Idiots guide to administration in football?

[Capel Saint]

Yep, which makes me feel slightly better with the current situation because, to my knowledge, HMRC has no issues with us at the moment.

 

True, but they will if the club can't pay the next tax bill!

[Scummer]

IF the council wanted to help the club they'd cut the exorbitant rates.

 

Think we've been through this before. The City council don't set business rates, they just collect them. There is a standard rates structure for stadiums, but couldn't find it when I looked a couple of days ago.

[stevegrant]

Think we've been through this before. The City council don't set business rates, they just collect them. There is a standard rates structure for stadiums, but couldn't find it when I looked a couple of days ago.

I seem to remember someone (maybe Jonah) doing some digging and discovering that Derby pay much lower rates than SFC do, despite their respective stadia being pretty much the same size.

[bungle]

Its 6 miles from Hemel Hempstead and about 15 miles from Watford in Hertfordshire and I am a season ticket holder and get to over half the away games. Member of Colslaw supporters group (Committee of Loyal Saints living around Watford) Theres about 50 of us up in the Northern Home Counties. All exiled Saints

 

Excellent. I know Mark (Hemel Saint).

[St_Tel49]

A quick reality check for anybody that thinks that administration is a good thing and why Saints are working so hard to avoid it.

If we went into administration unless there is someone that wants to buy the club it could be wound up and closed down. ie No more football club.

All the clubs that have been administration recently have managed found someone wanting to buy the club off the administrator. So club loses some points has to sell some assets and keeps going.

There is one big difference now. Debt is extremely difficult to raise, cash is in short supply and we are entering a recession against a background of a credit crunch. I am convinced that over the next 2 years at least one club will go to administration and simply disappear for good.

Therefore we have 4 options as a club

1) Be taken over - very very unlikely due to recession and credit crunch

2) Continue we are with the remaining high earners being released and all players available at a price

3) Enter administration hope we can find a buyer, lose virtually the entire first team squad and end up with the current reserve squad as our first team - further relegations, lose the ground?

4) Go out of business as the administrator cant find a buyer

 

Therefore whether you like or hate Lowe he has no option but to continue to take the action he is taking. Replacing Lowe at the current time could lose the confidence of the bank and could mean that club enters administration and disappears.

I think the lets go into admin brigade are misguided as they do not understand the risks and the loweout campaign could be the downfall of the club.

 

We therefore need to pull together as a fan base an get behind our club at the current time and stop this in fighting.

You have just posted what has been troubling me for some time. The fans who say "I'm not going back" seem to be under the impression that if we go into administration then someone will just buy us. Yeah - we've seen the number of white knights who didn't come riding over the horizon for the past three years. In the current climate the greater probability is that they simply will no longer have a team to support. We have a team who as individuals would be an attractive proposition for many other clubs but who as a unit are still naive. I believe that they can get there eventually but they need support. I should say that the fans who do go give the youngsters excellent support - we just need more of them.

[St Marco]

It is funny reading some replies on what people think admin is. Admin is a LEGAL term that places the BUISNESS in the hands of ADMINISTRATORS which are issued by the COURTS. The purpose of admin is not to destroy the buisness or even strip it for everything it is worth. It is a band aid to help get the buisness back on it's feet so it can make money by it's own means.

The admin team come in and take over. All shares are dead. Meaning everyone who has a share loses. That is the gamble of being a shareholder, it is no different from betting on a horse race. If it wins your fine, if it doesn't you lose.

The administrators will try and recoup the debts owed to the creditors. They will do that in various different ways but ultimatly the full sum is never paid off. In our case they will look at the players we have and say "well xyz are worth xyz so they have to be sold". Which means Davis,Lallana,Surman,Schniderlin etc.. will all be sold. Now a lot of you will be up in arms about that but the reality is this will happen anyway even if we are in admin or not. We are in a lot of debt, we are losing money and we are no longer at a point where we will get £10m etc.. for a player every year. If things stay as they are we are headed for admin there is no doubt about it. It is basic maths where you match your income by your outcome. If your outcome is a lot bigger then your income then your debt increases. That is what has happened at this club for so long.

 

Now look at the club as of today. We have made a lot of cut backs. A lot of people have been sacked who work for the club. A lot of perks have had to be stopped and a lot of other things have had to happen. Namely the team. We have not picked the players we have because they are amazing. We have not used the reserves because they are great. We are using them because we are trying to get the outgoings in balance with the incoming. The harsh reality is the more you mess up the lower your income but the higher the outgoing. If we get batterd 0-5 at Preston the next home game against Bristol will have the knock on effect of having 4 loses in past 6 games, it will be a low crowd. But if we win then the crowd might increase. This does not mean the fans are glory hunters it just means they want to watch competative football for their money.

So in reality without being biased our 1st team must now be amongst the lowest paid teams in this league. Majority of them have come from the reserves and had never played a full match before let alone a season. They were not in a position to say with their first contract "i demand xyz". They are on very small amounts of money, such is the manager and the new back staff.

 

Now when the admin team have got to the point of paying the creditors an agreed amount any money left over goes to the shareholders. This rarely if ever happens. What normally happens is the admin team pay back the creditors anything from 25%-75%. In a football club scenario the creditors normally get around 50% with the other 50% getting wiped out or underwritten.

Then the admin team will de-list the club and everyone who was on the board or had shares will be removed. Meaning Lowe,Wilde and Crouch will lose everything. They will no longer be in control or have a say in the clubs runnnig.

Then the admin team when satisfied that the club can operate on it's own means will apply to the courts for a release. The judge will look at all the documents and either say yes or no. If no then they must do more. But majority of the time it is granted.

 

Then once that has been done the club comes out of administration and get's put up for auction. Some of you think this will then allow Lowe to take control. That won't happen and the simple reason why is money. Lowe does not have the money to help the club if it goes in the same direction again. The last thing the courts will want is to put the company/club into the hands of someone who will in a year or two bring it straight back to them. With clubs in admin they look for people who have the best chance to support the club. Now if our club went into admin and we get put up for auction i can gurantee you now people we have never heard of will come out of the wood work with money we didn't know they had and make bids. In the grand scheme of football buisness £1m is nothing. Lowe could not afford it and neither could Wilde. If it was £2m they both would be out. This is what people don't understand. In the world of buisness that money is tiny and someone would get a football club on the cheap. Now people compare things to Leeds. They say were do a Leeds etc.. The thing is Leeds went into admin and then things got better. Rather then the prolonged drip of selling anything that has value everytime they miss a payment etc.. they just prolonged the inevitable and that hurt them more in my book. Now they are bouncing back and are i think 3rd in the league.

