£4.9 Million Loss reported/players to be sold

[qwertySFC]

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/3871404.Saints_announce___4_9m_loss_/

 

Players likely to be sold to balance the books

 

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/3871462.Player_sales_and_budget_cuts_to_continue_at_Saints/

Edited 24 November, 2008 by qwertySFC

[Master Bates]

Don't believe you.

[solentstars]

the accounts make interesting reading and show how badley run the club was run last season by dulieu and jim hone ,and why we had to firesell players to make up for that mismangement.

[SaintRichmond]

the accounts make interesting reading and show how badley run the club was run last season by dulieu and jim hone ,and why we had to firesell players to make up for that mismangement.

 

 

 

 

That being so, the reality NOW is this :-

 

Poortvliet IS starting to get results from a basically Young Team

 

To enable that to develop, the Team he has "Built" MUST be kept together

 

That means that, come January, the Young players MUST be kept, and the "expensive" Luxury's got rid of

 

IF Lowe goes down the route of selling off Schneiderlin, Suirman and Lalana, that will have various effects :

 

1) We will get SOME monies in, but NOT, IMHO, enough Mega Bucks to make any significent difference to our Overal debt.

 

2) Results on the pitch will SLUMP, as, at best, three virtually untried players will have to be drafted in

 

3) Attendances will DROP even further .... WHY ?? because the Fans will see that after all the very hard work that Poortvliet has put in to assemble a Team to keep us in the CCC, Lowe will have sold off the very players that can make that happen ...... a negative spiral will have been started

 

IF Rupert Lowe REALLY wants to put Saints back on an even keel on the pitch, he MUST NOT sell off any player he can get money for. Even the Bank must realise that without a credible Team on the pitch, there will be even less success, therefore even less Support, and even LES money coming in ...... As a BUSINESS, it MUST Attract, NOT Detract

 

What he MUST do, is to allow Poortvliet to consolidate on the Team he has now got

 

If he does that, he will see a "reverse" spiral ..... more consistant results, Saints moving UP the table thus attracting MORE Supporters, which means more Revenue etc etc

 

Unfortunately, however, I know what my money would be on come January 1st .......... Another Lowe Fire Sale, and all Poortvliets work will have been for nothing

[dubai_phil]

So all we have to do now is hope and pray that Saga, SJ, Rasiak, Thomas & Euell become world beating superstar goalscoring machines so we can get a combined total of 5mil for them in January. (Keeping Rudi and of course KD on at the moment)

 

Then we can keep the kids...

 

Hope, the final frontier........

 

Would mention flying pigs, but they aren't so popular down here

[once_bitterne]

Unfortunately this was always going to be the case.

 

As fans all we can hope for is that the players that will be flogged in January are:

 

John

Rasiak

Saga

and maybe Skacel

 

and NOT:

 

Schnierdlin

Surman

Lallana

[sfc6mufc3]

I do have to wonder why this has happened?

 

In the past few seasons we have sold Beattie, Crouch, Baird, Jones, Best, Niemi, Bale, Walcott bringin in over £30 million. Not too mention the players we have loaned out to reduce the wage bill.

 

Ok we moved to a new stadium, and attendances have dropped, but surely parachute payments and a decrease in wages balance that out a bit.

 

I for one would like answers as to why we are in this debt, because it is not obvious to me.

[Window Cleaner]

Unfortunately this was always going to be the case.

 

As fans all we can hope for is that the players that will be flogged in January are:

 

John

Rasiak

Saga

and maybe Skacel

 

and NOT:

 

Schnierdlin

Surman

Lallana

 

Rasiak won't be sold,, he's already on a year's loan. Saga and John ? we'll be lucky if they don't come back let alone get money for them.

We can only hope that the damage in January is limited to Lallana coupled with the reconduction of the Saga and John loans.Surman if necessary but above all not Schneiderlin (trouble is he's the most valuable thing we have left) We can only hope that the knock on the Strasbourg is so high that his sale would bring less than either of the others. They'd get 15% of the plus value in addition to us having to pay up the rest of the agreed "maximum" fee. as we've probably not paid so much, selling him to Arse for 4 million or so would only leave us with a couple of million in our coffers.

[bjk]

Lallanas already been sold.

[Window Cleaner]

Lallanas already been sold.

 

Too whom and for how much???

