Snowballs2 Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 We do have a number of relatively wealthy fans, mant have enough money to invest that would not affect their overall financial personal situation. We all know who they are without me mentioning specific names. Are they the biggest traitors of all. We supporters are pilloried for non attendance, but not to invest when you can seems to be as big a "crime" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scudamore Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 Yawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMike Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 Yawn not at all. I think it is a very valid point. They sit back on their £££'s, no doubt moaning just as we do and yet do nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scudamore Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 not at all. I think it is a very valid point. They sit back on their £££'s, no doubt moaning just as we do and yet do nothing. And this makes them "traitors" does it? Everybody is entitled to spend their own money how they wish... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 We do have a number of relatively wealthy fans, mant have enough money to invest that would not affect their overall financial personal situation. We all know who they are without me mentioning specific names. Are they the biggest traitors of all. We supporters are pilloried for non attendance, but not to invest when you can seems to be as big a "crime" What i do not understand is that any other PLC the shareholders would be asked to fund a shortfall by rights issue or let the business go bust. But SLH are asking the customer to fund their **** ups. Another example of being a PLC in name only Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derry Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 They would possibly invest, but the dictatorial environment on 6% of the shares means nobody in their right mind would want to invest their money. It seems the present shareholders wouldn't sponsor a rights issue or sell up without strings at an unrealistic price. The shares really have no value, as the club surely has a negative value. The asset value at present market rates against debts and liabilities makes us a poor investment. The cost of a complete takeover is unrealistic. That is why it hasn't happened and looks more unlikely in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 What i do not understand is that any other PLC the shareholders would be asked to fund a shortfall by rights issue or let the business go bust. But SLH are asking the customer to fund their **** ups. Another example of being a PLC in name only But in other businesses the customers go elsewhere if the company goes bust. Football is unique in that it has a loyal customer base (ie the fans) who will not go elsewhere. The wealthly fans I am aware of only have tens or maybe a hundred million to their name. To invest successfully in Saints you need to be prepared to pay £40m (£10m to buy the club plus £30m on stadium debt and overdrafts)before any investment in players etc. Therefore you need to be prepared to lose at least £50-60m of your own cash. They are not traitors just sensible businessmen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scudamore Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 My c::ck just crowed three times...terrible mess... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1965onwards Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 Spot on Derry. Aministration is our only hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 But in other businesses the customers go elsewhere if the company goes bust. Football is unique in that it has a loyal customer base (ie the fans) who will not go elsewhere. The wealthly fans I am aware of only have tens or maybe a hundred million to their name. To invest successfully in Saints you need to be prepared to pay £40m (£10m to buy the club plus £30m on stadium debt and overdrafts)before any investment in players etc. Therefore you need to be prepared to lose at least £50-60m of your own cash. They are not traitors just sensible businessmen I think you miss my point Why do not the existing Shareholders invest more as other businesses do when they are short of funds. Say the top 10 shareholders put in £300k each, to help us acquire some experienced players to help the youngsters. Will not happen because at least half of them have never paid a penny for their current shareholdings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INFLUENCED.COM Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 Are they the biggest traitors of all. We supporters are pilloried for non attendance, but not to invest when you can seems to be as big a "crime" If, a season ticket represents 5% of the average fans disposable income and he choses not to invest that in Saints does that make him a traitor ? if so then by your logic we have at least 5,000 traitors who are not amongst us at the moment and I appeal to those in the first instance, as by default, their attendance will attract those with far greater wealth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowgli Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 OMG. Has the blame culture has just reached a new low? Please tell me this thread is a wind up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 OMG. Has the blame culture has just reached a new low? Please tell me this thread is a wind up. SO everything is smelling of roses in your garden then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Saint Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 Why not say the likes of Skacel and our other overpaid players are to blame for not