Now the problem with clubs in admin is they used to do it and get rid of all their debts without anything bad happening to them. This is another misconception people have. Going into admin used to be a way to free yourself from debt. Loads of companies and clubs did it. But now to stop people doing that point deductions were brought in. This is the real punishment. It can mean you get relegated by having a minus 10-15 start.

If you use our position now as an example would mean we would be sitting at the bottom of the league on 3 points. 12 points from getting out of the relegation zone. Now it is possible to get out of there but if you have a team of nobodies as we do then it becomes too difficult. So i think you have to assume if you go into admin you will be relegated.

 

Now a lot of people talk about the bad side of admin but neter really talk about the positives. Lets look at a team flying high shall we. Hull City. In the 90's they were struggling to survive. They had even been handed winding down orders. They suffered relegation after relegation and finally got to division 3 in 2001. Anything that had value was sold of every year to ward of the company going into oblivion. That just prolonged the inevitable. But after reaching the bottom the club were put into admin in February 2002. Adam Pearson then came in and bought the club and helped bring it back from the brink. He put his hand in his pocket and helped to ease the financial situation. He helped to get a new stadium. In 2004 they finished 2nd in division 3. And then 2nd in division 1 in 2005. When they got to the CCC Pearson sold the club to a consortium because he said his small funds had got the club as far as it could. If they wanted to stay at the CCC level they needed funds. So in 2007 he sold them and the new guys put the money they had in the side and they reached the playoffs and were promoted to the premiership. Now the point being in just 5 years after being in admin they had gone from the bottom of the league to 3rd in the top league. The lesson there is if you keep selling and keep staving off the inevitable without any investment you will just go down and down and down. If we get relegated next year the same thing will happen then. We will have to cut even more costs to be able to survive in league 1. The problem we have had is that since we have been relegated things have not been settled. We have had the cloud of admin over us the majority of it. The team has had to be changed every year and the board has changed every year. You stand little chance of getting anywhere if you don't have a settled club.

 

So my opinion is that right now we are in admin if not for the title of it. We have sold off all we can and no doubt in January one of the three (Davis,Surman,Lallana) will be gone. We have had to loan out anyone with a high wage rather then think of paying them for something i.e paying £300k for the goals that might keep us up. We have sacked a lot of people and more and more will be layed off. The only people who are un-effected are Lowe and Wilde. They should of been out looking for investment then trying to gain control of a club with no money to put in. The club was settled and again now it is not. This constant change is a reason the clubs go from bad to worse.

Without money in today's football world you will struggle. Without the cash cow of the premiership you will struggle. Having a chairman who has put no money into the club you will struggle. And that is why if we find ourselves driffting further and further into the relegation zone i will think offcial administration will be our only choice.

[Frank's cousin]

St Marco

 

You make a very intelligent and compelling argument here and thansk for taking the time to provide such a thorough piece. Hoever I do have major reservations about 'Saints' entering administration. We have to be honest with ourselves. A club is only a sbig as the revenue it can generate (eg fans turning up) when times are at their lowest ebb as we are now, and the shrinking attendences show exactly what would happen if we were to slide into the next tier down administration or not. Its this that worries me more, because without the income from the gate, we will never be in a position to get out of te mess. I think we have to ASSUME that NOONE iout there is going to be willing to inject their cash into Saints - we cannot base the hope of the club and its financial future on the premise that there MIGHT be someone willing to buy the club for £1 from the administrators who has the finance to make a substantial difference.

 

I have always maintatined, despite not being believed most of the time to being indiferent to who is in the boardroom, being more concerned with WHAT it is they are doing - I am worried now, but also understand that reducing overhead is a priority despite the pain this causes from a footballing perspective - its the thought of admionistration and relegation that worries more however, which is why I just want to support the lads through whatever comes our way - As fans we are the one consistent thing in the life of a football club, some say we are the club, yet many seem hellbent on deserting in its hour of greatest need.

[NickG]

St Marco

Again thanks for taking the time to post your thoughts. There are some assumptions, e.g. that list of players will be sold whether we are in administration or not. This is not known - for instance Schneiderlin was bought in the current financial situation so maybe affordable. We don't know exactly the debts. Administration is more likely to cash in quickly and cheaply.

Lowe -won't buy it? Again don't think you can state that as fact or any more than a guess.

[NickG]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/find_out/guides/2004/money_problems_at_leeds/newsid_3446000/3446021.stm

 

I found it -the idiots guide! Newround explaining Leeds!

[NickG]

Administration and administrative receivership

When a company or partnership gets into financial trouble an administrator or administrative receiver may be appointed.

 

Administration

The role of an administrator is to get the company out of trouble and trading again if possible.

 

Administrators can be appointed to a company that is unable, or is likely to become unable, to pay its debts. They can be appointed by any of the following:

 

the courts - on application from a creditor, directors or partners

the holder of a qualifying floating charge over the assets of the business

the company or its directors

An administrator's primary goal is to rescue the company as a going concern. If this isn't possible, the administrator will try to get a better result for the creditors than would be possible if the company was wound up.

 

If neither of these is possible, the administrator will sell the company's property to make at least a partial payment to one or more secured or preferential creditors, such as employees or the bank.

 

Administration can also apply to partnerships.

 

Administrative receivership

When a company borrows money, the lender is usually given some security over the company's assets to guarantee payment. If the company fails to keep the terms of the loan or encounters financial difficulties, the lender may be entitled to appoint an administrative receiver. An administrative receiver is an insolvency practitioner who has control of the whole, or a substantial part, of the company's property and wide powers over the business.

 

The administrative receiver is mainly concerned with getting back the money owed to the secured creditor. The administrative receiver may sell the assets piecemeal, or sell the whole business as a going concern to pay off the secured creditor, and the costs of the receivership.

[St Marco]

St Marco

Again thanks for taking the time to post your thoughts. There are some assumptions, e.g. that list of players will be sold whether we are in administration or not. This is not known - for instance Schneiderlin was bought in the current financial situation so maybe affordable. We don't know exactly the debts. Administration is more likely to cash in quickly and cheaply.

Lowe -won't buy it? Again don't think you can state that as fact or any more than a guess.