[Mole]

"We are not currently strong enough to indulge the small, but vocal, negative elements of our support base and need everybody to pull together while we recover our financial strength."

 

Lowelife had better think again if he thinks crowds are going to recover whilst him and judas are at the club. Reading the article and this paragraph in particular reminds what a smug pompous arsehole he is.

[bjk]

Spurs £5m.

[Window Cleaner]

Spurs £5m.

 

I wish, we won't get more than 3 down and the rest on the never never for Lallana.

[Mole]

These same fans that didn't come back last time he left right??

 

If we improved they'd be back regardless of Lowe. If he leaves and we stay crap, they won't come back. Lowe is an excuse for too many people.

 

Our season ticket renewals nosedived on the back of the Echo leak that Judas was facilitating the return of the sneering Lowe. Many many fans have simply called it a day because they cannot abide our comunity institution being run by such greedy self serving egotist.

[Crouchie's Lawyer]

All these players came through our Academy as part of a long term plan to make the Club financially sustainable for the future benefit of shareholders, supporters and players alike.

 

Hmmm, it is a company, but I believe here lies the main problem. Get rid of PLC status and we wont have to sell youngsters to line the pockets of the shareholders!

 

Selling youngsters should only happen if we a) need the money b) dont think they player will be of any use in the future or c) the offer is too good to turn down.

 

At no point should we be selling our up and coming youth players to appease the shareholders pockets. I can understand us selling at the moment to stave off administration and appease the bank, but in the future, when (hopefully) things are better and we are not in financial mire, I do not want to see us sell our best to make Lowe et al richer!

[dubai_phil]

Spurs £5m.

 

Possible, however the tv commentary team here last night and the studio crew were discussing the "reports this week" that "Arry will not have any money to spend in January.

 

The one hope to cling to there is whether in that situation and where Spuds are at the moment in the table they need another "promising youngster" or whether they need a typical ready made foreign lump that "Arry was so fond of down the road.

 

Small hope to cling to but who knows what may happen in January, ALL the banks could have gone bust by then.....

[SaintRichmond]

Not sure why people have a go at Lowe regarding this, and the necessity to sell more players now. I'm not surprised, as obviously many always have a go at him, many I believe without reading the articles or really considering the situation. But while there are many things you could have a go at him for, the actions of another board is not one.

 

 

 

The reason why I always "have a go " at Lowe is this :-

 

Lowe is NOT here for the FOOTBALL ... we, as Supporters ARE

 

Lowe is purely here working for the PLC, and is on record saying exactly that

 

Therefore, as it stands, I am "having a go at him" because I cannot see any way that SAINTS FOOTBALL will ever progress under that scenario

 

At EVERY transfer window, Lowe will simply Sell Off any young player he can just to balance the PLC Books

 

WHEN WILL WE EVER PROGRESS BACK TO THE PREM that way ?

 

..... WE WON'T

[Window Cleaner]

Hmmm, it is a company, but I believe here lies the main problem. Get rid of PLC status and we wont have to sell youngsters to line the pockets of the shareholders!

 

Selling youngsters should only happen if we a) need the money b) dont think they player will be of any use in the future or c) the offer is too good to turn down.

 

At no point should we be selling our up and coming youth players to appease the shareholders pockets. I can understand us selling at the moment to stave off administration and appease the bank, but in the future, when (hopefully) things are better and we are not in financial mire, I do not want to see us sell our best to make Lowe et al richer!

 

 

I'm not really sure how much pocket lining has gone on.

There has been no dividend for the last 3 years . I think it was 5.6p per share in 2004 but there was nothing in 2003. Before that I couldn't say. The original issue price was about a £ I think so with share value now at 26.5p

there's not much profit.There was probably money made by the old shareholder in the reverse takeover but that's about it. If they didn't sell their shares obtained then well I doubt that there's been much "pocket lining".

As Leon and Mike, paid 1.8 million and 2.3 million respectively for their shares, probably haven't made a bent farthing to date,yet everybody expects them to put their hands in their pockets.

[Mole]

I'm not really sure how much pocket lining has gone on.

There has been no dividend for the last 3 years . I think it was 5.6p per share in 2004 but there was nothing in 2003. Before that I couldn't say. The original issue price was about a £ I think so with share value now at 26.5p

there's not much profit.There was probably money made by the old shareholder in the reverse takeover but that's about it. If they didn't sell their shares obtained then well I doubt that there's been much "pocket lining".