tearing up their contracts or taking a big pay cut!!!!!!. Snowballs2, I know it was a question from you but I am suprised someone like you with your business background would suggest such a thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N/West Saint Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 Only 2 people you can really blame for this mess. One works 2 days a week and the other one is a tax exile who can only come into the country 40 times a year. IMO of course Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowgli Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 SO everything is smelling of roses in your garden then I tried 3 times to think of a suitable response but I honestly don't think you are intellectually capable of even comprehending how wrong this thread is. So why bother. For others, the garden is not rosy; the players need to take a long hard look at themselves. Blaming someone for not spending their money on the things YOU want them to spend it on is pretty ... .....unbelievable. I am starting to think with fans like Snowballs and 70's Mike, we are getting exactly what we deserve this season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 I tried 3 times to think of a suitable response but I honestly don't think you are intellectually capable of even comprehending how wrong this thread is. So why bother. For others, the garden is not rosy; the players need to take a long hard look at themselves. Blaming someone for not spending their money on the things YOU want them to spend it on is pretty ... .....unbelievable. I am starting to think with fans like Snowballs and 70's Mike, we are getting exactly what we deserve this season. The problem with your argument is that the fans and people of Southampton feel like i do and not like the great intellectual you obviously are, hence attendances are falling, lowe is despised and a devisve influence The players can look in as many mirrors as they like but the fact is they are not good enough and have been sold up the river by certain shareholders who want to run a football club on the cheap. Another thread talked about the difference between us and Hull , biggest differnce is there shareholders put their hands in their pocket and put more money in, we have been under capitalised since the reverse takeover, in fact many of ruperts little group never paid a penny for their investment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1965onwards Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 Have to laugh at the jackasses like Mowgli who are suddenly trying to lay the blame for the clubs demise at the feet of the fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norwaysaint Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 We could all invest. Are you willing to put up a substantial proportion of what you have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 We could all invest. Are you willing to put up a substantial proportion of what you have? Have already paid more to the club over the years than some of the controlling group have put in Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMike Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 And this makes them "traitors" does it? Everybody is entitled to spend their own money how they wish... yes, and hypocrites. Moaning about the splinters in someone elses eye when they have a whole forest in their own Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Fry Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 Have already paid more to the club over the years than some of the controlling group have put in Hang on a minute, unless you can prove otherwise, I'm guessing all you've done is buy tickets and merchandise etc. ie all you have paid for a product or service provided: You pay for a ticket and you get to go and watch a football match. That isn't actually "investing". Why the **** should people spend their own money on the things you say, and then be called a traitor if they don't? Who the hell are you? Do you want me to send you my bank statements and then you tell me how much I should be posting through SFC's letterbox? What a laughable thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 (edited) Are they the biggest traitors of all. No. not at all. I think it is a very valid point. They sit back on their £££'s, no doubt moaning just as we do and yet do nothing. What can they do? Do you think Lowe and his acolytes or Wilde will sell up now? Only if someone pays WAY over the odds. They've managed to engineer a complete **** or bust situation. Would you be able to stomach their smug grins if it was your money they were walzing off with? Everybody is entitled to spend their own money how they wish... Yes, I agree. What i do not understand is that any other PLC the shareholders would be asked to fund a shortfall by rights issue or let the business go bust. But SLH are asking the customer to fund their **** ups. Another example of being a PLC in name only Indeed - PLC when it suits Lowe, bleeding emotional blackmail when it doesn't. They would possibly invest, but the dictatorial environment on 6% of the shares means nobody in their right mind would want to invest their money. It seems the present shareholders wouldn't sponsor a rights issue or sell up without strings at an unrealistic price. Exactly - it would be nice to have owners who actually gave a ****. OMG. Has the blame culture has just reached a new low? Please tell me this thread is a wind up. Apparently, it isn't!! Only 2 people you can really blame for this mess. One works 2 days a week and the other one is a tax exile who can only come into the country 40 times a year. IMO of course I agree (although I don't think this bit is quite right ) Blaming someone for not