Loan ? The Loan interest Only will be costing Circa 10 m PA if its int+ Cap over say 10 years then it will be 30 M....a prerequisite of underwriting a loan is that the client can afford the repayments .....where is Gao gonna get the money if not from Saints income ?
    3. Securitization of repayments ......There is always another level of security on a loan to reduce the risk in the case of a default by the borrower this is normal. If a borrower had a monthly income from leases then the bank would lien against these in the event of a default ..... the only income they can do this against in this case is the premiership income.

    All normal bank structuring and the only way Gao could borrow the money tbh as he has no other asset barr 24% of Lander sports

    If we get relegated we have a huge problem
    1. Who says Gao has a £200m loan? what evidence do you have the Club assets secure any such loan - certainly there is nothing registered at companies house against either Southampton Football Club ltd, nor St Mary’s Stadium Ltd, the two principle trading businesses.
    2. What evidence do you have that the club is paying interest either directly or indirectly on any Goa loan? Nothing in the June 2018 accounts suggest this is currently the case.
    3. There is no evidence in the 2018 accounts of any lien against future income.

    You may be proved right in due course, what do I know?

  27. #127

    Default

    Now that we are all Gao's children maybe the next time he explains the club's Finance to us kids, he does not refer to it as 'gains and losses' but as 'swings and roundabouts'.

  28. #128

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Marbella drunk again
    Posts
    654

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Faz View Post
    1. Who says Gao has a £200m loan? what evidence do you have the Club assets secure any such loan - certainly there is nothing registered at companies house against either Southampton Football Club ltd, nor St Mary’s Stadium Ltd, the two principle trading businesses.
    2. What evidence do you have that the club is paying interest either directly or indirectly on any Goa loan? Nothing in the June 2018 accounts suggest this is currently the case.
    3. There is no evidence in the 2018 accounts of any lien against future income.

    You may be proved right in due course, what do I know?
    The Loan is registered against his Hong Kong holding company as is the club as an asset he confirms that this company is BOSS
    Do you think they gave him a loan with no service required , macquarie bank are not a money fairy ! where else is he going to pay it from?
    Will be in the next accounts the loan was termed after the takeover from a bridge position

  29. #129

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Sunny Shirley
    Posts
    1,972

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aintforever View Post
    I would be amazed if he wasn't taking money out, especially given his dodgy past (bribery, executions etc) and the fact that he's taken out a loan to buy the club.
    Can you show us the evidence, because the club accountants seemed to have missed it.

  30. #130

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    In the doghouse...again
    Posts
    3,006

    Default

    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.

  31. #131

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rothschild and Soros HQ
    Posts
    19,113
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by egg View Post
    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.
    Seriously? You struggle to understand a lot of things pal.

  32. #132

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    17,550

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by charliemiller View Post
    The Loan is registered against his Hong Kong holding company as is the club as an asset he confirms that this company is BOSS
    Do you think they gave him a loan with no service required , macquarie bank are not a money fairy ! where else is he going to pay it from?
    Will be in the next accounts the loan was termed after the takeover from a bridge position
    We we take a credit facility annually to smooth out PL income. It is a secured facility. The security interest is registered at Companies House. The charge contains a negative pledge. It is in favour of Macquarie Bank. It is nothing to do with Gao’s personal loan or the acquisition of the club.

    The above is a verifiable matter of public record.

    If Gao was using SFC as security for his personal loan (p.s you misunderstand the meaning of “securitisation”) he would need to have paid off the credit facility and released the security.

    This has not happened, according to Companies House.

    You need to substantiate claims made that contradict public records, otherwise there is zero reason to believe you.

  33. Default

    I'm just happy to have a club.

    Don't forget where we were 7 years ago.

  34. #134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by benjii View Post
    We we take a credit facility annually to smooth out PL income. It is a secured facility. The security interest is registered at Companies House. The charge contains a negative pledge. It is in favour of Macquarie Bank. It is nothing to do with Gao’s personal loan or the acquisition of the club.

    The above is a verifiable matter of public record.

    If Gao was using SFC as security for his personal loan (p.s you misunderstand the meaning of “securitisation”) he would need to have paid off the credit facility and released the security.

    This has not happened, according to Companies House.

    You need to substantiate claims made that contradict public records, otherwise there is zero reason to believe you.
    Could you secure a loan against the stadium without violating the terms of Macquarie's charge against our TV central funds?

  35. #135

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rothschild and Soros HQ
    Posts
    19,113
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by benjii View Post
    We we take a credit facility annually to smooth out PL income. It is a secured facility. The security interest is registered at Companies House. The charge contains a negative pledge. It is in favour of Macquarie Bank. It is nothing to do with Gao’s personal loan or the acquisition of the club.

    The above is a verifiable matter of public record.

    If Gao was using SFC as security for his personal loan (p.s you misunderstand the meaning of “securitisation”) he would need to have paid off the credit facility and released the security.

    This has not happened, according to Companies House.

    You need to substantiate claims made that contradict public records, otherwise there is zero reason to believe you.
    I still find it puzzling that an overseas bank would lend Goa nearly the entire purchase price of the club against an asset in China that is volatile, opaque, relatively illiquid and itself highly indebted. The interest payments must be through the roof.

  36. #136

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    17,550

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by verlaine1979 View Post
    Could you secure a loan against the stadium without violating the terms of Macquarie's charge against our TV central funds?
    Quite possibly, because the stadium is owned by St Marys Stadium Limited, not Southampton Football Club Limited (which has the Macquarie loan and receives the PL money).