As Leon and Mike, paid 1.8 million and 2.3 million respectively for their shares, probably haven't made a bent farthing to date,yet everybody expects them to put their hands in their pockets.

 

What do you call Lowe and Cowens demand for their pieces of silver on their exit the last time if it's not pocket lining?

 

No wonder Lowe didn't want to "go into detail".

Edited 24 November, 2008 by Mole

[saint1977]

the accounts make interesting reading and show how badley run the club was run last season by dulieu and jim hone ,and why we had to firesell players to make up for that mismangement.

 

and badly run also by Lowe in 2005/6 when we didn't know where the "next penny is coming from" - this came from Lowe and Cowen. We couldn't afford the upgrades to the academy and the SCW upheavals, plus the payoffs to Clifford etc and it wasted the first parachute season. Hence why our overheads are so sky high folks, we cannot afford an academy costing several million pounds p.a.

 

That's not excusing the madness of 2007/8 at all - we should have offloaded the bigger earners then and restricted the damage so the Execs and then Leon do have to take a lot of the blame for that. I just won't listen to these one-sided accounts and re-writing of history by Lowe's PR Companies on here - the fans know the truth. Who appointed the Execs by the way Solent Stars? That's right - Mike Wilde. Let's see the PR boys wriggle out of that one! No, didn't think you could.

 

Rupert's fans - please also tell me why he needs to have a pop at the fans in the statement if he is such a unifying figure? Is this good business sense when gates have slumped? Also, whilst I may still be a regular at SMS, there are a lot of ex-STs of many years that don't go any more and gates are still down 6-8k on last year for even the least attractive games. Is that a lunatic fringe Mr Lowe? To paraphrase the banner at Villa Park in O'Leary's time - "We're not fickle (Rupert/O'Leary), we just don't like you".

[Gorgiesaint]

Hmmm, it is a company, but I believe here lies the main problem. Get rid of PLC status and we wont have to sell youngsters to line the pockets of the shareholders!

 

Selling youngsters should only happen if we a) need the money b) dont think they player will be of any use in the future or c) the offer is too good to turn down.

 

At no point should we be selling our up and coming youth players to appease the shareholders pockets. I can understand us selling at the moment to stave off administration and appease the bank, but in the future, when (hopefully) things are better and we are not in financial mire, I do not want to see us sell our best to make Lowe et al richer!

 

Whether we are PLC or privately owned, if the bank wants the £4.5m overdraft reduced then it will get reduced by hook or by crook - and if the shareholders or owners won't put money in then it's administration either way. As someone else has already said, there have been no dividends for 3 years so the shareholders are hardly making a fortune!!!

 

The comment at the end regarding going concern and the cash flow forecast that 'The Directors have prepared cash flow forecasts for the period to 30 November 2009 which include the sales of various assets, further cost reductions and deferrals, and rely on the support of the bank and loan note holder' indicates that we will be selling, however doesn't state whether its January or at the end of the season, but I do feel that Barclays will want action sooner rather than later.

 

One last point - these accounts are unaudited and do not constitute 'statutory accounts' with the companies act. By accountancy knowledge is not that good so maybe someone else can help - does this mean that a different audited set of accounts are lodged with companies house?

[Mole]

Going concern

 

The Directors have prepared cash flow forecasts for the period to 30 November 2009 which include the sales of various assets, further cost reductions and deferrals, and rely on the support of the bank and loan note holder.

The Group currently manages its working capital through a bank overdraft facility and in addition has issued long term loan notes to finance the development and construction of the St Mary’s Stadium.

Whilst the Group presently has an overdraft facility, for £4.5m, the Board remain in negotiations with Barclays Bank, who are seeking a progressive reduction in their position, and the loan note holder. These negotiations involve the Group having to achieve further significant asset sales in 2009, which the Board are confident they can achieve, but there can be no certainty at this time. Furthermore the Group are seeking to reschedule the payment of certain current liabilities, and the Board are confident that these will be successfully negotiated.