spending their money on the things YOU want them to spend it on is pretty ... .....unbelievable. It is indeed, although I would like to think that those who are clearly to blame (and who are incidentally also shareholders) would consider it morally incumbent upon themselves to offer some sort of financial support. Lowe and Cowan could always loan their shares of the £563,000 termination payments back interest free and without security. Wilde could find his invisible £2million (I think he left it with the invisible investors). I would also urge all small shareholders to exercise their voice. Write in to the board and ask them to explain the justification for the current experiment. You own the company that employs them. I don't want a billionaire Arab, a yee-haa Yank, or an international criminal running Saints, I want owners who give a **** and whose prime motivation is SFC - if we had those then maybe some of the "traitors" might be more inclined to help. Edited 20 October, 2008 by benjii Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wimbornesaint Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 The problem with your argument is that the fans and people of Southampton feel like i do and not like the great intellectual you obviously are, hence attendances are falling, lowe is despised and a devisve influence The players can look in as many mirrors as they like but the fact is they are not good enough and have been sold up the river by certain shareholders who want to run a football club on the cheap. Another thread talked about the difference between us and Hull , biggest differnce is there shareholders put their hands in their pocket and put more money in, we have been under capitalised since the reverse takeover, in fact many of ruperts little group never paid a penny for their investment. I don't think Hull are a plc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red and White Army Posted 21 October, 2008 Share Posted 21 October, 2008 I am starting to think with fans like Snowballs and 70's Mike, we are getting exactly what we deserve this season. Sadly, I agree. Far too many stay away to$$ers who are driving our gates down and crippling the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
INFLUENCED.COM Posted 21 October, 2008 Share Posted 21 October, 2008 I don't want a billionaire Arab, a yee-haa Yank, or an international criminal running Saints. I would take any of the above but in the absence of, will continue to support my team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatch Posted 21 October, 2008 Share Posted 21 October, 2008 Hang on a minute, unless you can prove otherwise, I'm guessing all you've done is buy tickets and merchandise etc. ie all you have paid for a product or service provided: You pay for a ticket and you get to go and watch a football match. That isn't actually "investing". Why the **** should people spend their own money on the things you say, and then be called a traitor if they don't? Who the hell are you? Do you want me to send you my bank statements and then you tell me how much I should be posting through SFC's letterbox? What a laughable thread. ditto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solentstars Posted 21 October, 2008 Share Posted 21 October, 2008 OMG. Has the blame culture has just reached a new low? Please tell me this thread is a wind up. i think the term barking mad comes into play .calling people traitors and nonsence about lowe picking the side etc ,it gets more unreal some of these threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scudamore Posted 21 October, 2008 Share Posted 21 October, 2008 Have to laugh at the jackasses like Mowgli who are suddenly trying to lay the blame for the clubs demise at the feet of the fans. One or two on this thread need to go on my ignore list i feel... I invite you to reread both of Mowgli's posts on this thread... Then perhaps you could apologise for calling him a jackass for no reason... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 21 October, 2008 Share Posted 21 October, 2008 I am starting to think with fans like Snowballs and 70's Mike, we are getting exactly what we deserve this season. What exactly do we deserve, us fans? Let's just take the football. We pay a ticket or ST price that is not the lowest, so we deserve to watch football of a certain standard commensurate with at least an average team in our division. If some feel that they are not getting that, they are perfectly entitled to stay away. What are we entitled to expect from our directors? After all, they are the custodians of our club and yet the main body of power lies with the shareholders involved in a morally bankrupt reverse takeover and an unholy alliance between two failed former chairmen. If that board has not put any of their own money into the club other than through the purchase of shares to buy their seats in the Directors' box, then we are perfectly entitled to be angry when their inadequacies are sending the club we love in a downward spiral. You might argue that the club gets the fans it deserves, but what have we done to deserve the Directors we have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egreog Posted 21 October, 2008 Share Posted 21 October, 2008 People who ARE wealthy , over a long period make relatively sound investments either in their business or personally.....Saints is NOT a good investment and thus sensible individuals are not clamouring at the door to throw their money in.......no surprise really !