£4.9 Million Loss reported/players to be sold

[Chez]

Surely if we've currently got a £4.9m loss, we don't have to instantly pay it all off now.

 

you don't pay a loss off. You pay back any loans you have taken to fund that spending. ie we haev built up a sizeable overdraft with the bank and now we have to start reduing that. The problem is we aer not making any profits each week to reduce the overdraft. With crowds so low we are probably make a loss every week so the overdaft will just grow.

 

The bank will set deadlines for reductions say £5m to £4m by the end of January and £4m to £3m by the end of the summer. What we will have to do it come up with that money somehow (anyhow) or they could get heavy.

[solentstars]

lowe this,lowe that prat was not here the board last season . what about reading the report it dams the running of this club big time and why we still need reduce our overheads.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

Thanks for that, but it's par for the course from the vile creatures that support Lowe.

 

I don't support Lowe. In fact, I want him and Wilde out I just fail to see the alternatives.

[Arizona]

The figures are for last years accounts. Nothing done since Lowe returend has any effect on this set of accounts.

 

The £5M loss comes through an increase in wages from last summer (low earners like Jones, Bale, Pele, Baird leave and replaced by high earners such as John, Thomas, R Wright etc.), the loss of the parachute payment and 3000 less on the gate every week (and the knock on effect that has in terms of matchday expenditure).

 

Not rocket science really. When the parachite payment was stopped we should not have signed John and Saga when we had enough strikers. And we should have been able to find defenders that cost us a lot less then the £1.2m we paid for Thomas.

 

I was refering more to the apparent need to sell players like lallana in January to balance the books. Obviously that figure will have dropped a bit this financial year, but if we are still having to sell players for cash, something is wrong.

[Chez]

The real killer in my opinion was in year 1 following relegation, not last year. Were we going to try to get back into the Prem, or not? If the plan was not to try, then costs should have been cut much more drastically then.

 

I disagree with that.

 

Under Lowe I think the shortfall in income as a result of relegation was covered by player sales and lower expenditure. The financial problems have arisen since with the £7m splurge failing to get us promoted and then some absolutely horrific decision making in the summer before last.

 

Why Stern John and Saga were bought I will never know. We had Rasiak on huge wages already and there was no way we could afford those three when the parachute payment was to be removed. Add to that every man and his dog knew that ST sales would be down. Absolute ****ing madness to increase the wage bill. Crazy. That board want shooting.

 

The horrific financial problems we have now and the effects this brings is purely down to those decisions.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

That's your opinion, but IMO every fan that is boycotting the Lowe/Wilde PLC is making a sacrifice for the long term good of the club.

 

You just don't get it do you? We go into administration Lowe buys the club for nothing and owns 100%.

 

Long term good of the club. Yeh right.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

IMHO that's insulting and against the rules of the forum but what do I know.

 

I'm not just throwing insults around. Not really insulting either, I know it, he knows it.

[Chez]

I was refering more to the apparent need to sell players like lallana in January to balance the books. Obviously that figure will have dropped a bit this financial year, but if we are still having to sell players for cash, something is wrong.

 

We haev to make a profit to pay any of the overdraft off. The 16k crowds have put paid to that. Skacel, Thomas, John and Davis wages are monsterous compared to the income. Lose those four and Rasiak and Saga (we paid them all summer and we will pay them all next summer) and we might start to make a few bob which will help reduce the overdraft.

[solentstars]

You just don't get it do you? We go into administration Lowe buys the club for nothing and owns 100%.

 

Long term good of the club. Yeh right.

you got to remember they are abit simple.

[Saint Bones]

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,

 

Mate - I can bet my ******** to a barn dance that the bank doesnt give two flying phuks about the team. They deal in dollars.

 

 

Supporters watch the team - Shareholders watch the board.

 

C'mon Saints - Shiiiite on Plymouth and bring us all back together.

 

 

 

 

Nothing will change until results and attendances change

[Arizona]

I disagree with that.

 

Under Lowe I think the shortfall in income as a result of relegation was covered by player sales and lower expenditure. The financial problems have arisen since with the £7m splurge failing to get us promoted and then some absolutely horrific decision making in the summer before last.

 

Why Stern John and Saga were bought I will never know. We had Rasiak on huge wages already and there was no way we could afford those three when the parachute payment was to be removed. Add to that every man and his dog knew that ST sales would be down. Absolute ****ing madness to increase the wage bill. Crazy. That board want shooting.