In the event that the Group do not comply with the terms of the new overdraft facility being discussed and the agreement still to be reached with the loan note holder such that the facilities would be withdrawn, alternative financing would need to be found for the Group to continue as a going concern. The Directors would then consider seeking additional opportunities for finance from internal sources. The Board continues to explore avenues for external funding. Based on the above, the Board consider it appropriate to prepare the accounts on a going concern basis.

The above matters indicate the existence of a material uncertainty which may cast material doubt over the Group’s ability to continue as a going concern. The accounts do not include any adjustments that would result if the Group is unable to continue as a going concern.

 

The auditors have reported on those accounts; their report was unqualified and did not contain statements under Section 237 (2) or (3) of the Companies Act 1985. However, it did contain an emphasis of matter paragraph which drew attention to the material uncertainties surrounding the going concern assumptions as set out above.

 

Enquiries:

 

Southampton Leisure Holdings plc Tel: 0845 688 9448

Rupert Lowe/David Jones

 

 

Seymour Pierce Tel: 0207 107 8000

Paul Davies, Nominated Advisor.

[stevegrant]

At EVERY transfer window, Lowe will simply Sell Off any young player he can just to balance the PLC Books

The PLC status is entirely irrelevant here. We have debts (to Norwich Union, Barclays Bank and a number of partial payments on transfer fees to other clubs) which have to be serviced, regardless of whether we're a PLC or not.

 

In times like the present, where expenditure is almost outweighing income by 2:1, selling players is the only realistic option. (Note: a takeover in the current financial climate and with the club's debts is not a realistic option)

 

In an ideal world, we'd be able to sell the bigger earners like Rasiak, Saganowski, John, etc which would put us in a stronger position to keep hold of the more promising youngsters. Unfortunately, no clubs appear to be interested in actually buying those players. Saganowski has made a career out of performing well at clubs to begin with and then tailing off pretty dramatically, so any club who had done their research would only want him for a year or so. John and Rasiak are proven goalscorers, but most Championship clubs would understandably baulk at paying their wages for more than a year.

 

Clubs who are looking at our players are far more likely to be looking at the younger players as they will be perceived as providing better value. While they might be a bit more expensive in terms of transfer fees, they won't command overinflated salaries and they'll probably have a good sell-on value in a few years' time as well.

[Window Cleaner]

What do you call Lowe and Cowens demand for their pieces of silver on their exit the last time if it's not pocket lining?

 

No wonder Lowe didn't want to "go into detail".

 

I thought we were talking about shareholders in general rather than Lowe and Cowan, silly me to get so confused by the semantics of the original post. So whenever I see "shareholders" I have to substitute "shareholders who are executive directors". Right; got that.

[bungle]

Not sure why people have a go at Lowe regarding this, and the necessity to sell more players now. I'm not surprised, as obviously many always have a go at him, many I believe without reading the articles or really considering the situation. But while there are many things you could have a go at him for, the actions of another board is not one.

 

The facts are, when he left the bank situation was fine. Ok, argue about not spending enough if you like, but we had some money and a half decent squad. We also had a woeful manager or large wages, and that is purely Lowe's fault. But the new board spent a fortune on players and wages that we couldn't justify. They gambled with our club, and perhaps with a good manager it would have worked, but they had Burley. I don't doubt the board were doing what they thought was best, especially in the wake of Lowe leaving and getting so much praise from fans who wanted "anyone but Lowe", so they had to spend to show they were different. But not many CCC teams spend like that. I haven't seen many relegated sides at all come down and start spending. So spending 2m in our first season tieing up the Rasiak deal should have been enough. Our problem was the instability that season, not a lack of quality. We used countless players were managed by Redknapp, Bassett, Wise and Burley before the season ended. Hardly a recipe for success.

 

Anyway, as long as the financial situation is improving then we're moving in the right direction. If people want us to spend more, we'll need bigger attendences. If we are ever again in the Premiership with a full stadium, THEN you can ask for bigger money to be spent on player. For now, moaning is no use, nor is acting surprised when the obvious happens and good players are sold.

 

Your argument is flawed because it relies on the belief that Burley was a bad manager, when in fact he was pretty good for us.

[Mole]

In the event that the Group do not comply with the terms of the new overdraft facility being discussed and the agreement still to be reached with the loan note holder such that the facilities would be withdrawn, alternative financing would need to be found for the Group to continue as a going concern. The Directors would then consider seeking additional opportunities for finance from internal sources.