    There is currently no registered charge against St Mary’s Stadium Limited.

    Frankly, I’m not sure it would be good security for most lenders anyway. It’s certainly not worth £200m to a bank without an accompanying football club.

  37. #137

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    In the doghouse...again
    Posts
    3,006

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shurlock View Post
    Seriously? You struggle to understand a lot of things pal.
    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?

  38. #138

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    17,550

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shurlock View Post
    I still find it puzzling that an overseas bank would lend Goa nearly the entire purchase price of the club against an asset in China that is volatile, opaque, relatively illiquid and itself highly indebted. The interest payments must be through the roof.
    Those chaps that used to own Pompey ran a bank, I think....

  39. #139

    Default

    Everyone seems to of forgotten Gao recently got 194 mil (USD) from Chengdu Assets for 29% stake in lander.

    Based on that valuation at the time his re.aining stake is probably worth about 180 mil (USD), not sure what it is worth now.
    Last edited by Convict Colony; 10-06-2019 at 02:21 PM.

  40. #140

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rothschild and Soros HQ
    Posts
    19,113
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by egg View Post
    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?
    Of course, they borrow. Nice strawman pal. But too much debt carries significant risks.

  41. #141

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fighting Messageboard injustice, Everywhere
    Posts
    2,878

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by verlaine1979 View Post
    Could you secure a loan against the stadium without violating the terms of Macquarie's charge against our TV central funds?
    You could, but no way would it support a £200m loan. Also there are currently no charges registered against the stadium company.

    I was mistaken above, as there is a charge against SFC Ltd registered by McQuarie - as we have been doing for the last 3 years - to support the cash flow loan.

    Gao may well have charged shares in support of his loan, but as the ultimate ownership vests in a BVI entity there is no way of knowing.

  42. #142

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Marbella drunk again
    Posts
    654

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by benjii View Post
    We we take a credit facility annually to smooth out PL income. It is a secured facility. The security interest is registered at Companies House. The charge contains a negative pledge. It is in favour of Macquarie Bank. It is nothing to do with Gao’s personal loan or the acquisition of the club.

    The above is a verifiable matter of public record.

    If Gao was using SFC as security for his personal loan (p.s you misunderstand the meaning of “securitisation”) he would need to have paid off the credit facility and released the security.

    This has not happened, according to Companies House.

    You need to substantiate claims made that contradict public records, otherwise there is zero reason to believe you.

    All on the Hong Kong Company as confirmed by Mr.Goa as its Boss as he said the parent , the loan is with Macquarrie Hong Kong .

    The Uk agreement is purely for cash flow in May , June July prior to the Prem Payments. Nothing to do with the Loan

    I write Commercial Term , Bridging and Development finance so i understand security against a loan and second level securitisation of debt .

  43. #143

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    South Manchester
    Posts
    611

    Default

    As has been asked before.

    What is your source of info to confirm existence of this £200m loan?

  44. #144

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chez View Post
    if you can keep the club in the top flight whilst remain self sufficient, he can sell the club at a profit when the time comes...it's very much like buying a house, having the SKY TV money pay the mortgage (wages) and with a rising market over the next ten years and it will be worth £300m instead of £200m.
    That's the big If. If we go down the club (and Gao) are ****ed. Fortunately he and the board now seem to realise a good manager is worth his weight in gold, and (according to Adam Leitch) appear to be doing everything they can to keep Ralph happy. Despite that, Ralph won't be with us forever, and when he does leave we can really get worried. Unless someone less dodgy has taken Saints over before then.

  45. #145

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shurlock View Post
    I thought you told us it was about entering the UK property and infrastructure market?
    Just because it's one thing doesn't mean it can't be another, business tend to have more than one venture on the go at any given time.

    And by the way that word business is very important, because as fans we need to start separating the entity that is Southampton Football Club, from the entity that is Southampton FC the brand and business.

    Once people get past that they'll start understanding what's going on far better.

  46. #146

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rothschild and Soros HQ
    Posts
    19,113
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ericb View Post
    Just because it's one thing doesn't mean it can't be another, business tend to have more than one venture on the go at any given time.

    And by the way that word business is very important, because as fans we need to start separating the entity that is Southampton Football Club, from the entity that is Southampton FC the brand and business.

    Once people get past that they'll start understanding what's going on far better.
    It requires no great insight to understand that Goa is interested in leveraging the club’s brand in China -kiddies academies what have you. People pointed that out well before you and don’t claim to be ITK. But from experience there’s a huge difference between that and using the club’s tangible and intangible assets to expand Goa’s business in foreign markets like the UK.
    Last edited by shurlock; 10-06-2019 at 07:42 PM.

  47. #147

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ericb View Post
    Just because it's one thing doesn't mean it can't be another, business tend to have more than one venture on the go at any given time.

    And by the way that word business is very important, because as fans we need to start separating the entity that is Southampton Football Club, from the entity that is Southampton FC the brand and business.

    Once people get past that they'll start understanding what's going on far better.
    "A source close to Allen said he 'believes there is long-term investment value in UK soccer.' He added: 'Southampton is a sleeping giant, a family-supported club with traditional values, and we see the value in taking the brand global.'"

  48. #148

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bartonia 2, 000, 000 years ago
    Posts
    7,056

    Default

    We need answers

  49. #149

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simo View Post
    We need answers
    Absolutely! We have to demand them.


    What was the question again?

  50. #150

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Amesbury
    Posts
    13,712

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Munster View Post
    Absolutely! We have to demand them.


    What was the question again?
    Shall we stamp our feet as well

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •