Weston Saint Posted 8 March, 2013 Share Posted 8 March, 2013 Saints executive chairman Nicola Cortese's full statement on the club's interim Premier League financial results, and accounts for the 2011/12 season: “From where we started, it is a great achievement to have reached the Premier League in just three seasons. We have done this during a period when we have invested in all of our business areas, radically reformed how we operate the Club to conform to best practice and, at the same time, produced sound financial results. “Effective financial management is about making the right investments at the right price, at the right time. When combined with sound business decisions, commitment, a strong company structure and great ambition across the whole organisation, we have proved that only a modest outlay - when compared with most Premier League Clubs – is needed in order to achieve success. We fully intend to maintain our culture and a diligent approach to our financial affairs. “Our people at the Club have worked hard to achieve this result and I am proud of them and their contribution to our success. They all know that we can still improve further and that is our constant aim. We have a plan to compete at the top and all of our decision-making and investment spending is geared to achieve that. The creation of a state-of-the-art training facility at Staplewood - which is planned to be operational towards the end of 2013 - will be a shining and proud example of that. “Our results also demonstrate we are already operating within the spirit of likely new Premier League financial regulations in respect of average profits and losses over three years. We believe very strongly that each club should continue to be permitted to run their business – including their pay rolls - as they see fit. This is fundamental to the future integrity of football.” Saints' chief financial officer Gareth Rogers' full statement on the club's interim financial results for the Premier League, and the accounts for the 2011/12 season: “Our first six months in the Barclays Premier League show the dramatic impact promotion has had on the Club. However, the significant increase in turnover has not deterred us from our stated aim of financial prudence in the top division. "I am delighted to report the Club’s first profit without the aid of player trading since 2005 which demonstrates that prudence in football can be achieved whilst significant investment, both on and off the field, is still being made. Our wages to turnover ratio has also been reduced significantly and we strongly link remuneration to performance. “Another pleasing aspect is that non-broadcasting revenues are up across the board, representing a culture shift in the way we do business as a Club. This is vital for our continuing success as, in the long term, our aim to challenge and compete with the top clubs in the division cannot rely solely on broadcasting income. “Overall these are excellent results and back up the full year results from our promotion season in the npower Championship which was achieved on an underlying loss of only £2.4m, significantly down from the £11.5m loss that promotion from League One resulted in.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S-Clarke Posted 8 March, 2013 Share Posted 8 March, 2013 It is nice reading to be honest, but does also show that we need to stay up. If we go down there will be alot of departures to make up the shortfall and we'd have to start all over again, with arguably less resources than the last time round thus making promotion very hard. Staying up this year is so important for the future of this club. Cannot be stated enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 8 March, 2013 Share Posted 8 March, 2013 A stupid question I know, but is the average attendance figure quoted in the reports (30,372) the average for our matches, or the average at SMS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Garrett Posted 8 March, 2013 Share Posted 8 March, 2013 a stupid question i know, but is the average attendance figure quoted in the reports (30,372) the average for our matches, or the average at sms? sms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottery st mary Posted 8 March, 2013 Share Posted 8 March, 2013 There is a mortgage charge lodged at Companies House with all of that information. It doesn't state the actual loan amount, but there is a fixed and floating charge on next season's broadcasting revenue. Many thanks for that information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 8 March, 2013 Author Share Posted 8 March, 2013 http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21712482 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pingwing Posted 8 March, 2013 Share Posted 8 March, 2013 Cool, this is the sort of thing thats nice to read, the club is operating on a foundation that the players we have and the club as it is can remain at least as it is and only get better. I am starting to agree with the anti-regulation camp as well as it is getting to a situation where even the big teams are finding it harder to just steamroller over the rest of the league and the teams that try to do the sugar daddy route are starting to fall apart (QPR being the worst) leaving the league being up to well run teams and a few with a decent starting point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 8 March, 2013 Share Posted 8 March, 2013 Interesting that these figures have been released before the publication of the 2011/12 accounts. I assume it's a Premier League rule that six-monthly figures have to be released, we've certainly never revealed half-year profit/loss figures before under the current regime. All in all, looks fairly promising. It's worth bearing in mind the "profit" figure in no way relates to the cashflow of the business. Player transfer fees are accounted for evenly over the course of the player's contract rather than in one big hit when