TopGun Posted 25 July, 2009 Share Posted 25 July, 2009 Sorry if this has been answered elsewhere but I haven't seen it. I have a few questions about the club's finances now. 1. Has the stadium debt been wholly written off or has some of the mortgage debt been assumed by Markus Liebherr? 2. How many pence in the £ did creditors settle for? 3. Did plc shareholders end up with nothing after debts were settled? 4. Did Saints retain control of all land assets possessed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokyo-Saint Posted 25 July, 2009 Share Posted 25 July, 2009 1. is yes sorry dont know the others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whiteleySaint30 Posted 25 July, 2009 Share Posted 25 July, 2009 1, Yes 2, wo cares 3, yes 4, Yes 5, Were **cking minted. 6, see P hart on Sky, they appear *cked despite takeover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpturner Posted 25 July, 2009 Share Posted 25 July, 2009 Add to that: does anyone know what the final figure was for saints aid and where the money (if there was any) went? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fitzhugh Fella Posted 25 July, 2009 Share Posted 25 July, 2009 I think you miss the point. It is not WE any more it is HIM He owns SFC lock stock and barrel - we have no debt or financial obligations but as fans we have no rights. All your questions are completely irrelevant. Hope this helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpturner Posted 25 July, 2009 Share Posted 25 July, 2009 but as fans we have no rights. Did we ever have any rights in this regard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 25 July, 2009 Author Share Posted 25 July, 2009 I think you miss the point. It is not WE any more it is HIM He owns SFC lock stock and barrel - we have no debt or financial obligations but as fans we have no rights. All your questions are completely irrelevant. Hope this helps. No, they are not irrelevant. I want to know if plc shareholders received anything. I am sure others are interested. Equally, I am interested in knowing how much creditors received from the administrators. I am sure that is something of interest to others also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpturner Posted 25 July, 2009 Share Posted 25 July, 2009 No, they are not irrelevant. I want to know if plc shareholders received anything. I am sure others are interested. Equally, I am interested in knowing how much creditors received from the administrators. I am sure that is something of interest to others also. I would think shareholders are wiped out as soon as the plc goes into admin regardless of what happens afterwards? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
batterseasaint Posted 25 July, 2009 Share Posted 25 July, 2009 I would think shareholders are wiped out as soon as the plc goes into admin regardless of what happens afterwards? If the creditors are paid off in full, then the remainder of the cash gets shared around amongst the shareholders. So no, nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plumstead_Saint Posted 25 July, 2009 Share Posted 25 July, 2009 Did we ever have any rights in this regard? Precisely. Better off without the PLC and your 'share' that actually means sod all IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toomer Posted 25 July, 2009 Share Posted 25 July, 2009 I lost a few bob being a shareholder of SLH, but I don't care as I did not buy my shares to make a financial gain. The most important thing IMO is that I/we have still got a club to support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fitzhugh Fella Posted 25 July, 2009 Share Posted 25 July, 2009 No, they are not irrelevant. I want to know if plc shareholders received anything. I am sure others are interested. Equally, I am interested in knowing how much creditors received from the administrators. I am sure that is something of interest to others also. Part of the deal when ML took over was all these questions (ie the price he was paying for the club) would be confidential. So it is irrelevant unless of course you are a creditor. I think you can take it as read that no one got back what they were owed. And as for the shareholders nothing. I was a minor shareholder, the company went bust, I lost out. End off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintchris23 Posted 25 July, 2009 Share Posted 25 July, 2009 I think you miss the point. All your questions are completely irrelevant. Hope this helps. Proving that you are an arrogant man of the highest order. The bloke asked a question that his own brain wanted answering and to be hoonest, I clicked on the thread because I was interested. So stop being such a pompous idiot. People, other than yourself, have an opinion and an interest that is just as RELEVANT as yours. I post very rarely, but Duncan, you have let yourself down on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan The Flames Posted 25 July, 2009 Share Posted 25 July, 