 

The horrific financial problems we have now and the effects this brings is purely down to those decisions.

 

I think buying Saga for £600k, after his performance on loan, was a good bit of business. Had he been used correctly, he could have scored 20 goals last season. Instead we got a Burley masterclass in buying a player, then not playing him.

 

John and Euell really confused me though. They would have been on huge wages and I couldn't really see that we needed them TBH.

[John Smith]

You just don't get it do you? We go into administration Lowe buys the club for nothing and owns 100%.

 

Long term good of the club. Yeh right.

 

So, if he leaves soon and the crowds return, maybe we can avoid administration. The sooner Lowe resigns, the sooner this club can be saved. Do you understand?

 

Lowe is the stubborn one here, he won't be here in 100 years time, but if he leaves now, maybe the club will be around then.

 

If Lowe leaves and the crowds rise, maybe we can avoid selling the family jewels?

[Sundance Beast]

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.

 

 

Thank god we have Lowe in the hot seat to negogiate us through this minefield and fend off administration. What was Crouch's plan last year at the time a similar statement was made? Dribble on about a supposed takeover / cash injection which wasn't exactly a basket many of us would have been putting all our eggs in. Lowe may not be everyone's choice but he is our only real hope in the absence of takeovers dreamed off by Crouch or otherwise.

 

So we are going to have to sell players, so what? JP and everyone else with any business sense knew that would be the case and I am sure it will be done in a way as to limit the impact on the team as best they can. That is everyone's interests even Lowe's.

 

Skacel has had a couple of good games recently but you still don't need extra fingers to count how many good games he has had since joining Saints.

 

Sell all those out on loan.

 

Sell Lallana, who has been more ineffective than effective this season and the same applies to Surman who regrettably has really gone off the boil especially at home.

 

Remember its the mismanagement of the past two seasons which amounted to not much more than a gamble throwing huge amounts of money at players who actually by signing extended our odds of success.

 

To be honest I don't understand what the fuss is about. If the likes of Debenhams and M&S have got to give their stock away at or near cost to generate some cashflow because their supporters (Delldays will appreciate what I did there) aren't going to visit them why should we be exempt when the same happens to us. Use it or lose it should be the message to the fans especially those draining their pockets to travel away but who refuse to go to home games even if you only amount to no more than 50, and that's being generous, lets face it you are acting very strangely, as if you.......No I won't go there.

[diggers]

You just don't get it do you? We go into administration Lowe buys the club for nothing and owns 100%.

 

Long term good of the club. Yeh right.

 

I totally agree. I am IMHO 100% sure that that is the plan come february, much in the Ken Bates mould.

 

He must be stopped or we will be stuck with him forever.

[Saint Bones]

John Smith - So, if he leaves soon and the crowds return, maybe we can avoid administration. The sooner Lowe resigns, the sooner this club can be saved. Do you understand?

 

 

What a load of sh1te... There's no way that the Lowe stay aways can and will return to save this club. If they genuinely cared about the club they would be there already. Lowe IS NOT THE CLUB.

 

Lets sort this out once and for all - Next AWAY game why dont all you I hate Lowe but love Saints fans come out in force - like you always threaten to do and show the board how much 'custom' they truly are missing out on.

[Window Cleaner]

I think buying Saga for £600k, after his performance on loan, was a good bit of business. Had he been used correctly, he could have scored 20 goals last season. Instead we got a Burley masterclass in buying a player, then not playing him.

 

John and Euell really confused me though. They would have been on huge wages and I couldn't really see that we needed them TBH.

 

The accounts would tend to suggest that we paid more than 600K for Saga, I thought the price was fixed at a million euros but how we could spend 4.8 million would then stump me;

Safri cost about 250K

Thomas 1.25 million

Davies 1 million

Schneiderlin -think its about 800K (or less at present)

so that leaves 1.8 million for Saga, John and Euell.

If we actually paid 1.2 million for John and Euell, that's scandalous.

Their only attraction to offset their huge salaries were that they were free of charge.

[bungle]

I think buying Saga for £600k, after his performance on loan, was a good bit of business. Had he been used correctly, he could have scored 20 goals last season. Instead we got a Burley masterclass in buying a player, then not playing him.

 

John and Euell really confused me though. They would have been on huge wages and I couldn't really see that we needed them TBH.

 

Chez is right. Not only is Saganowksi an overweight waste of space, even if he was half decent we still clearly didn't have the money available to pay his wages with the other earners on our books at that time.

[SaintDonkey]

Mike Wilde was chairman June 2006 to February 2007 before being ousted by his own appointees and Crouch (~7 months can't be arsed to work it out exactly since this is just a comparative measure).

Leon Crouch acting chairman from February to July 2007 (before being ousted by those same appointees) and from December 2007 to May 2008 (~11 months)

Ken Dulieu was chairman from July 2007 - December 2007 (~5 months)

 

What it boils down to is that between them they converted £3.4 million into the black into £4.4 million in the red.

 

I do blame Wilde, but I lay more of the bame at the doors of Msrs Dulieu and Crouch who held the reins between them for two thirds of the period in question. A period of stewardship that saw Saints drop from around the play off places to avoiding relegation on the last day of the season.

 

Do I blame Lowe for the overdraft that was accrued while he was out of the picture? No of course not that would be entirely irrational. I blame him ultimately for our relegation from the Premiership - and accept that with a Premiership income the situation wouldn't be so dire. However I'm not so deluded as to think that Southampton would have remained in the Premiership forever had it not been for his actions. We were struggling at the wrong end of the Premiership when he joined and at least he got us a new ground, an FA Cup final and a couple of decent league finishes along the way.

 

I want Lowe and Wilde gone from our football club, but while they're here I'll grudgingly accept what they need to do to save the club from extinction. I shall continue to support the Saints and I will never wish for anything less than a Southampton victory on the pitch.

[Chez]

lowe this,lowe that prat was not here the board last season . what about reading the report it dams the running of this club big time and why we still need reduce our overheads.

 

16k crowds and still having Skacel, Thomas, Davis and John earning 3 or 4 times what we can afford to pay.

 

BTW you still have to pay players during the summer months so we need to build a nest egg to pay for Saga, John and Rasiak.

[Chez]

I think buying Saga for £600k, after his performance on loan, was a good bit of business. Had he been used correctly, he could have scored 20 goals last season. Instead we got a Burley masterclass in buying a player, then not playing him.

 

John and Euell really confused me though. They would have been on huge wages and I couldn't really see that we needed them TBH.

 

Dobie, I mean Sags's season in a nutshell: cack, dropped, injured, not given a chance, cack, dropped.

 

I have no idea why we signed the other two either. We shoul not have been signing anyone, we should have been cutting back, hard, except in defence where we were short.

[Guest Hacienda]

Having just stated the need to keep Lallana...... £5m?!?!?!

 

That is in the "too tempting to turn down/silly money" territory. May even be able to do a loan until the end of the season deal?

 

 

This scenario is a bit of a dilemma - heart or the head?

 

It wouyld be hand snapping off time at that sort of money.

[Guest Hacienda]

lowe this,lowe that prat was not here the board last season . what about reading the report it dams the running of this club big time and why we still need reduce our overheads.

 

It you've failed to notice, the architect of the mess is our current football chairman.

[derry]

Lallanas already been sold.

 

Maybe it would be common courtesy to let him, his family and agent know. At the moment they know nothing of this. Lallana feels he needs at least this season and 40 odd games as a regular as a minimum.

[stevegrant]

If Lowe leaves and the crowds rise

These two events are not necessarily linked.

 

Two years ago, when Lowe left the first time, everyone shouted from the rooftops saying "the thousands staying away will return when Lowe leaves - we'll all be down St Mary's buying season tickets". The next season, despite making the play-offs, our average attendance was LOWER.

 

Who's to say it would be any different at all this time around?

[Arizona]

We haev to make a profit to pay any of the overdraft off. The 16k crowds have put paid to that. Skacel, Thomas, John and Davis wages are monsterous compared to the income. Lose those four and Rasiak and Saga (we paid them all summer and we will pay them all next summer) and we might start to make a few bob which will help reduce the overdraft.

 

The thing is, having those four on high wages is only the same as having 8 players on low to average wages. If we had a huge squad of high earners like last season then I could see the loss, but four players?

 

The accounts would tend to suggest that we paid more than 600K for Saga, I thought the price was fixed at a million euros but how we could spend 4.8 million would then stump me;

Safri cost about 250K

Thomas 1.25 million

Davies 1 million

Schneiderlin -think its about 800K (or less at present)

so that leaves 1.8 million for Saga, John and Euell.

If we actually paid 1.2 million for John and Euell, that's scandalous.

Their only attraction to offset their huge salaries were that they were free of charge.

 

I thought Sunderland agreed to sell us John for £1m as part of the Kenny deal?

 

That's why I didn't get signing John when we already had Rasiak, Saga and BWP.

 

Chez is right. Not only is Saganowksi an overweight waste of space, even if he was half decent we still clearly didn't have the money available to pay his wages with the other earners on our books at that time.

 

I'll ignore the overwieght waste of space bit, as Saga was the only striker who appeared to putting in the effort for most of last season.

 

It is probably true that we couldn't really afford Saga, but I think you could have made a much stronger case for signing him at the time that Euell or John.

 

Dobie, I mean Sags's season in a nutshell: cack, dropped, injured, not given a chance, cack, dropped.

 

I have no idea why we signed the other two either. We shoul not have been signing anyone, we should have been cutting back, hard, except in defence where we were short.

 

I'd describe his season more as: Scoring (3 in his first 3 starts), dropped, 20 minutes a month, injured, dropped, back in poor team, struggling.

 

I wouldn't exactly say he was dropped at the end either. He started the last 2 games of the season and played 9/13 or 10/14 under Pearson, depending on whether you include the Plymouth game.

[Guest Hacienda]

These two events are not necessarily linked.

 

Two years ago, when Lowe left the first time, everyone shouted from the rooftops saying "the thousands staying away will return when Lowe leaves - we'll all be down St Mary's buying season tickets". The next season, despite making the play-offs, our average attendance was LOWER.

 

Who's to say it would be any different at all this time around?

 

It wouldn't.

 

Too many people have lost interest and stopped going for a number of reasons and many won't be coming back short of a sustained promotion push.

[John Smith]

John Smith - So, if he leaves soon and the crowds return, maybe we can avoid administration. The sooner Lowe resigns, the sooner this club can be saved. Do you understand?

 

 

What a load of sh1te... There's no way that the Lowe stay aways can and will return to save this club. If they genuinely cared about the club they would be there already. Lowe IS NOT THE CLUB.

 

Lets sort this out once and for all - Next AWAY game why dont all you I hate Lowe but love Saints fans come out in force - like you always threaten to do and show the board how much 'custom' they truly are missing out on.

 

So, why do sooo many on this forum 'blame' the sayaways? Why, because it's another moan for the Lowe supporters to roll out. Then, they don't need the sayaways to return, then, they want us to all go top away games.

 

Get a dog, he'll do tricks for ya! As for me, I'll do what I want, when I want ta very much. Staying away is showing the board, and for whatever your reasons, it's having an effect, and like I said, the sooner Lowe leaves, the sooner we can ALL get on with saving this club.

 

These two events are not necessarily linked.

 

Two years ago, when Lowe left the first time, everyone shouted from the rooftops saying "the thousands staying away will return when Lowe leaves - we'll all be down St Mary's buying season tickets". The next season, despite making the play-offs, our average attendance was LOWER.

 

Who's to say it would be any different at all this time around?

 

Hence the word 'if' at the start. But then, like I've said before, how do we know how many are staying away because of Lowe, let's face it, NOBODY knows. So, isn't it worth Lowe leaving, just to see, let's face it, it can;t get any worse! If Lowe left and the gates increased by 500, AND we don;t have Lowe in charge, isn;t that worth smiling about!?

 

Who's to say it won;t be different this time, 1 things for sure, with Lowe in charge, Saints won;t change for a long time, maybe through relegation and then administration, but then Lowes taken us down before, so no change there.

[saint1977]

I just don't get where the money is going. I really don't.

 

We must surely have one of the lowest wage bills in the CCC now. Appart from Davis, Skacel, Thomas, Euell and BWP, all our players are either cheap loans, cheap free transfers or from the accademy.

 

Even with the drop of attendances, 14,000 plus is still pretty healthy for this League. Teams like Colchester, Barnsley, Burnley, Plymouth, Blackpool and Scunny have gotten by with less in recent years.

 

Is it really the stadium debt that's crippling us? I was under the impression that we had a 25 year mortgage, with payments of just over £1m a year, which adds up to around £2m a year when you add in the interest.

 

Surely the accademy doesn't cost that much. What have we got, a cloning lab in there?!

 

The academy was £3-4m p.a to run the year we went down - I know that, and we are talking pre-SCW too. It's the goose that has laid some wonderful golden eggs but it has come at a price and lately we haven't been looking after the goose properly and that will lead to no more golden eggs in the future if we are not careful.

 

I'm an academy supporter but do be aware that it doesn't come cheap.

[saint1977]

The figures are for last years accounts. Nothing done since Lowe returend has any effect on this set of accounts.

 

The £5M loss comes through an increase in wages from last summer (low earners like Jones, Bale, Pele, Baird leave and replaced by high earners such as John, Thomas, R Wright etc.), the loss of the parachute payment and 3000 less on the gate every week (and the knock on effect that has in terms of matchday expenditure).

 

Not rocket science really. When the parachite payment was stopped we should not have signed John and Saga when we had enough strikers. And we should have been able to find defenders that cost us a lot less then the £1.2m we paid for Thomas.

 

Looking at Chez's summary, Burley doesn't come out of it very well IMO.

[Saint Bones]

So, why do sooo many on this forum 'blame' the sayaways? Why, because it's another moan for the Lowe supporters to roll out. Then, they don't need the sayaways to return, then, they want us to all go top away games.

Get a dog, he'll do tricks for ya! As for me, I'll do what I want, when I want ta very much. Staying away is showing the board, and for whatever your reasons, it's having an effect, and like I said, the sooner Lowe leaves, the sooner we can ALL get on with saving this club.

 

You might want to try and explain that one to me.

I would Love all the stay aways to turn up to home games. WE NEED YOU.

I'm an old dog mate - no new tricks here... but most of us old dogs are happy to chew on the same ol' bone regardless of who is feeding it to us. We support the bone and not the feeder. ( ha ha - Gees that's a pretty phucked up way to explain things... ahh bugger it - works for me )

 

Puff your chest out bud - Staying away is really putting one up the board.

 

Pity it's also harming the team you SUPPORT !

 

 

 

BTW John - Mate - You may do whatever you want when you want. It's the beauty of it all. Most of all - Enjoy !

[Sundance Beast]

Mike Wilde was chairman June 2006 to February 2007 before being ousted by his own appointees and Crouch (~7 months can't be arsed to work it out exactly since this is just a comparative measure).

Leon Crouch acting chairman from February to July 2007 (before being ousted by those same appointees) and from December 2007 to May 2008 (~11 months)

Ken Dulieu was chairman from July 2007 - December 2007 (~5 months)

 

What it boils down to is that between them they converted £3.4 million into the black into £4.4 million in the red.

 

I do blame Wilde, but I lay more of the bame at the doors of Msrs Dulieu and Crouch who held the reins between them for two thirds of the period in question. A period of stewardship that saw Saints drop from around the play off places to avoiding relegation on the last day of the season.

 

Do I blame Lowe for the overdraft that was accrued while he was out of the picture? No of course not that would be entirely irrational. I blame him ultimately for our relegation from the Premiership - and accept that with a Premiership income the situation wouldn't be so dire. However I'm not so deluded as to think that Southampton would have remained in the Premiership forever had it not been for his actions. We were struggling at the wrong end of the Premiership when he joined and at least he got us a new ground, an FA Cup final and a couple of decent league finishes along the way.

 

I want Lowe and Wilde gone from our football club, but while they're here I'll grudgingly accept what they need to do to save the club from extinction. I shall continue to support the Saints and I will never wish for anything less than a Southampton victory on the pitch.

 

Pretty much sums up my position on our situation and Lowe. He is the only viable solution that offers us any hope until there is an alternative willing to throw their hat and their wallet in the ring or even a change in structure as has been discussed on other threads that excludes the big 3 and all the other non-execs but I just can't see that being agreed or someone stupid enough to put themselves is the firing line as CEO/Chairman. The anti-Lowe hatred is pure folly and getting a tad ludicrous to say the least.

 

Saints just like all the other 92 league clubs have no divine rights to any particular status but at least this season we can visibily see we are trying to improve our position unlike last year the players were probably more likely recommending financial advisors than developing playing/working relationships.

[um pahars]

Mike Wilde was chairman June 2006 to February 2007 before being ousted by his own appointees and Crouch (~7 months can't be arsed to work it out exactly since this is just a comparative measure).

Leon Crouch acting chairman from February to July 2007 (before being ousted by those same appointees) and from December 2007 to May 2008 (~11 months)

Ken Dulieu was chairman from July 2007 - December 2007 (~5 months).

 

The balance of power has effectively been:

 

Dec 96 to Jun 06 - Lowe and his cabal calling the shots.

 

Jul06 to Feb 07 - A balance of Wilde, Crouch, Hone & others where no one held a balance of power

 

Feb 07 to Dec 07 - Hone/Dulieu in control of the PLC board.

 

Jan 08 to May 08 - Crouch in control (through Hoos).

 

What it boils down to is that between them they converted £3.4 million into the black into £4.4 million in the red..

 

If you think that Lowe left this Club in a healthy state with a bank balance that would tide us over, then you have been completely take in by the PR spin.

 

In the first season down, we lost 9 million pounds out the door on normal trading (that's even after a 7 million parachute subsidy which is therefoe a 16m disparity between ongoing income and ongoing costs).

 

He left a company haemoraghing cash, "didn't know where the next penny was coming from" and an operation that needed player sales to balance the books.

 

As others have mentioned on this thread, I have little sympathy for the route taken by Hone and co in their last 6 months, when instead of implementing Plan B they instead spent a few million more. And there have been other mistakes in the last two years which have contributed to the mess we now find ourselves in.

 

But for Lowe to once again claim this is someone elses mess is somewhat passing the blame.

 

Our troubles all stem from relegation frm the top flight when millions were wiped from the top line, leaving a Club with an infrastructure and cost base that was always going to struggle in this division (Wilde himself admits to thinking that we can't wash our face in this division).

 

Before Lowe holds everyone else to account, methinks their should be some perspective about where our problems come from.

 

I do blame Wilde, but I lay more of the bame at the doors of Msrs Dulieu and Crouch who held the reins between them for two thirds of the period in question. A period of stewardship that saw Saints drop from around the play off places to avoiding relegation on the last day of the season.

 

They must take their share of the blame for the actions in recent years (particularly the Executives at the start of last season when they failed to

implement Plan B).

 

I blame him ultimately for our relegation from the Premiership - and accept that with a Premiership income the situation wouldn't be so dire.

 

And with that relegation came the reasons for why we find ourselves where we are now.

 

Income dropped from around 50 million to about 1/3 of that.

 

It is that massive drop that has resulted in the total restructuring of this Club. Other decisions haven't helped (and they have indeed hindered), but when put in perspective, it was relegation that caused the problems we now face.

 

To end, Lowe did not leave a robust Club with a large cash reserve by any stretch of the imagination.

[John B]

The balance of power has effectively been:

 

Dec 96 to Jun 06 - Lowe and his cabal calling the shots.

 

Jul06 to Feb 07 - A balance of Wilde, Crouch, Hone & others where no one held a balance of power

 

Feb 07 to Dec 07 - Hone/Dulieu in control of the PLC board.

 

Jan 08 to May 08 - Crouch in control (through Hoos).

 

 

 

If you think that Lowe left this Club in a healthy state with a bank balance that would tide us over, then you have been completely take in by the PR spin.

 

In the first season down, we lost 9 million pounds out the door on normal trading (that's even after a 7 million parachute subsidy which is therefoe a 16m disparity between ongoing income and ongoing costs).

 

He left a company haemoraghing cash, "didn't know where the next penny was coming from" and an operation that needed player sales to balance the books.

 

As others have mentioned on this thread, I have little sympathy for the route taken by Hone and co in their last 6 months, when instead of implementing Plan B they instead spent a few million more. And there have been other mistakes in the last two years which have contributed to the mess we now find ourselves in.

 

But for Lowe to once again claim this is someone elses mess is somewhat passing the blame.

 

Our troubles all stem from relegation frm the top flight when millions were wiped from the top line, leaving a Club with an infrastructure and cost base that was always going to struggle in this division (Wilde himself admits to thinking that we can't wash our face in this division).

 

Before Lowe holds everyone else to account, methinks their should be some perspective about where our problems come from.

 

 

 

They must take their share of the blame for the actions in recent years (particularly the Executives at the start of last season when they failed to

implement Plan B).

 

 

 

And with that relegation came the reasons for why we find ourselves where we are now.

 

Income dropped from around 50 million to about 1/3 of that.