the player first signs for the club. If we assume that most new signings will be on an average of a 4-year contract, that means that only around an eighth of our transfer spending will have been accounted for in the June to December figures. Submission of Club Accounts E.3. Each Club shall by 1st March in each Season submit to the Secretary a copy of its annual accounts in respect of its most recent financial year or if the Club considers it appropriate or the Secretary so requests the Group Accounts of the Group of which it is a member (in either case such accounts to be prepared and audited in accordance with applicable legal and regulatory requirements) together with a copy of the directors’ report for that year and a copy of the auditors’ report on those accounts. E.4. The accounts referred to in Rule E.3 shall: E.4.1. include separate disclosure within the balance sheet or notes to the accounts, or by way of supplementary information separately reported on by its auditors by way of procedures specified by the Board, of the totalsums payable and receivable in respect of Compensation Fees, Contingent Sums and Loan Fees; E.4.2. include a breakdown within the profit and loss account or the notes to the accounts, or by way of supplementary information separately reported on by its auditors by way of procedures specified by the Board, of revenue in appropriate categories such as gate receipts, sponsorship and advertising, broadcasting rights, commercial income and other income. E.5. If the auditors’ report on the accounts submitted pursuant to Rule E.3 contains anything other than an unqualified opinion without modification, the Club shall atthe Board’s request submit such further documentary evidence as the Board shall require (including but not limited to Future Financial Information). E.6. If the annual accounts of a Club or Group Accounts submitted pursuant to Rule E.3 are prepared to a date prior to 30th November in the Season of submission, such Club or Group shall by the following 31st March submit to the Secretary interim accounts covering the period commencing from its accounting reference date and ending on a date between the following 30th November and 1st March. Page 100 of the Premier League Handbook : http://www.premierleague.com/content/dam/premierleague/site-content/News/publications/handbooks/premier-league-handbook-2012-2013.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 8 March, 2013 Share Posted 8 March, 2013 Can we conclude that the BVI loan is £3.8m? If it is just that amount then that washes away pretty much all my worries once more (as the news that the debt had been turned to equity did). Having a £10m, £20m or even £30m loan hanging over us would be a nightmare. Mind you we will still need to cover the large cost of this summers transfers over the next three to four years of trading, so there is additional debt hanging over us I guess. I've not had a chance to look at the document, but if the figures look reasonably healthy that is great. Maybe they can reduce ticket prices next season seeing as the TV money goes up. If you don't ask... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 8 March, 2013 Share Posted 8 March, 2013 I notice the 59% wage to turnover figure is used for 6 month period, but in 2012 wages were actually 102% of turnover. I assume that includes the promotional bonuses. It's hard to get a real understanding of the situation calender year to year, especially with a promotion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 8 March, 2013 Author Share Posted 8 March, 2013 (edited) Can we conclude that the BVI loan is £3.8m? If it is just that amount then that washes away pretty much all my worries once more (as the news that the debt had been turned to equity did). Having a £10m, £20m or even £30m loan hanging over us would be a nightmare. Mind you we will still need to cover the large cost of this summers transfers over the next three to four years of trading, so there is additional debt hanging over us I guess. I've not had a chance to look at the document, but if the figures look reasonably healthy that is great. Maybe they can reduce ticket prices next season seeing as the TV money goes up. If you don't ask... I'm sure someone at the time got wind of the 'fact' that the loan was around the £12m mark....? not sure what the source of the figure was though? Maybe the companies house document has a figure on it? Maybe c.£12m has been earmarked in the form of a loan for the re-build of the training complex but only £3.8m has been drawn down from that thus far? (£3.8m sounds relatively small for the size of the project, or maybe not all of it is being financed by a loan...?) Who knows... Edited 8 March, 2013 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayrivers Posted 8 March, 2013 Share Posted 8 March, 2013 I'm sure someone at the time got wind of the 'fact' that the loan was around the £12m mark....? not sure what the source of the figure was though? Maybe the companies house document has a figure on it? Maybe c.£12m has been earmarked in the form of a loan for the re-build of the training complex but only £3.8m has been drawn down from that thus far? (£3.8m sounds relatively small for the size of the project, or maybe not all of it is being financed by a loan...?) Who knows... Didn't the 12 million come from peoples assumption it was being used for the Ramirez signing? I can't remember seeing anything more concrete, but i could be wrong. It might not all be financed by the loan. They said that more work was needed to be done because of having to pull down the dome. So maybe they just needed some extra for that as they hadn't set enough aside at the time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 8 March, 2013 Share Posted 8 March, 2013 I've seen nothing that gives a definitive figure on the loan, that Companies House document is a mortgage/charge document so it is only there to show the security, which in theory (unless you use Pompeymatics to calculate the value of assets) means that the loan value can be anything up to the value of the security. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saints foreva Posted 8 March, 2013 Share Posted 8 March, 2013 But I've seen several Skates say that the BVI loan is around £35m plus high interest rates, surely they can't be wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dig Dig Posted 8 March, 2013 Share Posted 8 March, 2013 But I've seen several Skates say that the BVI loan is around £35m plus high interest rates, surely they can't be wrong? Several people on here felt it neccessary to attribute a value to the loan as well as it suited their agenda at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JRM Posted 8 March, 2013 Share Posted 8 March, 2013 But I've seen several Skates say that the BVI loan is around £35m plus high interest rates, surely they can't be wrong? it could be £3M, it could be £35M, we don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tajjuk Posted 8 March, 2013 Share Posted 8 March, 2013 Can we conclude that the BVI loan is £3.8m? If it is just that amount then that washes away pretty much all my worries once more (as the news that the debt had been turned to equity did). Having a £10m, £20m or even £30m loan hanging over us would be a nightmare. Mind you we will still need to cover the large cost of this summers transfers over the next three to four years of trading, so there is additional debt hanging over us I guess. I've not had a chance to look at the document, but if the figures look reasonably healthy that is great. Maybe they can reduce ticket prices next season seeing as the TV money goes up. If you don't ask... The loan of £3.8 million for the training ground is listed in the 2011-12 financial figures. The BVI loan appeared this season didn't it?, so wouldn't show up in those financial figures? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capitalsaint Posted 8 March, 2013 Share Posted 8 March, 2013 What if the amount set aside for us from ML is actually in a fund? Not sure if it's possible for that but similar to plenty of other offshore tax schemes where you draw a 'loan' at preferable rates at a significantly lower rate of tax. Apologies if already mentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayrivers Posted 8 March, 2013 Share Posted 8 March, 2013 The loan of £3.8 million for the training ground is listed in the 2011-12 financial figures. The BVI loan appeared this season didn't it?, so wouldn't show up in those financial figures? The figures here are the first half of the season (first 6 months back in the prem) - so my assumption is the loan of £3.8m is the BVI loan which seems it was taken for the extra work for the training ground. Imo of course... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S-Clarke Posted 8 March, 2013 Share Posted 8 March, 2013 The figures here are the first half of the season (first 6 months back in the prem) - so my assumption is the loan of £3.8m is the BVI loan which seems it was taken for the extra work for the training ground. Imo of course... That's exactly what I initially thought all those months back. Work was stopped on the training ground due to a few disagreements/changes, but it actually turned out to be the dome that was the crux of the issue. That structure could not remain, and if the training ground work was to continue the dome would need to be built from the ground up in order to integrate with the new buildings. Now, my assumption is that the club put a halt on proceedings almost immediately and got several independent views on it - the outcome of all of this was the confirmation that this extra bit of work needed to be done in order for the construction to continue. Obviously this would come at an additional cost, and I imagine the club wanted to keep the training ground build going as soon as possible - so a short-term fix was a low-interest loan to cover the extra work required, which would be paid back without much problem. I was kind of ignored when I made that point, as the popular tone back then was that the loan was to clear our ''Massive'' financial shortfsall and to help us buy Gaston Ramirez. But I don't think that was ever the case. Now, Cortese is a lot of things - but he's not someone who ****es around with money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
110_Persaint Posted 8 March, 2013 Share Posted 8 March, 2013 @solentsport: CONT....#saintsfc Chairman Nicola Cortese says he's against proposed Premier league wage cap structure Am I the only one who disagrees with our chairman on this issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dig Dig Posted 8 March, 2013 Share Posted 8 March, 2013 I remember you mentioning this S-Clarke and it's logical based on the sequence of events when the loan became known. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 8 March, 2013 Share Posted 8 March, 2013 Am I the only one who disagrees with our chairman on this issue? It's a difficult one, really. I can see where he's coming from, and West Brom were one of the other clubs of the same belief, that clubs should be able to manage their business however they want, and be left to suffer the consequences if they make a pig's ear of it. That's what eventually happened to Pompey (as well as the variety of crooks and idiots they jumped into bed with), and I'm sure it'll happen to a number of other clubs in the future. However, all of the leagues are right, IMO, to want to bring back a semblance of sanity to football club expenditure. How they've gone about it is different at pretty much every level of the game, but the key for them, mainly from a PR perspective, really, is that they are being seen to be doing something. I don't know whether the new rules on wage bills (which don't actually apply to us anyway because our wage bill is way below the £56m threshold set by the PL) will have the desired effect. I