 

It is not assumption Nick it is fact. As i said it is basic maths. You have to get your outgoings in line with your income. If for a long period the outcome has been more then you get into debt. The bigger the debt the more you must pay back. It is a awful circle that you only get to by mismanagement. However in football this seems to be the system they all use. I think some lord guy the other day said english football clubs are in £2bn debt.

So point is say you have an agreed total of say £20m debt with your creditors. The interest on that will go up and up. So add to that the continous costs where your outgoings still exceed your income could mean that within a year your debt has risen to say £24m. Now the following year you have even less income and even greater outgoings. The only way to make back that £4m is to get a wad of cash. If you don't have someone able to dip into their own pocket you have no option but to sell something. And in football that is players. This is the way the club has been run for so many years now. Now the fact is as Frank mentioned the income at the club is down. I would guess it is down a lot more then what Lowe and Wilde had in their plans with Barclays. The half empty stadium must be taking it's toll.

 

Now we do know our debts, we know that as of last June 2007 it was £19.7m. Lowe has already said borrowing has increased to expect bad results when our new report is out. I think we can assume by that the debt has gone up. So all in all if the debt is increasing and the income is decreasing you cannot go that way forever. The bank will step in when they believe a line has been crossed where it is unlikley that money will be paid and they will ask for a gurantee it will be paid. This means a wad of cash to get it back to the agreed level. So the question is if we continue as we are now is our debt at the point where they are asking for money and does that mean we will have to sell in January? I think looking at the Stern John scenario would make me believe yes. The question then becomes "how much do we need?". This is the worrying question because if it is a lot we will not have any power to negotiate and could see players go for Davies like fees. If it is not a lot then maybe only one going will cover it. And that is what i think will happen.

 

And no i am 99% certain Lowe will not be allowed to buy the club unless he can get money i.e a consortium. As i stated before the whole point of admin from start to end is to get the buisness running again. All the books are looked at and they will scrutinise every decision. They will then want the buisness to stay healthy. Meaning by handing it over to someone with no money is not wise. Lowe could do nothing for the club in that state unless he could gain money to buy players to fill the gaps left by those which had to be sold. Now the thing is if he could do that why has he not done that now? Why has he not dipped into his own pockets and paid for a few things? These are the things which will be looked at. Meaning if the club should get into trouble again how will it likely do under those circumstances? The reality is as we know, badly.

So Lowe would not get the club simply because he is not rich enough to be given it. To use Leeds as an example. Bates was given it because he had more money. They had at the time £35m of debt and he offered 8p for every £1 of shares. They estimate the cost was about £7m-£10m. Now he did not pay off the full debt of £35m but they agreed to an amount. What that is nobody knows. So the point being because he had cash he got a club. He has now put more cash into the club and it would appear their slide into nothingness has ended for now. If you use that scenario and put Lowe in there instead of Bates how would he have done? The answer is he wouldn't as he couldn't afford it. And that as i said is why he won't get the buisness/club simply because he doesn't have the means to support it. The courts will give the buisness the best chance to succeed, that is their job to do. They will not hand it back to someone who just brought it to the brink trust me.

[Gemmel]

And that is why if we find ourselves driffting further and further into the relegation zone i will think offcial administration will be our only choice.

 

 

Thanks for the execellent post St Marco.

 

What I can't get my head around with Administration, is how it would pan out with the stadium, on which we currently owe 23 million (I think that's correct)

 

So assumming we go into Administration, our two major credititors would be Norwich Union and Barclays Bank with a combined debt of approx 30 Million. The Administrator would sell as many players as possible, but is unlikely to generate much more than 3 or 4 million, which if paid out on a % (which i'm pretty sure it is) would see Barclays getting about 1 mill and Norwich Union getting 3. Regardless of whether Barclays accepeted this, Norwich Union obvioulsy wouldn't and could effectively repossess ST Mary's. Which would be the end of SFC.

 

The other alternative is for someone to buy the club at x amount. Even if they offered say 15 20 million for lock, stock and barrell, Norwich Union may still feel they can get a better return by reusing the land for houses or whatever, but even if they did, it all depends on someone forking out 15 to 20 million in the first place and i'm not sure there are many of those around, so we go back to option 1.

 

There is of course the option that someone takes on the club / company fopr nothing and inherits the debt, but if they believe they can get the club for 15 to 20 million, why would they take on 30 million worth of debt?

 

 

I'm not saying the above is right or the only options available, i'm just genuinley interested in how it would all work given the level of debt on the stadium

[Weston Saint]

When we came down we were beaten by Luton early in the season. Luton will shortly fall out of the league. This counteracts the Leeds (who failed to regain CCC staus and no guarantee this time round) and Hull story.

 

Administration is not the answer.

[Scummer]

Norwich Union may still feel they can get a better return by reusing the land for houses or whatever

 

I'd been thinking about that possibility, but it could only happen if the council gave planning permission and authorised a change of use for the land.

 

This would be suicidal for any council, as they would simply get voted out at the next local elections. Therefore I can't see it ever happening.

[St Marco]

Thanks for the execellent post St Marco.

 

What I can't get my head around with Administration, is how it would pan out with the stadium, on which we currently owe 23 million (I think that's correct)

 

So assumming we go into Administration, our two major credititors would be Norwich Union and Barclays Bank with a combined debt of approx 30 Million. The Administrator would sell as many players as possible, but is unlikely to generate much more than 3 or 4 million, which if paid out on a % (which i'm pretty sure it is) would see Barclays getting about 1 mill and Norwich Union getting 3. Regardless of whether Barclays accepeted this, Norwich Union obvioulsy wouldn't and could effectively repossess ST Mary's. Which would be the end of SFC.

 

The other alternative is for someone to buy the club at x amount. Even if they offered say 15 20 million for lock, stock and barrell, Norwich Union may still feel they can get a better return by reusing the land for houses or whatever, but even if they did, it all depends on someone forking out 15 to 20 million in the first place and i'm not sure there are many of those around, so we go back to option 1.

 

There is of course the option that someone takes on the club / company fopr nothing and inherits the debt, but if they believe they can get the club for 15 to 20 million, why would they take on 30 million worth of debt?

 

 

I'm not saying the above is right or the only options available, i'm just genuinley interested in how it would all work given the level of debt on the stadium

 

With the stadium it is more confusing. I am unsure if we actually own it or if it is owned by Norwich union?