 

"Would" be withdrawn is a lot different to them saying "Could" be withdrawn. This is to me is the writing on the wall and for all Lowes blustering SLH PLC is heading for the rocks.

 

As for the directors looking for internal sources of finance i cannot believe for a minute Lowe would put his hand in his pocket.

[John B]

and badly run also by Lowe in 2005/6 when we didn't know where the "next penny is coming from" - this came from Lowe and Cowen. We couldn't afford the upgrades to the academy and the SCW upheavals, plus the payoffs to Clifford etc and it wasted the first parachute season. Hence why our overheads are so sky high folks, we cannot afford an academy costing several million pounds p.a.

 

That's not excusing the madness of 2007/8 at all - we should have offloaded the bigger earners then and restricted the damage so the Execs and then Leon do have to take a lot of the blame for that. I just won't listen to these one-sided accounts and re-writing of history by Lowe's PR Companies on here - the fans know the truth. Who appointed the Execs by the way Solent Stars? That's right - Mike Wilde. Let's see the PR boys wriggle out of that one! No, didn't think you could.

 

Rupert's fans - please also tell me why he needs to have a pop at the fans in the statement if he is such a unifying figure? Is this good business sense when gates have slumped? Also, whilst I may still be a regular at SMS, there are a lot of ex-STs of many years that don't go any more and gates are still down 6-8k on last year for even the least attractive games. Is that a lunatic fringe Mr Lowe? To paraphrase the banner at Villa Park in O'Leary's time - "We're not fickle (Rupert/O'Leary), we just don't like you".

 

It does appear very childish and futile to boycott the club because the Chairman is not liked.

 

 

What does that really achieve - probably less points this season as players will have to be sold

Edited 24 November, 2008 by John B

[SaintRichmond]

Whether we are PLC or privately owned, if the bank wants the £4.5m overdraft reduced then it will get reduced by hook or by crook - and if the shareholders or owners won't put money in then it's administration either way. As someone else has already said, there have been no dividends for 3 years so the shareholders are hardly making a fortune!!!

 

The comment at the end regarding going concern and the cash flow forecast that 'The Directors have prepared cash flow forecasts for the period to 30 November 2009 which include the sales of various assets, further cost reductions and deferrals, and rely on the support of the bank and loan note holder' indicates that we will be selling, however doesn't state whether its January or at the end of the season, but I do feel that Barclays will want action sooner rather than later.

 

One last point - these accounts are unaudited and do not constitute 'statutory accounts' with the companies act. By accountancy knowledge is not that good so maybe someone else can help - does this mean that a different audited set of accounts are lodged with companies house?

 

 

 

THAT would be a First ..... Shareholders and/ or owners Putting money IN TO THE CLUB .......

 

Why, that would even mean that we would not HAVE to sell our Young Players, and THAT would mean the Team could GROW, and be SUCCESSFUL, and RISE up the CCC, and eventually get back to the Prem ........ WHERE THE FINANCIAL REWARDS ARE ...........

 

.... but no, the LEECHES that run OUR Club would not even contemplate that ......... They are a PLC ...... nothing else

[Charlie Wayman]

That being so, the reality NOW is this :-

 

Poortvliet IS starting to get results from a basically Young Team

 

To enable that to develop, the Team he has "Built" MUST be kept together

 

That means that, come January, the Young players MUST be kept, and the "expensive" Luxury's got rid of

 

IF Lowe goes down the route of selling off Schneiderlin, Suirman and Lalana, that will have various effects :

 

1) We will get SOME monies in, but NOT, IMHO, enough Mega Bucks to make any significent difference to our Overal debt.

 

2) Results on the pitch will SLUMP, as, at best, three virtually untried players will have to be drafted in

 

3) Attendances will DROP even further .... WHY ?? because the Fans will see that after all the very hard work that Poortvliet has put in to assemble a Team to keep us in the CCC, Lowe will have sold off the very players that can make that happen ...... a negative spiral will have been started

 

IF Rupert Lowe REALLY wants to put Saints back on an even keel on the pitch, he MUST NOT sell off any player he can get money for. Even the Bank must realise that without a credible Team on the pitch, there will be even less success, therefore even less Support, and even LES money coming in ...... As a BUSINESS, it MUST Attract, NOT Detract

 

What he MUST do, is to allow Poortvliet to consolidate on the Team he has now got

 

If he does that, he will see a "reverse" spiral ..... more consistant results, Saints moving UP the table thus attracting MORE Supporters, which means more Revenue etc etc

 

Unfortunately, however, I know what my money would be on come January 1st .......... Another Lowe Fire Sale, and all Poortvliets work will have been for nothing

 

Much the same as I wrote last week in another thread. Spot on!

