Lowe running Saints like a business- a misconception

[BGF]

Perhaps we should do what a lot of companies do, that is sell the factory in our case the stadium and then rent it back. What that does is allow the renting company to spend the money on equipment which the company needs again in our case would be players, without the burden of a morgage. After all why spend 25M on a stadium which doesnt make us play better.

[Fan The Flames]

The difference is that a house can always be sold to someone else who wants a house. There isn't much of a market for a second hand stadium.

 

If it is so worthless then why secure the loan to it then, why are football clubs lent the money in the first place. How does it work then if we go bust and the mortgage company realises what ever worth out of the ground do we still owe the shortfall, and if we do how is that paid.

 

Why didn't Leicester, Bradford, Luton, Cardiff, Ipswich etc loose their grounds when they went into admin.

[bridge too far]

Elland Road, Im pretty sure Leeds rent it, used to be owned by Leeds council i think, but was sold to another company when leeds went into Admin.

 

And in these heady financial climes, who / what is going to fork out whatever Aviva want to sell the mortgage on for (because that's what would have to happen in effect)?

 

Would the City be happy for the Council to spend taxpayers' money in that way? I doubt it.

 

And a private investor would want a healthy return on their outlay and that could mean the club paying more in rent than it currently pays for the mortgage, surely?

[Fan The Flames]

Won't happen at SMS, believe me.

 

Why

[Window Cleaner]

Elland Road, Im pretty sure Leeds rent it, used to be owned by Leeds council i think, but was sold to another company when leeds went into Admin.

 

Apparently Elland Road is owned by a BVI company known as Teak trading corporation. They paid Adler 12 million for it on a lease and buy back arrangement.

12 million is one thing ,30 million is something else.

[Fan The Flames]

Apparently Elland Road is owned by a BVI company known as Teak trading corporation. They paid Adler 12 million for it on a lease and buy back arrangement.

12 million is one thing ,30 million is something else.

 

So it does happen then. So St Marys could be bought by someone at the right price.

[Window Cleaner]

Why

 

Too much debt outstanding, credit crunch, falling land prices....etc etc etc.

Aviva would rather sit it out and enforce their guarantees than sell it off for a loss.

[Rogerfryisalegend]

And in these heady financial climes, who / what is going to fork out whatever Aviva want to sell the mortgage on for (because that's what would have to happen in effect)?

 

Would the City be happy for the Council to spend taxpayers' money in that way? I doubt it.

 

And a private investor would want a healthy return on their outlay and that could mean the club paying more in rent than it currently pays for the mortgage, surely?

Who suggested that the City should buy it? All I said was that Leeds council used to own Eland road, but now a company owns it, which was in response to someone who had said this would not happen. I love people who twist posts to suit themselves.

[Window Cleaner]

So it does happen then. So St Marys could be bought by someone at the right price.

 

The right price will be more than anyone will pay.

SMS has no intrinsic value unless there's a big development plan for than part of the city.The scruffy part,surrounded by a gasometer that you can't knock down and a lot of slum flats and cutprice shops.Walk around there it's awful, there's no money to be made in investing in that area, not yet, not while their are better areas about.

[Scummer]

If it is so worthless then why secure the loan to it then, why are football clubs lent the money in the first place. How does it work then if we go bust and the mortgage company realises what ever worth out of the ground do we still owe the shortfall, and if we do how is that paid.

 

Why didn't Leicester, Bradford, Luton, Cardiff, Ipswich etc loose their grounds when they went into admin.

 

I've got a feeling that the stadium loan is secured against ticket sales.

 

If we defaulted on the loan, Norwich Union could in theory repossess, and then sell the stadium on for as much as they could get. That wouldn't be for anything like the amount that the loan is worth. SLH would no longer be liable though. What would probably happen is that the club would reform as a new company (Portsmouth, for example, did this), and would then either have to come to some kind of arrangement to buy the stadium, or find somewhere else to play.

 

You can see, therefore, why NU would rather not have to repossess. Even if we had to reduce our payments for a while, that would be better for them than the alternative.

 

As to why those clubs didn't lose their grounds, the simple answer would probably be that they didn't have mortgages on them. Not sure what the situation was at Leicester.