If we own it and go into admin it will be sold. The problem with this is anyone could buy it such as what has happened at other clubs i.e Leeds,Palace etc.. Whoever buys the club will not take it down for housing. They would become mr hated instantly if they did that. The reality is they would obviously have a stadium to rent back to the club. It might then also be used for other things i.e other sports. We could then buy it back once we are in a better situation.

However if we don't own the stadium then that complicates things further. BUT if we don't own the stadium and we still have loads to pay off on it they might underwrite the stadium debt and keep it. Which they would then sell anyway. So if that was the case maybe losing the stadium and losing the majority of the debt would be the better way to go. That is on the assumption that whoever bought it would rent it back to us. Either way without money we won't change our direction.

[St Marco]

When we came down we were beaten by Luton early in the season. Luton will shortly fall out of the league. This counteracts the Leeds (who failed to regain CCC staus and no guarantee this time round) and Hull story.

 

Administration is not the answer.

 

No offence but these don't prove anything. Luton actually got docked -30 points because they exited administration without a company agreement (without the courts support). It is a rare case, in fact i think it is the first time it has ever been used. The problem is Luton were bought out by a group who had inherited a club in complete chaos financially. Luton are a prime case of what happens when you let your debt get out of control. So that actually proves the point i was making about leaving the inevitable too long.

 

Getting further and further into debt is not the answer. If we get to the point where we are doing what we are now in division 1 then division 2 then division 3 im sure you will change your opinion. The club has been in this direction for a longtime. It is not something that has happened over night. As i keep stating if you have no money how will you pay the bills exactly? How long until your landlord is sick of being not paid and evicts you?

[up and away]

I'd been thinking about that possibility, but it could only happen if the council gave planning permission and authorised a change of use for the land.

 

This would be suicidal for any council, as they would simply get voted out at the next local elections. Therefore I can't see it ever happening.

 

I can understand part of that logic, but not completely true. All NU has to do is pull the plug and let things remain idle for a year. By which time we would have had to find somewhere else to play fixtures and the whole area becomes desolate. The council has already got proposals for regeneration around St Marys, so given time, that could well include an old stadium.

Your view holds a lot of sway, but it could easily go the other way in these desperate times. As a developer, it looks a very attractive opportunity for the future and the council would have to give way eventually.

[Scummer]

All NU has to do is pull the plug and let things remain idle for a year.

 

Again though, this is something I can't see happening. It wouldn't exactly be great publicity for Norwich Union would it.

 

No major business is going to want to become known as the company which killed a big football club. They will do their best to avoid this.

[stevegrant]

No offence but these don't prove anything. Luton actually got docked -30 points because they exited administration without a company agreement (without the courts support). It is a rare case, in fact i think it is the first time it has ever been used.

Not quite true.

 

Luton were "only" deducted 20 points for failing to agree a CVA, which is a requirement under the Football League's solvency rules. It's the same rule that saw Leeds deducted 15 points last season and Bournemouth and Rotherham 17 points this season. While you're technically correct that it's a rare case, it's only a rare case because the precedent was only set in the summer of 2007 when Leeds failed to agree a CVA due to HMRC getting fed up with "Football Creditors" (i.e. players, staff and other teams) getting 100% of the money owed while they were left with 10% or so. HMRC blocked the CVA at the three other clubs mentioned in the summer just gone, which led to their additional points deduction (in addition to the 10 points penalty received last season when they entered administration). Clubs who owe significant amounts of their debt to HMRC will find it impossible to get a CVA agreed by 75% of the creditors as HMRC will block it regardless of the circumstances. As I understand it, we aren't in arrears with the taxman as yet, so might not have that problem as things stand.

 

Luton's other 10 point deduction was due to the charges they were found guilty of relating to payments to agents that didn't go through the football club's accounts.

[St Marco]

Not quite true.

 

Luton were "only" deducted 20 points for failing to agree a CVA, which is a requirement under the Football League's solvency rules. It's the same rule that saw Leeds deducted 15 points last season and Bournemouth and Rotherham 17 points this season. While you're technically correct that it's a rare case, it's only a rare case because the precedent was only set in the summer of 2007 when Leeds failed to agree a CVA due to HMRC getting fed up with "Football Creditors" (i.e. players, staff and other teams) getting 100% of the money owed while they were left with 10% or so. HMRC blocked the CVA at the three other clubs mentioned in the summer just gone, which led to their additional points deduction (in addition to the 10 points penalty received last season when they entered administration). Clubs who owe significant amounts of their debt to HMRC will find it impossible to get a CVA agreed by 75% of the creditors as HMRC will block it regardless of the circumstances. As I understand it, we aren't in arrears with the taxman as yet, so might not have that problem as things stand.

 

Luton's other 10 point deduction was due to the charges they were found guilty of relating to payments to agents that didn't go through the football club's accounts.

 

The CVA only gives a 10 point deduction. To use Leeds as an an example here they were actually given 15 point deduction because they didn't follow the rules of when a buisness enters admin. HMRC challenged the sale of Leeds to Bates but if they were succesful would of meant it would have been probable Leeds would have gone into Liquidation. So they re-sold the club to Bates technically while in admin and that is what they were done for. Despite having a minus 15 start they still got to the playoffs so again that prooves Wes theory wrong.

 

Bournmouth got minus 17 for not following the buisness rules for insolvency and starting the season in administration. They forced the new company to pay the old CVA.

 

So while they are all because of CVA they are actually for different reasons.

[St Paul]

Going into admin is a 10 point deduction.

 

To receive your golden share from the Football League following admin, you have to have a CVA. The Taxman is opposing every CVA now, due to the "football creditors" rule.

 

Without a CVA the league will impose a points deduction for the new company to receive the Golden Share (which enables them to compete in the league). In leeds case it was -15, in AFCB and Rotherham it was -17 because they had been in admin before and in Lutns case it was more due to other finacnial dealings.

 

In our case it would proberly be -15 as per Leeds.

[cf saint]

No offence but these don't prove anything. Luton actually got docked -30 points because they exited administration without a company agreement (without the courts support). It is a rare case, in fact i think it is the first time it has ever been used. The problem is Luton were bought out by a group who had inherited a club in complete chaos financially. Luton are a prime case of what happens when you let your debt get out of control. So that actually proves the point i was making about leaving the inevitable too long.

 

Getting further and further into debt is not the answer. If we get to the point where we are doing what we are now in division 1 then division 2 then division 3 im sure you will change your opinion. The club has been in this direction for a longtime. It is not something that has happened over night. As i keep stating if you have no money how will you pay the bills exactly? How long until your landlord is sick of being not paid and evicts you?

 

St Marco, thanks for your well argued posts. I have previously posted warning administration is not the panecea some think but your posts are difficult to fault. In fact you note in this post that getting further and further into debt is not the answer. This is the key point for me; Lowe and Wilde have this season to get close to break even. If they manage this (even if we get relegated) then the club in it's present form survives (good news for shareholders). If not either a cheap sale or admin really is the only answer-despite the pain that will cause with certain relegation and a fire sale of all assets.

My only other comment echoes berkhamstead - the world is crazy at the moment so I fear how many people will really want to invest even tiny (by business standards) amounts in a league 1 club? We will get local boys made good (crouch?) I fear. And if the amount is that little don't bet against lowe (after all so many on here say he is driven by ego.....)

[SFC Forever]

St Marco thankx you have answered a lot of questions that I and a lot of others have had.

NickG is it not possible for the administrators to have a say as to who would return? If only in the fact that the buyer/s would have to show money available to cover costs for the then foreseeable future.

[Berkhamsted Saint]

Whilst I agree with St Marco in terms of the role of the administrator and his responsibilities the administrator has a primary responsibility to the creditors and must get the best possible deal for them which may well be selling the business as a going concern.

As I understand it Norwich Union hold the mortgage for the stadium and consequently will have a first legal charge on it. If we were in admin they would make a decision on what to do with their asset which may be to redevelop it/seek change of use. Whilst I accept a football ground is most likely to continue as it is their first responsibility will be to protect the value of the asset/outstanding loan and not to Saints.

Saints are just another business and in these times we will see many businesses fail to find a buyer and as a result just be wound up.

With very little credit currently available and most businessmen starting to feel the squeeze I would not want to gamble with my club on them finding a buyer in the current climate.

The other risk is that any buyer has a relatively modest level of cash and before the sale goes through the club is heavily asset stripped which puts the new owners in a relatively weak position.

Whilst admin has worked for the odd club it hasnt worked well for clubs where the new owners have lacked sufficient new capital. Havent the likes of Rotherham and Bournemouth been in trouble previously.

Ultimately we are paying for the heavy spending of the last couple of years where we have lived beyond our means gambling on promotion which we failed to deliver and that gamble has now put our club at serious risk.

Unless there is a substantial takeover (unlikely imo) a power struggle at the club would also undermine bank confidence which must already be thin and to lose bank support would be a disaster. Whilst not being pro or anti Lowe just a fan I am concerned that the Lowe out campaign that some are starting to organise (no doubt with good intention) could have disasterous consequences if it gathers pace due to the difficult financial background in which we are operating.

What ever happens I hope our club can get through this difficult period.

[um pahars]

Ultimately we are paying for the heavy spending of the last couple of years where we have lived beyond our means gambling on promotion which we failed to deliver and that gamble has now put our club at serious risk.

 

Ultimately we are paying the price for relegation.

 

It may be a few years ago, but IMHO all that has happened in those intervening years is that parachute payments and player sales delayed the inevitable.

 

There can be no doubt that the failure to implemant a Plan B by Hone and co last summer certainly has not helped our financial situation, but our problems stem from relegation which created a systemic hole in our finances, and not a one off overspend.

 

I doubt that even the most brutal of Plan B's would see this Club able to cover it's costs. The infrastructure and cost base of this Club is impossible to fund on a £13m-£14m income. This is something that Wilde was quite open about when he posted on here a year or so ago and is a problem almost every established Premiership club (and a few others) have had to face up to.

 

The strategy of retaining a "Quasi Premiership" set up during the parachute period in an attempt to gain "repromotion", is a strategy that Lowe, Wilde, Hone & many others in the footballing world subscribe to, as they realise the only surefire way of avoiding financial meltdown is promotion to the top flight.

[up and away]

So Lowe goes, leaving about £5M in the kitty, we then subsequently have the following monies to draw on in the future.

£5M kitty

£7M remainder of Walcott deal

£10M Bale

£3M Baird

£6M Jones

£0.75M Blackstock

£0.75M Best and Cranie

£0.6M even from Burley

not to mention the remaining parachute payment of £6.8M

 

Bearing on mind that a lot of CCC clubs can't get near a 1/10th of those resources, it is not too much to ask to get things on a sustainable level to safeguard our future. Then again I suppose we hardly had time to organise matters, but by some stroke of luck Crystal palace and Norwich had already integrated their youth players into the first team set up.

 

Nope, we never stood a chance!

[um pahars]

So Lowe goes, leaving about £5M in the kitty, we then subsequently have the following monies to draw on in the future.

£5M kitty

 

A £5m kitty LMFAO:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: What a way to start a noddy post.

 

And with that single claim, you once again show yourself up to be naive, ill informed and qute frankly whittering on about a subject that obviously have now real knowledge or understanding of.

 

Here was Hone said about the warchest, and how the signings of the summer after Lowe were funded.

 

"What was clear pretty quickly after coming into the company was that there was no reserves, what some might call a warchest," said Hone.

"Money that had been brought in by player trading was just used to keep the company afloat."

 

Saints' yearly accounts released last week showed a loss of £3.3m in the 13 months ending June 30, 2006 - ironically, the day former chairman Rupert Lowe quit.

 

During that period, Saints sold Peter Crouch, Theo Walcott, Antti Niemi, Nigel Quashie and Kevin Phillips for around £14m.

 

"If not for selling players, the losses would be absolutely horrendous," Hone added.

 

So without any warchest', how have Saints paid for their manager's close season rebuilding.

"It's in staged payments for the players, but it's been done on debt by and large," Hone revealed

You quite clearly do not have a clue what you are talking about on this subject. Stick to other topics where your opinion might be worth something, becasue when it comes to factual inaccuracies regarding the Club's finances, you're clealry in a league of your own.

That first season down lost £9m cash out the door on normal operations, that's even after allowing for the £7m one off parachute payment. That effectively means that oan ongoing basis we were running at a loss of circa £16m p.a. That's quite a few player sales needed to fund a loss of that magnitude!!!!!!!!

[Gemmel]

A £5m kitty LMFAO:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: What a way to start a noddy post.