 

It is that massive drop that has resulted in the total restructuring of this Club. Other decisions haven't helped (and they have indeed hindered), but when put in perspective, it was relegation that caused the problems we now face.

 

To end, Lowe did not leave a robust Club with a large cash reserve by any stretch of the imagination.

 

Well the facts seem to refute your analysis

 

We seem to be £8 m worse off after Lowe went and do not have Bale Baird or Jones

 

but I expect the money in the bank was income from Season Ticket sales but I think the two years from 2006 were an undoubted disaster.

 

Whether this year will be ant better we will have to wait and see.

Edited 24 November, 2008 by John B

[um pahars]

Well the facts seem to refute your analysis

 

We seem to be £8 m worse off after Lowe went and do not have Bale Baird or Jones

 

Because the Club that started out that 2006/7 season was one that Lowe left and was still haemoraghing cash. Those that took over stemmed the flow somewhat in their first year, bu then failed in their second year.

 

Here is something I posted a while back when some idiot was claiming there was a kitty left behind. It sort of stopped that claim in its tracks!!!!!!!

 

 

 

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

[Verbal Kint]

you got to remember they are abit simple.

 

I think you are the simple one if you truely believe Lowe with **** all money behind him will be the best offer.

[VectisSaint]

The figures are for last years accounts. Nothing done since Lowe returend has any effect on this set of accounts.

 

Strictly speaking this is not true. Lowe returned on 15th May (I think), therefore was in charge for 6 weeks of the financial year (11.5%). During this time he was responsible for the purchase of Morgan Schneiderlin (as admitted in the accounts), as well as the contract termination of NP (though this would not have had any financial impact as NP was on a rolling monthly contract). Did Perry sign before 30th June? It could be argued therefore that approx £1m of the loss (Schneiderlin) is attributable to Lowe. Convenient though to lose this in the Blame Crouch for everything reports. Conversely many could argue that MS may turn out to be very good business when we sell him on to the The Arse in January for about 2m (plus some stage payments) and thus remove our only midfield creativity.

[Verbal Kint]

Thank god we have Lowe in the hot seat to negogiate us through this minefield and fend off administration. What was Crouch's plan last year at the time a similar statement was made? Dribble on about a supposed takeover / cash injection which wasn't exactly a basket many of us would have been putting all our eggs in. Lowe may not be everyone's choice but he is our only real hope in the absence of takeovers dreamed off by Crouch or otherwise.

 

So we are going to have to sell players, so what? JP and everyone else with any business sense knew that would be the case and I am sure it will be done in a way as to limit the impact on the team as best they can. That is everyone's interests even Lowe's.

 

Skacel has had a couple of good games recently but you still don't need extra fingers to count how many good games he has had since joining Saints.

 

Sell all those out on loan.

 

Sell Lallana, who has been more ineffective than effective this season and the same applies to Surman who regrettably has really gone off the boil especially at home.

 

Remember its the mismanagement of the past two seasons which amounted to not much more than a gamble throwing huge amounts of money at players who actually by signing extended our odds of success.

 

To be honest I don't understand what the fuss is about. If the likes of Debenhams and M&S have got to give their stock away at or near cost to generate some cashflow because their supporters (Delldays will appreciate what I did there) aren't going to visit them why should we be exempt when the same happens to us. Use it or lose it should be the message to the fans especially those draining their pockets to travel away but who refuse to go to home games even if you only amount to no more than 50, and that's being generous, lets face it you are acting very strangely, as if you.......No I won't go there.

 

 

It never ceases to amaze me how stupid you are. Completely brain dead.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Do the accounts have a 'Operating loss' number ?

[John B]

Because the Club that started out that 2006/7 season was one that Lowe left and was still haemoraghing cash. Those that took over stemmed the flow somewhat in their first year, bu then failed in their second year.

 

Here is something I posted a while back when some idiot was claiming there was a kitty left behind. It sort of stopped that claim in its tracks!!!!!!!

 

 

 

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

 

Could you rephrase this post I cannot understand it with all the inserts

 

Usually your input is interesting

[ALWAYS_SFC]

Having read Mr Lowe`s statement but why doe she feel the need to have a pop at previous regimes without having the humility to admit all the subsequent problems have been cause by his gross mismanagement in the first place, before we were relegated and afterwards.

 

Also the arrogant idiot cannot resist having a dig at supporters of the club

just because they are not supporters of him.