2009 I think there are loads of questions still to be answered regarding the admin, I would be interested to know what the creditors got, I would also likle to know who were the original Pinnacle backers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Red Posted 25 July, 2009 Share Posted 25 July, 2009 I am quite interested in the answers to some of the questions above, however I can accept that they really and honestly will never be answered properly and completely. There must be some fans who had significant shareholdings in the club, I mean 100 shares were worth £60 not all that long ago. Think of those who had several thousand of them! Poor Mike... literally. Before anyone starts telling me to let go of the past and all that, I'm interested anyway - not just as a fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Posted 26 July, 2009 Share Posted 26 July, 2009 I was a shareholder in SLH and have not yet received any official letter about the whole affair. Has anyone else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red and White Army Posted 26 July, 2009 Share Posted 26 July, 2009 I am also interested in knowing if the debt has been wiped out. I have heard many people say it has been, but I have not seen an offical statement or independent confirmation of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colinjb Posted 26 July, 2009 Share Posted 26 July, 2009 I am also interested in knowing if the debt has been wiped out. I have heard many people say it has been, but I have not seen an offical statement or independent confirmation of this. Indeed. It just seems far too good to be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saints foreva Posted 26 July, 2009 Share Posted 26 July, 2009 I am also interested in knowing if the debt has been wiped out. I have heard many people say it has been, but I have not seen an offical statement or independent confirmation of this. I remember the day after the takeover, the echo had a exclusive interview with Liebherr's right hand man. The question was 'Are Southampton debt free?' He replied: 'Southampton are completely debt free' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 26 July, 2009 Share Posted 26 July, 2009 Proving that you are an arrogant man of the highest order. The bloke asked a question that his own brain wanted answering and to be hoonest, I clicked on the thread because I was interested. So stop being such a pompous idiot. People, other than yourself, have an opinion and an interest that is just as RELEVANT as yours. I post very rarely, but Duncan, you have let yourself down on this one. I think Duncan was making a valid point that the club is owned by ML and he can do whatever he wants It is his club Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 26 July, 2009 Share Posted 26 July, 2009 I am also interested in knowing if the debt has been wiped out. I have heard many people say it has been, but I have not seen an offical statement or independent confirmation of this. Indeed. It just seems far too good to be true. I think that we may never fully know but if we look at how ML (and his family) operate we'll find that they have a principle of never having debt. He seems a consumate and professional businessman so I'd think that he has not levered the acquisition of Saints against debt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 26 July, 2009 Share Posted 26 July, 2009 Proving that you are an arrogant man of the highest order. The bloke asked a question that his own brain wanted answering and to be hoonest, I clicked on the thread because I was interested. So stop being such a pompous idiot. People, other than yourself, have an opinion and an interest that is just as RELEVANT as yours. I post very rarely, but Duncan, you have let yourself down on this one. I think that you'll find many, many people who are far more arrogant than Duncan. Forthright he may well be but certainly not arrogant! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordswoodsaints Posted 26 July, 2009 Share Posted 26 July, 2009 I think you miss the point. It is not WE any more it is HIM He owns SFC lock stock and barrel - we have no debt or financial obligations but as fans we have no rights. All your questions are completely irrelevant. Hope this helps. Tbh ff I am glad that we have no rights,it stops fans with inflated egos trying to get a place on the board (you know who they are),something that scares the bejesus out of me. As I have said many times,our job is to support the club through thick and thin and pay for the privelege of doing so,anything else is not in our job description. I'm sure if things go tits up then ML would be a fool not to act on the will of the fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clapham Saint Posted 26 July, 2009 Share Posted 26 July, 2009 Sorry if this has been answered elsewhere but I haven't seen it. I have a few questions about the club's finances now. 1. Has the stadium debt been wholly written off or has some of the mortgage debt been assumed by Markus Liebherr? 