[Fan The Flames]

Too much debt outstanding, credit crunch, falling land prices....etc etc etc.

Aviva would rather sit it out and enforce their guarantees than sell it off for a loss.

 

So you are just speculating.

 

So are you saying you reckon Aviva would rather repossess then sell on at a loss.

[St Marco]

A way it could be done would be to hand it over to the council and rent it from them. Then buy it back when we can afford it. Other clubs have done this before. Only downside is someone else could end up buying it.....(Crystal Palace owner did that i think).

[Window Cleaner]

Who suggested that the City should buy it? All I said was that Leeds council used to own Eland road, but now a company owns it, which was in response to someone who had said this would not happen. I love people who twist posts to suit themselves.

 

Probably a very dodgy company, if they're registered in the BVI, they've probably plenty to hide, a lot of them have.

[Window Cleaner]

A way it could be done would be to hand it over to the council and rent it from them. Then buy it back when we can afford it. Other clubs have done this before. Only downside is someone else could end up buying it.....(Crystal Palace owner did that i think).

 

You can't hand it over to the council when you owe the Norwich Union 20 million on it.

[Window Cleaner]

So you are just speculating.

 

So are you saying you reckon Aviva would rather repossess then sell on at a loss.

 

Call it informed speculation if you will.

Leave it there, it won't happen but if you wish to think it might then be my guest.

[bridge too far]

Who suggested that the City should buy it? All I said was that Leeds council used to own Eland road, but now a company owns it, which was in response to someone who had said this would not happen. I love people who twist posts to suit themselves.

 

What a shame you didn't read my post properly. I love it when people jump to conclusions

 

Others had mentioned Leeds council as well and Coventry council - I was merely pointing out the possible flaw in the idea that SCC would buy SMS. Idea - not suggestion - see the difference?

 

I was also pointing out the downside of a private owner renting SMS back to the club.

[Rogerfryisalegend]

I've got a feeling that the stadium loan is secured against ticket sales.

 

If we defaulted on the loan, Norwich Union could in theory repossess, and then sell the stadium on for as much as they could get. That wouldn't be for anything like the amount that the loan is worth. SLH would no longer be liable though. What would probably happen is that the club would reform as a new company (Portsmouth, for example, did this), and would then either have to come to some kind of arrangement to buy the stadium, or find somewhere else to play.

 

You can see, therefore, why NU would rather not have to repossess. Even if we had to reduce our payments for a while, that would be better for them than the alternative.

 

As to why those clubs didn't lose their grounds, the simple answer would probably be that they didn't have mortgages on them. Not sure what the situation was at Leicester.

Leicester: As part of the deal which brought the club out of receivership, the ownership of the stadium reverted to American company Teachers Insurance, who had supplied £28 million via a bond scheme towards the stadium's construction, with the club taking a long-term lease while the bond repayments were made.

[Fan The Flames]

I've got a feeling that the stadium loan is secured against ticket sales.

 

If we defaulted on the loan, Norwich Union could in theory repossess, and then sell the stadium on for as much as they could get. That wouldn't be for anything like the amount that the loan is worth. SLH would no longer be liable though. What would probably happen is that the club would reform as a new company (Portsmouth, for example, did this), and would then either have to come to some kind of arrangement to buy the stadium, or find somewhere else to play.

 

You can see, therefore, why NU would rather not have to repossess. Even if we had to reduce our payments for a while, that would be better for them than the alternative.

 

As to why those clubs didn't lose their grounds, the simple answer would probably be that they didn't have mortgages on them. Not sure what the situation was at Leicester.

 

 

Thanks, so in all probability if it does hit the fan we will end up playing back at St Marys. So whilst admin is the last thing we should wish for its not the doomsday scenario its made out to be.

[bridge too far]

So you are just speculating.

 

So are you saying you reckon Aviva would rather repossess then sell on at a loss.

 

Aviva is struggling on the LSE these days - maybe we're a toxic debt

[Window Cleaner]

Leicester: As part of the deal which brought the club out of receivership, the ownership of the stadium reverted to American company Teachers Insurance, who had supplied £28 million via a bond scheme towards the stadium's construction, with the club taking a long-term lease while the bond repayments were made.

 

Long term lease, paying off your mortgage, not much difference really.