 

Regrettably we are in a vicious downwards spiral already so there is a certain inevitability about what will happen next. I don't know the answer either, we sell to survive only to sell amd survive and to sell and survive but for how long and in what state?

 

As I have said before, if we end up in the Southern Conference playing to 536 people on makeshift scaffolding stands on Millbrook recreation ground, exactly what will the smarmy little twerp have achieved????

[broncoboy]

The financial reporet form Sir Rupert does reek with arrogance and pettiness

 

"Upon my return". Emphasis" My" return kind of says it all.

 

Of course the he makes out he as no partin the financial downfall of Saints. He didnt squander a penny on Sir Clive or all the rest

 

And the go at the supporters who dont like him was extremely childish.

 

Small minority etc . ****ing big minority.

 

Trouble is lets see what the team looks like after the Jan transfer window Rupert.

 

And then of course ST sales and the fire sale in the Summer even if we survive in the championship

[Mole]

THAT would be a First ..... Shareholders and/ or owners Putting money IN TO THE CLUB .......

 

Why, that would even mean that we would not HAVE to sell our Young Players, and THAT would mean the Team could GROW, and be SUCCESSFUL, and RISE up the CCC, and eventually get back to the Prem ........ WHERE THE FINANCIAL REWARDS ARE ...........

 

.... but no, the LEECHES that run OUR Club would not even contemplate that ......... They are a PLC ...... nothing else

 

Lowe and Cowen have only ever taken money out so i agree it's highly unlikely they'll give anything back.

[Mole]

Small minority etc . ****ing big minority.

 

You've still got to laugh at how he's not changed and still sneers at fans of SFC.

[Gorgiesaint]

THAT would be a First ..... Shareholders and/ or owners Putting money IN TO THE CLUB .......

 

Why, that would even mean that we would not HAVE to sell our Young Players, and THAT would mean the Team could GROW, and be SUCCESSFUL, and RISE up the CCC, and eventually get back to the Prem ........ WHERE THE FINANCIAL REWARDS ARE ...........

 

.... but no, the LEECHES that run OUR Club would not even contemplate that ......... They are a PLC ...... nothing else

 

In the event that the Group do not comply with the terms of the new overdraft facility being discussed and the agreement still to be reached with the loan note holder such that the facilities would be withdrawn, alternative financing would need to be found for the Group to continue as a going concern. The Directors would then consider seeking additional opportunities for finance from internal sources.

 

Does this mean that they would put their hands in their pockets as a last resort? If so, why wait until then - if they have the funds why not put them in now, save us selling any players in January and allow the squad to continue developing.

[Charlie Wayman]

The argument I am putting forward is that we need a different approach to cut and run.

 

We need some enterprise and ingenuity and determination to do something different and more positive, which seems well beyond the strictly limited capabilities of the present regime. We need to draw a line in the sand on player sales; forget about cut and trim and crimp and save and find new income streams that will supplement the dwindling existing advertising, corporate sponsorship and gate receipts.

 

Easily said I know, but the people who can do that for us will well deserve a decent remuneration and our sincerest gratitude, unlike the pinched-arse navel obsessed bean counters who deserve nothing.

[Gorgiesaint]

And no one has answered the question as to why these accounts are unaudited and therefore not suitable for companies house? What will those accounts show?

[Dan Johnson]

THAT would be a First ..... Shareholders and/ or owners Putting money IN TO THE CLUB .......

 

Why, that would even mean that we would not HAVE to sell our Young Players, and THAT would mean the Team could GROW, and be SUCCESSFUL, and RISE up the CCC, and eventually get back to the Prem ........ WHERE THE FINANCIAL REWARDS ARE ...........

 

.... but no, the LEECHES that run OUR Club would not even contemplate that ......... They are a PLC ...... nothing else

 

 

In all honestly, are you really surprised though?

 

When fans are refusing to spend £25 to go to games when he is in charge, its hardly motivating him to put millions into the club.