 

And with that single claim, you once again show yourself up to be naive, ill informed and qute frankly whittering on about a subject that obviously have now real knowledge or understanding of.

 

Here was Hone said about the warchest, and how the signings of the summer after Lowe were funded.

 

"What was clear pretty quickly after coming into the company was that there was no reserves, what some might call a warchest," said Hone.

"Money that had been brought in by player trading was just used to keep the company afloat."

 

Saints' yearly accounts released last week showed a loss of £3.3m in the 13 months ending June 30, 2006 - ironically, the day former chairman Rupert Lowe quit.

 

 

During that period, Saints sold Peter Crouch, Theo Walcott, Antti Niemi, Nigel Quashie and Kevin Phillips for around £14m.

 

 

"If not for selling players, the losses would be absolutely horrendous," Hone added.

 

 

So without any warchest', how have Saints paid for their manager's close season rebuilding.

 

"It's in staged payments for the players, but it's been done on debt by and large," Hone revealed

 

You quite clearly do not have a clue what you are talking about on this subject. Stick to other topics where your opinion might be worth something, becasue when it comes to factual inaccuracies regarding the Club's finances, you're clealry in a league of your own.

That first season down lost £9m cash out the door on normal operations, that's even after allowing for the £7m one off parachute payment. That effectively means that oan ongoing basis we were running at a loss of circa £16m p.a. That's quite a few player sales needed to fund a loss of that magnitude!!!!!!!!

 

Um Pahars,

Do you know how administration would work regarding the stadium debt

[um pahars]

Um Pahars,

Do you know how administration would work regarding the stadium debt

 

No, nothing definitive that I would rely 100% on.

 

I could have a guess (which being honest would be no different to many have already said on here), but I wouldn't say that my guess wouls be any different than others on here.

 

I just don't know exactly what charges have been placed on various assets and who is where in the pecking order.

 

My gut feel (on the many areas of this) would be:

 

1. There is no way the stadium or other assets could be hived off & saved, or sold, just because the ownership is with one of the subsidiaries. The PLC would go into Administration and that is the overriding parent of all the companies and so they would all be consumed by the event as well.

 

2. We own the Stadium, but we owe Norwich Union something like £22m on the loan notes we took out with them to finance it. There is a securitisation agreement where they get their money first from season ticket sales.

 

However, the overiding issue relating to the stadium (and other properties totalling over £30m) is that they are subject to charges held by both Norwich Union and Barclays. This means that these assets cannot be sold without the consent of Barclays & Norwich Union (although it can get very contentious). It is similar to a mortage on a house.

 

So I think even the administrator may not be able to sell these assets without the permission of Barclays and Norwich Union.

[Gemmel]

No, nothing definitive that I would rely 100% on.

 

I could have a guess (which being honest would be no different to many have already said on here), but I wouldn't say that my guess wouls be any different than others on here.

 

I just don't know exactly what charges have been placed on various assets and who is where in the pecking order.

 

My gut feel (on the many areas of this) would be:

 

1. There is no way the stadium or other assets could be hived off & saved, or sold, just because the ownership is with one of the subsidiaries. The PLC would go into Administration and that is the overriding parent of all the companies and so they would all be consumed by the event as well.

 

2. We own the Stadium, but we owe Norwich Union something like £22m on the loan notes we took out with them to finance it. There is a securitisation agreement where they get their money first from season ticket sales.

 

However, the overiding issue relating to the stadium (and other properties totalling over £30m) is that they are subject to charges held by both Norwich Union and Barclays. This means that these assets cannot be sold without the consent of Barclays & Norwich Union (although it can get very contentious). It is similar to a mortage on a house.

 

So I think even the administrator may not be able to sell these assets without the permission of Barclays and Norwich Union.

 

Cheers for that, it's pretty much my take on it, but can't find any information to say for sure.

If it does turn out to be correct, then whatever the plus points are to Administration, they are negated by the way our debt is structured regarding the stadium

[up and away]

A £5m kitty LMFAO:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: What a way to start a noddy post.

 

And with that single claim, you once again show yourself up to be naive, ill informed and qute frankly whittering on about a subject that obviously have now real knowledge or understanding of.

 

Here was Hone said about the warchest, and how the signings of the summer after Lowe were funded.

 

"What was clear pretty quickly after coming into the company was that there was no reserves, what some might call a warchest," said Hone.

"Money that had been brought in by player trading was just used to keep the company afloat."

 

Saints' yearly accounts released last week showed a loss of £3.3m in the 13 months ending June 30, 2006 - ironically, the day former chairman Rupert Lowe quit.

 

During that period, Saints sold Peter Crouch, Theo Walcott, Antti Niemi, Nigel Quashie and Kevin Phillips for around £14m.

 

"If not for selling players, the losses would be absolutely horrendous," Hone added.

 

So without any warchest', how have Saints paid for their manager's close season rebuilding.

"It's in staged payments for the players, but it's been done on debt by and large," Hone revealed

You quite clearly do not have a clue what you are talking about on this subject. Stick to other topics where your opinion might be worth something, becasue when it comes to factual inaccuracies regarding the Club's finances, you're clealry in a league of your own.

That first season down lost £9m cash out the door on normal operations, that's even after allowing for the £7m one off parachute payment. That effectively means that oan ongoing basis we were running at a loss of circa £16m p.a. That's quite a few player sales needed to fund a loss of that magnitude!!!!!!!!

 

 

You really are defining the role of village idiot, pretty soon you should have it back to a simple cell structure.

 

You have £5M in the kitty and you immediately go out and spend £7M before the season has started, alongside negotiating contracts that cannot be afforded. It does not require outstanding intelligence to quickly come to the conclusion that you require to sell players to sort things out.

 

But even with all of that, there is plenty of time and resources to turn this around and make us sustainable. The thing that had to be done was incorporating the youth set up into senior set up. We all know Lowe intended this from the comments from Redknapp's period at Saints, but no one else (with the exception of Crystal Palace and Norwich).

 

We had so much time and resources to sort ourselves out, you are embarrassing yourself into believing everything was impossible.

[benjii]

As I've stated before, the only way certain assets (within the whole group) could be protected from administration by some sort of machiavellian hive-up would be if an almighty ****-up had been made by our secured creditors. The chances are 0.0000001%.

[benjii]

Cheers for that, it's pretty much my take on it, but can't find any information to say for sure.