Except that you don't own it at the end of the day and you lose whatever you've already paid. That was then, Pension plans aren't into dodgy deals any more. They're going to sit on whatever they have in their tin box and ride out the storm.

[Fan The Flames]

Aviva is struggling on the LSE these days - maybe we're a toxic debt

 

We are certainly sub-prime.

[Window Cleaner]

Aviva is struggling on the LSE these days - maybe we're a toxic debt

 

Everybody who has bad,medium or even quite good loans is struggling on the LSE just now.

They're all over stretched and over exposed, we would be considered as pretty toxic, yes.

[Fan The Flames]

Call it informed speculation if you will.

Leave it there, it won't happen but if you wish to think it might then be my guest.

 

 

I wish we wern't in this mess, but Im prepared to believe that all options are still open until they are proven otherwise and I need a little bit more proof than speculation from an internet forum user.

[Window Cleaner]

Thanks, so in all probability if it does hit the fan we will end up playing back at St Marys. So whilst admin is the last thing we should wish for its not the doomsday scenario its made out to be.

 

The doomsday plan is already in force;

Aviva are making us pay according to our guarantees, leaves no money for us to play football with, hence the shîte team and the shîte results which will lead to an even shîter team and even shîter results ad infinitum until we find our level.

[Window Cleaner]

I wish we wern't in this mess, but Im prepared to believe that all options are still open until they are proven otherwise and I need a little bit more proof than speculation from an internet forum user.

 

As you wish ;)

[Fan The Flames]

The doomsday plan is already in force;

Aviva are making us pay according to our guarantees, leaves no money for us to play football with, hence the shîte team and the shîte results which will lead to an even shîter team and even shîter results ad infinitum until we find our level.

 

No as bad as all this is its not the doomsday scenario. Which is we go bust and ta ta only to be seen again in the Hampshire league when a few people can be bother to form another club that takes on the name only. And thats never goingn to happen.

[derry]

he didn't want to know last year, he won't have changed his mind now.

Pearson, no comment to make other than it's probably not as simple as it all seems.

By the way, you probably couldn't afford Pearson moving expense with what we're paying Robertson,Pulis and Pekhart.

Just how much do you all think we're paying these kids??

Oh for the transparency of the NFL and it's salary caps and know contract deals;

It makes bullsh*t and urban myth impossible.

 

Pearson was I understand on about £160k.

[Window Cleaner]

Pearson was I understand on about £160k.

 

Well that's a reasonable figure, I just can't help thinking (not from any particular knowledge) that he was tapped up by Milan and offered more money;

Call it intuition if you will.

[Junior Mullet]

Thanks, so in all probability if it does hit the fan we will end up playing back at St Marys. So whilst admin is the last thing we should wish for its not the doomsday scenario its made out to be.

 

IMO administration is exactly what we need and will benefot the club in the long term. I see this as the only way to get rid o Lowe and his cronies. However, I fear that Lowe would rather see us sink down the divisions and play schoolkids to a crowd of a few thousand before he loses money via administration.

 

Unless his current experiment works we are in for quite a painful ride.....God I wish our club werent owned by a PLC!!!!!!!!

[slickmick]

he didn't want to know last year, he won't have changed his mind now. From memory, wasn't Hoddle quoted saying something along the lines that he wanted to see out a year at what he's doing in Spain. I'm sure he would be worth tapping up again.

Pearson, no comment to make other than it's probably not as simple as it all seems. Maybe....

By the way, you probably couldn't afford Pearson moving expense with what we're paying Robertson,Pulis and Pekhart. So what was Pearson earning ? what are we paying for these loanees ? Add them together with JP and Wottes wages, do you think there would be a big difference. I doubt it.

Just how much do you all think we're paying these kids?? No idea, have you ?

Oh for the transparency of the NFL and it's salary caps and know contract deals;

It makes bullsh*t and urban myth impossible.

 

 

I wasn't suggesting getting Pearson back, I was just pointing out that his wages couldn't be afforded, yet we can afford three loan players who aren't first choice players and two Dutch coaches. Add all those wages together and I would be surprised if it was much less than Pearsons salary, the one we couldn't afford.