 

So lets all stump up as much as possible to get the team back to where it belongs...yeah yeah yeah... While Lowe sells all of value and the team decline

further.

 

If he needs our support so much and obviously he does, he now needs to

treat ALL fans with respect and not antaganise those who are not his

staunch supporters and find some way of keeping the playing side together

as this is the only way we will progress and increase crowd sizes.

 

People will not continually pay good money for a product that will decrease

in quality if the best parts of it are sold......

[um pahars]

Could you rephrase this post I cannot understand it with all the inserts

 

Usually your input is interesting

 

LOL. I'll sure try.

 

Below is a piece (I think from the Echo or matbe The Guardian outlining the fact that there was no warchest when Wilde/Crouch/Hone took over from Lowe in summer 2006).

 

Here was Hone said about the warchest, and how the signings of the summer after Lowe were funded (the bits between Hone's quotes are the reporters bit).

 

"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

[Guided Missile]

It could be argued therefore that approx £1m of the loss (Schneiderlin) is attributable to Lowe. Convenient though to lose this in the Blame Crouch for everything reports. Conversely many could argue that MS may turn out to be very good business when we sell him on to the The Arse in January for about 2m (plus some stage payments) and thus remove our only midfield creativity.

Explain how spending money on an asset (even an intangible asset, such as a player) translates into a loss on the P & L account????

[saintjinksie]

The figures are for last years accounts. Nothing done since Lowe returend has any effect on this set of accounts.

 

The £5M loss comes through an increase in wages from last summer (low earners like Jones, Bale, Pele, Baird leave and replaced by high earners such as John, Thomas, R Wright etc.), the loss of the parachute payment and 3000 less on the gate every week (and the knock on effect that has in terms of matchday expenditure).

 

Not rocket science really. When the parachite payment was stopped we should not have signed John and Saga when we had enough strikers. And we should have been able to find defenders that cost us a lot less then the £1.2m we paid for Thomas.

 

if we hadnt signed stern we would have gone down, so john was worth every penny in wages. saga on the other hand...

[um pahars]

Do the accounts have a 'Operating loss' number ?

 

12.5 million loss on normal operations (i.e. all normal income less all normal costs & not tainted by player sales/amortisation).

 

This sort of increases to 14.4 million once you factor in the ongoing interest costs.

[um pahars]

Explain how spending money on an asset (even an intangible asset, such as a player) translates into a loss on the P & L account????

 

The cost of the transfer is amortised over the length of the players contract and shown as "Amortisation of players’ registrations" in the P & L.

 

HTH

[corsacar saint]

About right for Lowe to blame everybody else bar himself and cronies. The word

delusional was put in the dictionary just to describe that man.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

12.5 million loss on normal operations (i.e. all normal income less all normal costs & not tainted by player sales/amortisation).

 

This sort of increases to 14.4 million once you factor in the ongoing interest costs.

 

Thanks UP , in my very non professional opinion that kind of underlying loss looks unsupportable for a business of this size - unless we discover 1 or 2 Bale/Wallcott/Jones type players every year that is .

[yorkie]

Just one question - when Lowe left with +£4m in the account - how many players were on long term contracts negotiated by Lowe?

 

The likes of Rasiak, Saganowski, Skacel and the others? Where they signed by the Wilde bunch?

 

Surely the team under Wilde could not be that incompetent could they?

[um pahars]

Just one question - when Lowe left with +£4m in the account - how many players were on long term contracts negotiated by Lowe?

 

The likes of Rasiak, Saganowski, Skacel and the others? Where they signed by the Wilde bunch?

 

Surely the team under Wilde could not be that incompetent could they?

 

Rasiak was one of Lowe's last acts who was signed on mega wonga and a 4 year deal, but we also had players on big wages hanging over from our Premiership days (e.g. Claus still had two years to run).

 

Skacel was one of Wilde's/Crouch's buys, whilst Saganowski was under Hone.

[Faz]

The problem is Lowe and Wilde where the ones who put us in this position. Lowe got us relegated = loads of money lost. Wilde spent the little money we did have on trying to get re-promoted = loads more money lost. Then they blame it on everyone else but themself. Lowe is the reason we are headed for administration, he is not trying his best to stop it he is making further mistakes which in say 3-4 years time we will look back on and say they were wrong.

This press release will be a key piece of evidence to show just how deluded those 2 really are.

 

Lowe didn't get us relegated anymore than he got us to the cup final.