 

When fans chant for his head, he's hardly going to feel obligated to dig into his own pockets.

 

If worst comes to worst, and the club has run out of assets i think the board will stump up some cash, but no doubt when they do they'll be calls of too little to late from sections of the fanbase.

 

No one wants to be in the situation we're in, no one wants the split fanbase, but what are the other options... there arent any!

[stevegrant]

And no one has answered the question as to why these accounts are unaudited and therefore not suitable for companies house? What will those accounts show?

Where does it state that they're unaudited?

 

All I've found is:

Those accounts, which were prepared under UK GAAP, have been reported on by the Group's auditors and delivered to the Registrar of Companies. Their report was unqualified and did not contain statements under Section 237(2) or (3) of the Companies Act 1985.

which suggests they have been audited.

[Window Cleaner]

In the event that the Group do not comply with the terms of the new overdraft facility being discussed and the agreement still to be reached with the loan note holder such that the facilities would be withdrawn, alternative financing would need to be found for the Group to continue as a going concern. The Directors would then consider seeking additional opportunities for finance from internal sources.

 

Does this mean that they would put their hands in their pockets as a last resort? If so, why wait until then - if they have the funds why not put them in now, save us selling any players in January and allow the squad to continue developing.

 

I think it means an eventual rights issue but I'd not be sure on that.

We need 4/5 million, spread over 28 million shares that would only be about

20p/share but whether there'd be a particularly big take up, I couldn't say.

Obviously there are plenty of shareholders who would put a bit in but the

club needs to be on a stable base first. 200K or so is nothing to blokes like

Mike Withers but for Wilde to find a million might be less evident. Still if he's selling his Burley house perhaps there's a reason.

[Mole]

In all honestly, are you really surprised though?

 

When fans are refusing to spend £25 to go to games when he is in charge, its hardly motivating him to put millions into the club.

 

When fans chant for his head, he's hardly going to feel obligated to dig into his own pockets.

 

If worst comes to worst, and the club has run out of assets i think the board will stump up some cash, but no doubt when they do they'll be calls of too little to late from sections of the fanbase.

 

No one wants to be in the situation we're in, no one wants the split fanbase, but what are the other options... there arent any!

 

LOL, if we didn't know what Lowe was like you could almost feel sorry for him. Make no mistake him and Wilde will never donate money to the club through a philanthropical spirit. If they put any money into the club it'll be for self serving purposes and will be in exhange for shares.

[stevegrant]

We need some enterprise and ingenuity and determination to do something different and more positive, which seems well beyond the strictly limited capabilities of the present regime. We need to draw a line in the sand on player sales; forget about cut and trim and crimp and save and find new income streams that will supplement the dwindling existing advertising, corporate sponsorship and gate receipts.

I totally agree that the club could/should be looking at other potential revenue streams (perhaps they are already? I've no idea), but on the flipside, I'm sure many would argue that we've tried that already in the past with not a great deal of success or positive feedback.

 

I remember many people complaining that money (relatively small sums compared to our income at the time) was being invested in non-footballing projects aimed at providing alternative revenue streams rather than being pumped into the playing squad, despite those amounts not really being enough to improve the team. Swings, roundabouts, etc.

[Mole]

Still if he's selling his Burley house perhaps there's a reason.

 

I can't see Scouse Mike selling his house for any reasons other than:

 

a) He wants a different house, or

b) He needs the cash.

 

Do you really think he's selling up so he can invest in SFC?

[Gorgiesaint]

Where does it state that they're unaudited?

 

All I've found is:

 

which suggests they have been audited.

 

Actually just seen the last paragraph

 

The auditors have reported on those accounts; their report was unqualified and did not contain statements under Section 237 (2) or (3) of the Companies Act 1985. However, it did contain an emphasis of matter paragraph which drew attention to the material uncertainties surrounding the going concern assumptions as set out above.

 

The auditors report attached the last set of accounts was particularly damning - why would their report be unqualified this time around? Not sure if anything should be read into this but just seems a little odd.

[stevegrant]

The auditors report attached the last set of accounts was particularly damning - why would their report be unqualified this time around? Not sure if anything should be read into this but just seems a little odd.

I think "unqualified" simply means that they have not felt the need to "qualify" their report with any additional information or opinion. I seem to remember it was the same situation last year.