Edited 27 October, 2008 by slickmick

[Window Cleaner]

I wasn't suggesting getting Pearson back, I was just pointing out that his wages couldn't be afforded, yet we can afford three loan players who aren't first choice players and two Dutch coaches. Add all those wages together and I would be surprised if it was much less than Pearsons salary, the one we couldn't afford.

 

What's all that red ink about then?.

[OldNick]

Not true. On Nov 07 Crouch said we had gone from £21.4m to £19.2m with our debt. Our turnover had gone from £25.7m to £23.2m. So we dropped £2.5m in turnover. Player trading had gone from £11.2m to £7.5m. Which proves we had lowered operating costs substantially and improved fiscal control. Also losses went from £3.3m to just £1m.

http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/uploads/documents/nov_07/sfc_1196414690_annualreport07.pdf

would those figures include us taking early payments on Theo and Bale , Jones etc. If you recall we took cutprice deals as we needed the money so badly.

[slickmick]

What's all that red ink about then?.

 

 

Is that better ??

[Window Cleaner]

would those figures include us taking early payments on Theo and Bale , Jones etc. If you recall we took cutprice deals as we needed the money so badly.

 

Bale was this year,Theo would come into last years accounts, so that's even worse. Jones was staged payments I think but fully accounted for in the accounts, ie the sale shown in the revenues and the outstanding instalments in the "monies due".

It's really difficult to say, hopefully we'll have the accounts soon but last year was catastrophic in anybody's opinion; We just carried on regardless (see Runnymede minutes),spending like there was no tomorrow and now we're paying for it.

For a medium size football club to lose and amount roughly equal to their entire "before" player trading" revenue can't be too frequent.

I don't know how many of you think about these thing but it means that "before player trading" we couldn't afford to pay a single player or coach without increasing debt. That is chronic,absolutely chronic. It means that all the fans money was spent on other things than playing football on the green square.

[OldNick]

Bale was this year,Theo would come into last years accounts, so that's even worse. Jones was staged payments I think but fully accounted for in the accounts, ie the sale shown in the revenues and the outstanding instalments in the "monies due".

It's really difficult to say, hopefully we'll have the accounts soon but last year was catastrophic in anybody's opinion; We just carried on regardless (see Runnymede minutes),spending like there was no tomorrow and now we're paying for it.

For a medium size football club to lose and amount roughly equal to their entire "before" player trading" revenue can't be too frequent.

I don't know how many of you think about these thing but it means that "before player trading" we couldn't afford to pay a single player or coach without increasing debt. That is chronic,absolutely chronic. It means that all the fans money was spent on other things than playing football on the green square.

Thanks for that, I did think in an earlier post it was dressed up better than you have and I did notice AC's quote in the Runnymead minutes about not following plan B

[Window Cleaner]

would those figures include us taking early payments on Theo and Bale , Jones etc. If you recall we took cutprice deals as we needed the money so badly.

 

Anyway, just because Crouch said it doesn't mean he had anything to do with it -got that Marco?

 

These are figures reflected in the annual accounts form 1st July 2006 to 30th June 2007, you can read them in the club info if you fancy it.

During that period the club was run by the Execs and Michael Wilde, Crouch had very little to do with it.

The annual accounts dated Nov 07 were signed off by Ken Dulieu I think.

For those who fancy a read to refresh their memories.

http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/club/?page_id=1504

[SaintRichmond]

Well said.

 

The situation is not entirely beyond recall either if Lowe is prepared to accept full responsibility for the current predicament and stand down as chairman in favour of Cowan. We could then bring in an experienced manager, sort out the loanee situtation, get a few good results and bring attendances back to the 20K+ level. It's not rocket science.

 

 

 

Regretably Laughable .............

 

Lowe has NEVER accepted ANY responsibility as regards things going wrong

 

Lowe is ALWAYS right

 

Lowe is managing the PLC

 

Lowe is NOT managing what you and I think St Mary's is for FOOTBALL

 

Lowe has NO TIME for Saints or its CUSTOMERS

 

....... However, he MAY have an Achilles Heel ..............

 

... WHAT does he do when there is literally NOTHING LEFT TO SELL .........

 

... it is THEN we may very well see the REAL reason why Lowelife & Quisling Wilde frightened the rest of the Shareholders in having them back ........ I hope they are happy now .........