If it does turn out to be correct, then whatever the plus points are to Administration, they are negated by the way our debt is structured regarding the stadium

 

 

It's nothing to do with the structure really. No one is going to lend a company with a trunover of around £45m (subject to the vicissitudes of sport) £20m+ without wanting all encompassing security, including legal charges over fixed assets, whatever the nature of the debt.

[um pahars]

You have £5M in the kitty

 

There was no £5m kitty:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

 

There was no £5m warcest:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

 

Hone revelaed this a couple of weeks in:

 

"Our supporters had been led to believe that there was a war chest with funds set aside to acquire players. We have spoken to George Burley and he didn't know what the budget was - he had no idea. It became clear there was none."

 

Just as Lowe did when he signed Rasiak for a couple of million on a four year deal, the signings were funded on debt with payments structured into the future. We were to be run as a "Quasi Premiership" Club for that second season whoever was in charge.

 

The very fact that you can't even get the starting point right just about renders everything else you have to say on this topic as irrelevant.

[bridge too far]

This could be an interesting listen tonight:

 

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7721251.stm

[SaintRichmond]

When we came down we were beaten by Luton early in the season. Luton will shortly fall out of the league. This counteracts the Leeds (who failed to regain CCC staus and no guarantee this time round) and Hull story.

 

Administration is not the answer.

 

 

You say Administration is NOT the answer ....... OK, so what is ?????

 

Carry on blindly like we are .... with every transfer window just selling enough to keep the Bank happy for a few months more ... YET the overal DEBT rising by the month due to Interest etc,etc ..... It is ALREADY circa £24M

 

Just ask yourself ... HOW can we ever pay that off in the forseeable future, whilst maintaining a viable Football Team .... Answer WE CANNOT

 

THE EVER INCREASING DEBT SCENARIO CANNOT BE SUSTAINED INDEFINITELY

[stevegrant]

You say Administration is NOT the answer ....... OK, so what is ?????

 

Carry on blindly like we are .... with every transfer window just selling enough to keep the Bank happy for a few months more ... YET the overal DEBT rising by the month due to Interest etc,etc ..... It is ALREADY circa £24M

 

Just ask yourself ... HOW can we ever pay that off in the forseeable future, whilst maintaining a viable Football Team .... Answer WE CANNOT

 

THE EVER INCREASING DEBT SCENARIO CANNOT BE SUSTAINED INDEFINITELY

You're right that the debt scenario can't be sustained indefinitely. However, as far as I'm concerned, it's only the overdraft facility that is the real "problem" as the repayment of the loan notes on the stadium are fixed for 25 years (I guess nearer 20 now). That can be budgeted for (£2m per year or something to that effect), and unless we start to default on payments - which I'm pretty sure we haven't - Norwich Union would be in no real position to call in the loan. The overdraft is the main problem because it is reviewed annually and can be withdrawn by Barclays in May if they see fit, which would render it repayable immediately.

 

Clear the £8m overdraft and the situation WILL be perfectly sustainable.

[Mole]

 

"Our supporters had been led to believe that there was a war chest with funds set aside to acquire players. We have spoken to George Burley and he didn't know what the budget was - he had no idea. It became clear there was none."

 

Ah yes, Pinochilowes much fabled war chest that never existed.

[SaintRichmond]

You're right that the debt scenario can't be sustained indefinitely. However, as far as I'm concerned, it's only the overdraft facility that is the real "problem" as the repayment of the loan notes on the stadium are fixed for 25 years (I guess nearer 20 now). That can be budgeted for (£2m per year or something to that effect), and unless we start to default on payments - which I'm pretty sure we haven't - Norwich Union would be in no real position to call in the loan. The overdraft is the main problem because it is reviewed annually and can be withdrawn by Barclays in May if they see fit, which would render it repayable immediately.

 

Clear the £8m overdraft and the situation WILL be perfectly sustainable.

 

 

OK .... Clear the overdraft of £8M ............ HOW ????

 

We CANNOT exist on gates of circa 140000 and falling ......... it is the head chasing the tail situation ......... we NEED results on the pitch to give back even a glimmer of FAITH that the present regime has knocked out of us

 

I firmly believe that there are MANY MANY Saints Fans, who simply will not go to St Mary's as long as Lowe is in charge ....... ( I myself know of at least 15 )

 

Lowe has caused havoc as regards Support, or "Customers" as he calls us, and it will not go away until he does

 

I cannot prove this, but I would bet that IF Lowe went, the first Match at St Mary's would have some 24000 at least ............. and the atmosphere would be such that our Team would respond on the park with a victory.

 

One day ...... One day .........

[stevegrant]

OK .... Clear the overdraft of £8M ............ HOW ????

Well that's the $64,000 question...

 

We CANNOT exist on gates of circa 140000 and falling

I'd love us to be getting gates of 140,000

 

......... it is the head chasing the tail situation ......... we NEED results on the pitch to give back even a glimmer of FAITH that the present regime has knocked out of us

 

I firmly believe that there are MANY MANY Saints Fans, who simply will not go to St Mary's as long as Lowe is in charge ....... ( I myself know of at least 15 )

 

Lowe has caused havoc as regards Support, or "Customers" as he calls us, and it will not go away until he does

 

I cannot prove this, but I would bet that IF Lowe went, the first Match at St Mary's would have some 24000 at least ............. and the atmosphere would be such that our Team would respond on the park with a victory.

 

One day ...... One day .........

Er... on one hand you say that it's results on the pitch that matter to bring back the faith, and then on the other you say just having people in the ground would automatically bring results...

 

There's not a cat in hell's chance 10,000 people will instantly rush through the turnstiles if/when Lowe leaves. We are 4th from bottom in the Championship. These days, too many people just simply don't want to watch football at that level, particularly not for the going rate of £24, regardless of who's sat in the boardroom.

[Mole]

There's not a cat in hell's chance 10,000 people will instantly rush through the turnstiles if/when Lowe leaves. We are 4th from bottom in the Championship. These days, too many people just simply don't want to watch football at that level, particularly not for the going rate of £24, regardless of who's sat in the boardroom.

 

You are right. The fans that are consciously making an effort not to attend because of Lowe have had their habit of going regularly/occasionally broken.

 

Supporting a club is like smoking cigarettes. It's a habit, but once it's broken not everyone goes back to how it used to be.

[Weston Saint]

What really annoys me is this talk of Administration as if it is part of a game.