[St Marco]

I love the way he blames the previous board when Wilde was the previous board....

 

As far as im aware under Crouch we did not sign anyone, did not give any new contracts, did not hire anyone, sent players out on loan, lost a high paid manager and got compensation for it and so on.

 

So while no doubt things were bad last season they were the aftermath of what Lowe and Wilde did in the season prior to that.

And the thing which worries me more is he was talking for after last weekend when we lost to Wolves and said we were in a good position with 16 points from 17 games. We were 1 point out of the relegation zone......They obviously waited for a good result to post the news, and once posted simply blamed it elsewhere.

 

These two people are the worst thing to happen to this club and the fact they are so out of touch with reality is shocking.

 

LOWE AND WILDE OUT

[Mole]

I love the way he blames the previous board when Wilde was the previous board....

 

You should read Saint Marcs posts.

[Window Cleaner]

I can't see Scouse Mike selling his house for any reasons other than:

 

a) He wants a different house, or

b) He needs the cash.

 

Do you really think he's selling up so he can invest in SFC?

 

I think he might be astute enough to prepare a capital reserve in the event of a rights issue yes. A rights issue dilutes current share holding. If you read the provisos which exist on the proposed 2 million investment some time ago ,it states that, in the event of a rights issue the 2 million would count against new shares.

He has a 16.46 holding, he doesn't want it diluted to an 8 or 10% holding in the event of a RI.If that happened and he couldn't ante up,well then Lowe,Crouch orUncle Tom Cobley could hoover up his rightful share. Not good for him at all as he would no longer be the kingmaker and we'd probably be back to the status quo pre June 2006.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

"Would" be withdrawn is a lot different to them saying "Could" be withdrawn. This is to me is the writing on the wall and for all Lowes blustering SLH PLC is heading for the rocks.

 

As for the directors looking for internal sources of finance i cannot believe for a minute Lowe would put his hand in his pocket.

 

Smily faces. You're a ****ing ***** mate. Are you one of those who wanted us to lose at the weekend.

 

I think it is unbelieveable that we have people in the fanbase who take joy at this because of Rupert Lowe. How can you hold that much against someone, when (and you can't deny this because if you do the whole, he's trying to save his money etc argument doesn't work) he is trying his best to save the club from administration, which would be, without doubt an unmitigated disaster (trust me).

[Window Cleaner]

I think "unqualified" simply means that they have not felt the need to "qualify" their report with any additional information or opinion. I seem to remember it was the same situation last year.

 

I think the statutory accounts that go to companies house are far more detailed than those that are issued to the LSE.

These accounts aren't particularly detailed compared to previous ones, no directors emoluments and all that, no highest earner,no player salary mass.

[Joesaint]

Good luck to lowe and co.

really hope they can sort this out and keep the team together.

 

Come on saints

[VectisSaint]

Your argument is flawed because it relies on the belief that Burley was a bad manager, when in fact he was pretty good for us.

No the argument is perfectly accurate. Burley was a bad manager for us. he was made to look good for one season by the appointment of a top class and much underrated assistant manager in Glyn Snodin, whose arrival coincided with a vast improvement in the team, and whose departure coincided with the downward spiral that resulted eventually in the near-relegation experience.

 

It amazes me with the figures today, that the blame is heaped on the "previous board" and yet no mention of the fact that the previous board was appointed by the current Football Club Chairman. It is patently true that Dulieu and his team pushed for promotion at the expense of financial prudence and came a cropper in a big way. It is also patently true, as can be seen from the accounts, that without the efforts of Leon Crouch and Lee Hoos in the first half of 2008, that the position would be far worse than it was (due to the loan fees for Rasiak and Skacel, and the putting in place of the plans to close the stadium corners and realign the transport agreements).

 

How can Lowe continue to work with Wilde when he was the architect of this sorry mess? (other than the obvious answer that without his support Lowe would not be in power). It is quite clear that if we have to have Lowe at this Club, the obvious power sharing should be with Crouch, not Wilde. Sadly we lost the services of Lee Hoos, who has been shown to be one of the few directors with any particular skill, either financially or football wise. I dislike Lowe intensely, and wish he was not associated with the Club, but the real villain in the piece is MW.

Edited 24 November, 2008 by VectisSaint
Pathetic fat fingered keyboarding just before lunch