2. How many pence in the £ did creditors settle for? 3. Did plc shareholders end up with nothing after debts were settled? 4. Did Saints retain control of all land assets possessed? 1) As other people have said above, it appears so, yes. We will know for sure when the accounts are presented. I haven't checked if the new holding company is registered in the UK or Switzerland but am sure that GM or somebody similar will post a link to them on here once they are released. 2) The exact figure won't be known yet. 28 days after the administration ends the administrator will have to have filed a final report at companies house. It should be in there. (The "end of the administration" is not the same as the date of the takeover, there will be a bit of time needed to complete the formalities before the administration of SHL PLC (which is no longer our problem) will be completed.) 3) The shareholders would only receive a payment if there is money left over after all creditors and costs have been paid in full. So yes. 4) I don't think anybody has specifically confirmed either way however you may (hopefully) be able to find out from the Administrator's report. Alternatively when the annual accounts are finally released we will be able to see from those. Add to that: does anyone know what the final figure was for saints aid and where the money (if there was any) went? I don't know but the money raise will have gone towards the running costs of the club (i.e. wages etc) during the admin period. Part of the deal when ML took over was all these questions (ie the price he was paying for the club) would be confidential. So it is irrelevant unless of course you are a creditor. I think you can take it as read that no one got back what they were owed. And as for the shareholders nothing. I was a minor shareholder, the company went bust, I lost out. End off. Given the Administrator's reporting responsibilities and annaul accounts this isn't possible. They may have agreed not to disclose details though. I was a shareholder in SLH and have not yet received any official letter about the whole affair. Has anyone else? Did you own your share directly? If your broker held it for you they may have owned the share in their name on your behalf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red&white56 Posted 26 July, 2009 Share Posted 26 July, 2009 Thanks Clapham, this is a good answer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 26 July, 2009 Share Posted 26 July, 2009 I think that you'll find many, many people who are far more arrogant than Duncan. Forthright he may well be but certainly not arrogant! Agreed, ESB - which makes FF's high-handed and pompous response all the more surprising. And thanks, Clapham - as ever, a clear and helpful post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 26 July, 2009 Share Posted 26 July, 2009 Agreed, ESB - which makes FF's high-handed and pompous response all the more surprising. And thanks, Clapham - as ever, a clear and helpful post. I think Duncan does not like after 125 or so years to have one person owning the club. He has mentioned this on a number of occassions I tend to agree with him. However as there was no alternative we will have to live with it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fitzhugh Fella Posted 26 July, 2009 Share Posted 26 July, 2009 (edited) Proving that you are an arrogant man of the highest order. The bloke asked a question that his own brain wanted answering and to be hoonest, I clicked on the thread because I was interested. So stop being such a pompous idiot. People, other than yourself, have an opinion and an interest that is just as RELEVANT as yours. I post very rarely, but Duncan, you have let yourself down on this one. I'm sorry Saint Chris, I did not intend to sound "pompous". My excuse is this has been covered in umpteen different threads and people seem frustratingly reluctant to grasp the fuller implications of Liebherr's purchase of SFC. However my reply was abrubt and I have since apologised to Topgun. I accept he felt a genuine need to ask the question and in my next post I will try and explain where I was originaly coming from. I wish I had given this fuller answer initially without being so dismissive to TopGun. Hope that justifies you calling me an idiot btw. Edited 26 July, 2009 by Fitzhugh Fella Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fitzhugh Fella Posted 26 July, 2009 Share Posted 26 July, 2009 (edited) I think Duncan does not like after 125 or so years to have one person owning the club. He has mentioned this on a number of occassions I tend to agree with him. However as there was no alternative we will have to live with it John - its not a question of not "liking" being privately owned, nowadays it seems having a Sugar Daddy owner is the only way to survive/compete and our "sugar daddy" owner thankfully seems respected and genuine. However