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 21 October, 2008 Share Posted 21 October, 2008 What exactly do we deserve, us fans? Let's just take the football. We pay a ticket or ST price that is not the lowest, so we deserve to watch football of a certain standard commensurate with at least an average team in our division. If some feel that they are not getting that, they are perfectly entitled to stay away. What are we entitled to expect from our directors? After all, they are the custodians of our club and yet the main body of power lies with the shareholders involved in a morally bankrupt reverse takeover and an unholy alliance between two failed former chairmen. If that board has not put any of their own money into the club other than through the purchase of shares to buy their seats in the Directors' box, then we are perfectly entitled to be angry when their inadequacies are sending the club we love in a downward spiral. You might argue that the club gets the fans it deserves, but what have we done to deserve the Directors we have? is not the directors principal responsibility towards the shareholders at all times? I seem to remember that they are the custodians of the investors investment and it is up to them to protect it. Other than it being common sense to be customer aware I don't think they have any responsibility towards the paying customer whatsoever, apart to those of them who are shareholders.If whatever they do that may alienate customers has a value greater than the saving made by doing it then they are at fault but if the end justifies the means ,then they've done their job. Let's say they get rid of a fans favourite who costs say 600K a year. Unless that individual decision costs the club 30000 fans per season ie about 1250 per game (allowing for VAT) then their decision is justified. For every player like that who may or may not have been contributing fully to the clubs survival or demise then the same equation applies. In giving the boot to Safri,Viafara,Vignal,Hammill,Ostlund,Licka,Makin,Powell, Lundekvam and Wright and loaning out Rasiak and Saganowski the club have saved about 5 million a year . That means 250000 spectators over the season. Or more than 10000 per game, probably 11 or 12K if you count concessions instead of full whack.So as long as 15K go every hopme game they are right royally quids in in protecting the shareholders investment. As long as we survive, they've done their job whether we ,the fans like it or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brmbrm Posted 21 October, 2008 Share Posted 21 October, 2008 We do have a number of relatively wealthy fans, mant have enough money to invest that would not affect their overall financial personal situation. We all know who they are without me mentioning specific names. Are they the biggest traitors of all. We supporters are pilloried for non attendance, but not to invest when you can seems to be as big a "crime" Please remind me exactly how someone could "invest"? Its a PLC so either they could (a) try and buy shares, the money then goes to the old shareholder (b) donate money to the PLC. Not invest - give. Then its up to lowe how to spend it, and his job position says he should act in the shareholders best interests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 21 October, 2008 Share Posted 21 October, 2008 is not the directors principal responsibility towards the shareholders at all times? I seem to remember that they are the custodians of the investors investment and it is up to them to protect it. Other than it being common sense to be customer aware I don't think they have any responsibility towards the paying customer whatsoever, apart to those of them who are shareholders.If whatever they do that may alienate customers has a value greater than the saving made by doing it then they are at fault but if the end justifies the means ,then they've done their job.Let's say they get rid of a fans favourite who costs say 600K a year. Unless that individual decision costs the club 30000 fans per season ie about 1250 per game (allowing for VAT) then their decision is justified. For every player like that who may or may not have been contributing fully to the clubs survival or demise then the same equation applies. In giving the boot to Safri,Viafara,Vignal,Hammill,Ostlund,Licka,Makin,Powell, Lundekvam and Wright and loaning out Rasiak and Saganowski the club have saved about 5 million a year . That means 250000 spectators over the season. Or more than 10000 per game, probably 11 or 12K if you count concessions instead of full whack.So as long as 15K go every hopme game they are right royally quids in in protecting the shareholders investment. As long as we survive, they've done their job whether we ,the fans like it or not. Yes, you're right in all that you say, broadly. But the pertinent part is that highlighted. Effectively the PLC is now only the football club to all intents and purposes, whereas previously it was also other ancilliary things too. Therefore virtually the sole income of the PLC is derived through the revenue generated by ticket sales to watch the football. Sure they can rely (and do)on a certain percentage of their customers to attend no matter who is in charge and regardless of price within reasonable boundaries. But as you acknowledge, there has to be a certain number of bums per seat averaged out over the season to make ends meet. If because of the board's actions, the number of attendees falls dramatically as a result of either their pricing policy or the fare on offer being deemed to be very poor, then the blame attaches to the board, who will have failed to act in the best interests of the shareholders and the PLC. As for the shareholders, I am one, although having a very small number of shares, also my son. What would be interesting though is a resolution put to the AGM deploring the route that has been taken by this current board and asking them to explain their strategy of relying too heavily on the youngsters