 

Administration hurts good honest hard working people. It is not a game, it is a bloody disaster to those owed money.

 

The club does not deserve to exist if it cannot pay off its debts and pay its way thereafter. Why should supporters have the benefit of Administration just because they do not like the Chairman.

 

Get real people, it is only a game of football and the ones that get hurt are the suppliers and the employees not us who stand on the terraces or not every week.

[stevegrant]

You are right. The fans that are consciously making an effort not to attend because of Lowe have had their habit of going regularly/occasionally broken.

As have those who are not attending for the countless other possible reasons.

[SaintRichmond]

Well that's the $64,000 question...

 

 

I'd love us to be getting gates of 140,000

 

......... it is the head chasing the tail situation ......... we NEED results on the pitch to give back even a glimmer of FAITH that the present regime has knocked out of us

 

I firmly believe that there are MANY MANY Saints Fans, who simply will not go to St Mary's as long as Lowe is in charge ....... ( I myself know of at least 15 )

 

Lowe has caused havoc as regards Support, or "Customers" as he calls us, and it will not go away until he does

 

I cannot prove this, but I would bet that IF Lowe went, the first Match at St Mary's would have some 24000 at least ............. and the atmosphere would be such that our Team would respond on the park with a victory.

 

One day ...... One day .........

Er... on one hand you say that it's results on the pitch that matter to bring back the faith, and then on the other you say just having people in the ground would automatically bring results...

 

There's not a cat in hell's chance 10,000 people will instantly rush through the turnstiles if/when Lowe leaves. We are 4th from bottom in the Championship. These days, too many people just simply don't want to watch football at that level, particularly not for the going rate of £24, regardless of who's sat in the boardroom.

 

 

140000 ..... a Freudian slip .......

 

I obviously did not put my point clearly

 

At present, we get 14000, to watch a struggling Team try very hard, with little success ( at Home)

 

All I am saying is WHEN Lowe goes, there will be a Feel Good factor. OK, the Team may be basically the same, but I am saying that there WOULD be an influx of "missing" Fans for the first match "after Lowe"

 

Under those circumstances, as with most other Teams with a Big crowd, and cheering Fans, I am convinced that the Eleven on the pitch WOULD respond, and raise their game

 

I do NOT believe that the "Credit Crunch " has accounted for 10000 Saints supporters .......... the Lowe factor, and general apathy with anything associated with the present Board has had a major influence on that

[Mole]

As have those who are not attending for the countless other possible reasons.

 

Yes, but you only have to look at the figures to see that our attendance has plumetted more than any other club (bar Morecambe?) in the last 12 months. Correlating these figures with the return of Lowe does seem the most logical explanation.

[stevegrant]

Yes, but you only have to look at the figures to see that our attendance has plumetted more than any other club (bar Morecambe?) in the last 12 months. Correlating these figures with the return of Lowe does seem the most logical explanation.

We are about 3,000 season ticket holders down on last season. It's a fact that the majority (70-80%, I believe) of STHs renew in March/April as it's the cheapest time to do so.

 

At that point, there was very little indication that Lowe was returning. The decision by those 3000 would have been more based on the current team's performance (up until the end of March, we had gone on a run of one win in 14 games) and the perceived lack of value in a season ticket to watch that sort of crap for another full season than anything to do with Lowe, IMO. That seems the most logical explanation...

[stevegrant]

At present, we get 14000, to watch a struggling Team try very hard, with little success ( at Home)

 

All I am saying is WHEN Lowe goes, there will be a Feel Good factor. OK, the Team may be basically the same, but I am saying that there WOULD be an influx of "missing" Fans for the first match "after Lowe"

 

Under those circumstances, as with most other Teams with a Big crowd, and cheering Fans, I am convinced that the Eleven on the pitch WOULD respond, and raise their game

But this "feelgood factor" is such an intangible "asset" that you cannot rely on it as the basis for making a decision (i.e. Lowe in/out). There may well be an influx of "missing" fans, but to say I'm unconvinced is an understatement. In 2006, countless people on SaintsForever were claiming there were "thousands" of Saints fans staying away from St Mary's solely because of Lowe's presence. That summer, he left. The next season, despite making the play-off semi-final, our average attendance FELL by 1000 or so.

 

I do NOT believe that the "Credit Crunch " has accounted for 10000 Saints supporters .......... the Lowe factor, and general apathy with anything associated with the present Board has had a major influence on that

I don't think the "credit crunch" has accounted for 10000 fans either. I also don't think Rupert Lowe has accounted for 10000 fans.

 

People have to start accepting that there is no single reason why every supporter who is no longer attending games has chosen to stay away. Lowe is undoubtedly a factor in a number of peoples' decisions, but so is a lack of money for some, so is not wanting to watch Championship football anymore, so is being disillusioned with football as a whole, so is having other things to do on Saturday afternoons/Tuesday evenings, etc.

[Mole]

It's a fact that the majority (70-80%, I believe) of STHs renew in March/April as it's the cheapest time to do so.

 

At that point, there was very little indication that Lowe was returning.

 

April 1st this story appeared. Therefore within the early bird period. Therefore you are wrong in everything you posted.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/s/southampton/7318695.stm

[stevegrant]

April 1st this story appeared. Therefore within the early bird period. Therefore you are wrong in everything you posted.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/s/southampton/7318695.stm

I think you'll find "March Madness" will have ended, er, at the end of March.

[SaintRichmond]

We are about 3,000 season ticket holders down on last season. It's a fact that the majority (70-80%, I believe) of STHs renew in March/April as it's the cheapest time to do so.

 

At that point, there was very little indication that Lowe was returning. The decision by those 3000 would have been more based on the current team's performance (up until the end of March, we had gone on a run of one win in 14 games) and the perceived lack of value in a season ticket to watch that sort of crap for another full season than anything to do with Lowe, IMO. That seems the most logical explanation...

 

 

OK, even if your point re the 3000 ST holders that did not renew holds up, there are still circa 7000 Fans who are no longer going

 

Even under Branfoot, Saints Supporters still went to cheer their Team on ....... but not this season. .... but I say that IF Branfoot had the Young Team that we have now, the Supporters WOULD STILL GO to cheer them on

 

I maintain that a large percentage of "No Go's" are down to the fact of Lowe's presence at the Club ......... you cannot attribute everything down to the Credit Crunch and World Finance