what I find incredibly frustrating is the way the fans seem to think nothing has changed except ML has come in wiped the debt, cleared the morgage and is wandering around with a blank chequebook. It is not quite like that. Whereas in the past under Lowe etc during PLC days, the chairman and the board were answerable 100% to the shareholders and to a lesser degree the customers (thats fans to you and I). Indeed even in pre PLC days when we were a limited company under Askham, Woodford, Reader, Barber and Co they were much anwerable to the fans who kept them financially afloat. Now fan pressure can count for nowt if Markus doesn't agree. He could send the team out wearing Pompey blue v Millwall if he wants. He is not financially dependent on the fans, he has no board to answer to. Hopefully the man will not be so silly and I am sure he will want to build a club he and us can be proud of but you only have to look down the road to see how a club can sufffer by falling into apparently wealthy hands only for it to go horribly pear shaped when people lose interest and try and claim back their previously invested funds. So it no longer is about debt or finance. If we had sold Lallana for £50m last season we could have all rejoiced, settled the mortgage and paid up our debts and still had cash left over for team strenghening but now if we sold him for the same sum tomorrow, it will not neccesarily make one ioata of difference to the "club's" wealth. We are totally and utterly in the hands of ML. I do very much feel we could be in worse hands so am hopeful better days lay ahead but we will never do back to the "good old days" when it was little ol Southampton punching above their weight in the premiership! Edited 26 July, 2009 by Fitzhugh Fella Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VectisSaint Posted 26 July, 2009 Share Posted 26 July, 2009 No, they are not irrelevant. I want to know if plc shareholders received anything. I am sure others are interested. Equally, I am interested in knowing how much creditors received from the administrators. I am sure that is something of interest to others also. plc shareholders received nothing. Guaranteed. Like many other ordinary supporters I was also a shareholder. So for those that say this is irrelevant I think you should think a bit more. For the amount I had though I don't really care, it was a small price to pay to be rid of the leeches that put our Club where it was. I see others have stated categorically that we no longer have a stadium debt. What is the source/evidence for this. I would be very surprised if this was true, given what ML allegedly paid for the Club. In any case, why was there a need to wipe out the debt, Avaya would make more money if the debt remained. But it is a question that I would be interested to know the factual answer to, rather than the speculation. After all, if something were to happen to ML (God forbid) then we could be lumbered again. I think it is a fair question that the OP raised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmysaint7 Posted 26 July, 2009 Share Posted 26 July, 2009 Tbh ff I am glad that we have no rights,it stops fans with inflated egos trying to get a place on the board (you know who they are),something that scares the bejesus out of me. As I have said many times,our job is to support the club through thick and thin and pay for the privelege of doing so,anything else is not in our job description. I'm sure if things go tits up then ML would be a fool not to act on the will of the fans. i agree with all this post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beatlesaint Posted 26 July, 2009 Share Posted 26 July, 2009 We are totally and utterly in the hands of ML. I do very much feel we could be in worse hands so am hopeful better days lay ahead but we will never do back to the "good old days" when it was little ol Southampton punching above their weight in the premiership! I understand and appreciate what you are saying but is that a bad thing ? I think you have been punch drunk by the goings on at Southampton over the past few years. At some point we have to trust somebody to be custodian of this club for the next generation, and lets face it we sure as hell couldnt trust the last incumbent. I dont really know why you think we as fans should have rights as such. The right to walk away if you dont like whats going on is and will always be there, as it was last season when the old duck hunting chap came back and many walked. I dont have any say in how Asda is run but it wont stop me shopping there. As a PLC the shareholders had rights and look at the god awful mess that got us into. If we had been taken over by one of these Far East tycoons with a dodgy past then yeah, your concerns would be right....but i think ML has shown already that he is not here to make a quick profit then get out of town. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ooohTerryHurlock Posted 26 July, 2009 Share Posted 26 July, 2009 I think Duncan was making a valid point that the club is owned by ML and he can do whatever he wants It is his club ... And what is it worth without us the fans??? I think it is better for unity's sake that it remains OUR CLUB!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 26 July, 2009 Share Posted 26 July, 2009 ... And what is it worth without us the fans??? I think it is better for unity's sake that it remains OUR CLUB!!! Duncan's point is it is not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clapham Saint Posted 26 July, 2009 Share Posted 26 July, 2009 plc shareholders received nothing. Guaranteed. Like many other ordinary supporters I was also a shareholder. So for those that say this is irrelevant I think you should think a bit more. For the amount I had though I don't really care, it was a small price to pay to be rid of the leeches that put our Club where it was. I see others have stated categorically that we no longer have a stadium debt. What is the source/evidence for this. I would be very surprised if this was true, given what ML allegedly paid for the Club. In any case, why was there a need to wipe out the debt, Avaya would make more money if the debt remained. But it is a question that I would be interested to know the factual answer to, rather than the speculation. After all, if something were to happen to ML (God forbid) then we could be lumbered again. I think it is a fair question that the OP raised. The only "evidence" that o have seen is the quote from ml's man that the club is debt free. From experience I also think of unlikely that ml took on any of the avia debt. Aviva may have made more money if the debt remained however that is dependent upon somebody making repayments. If the club went out of business they would have lost a lot more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Draino76 Posted 26 July, 2009 Share Posted 26 July, 2009 "Now fan pressure can count for nowt if Markus doesn't agree. He could send the team out wearing Pompey blue v Millwall if he wants. He is not financially dependent on the fans, he has no board to answer to." See Newcastle fans with John Ashley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 26 July, 2009 Share Posted 26 July, 2009 John - its not a question of not "liking" being privately owned, nowadays it seems having a Sugar Daddy owner is the only way to survive/compete and our "sugar daddy" owner thankfully seems respected and genuine. However what I find incredibly frustrating is the way the fans seem to think nothing has changed except ML has come in wiped the debt, cleared the morgage and is wandering around with a blank chequebook. It is not quite like that. Whereas in the past under Lowe etc during PLC days, the chairman and the board were answerable 100% to the shareholders and to a lesser degree the customers (thats fans to you and I). Indeed even in pre PLC days when we were a limited company under Askham, Woodford, Reader, Barber and Co they were much anwerable to the fans who kept them financially afloat. Now fan pressure can count for nowt if Markus doesn't agree. He could send the team out wearing Pompey blue v Millwall if he wants. He is not financially dependent on the fans, he has no board to answer to. Hopefully the man will not be so silly and I am sure he will want to build a club he and us can be proud of but you only have to look down the road to see how a club can sufffer by falling into apparently wealthy hands only for it to go horribly pear shaped when people lose interest and try and claim back their previously invested funds. So it no longer is about debt or finance. If we had sold Lallana for £50m last season we could have all rejoiced, settled the mortgage and paid up our debts and still had cash left over for team strenghening but now if we sold him for the same sum tomorrow, it will not neccesarily make one ioata of difference to the "club's" wealth. We are totally and utterly in the hands of ML. I do very much feel we could be in worse hands so am hopeful better days lay ahead but we will never do back to the "good old days" when it was little ol Southampton punching above their weight in the premiership! Duncan, I am utterly astounded at your negativity. We are now owned by someone well respected; a man of principle, who has made it clear he wants to bring the good times back to Saints, and the actions of whose management since he took over has clearly demonstrated that commitment and shown that we are moving slowly in that direction. I for one couldnt give a sh*t that he completely owns the club; I feel that I and my fellow fans are no more powerless to effect change at SMS than we were under the Beetroot-faced twot. The ultimate sanction of voting-with-your-feet and not going or paying for tickets remains, if ML did something REALLY outrageous, but I for one am certain that occasion will not arise. So what if somewhen in the future he flogs a valuable young player to make