and the employment of management inexperienced at this level in this country. But as for your last line, effectively that if we don't like it we have to lump it, then of course we do not. If the board thought along the same lines as you, then they might have to undergo a rude awakening if sufficient number of fans decided that they had had enough of the board. They cannot survive without our support at a certain level and they had better not forget that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 21 October, 2008 Share Posted 21 October, 2008 Yes, you're right in all that you say, broadly. But the pertinent part is that highlighted. Effectively the PLC is now only the football club to all intents and purposes, whereas previously it was also other ancilliary things too. Therefore virtually the sole income of the PLC is derived through the revenue generated by ticket sales to watch the football. Sure they can rely (and do)on a certain percentage of their customers to attend no matter who is in charge and regardless of price within reasonable boundaries. But as you acknowledge, there has to be a certain number of bums per seat averaged out over the season to make ends meet. If because of the board's actions, the number of attendees falls dramatically as a result of either their pricing policy or the fare on offer being deemed to be very poor, then the blame attaches to the board, who will have failed to act in the best interests of the shareholders and the PLC. As for the shareholders, I am one, although having a very small number of shares, also my son. What would be interesting though is a resolution put to the AGM deploring the route that has been taken by this current board and asking them to explain their strategy of relying too heavily on the youngsters and the employment of management inexperienced at this level in this country. But as for your last line, effectively that if we don't like it we have to lump it, then of course we do not. If the board thought along the same lines as you, then they might have to undergo a rude awakening if sufficient number of fans decided that they had had enough of the board. They cannot survive without our support at a certain level and they had better not forget that. Hmm, I would tentatively suggest that the "core" support has been assessed down to a margin of error of 500 or so.There are 10K season ticket holders, 4000 matchday hardliners and the rest depends on opposition and the weather. They will know exactly when to act, we will know when there are special offers. I am no great fan of Wilde,Lowe or Cowan but they are pretty astute and idiots they aren't, no matter what we like to think. As I see it (and I could be way way off base) our only objective this season is survival and cost reduction.When you see special matchday offers you'll know that we're off our targets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordswoodsaints Posted 21 October, 2008 Share Posted 21 October, 2008 the truth is that the situation we are in has been forced upon us by our financial problems,these problems have many different reasons and the blame lies with many people including the fans. there probably are other options but we can no longer afford to experiment with changing managers and adding players to the squad who may or may not pay off.in the past(premiership days and parachute payment days) we could afford the luxury of changing a manager or buying a few players when things were not going to plan but those days have long gone,things are tight for everybody at the moment across the world so that also adds to an already bad situation. tbh i thought that we might have done better than we have so far but i am optimistic that we will still finish mid table.the situation we are in is not ideal and is far from secure but a lot of people it seems have given up before we have even got going. looking for another leader is not the best option,who would do the job? what would they be able to do different with the same resources? the answer is nothing much. if the 'experiment' was working would there be so much bile on here? of course not. in an ideal world i would like us to be like chelsea or manu,also in an ideal world i would be married to pamela anderson,win the lottery every saturday night and wipe my arse with £50 notes but it aint going to happen.the best we can hope for is to stay in this league until somebody finds us attractive enough to invest in,but this is very unlikely as well. the truth hurts and our plight is sad to witness,but it is unlikely to change in the near future and people need to come to terms with the situation and realise that all they can offer is their support financially and vocally for very little return for their efforts. the good times will return one day along with the fans, it is just going to be longer and harder than we all originally thought. if i was a millionaire fan i wouldnt invest in SFC unless the club looked likely to become non existent,unless this happened i would support the club like everybody else, perhaps from an executive box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 21 October, 2008 Share Posted 21 October, 2008 t t in an ideal world i would like us to be like chelsea or manu,also in an ideal world i would be married to pamela anderson,win the lottery every saturday night and wipe my arse with £50 notes but it aint going to happen.the best we can hope for is to stay in this league until somebody finds us attractive enough to invest in,but this is very unlikely as well. With all that money I could give Pamela Anderson a miss though, I'm sure I could find a younger,racier model with sufficient dosh. All the other rich bastards seem to. 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