some money ? I am sure he will put some of it back into the team, and besides, its not like previous boards havent done anything like that, is it ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 26 July, 2009 Share Posted 26 July, 2009 we will never do back to the "good old days" when it was little ol Southampton punching above their weight in the premiership! That is a good thing IMO, way more chance of success now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 26 July, 2009 Share Posted 26 July, 2009 (edited) Duncan, I am utterly astounded at your negativity. We are now owned by someone well respected; a man of principle, who has made it clear he wants to bring the good times back to Saints, and the actions of whose management since he took over has clearly demonstrated that commitment and shown that we are moving slowly in that direction. I for one couldnt give a sh*t that he completely owns the club; I feel that I and my fellow fans are no more powerless to effect change at SMS than we were under the Beetroot-faced twot. The ultimate sanction of voting-with-your-feet and not going or paying for tickets remains, if ML did something REALLY outrageous, but I for one am certain that occasion will not arise. So what if somewhen in the future he flogs a valuable young player to make some money ? I am sure he will put some of it back into the team, and besides, its not like previous boards havent done anything like that, is it ? I think the point being made is more theoretical than practical. As you say there is absolutely no evidence that Markus will not be a good owner. However we dont really know him and it is possible that the club will not be run the way we want. I am not certain how the club will be run and how the decision to buy and sell players will be made in the past it was probably made on financial reasons only Edited 26 July, 2009 by John B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John B Posted 26 July, 2009 Share Posted 26 July, 2009 That is a good thing IMO, way more chance of success now. Probably yes but possibly no Just Look at Newcastle and Pompey they have/had rich owners but are currently not in a good position Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steeleye Saint Posted 26 July, 2009 Share Posted 26 July, 2009 Duncan, I am utterly astounded at your negativity. We are now owned by someone well respected; a man of principle, who has made it clear he wants to bring the good times back to Saints, and the actions of whose management since he took over has clearly demonstrated that commitment and shown that we are moving slowly in that direction. I for one couldnt give a sh*t that he completely owns the club; I feel that I and my fellow fans are no more powerless to effect change at SMS than we were under the Beetroot-faced twot. The ultimate sanction of voting-with-your-feet and not going or paying for tickets remains, if ML did something REALLY outrageous, but I for one am certain that occasion will not arise. So what if somewhen in the future he flogs a valuable young player to make some money ? I am sure he will put some of it back into the team, and besides, its not like previous boards havent done anything like that, is it ? Quite. Some people are never happy are they? This man has saved our club. What would have happened if he hadn't stepped in? I for one am quite happy to entrust the club to him - FF, enjoy the new era - we've had enough negativity and depression around the club over the last few years. THINK POSITIVE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRichmond Posted 26 July, 2009 Share Posted 26 July, 2009 I would think shareholders are wiped out as soon as the plc goes into admin regardless of what happens afterwards? I thought that as well .......... .......... but it does not explain the very Loud Silence from Messrs Wilde and Lowe since Admin ........ Did they sell up prior to the "Crash" ... ????:cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 26 July, 2009 Share Posted 26 July, 2009 Lol at our fans........the man has been the owner for a few weeks and here we are, with some fans telling the Eithernet, that it is 'OUR CLUB'. Give him a chance FFS....it didn't exactly work out the 'shareholder' way, as one man dominated, and laughed at our feeble attempts to have a big say in 'OUR CLUB'. Duncan, again I respect you, but in all honesty, it has never been 'OUR CLUB'. We have never had any control. I think, and this is strictly my opinion, that ML will be the saving of this club. I think that in ten years, we will be wanting to build a statue of him.........shareholders...bahhhh!!! who needs them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 26 July, 2009 Share Posted 26 July, 2009 I think you miss the point. It is not WE any more it is HIM He owns SFC lock stock and barrel - we have no debt or financial obligations but as fans we have no rights. All your questions are completely irrelevant. Hope this helps. We had no rights as a plc Duncan - fans were irrelevant under Lowe. But you are correct, we will need to monitor the club's actions as fans a little in order to keep half an eye on the Swiss saviour. That said, one owner, one vision and as club as one is worth everything. Anyway, what happens if he loses interest? He sells to someone who has some. plc is dead, and simply didnt and doesnt work. Give me an ambitious dictator any day! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rallyboy Posted 26 July, 2009 Share Posted 26 July, 2009 I can understand the concern about the potential problems of having one owner. But if we look around the leagues I would suggest that OUR one owner has credibility, a proven track record, respect in the business community, and has done everything in a professional and sensible manner that gives me confidence in his ability to move the club forward and not regard Saints as a flats/hotel development that happens to have some annoying sporting club attached. Bates, Gaydamak, Hamman, non-Dr Hydra-'sue me for your money back' - not men I would want near my club. Chelsea is a hotel complex financed on a whim by Russian oil 'given' to people by a crumbling govt, the Glazers bought Man utd with the club's own money, Liverpool has the 'benefit' of two owners and all that goes with boardroom egos, QPR has a cosy consortium that has bought some great chandliers, and Leeds have just picked up a huge bill for Bates' latest legal loss, though of course the club is owned by a mystery trail of off shore investment vehicle companies. I would be nervous with some of those people pulling the strings, but we are not in that position, one owner can be a problem if it's the wrong owner. Unless he goes a bit bonkers at some point, I will be very comfortable with ours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 26 July, 2009 Share Posted 26 July, 2009 Probably yes but possibly no Just Look at Newcastle and Pompey they have/had rich owners but are currently not in a good position Of course there are no guarantees, we could be in League 1 in 5 years time if we dont get the right manager. But, as much as I hate the way football is nowadays, it was a simple case of get a rich owner or spend the next 20-30 years at best yo-yoing between League 1 and the Championship, now there is actually a possiblity of being a Prem club in a few years time. As much ad the 70's and 80's were good, we still only had modest success, I want to be the next Chelsea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 26 July, 2009 Share Posted 26 July, 2009 Lol at our fans........the man has been the owner for a few weeks and here we are, with some fans telling the Eithernet, that it is 'OUR CLUB'. Give him a chance FFS....it didn't exactly work out the 'shareholder' way, as one man dominated, and laughed at our feeble attempts to have a big say in 'OUR CLUB'. Duncan, again I respect you, but in all honesty, it has never been 'OUR CLUB'. We have never had any control. I think, and this is strictly my opinion, that ML will be the saving of this club. I think that in ten years, we will be wanting to build a statue of him.........shareholders...bahhhh!!! who needs them. I agree with you we never HAD "our club"...it is a cute idea that fans love to believe in.. one way or another, someone is in charge... we, as fans play our part by turning up cheering/booing the team as required and make noise and make the atmosphere etc.. other than that...cant see what the problem is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 26 July, 2009 Share Posted 26 July, 2009 plc is dead, and simply didnt and doesnt work. Give me an ambitious dictator any day! unless we get european football by any means under this regime then how can yu say the PLC did not work...? it worked well at times, then the guy in charge lost it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintchris23 Posted 26 July, 2009 Share Posted 26 July, 2009 I'm sorry Saint Chris, I did not intend to sound "pompous". My excuse is this has been covered in umpteen different threads and people seem frustratingly reluctant to grasp the fuller implications of Liebherr's purchase of SFC. However my reply was abrubt and I have since apologised to Topgun. I accept he felt a genuine need to ask the question and in my next post I will try and explain where I was originaly coming from. I wish I had given this fuller answer initially without being so dismissive to TopGun. Hope that justifies you calling me an idiot btw. Indeed it does......thank you. However, if something doesn't interest you then why not click on another thread like I do? Hey ho, we (sorry ML, there is no we anymore is there?) won 3-0 yesterday, onwards and upwards! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonManager Posted 26 July, 2009 Share Posted 26 July, 2009 The 'we' is in an emotional sense. Saints have been my club for 41 years and always will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now