guess it's timely because it means that the players won't hoover all the extra TV money as soon as it starts rolling in in August with demands for new improved contracts, but in reality the leagues could impose any rules they like and it will still protect the bigger clubs from any smaller upstarts with a vision and financial backing. Cortese's thinking that he can run our club better than the chairman/CEO/whoever runs Villa, Stoke, West Ham, Everton, etc without regulation, which is fine, he's entitled to believe that, and his belief has some merit, and the concern is that imposing regulation on these clubs will force them to improve their ways which in turn could lead to them punching a bit higher in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevegrant Posted 8 March, 2013 Share Posted 8 March, 2013 That's exactly what I initially thought all those months back. Work was stopped on the training ground due to a few disagreements/changes, but it actually turned out to be the dome that was the crux of the issue. That structure could not remain, and if the training ground work was to continue the dome would need to be built from the ground up in order to integrate with the new buildings. Now, my assumption is that the club put a halt on proceedings almost immediately and got several independent views on it - the outcome of all of this was the confirmation that this extra bit of work needed to be done in order for the construction to continue. Obviously this would come at an additional cost, and I imagine the club wanted to keep the training ground build going as soon as possible - so a short-term fix was a low-interest loan to cover the extra work required, which would be paid back without much problem. I was kind of ignored when I made that point, as the popular tone back then was that the loan was to clear our ''Massive'' financial shortfsall and to help us buy Gaston Ramirez. But I don't think that was ever the case. Now, Cortese is a lot of things - but he's not someone who ****es around with money. It's possible, but I don't see why they needed a fixed and floating charge over ALL broadcasting revenue for the 2013/14 season if the BVI loan was for only £3.8m. It seems fairly clear that the loan was for cashflow, and it's coincided with both a massive transfer outlay and significant spending on the training ground redevelopment, but I don't see why those who were (rightly) asking questions about why we needed to take out such a loan given a) Cortese's comments in the past and b) the supposed continued support of the Liebherr estate were given such a hard time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayrivers Posted 8 March, 2013 Share Posted 8 March, 2013 It's possible, but I don't see why they needed a fixed and floating charge over ALL broadcasting revenue for the 2013/14 season if the BVI loan was for only £3.8m. It seems fairly clear that the loan was for cashflow, and it's coincided with both a massive transfer outlay and significant spending on the training ground redevelopment, but I don't see why those who were (rightly) asking questions about why we needed to take out such a loan given a) Cortese's comments in the past and b) the supposed continued support of the Liebherr estate were given such a hard time. The more you secure it against the lower the interest rate. Take for example. If you buy a house that's worth 200k and take a mortage of 160k that could be a risk. But if you're only taking a mortgage of 50k against a house that's worth 200k then the rate of interest will be significantly lower as it presents much less of a risk. So by securing it against all of the tv money, the bank would have a pretty good chance of getting their money back if we didn't pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Without a Halo Posted 8 March, 2013 Share Posted 8 March, 2013 I think that's the key to understand really as otherwise talk of making profit is misguided. the concept of Liebherrs "writing off" debt is also misleading , they can convert loan to equity and feel comfortable that the asset they own is worth several times more what they paid for it. selling would most likely still see them make an overall profit. What is the point of converting loans to equity! they already own 100% of the assets anyway! The Owners have spent 38m on getting us promoted of course they will expect the asset to grow! The figures are good showing the club is successful and being run very well fiancially just ask the lot down the road if they would like to swap places! The transfers are not revenue in year they are assets that have value on resale they will not appear in an annual P&L but the value will get adjusted in the balance sheet as will the value of the club stadium and academy. We are in good hands at present long may it last! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Without a Halo Posted 8 March, 2013 Share Posted 8 March, 2013 Am I the only one who disagrees with our chairman on this issue? I agree with him! To run a business properly you need to make all the decisions in the interest of success! An outsider holding the purse strings can only make a decision based on the limit and not on the particualr business case at the time the decision needs making! Cortese is 100% right! a system of limits is aimed at protecting bad business men (such as those down the road). It ties the hands of well run clubs as it is a blunt tool and is therefore unfair on those run properly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohio Saint Posted 8 March, 2013 Share Posted 8 March, 2013 “From where we started, it is a great achievement to have reached the Premier League in just three seasons. We have done this during a period when we have invested in all of our business areas, radically reformed how we operate the Club to conform to best practice and, at the same time, produced sound financial results. That fact alone is really quite astonishing given the way clubs operate these days. Staggering! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chez Posted 8 March, 2013 Share Posted 8 March, 2013 very strange that we need to go to the BVI for a mere £3.8m five minutes after the Liebherrs cleared £30m odd million worth of debt from the club. Why didn't they give or loan the club that kind of money? OK so the tap may have been turned off, but still strange that any loan didn't come from them rather than BVI (assuming it did of course). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottery st mary Posted 8 March, 2013 Share Posted 8 March, 2013 (edited) Maybe he obtained the loan to pay off our boy Franny Benali and or a mafia contract taken out on anther ex pro:rolleyes: Edited 8 March, 2013 by ottery st mary spellin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Chalet Posted 8 March, 2013 Share Posted 8 March, 2013 What is the point of converting loans to equity! they already own 100% of the assets anyway! Presume it is to comply with Financial Fair Play. As you note, they have got more equity in something they already owned. They wrote off £38m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bender Posted 8 March, 2013 Share Posted 8 March, 2013 Does anyone have Pompeys financial figures handy ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lloydie Posted 8 March, 2013 Share Posted 8 March, 2013 Does anyone have Pompeys financial figures handy ? If you do find them, someone at HMRC would also like a peek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 9 March, 2013 Share Posted 9 March, 2013 They wrote off £38m. Not really, more a case of agreeing to have their loans paid off with shares rather than £ notes, in layman's terms:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supersonic Posted 9 March, 2013 Share Posted 9 March, 2013 Very positive results, got to say I'm actually surprised, thought wages would be higher. Good going NC and Southampton. especially seeing as we allegedly have two managers on the pay roll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 9 March, 2013 Share Posted 9 March, 2013 In a nutshell, isn't it saying that wages have gone up by about 80% while income has gone up by about 300%? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dronskisaint Posted 9 March, 2013 Share Posted 9 March, 2013 Saints executive chairman Nicola Cortese's full statement on the club's interim Premier League financial results, and accounts for the 2011/12 season: “From where we started, it is a great achievement to have reached the Premier League in just three seasons. We have done this during a period when we have invested in all of our business areas, radically reformed how we operate the Club to conform to best practice and, at the same time, produced sound financial results. “Effective financial management is about making the right investments at the right price, at the right time. When combined with sound business decisions, commitment, a strong company structure and great ambition across the whole organisation, we have proved that only a modest outlay - when compared with most Premier League Clubs – is needed in order to achieve success. We fully intend to maintain our culture and a diligent approach to our financial affairs. “Our people at the Club have worked hard to achieve this result and I am proud of them and their contribution to our success. They all know that we can still improve further and that is our constant aim. We have a plan to compete at the top and all of our decision-making and investment spending is geared to achieve that. The creation of a state-of-the-art training facility at Staplewood - which is planned to be operational towards the end of 2013 - will be a shining and proud example of that. “Our results also demonstrate we are already operating within the spirit of likely new Premier League financial regulations in respect of average profits and losses over three years. We believe very strongly that each club should continue to be permitted to run their business – including their pay rolls - as they see fit. This is fundamental to the future integrity of football.” Saints' chief financial officer Gareth Rogers' full statement on the club's interim financial results for the Premier League, and the accounts for the 2011/12 season: “Our first six months in the Barclays Premier League show the dramatic impact promotion has had on the Club. However, the significant increase in turnover has not deterred us from our stated aim of financial prudence in the top division. "I am delighted to report the Club’s first profit without the aid of player trading since 2005 which demonstrates that prudence in football can be achieved whilst significant investment, both on and off the field, is still being made. Our wages to turnover ratio has also been reduced significantly and we strongly link remuneration to performance. “Another pleasing aspect is that non-broadcasting revenues are up across the board, representing a culture shift in the way we do business as a Club. This is vital for our continuing success as, in the long term, our aim to challenge and compete with the top clubs in the division cannot rely solely on broadcasting income. “Overall these are excellent results and back up the full year results from our promotion season in the npower Championship which was achieved on an underlying loss of only £2.4m, significantly down from the £11.5m loss that promotion from League One resulted in.” Like Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mowgli Posted 9 March, 2013 Share Posted 9 March, 2013 especially seeing as we allegedly have two managers on the pay roll Of course we do. Nigel is fully entitled to his pay for the remainder of his contract. The only debate is whether we pay it in one go or as a salary. Nowhere near the level of players wages so marginal impact. Not really sure of you point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dronskisaint Posted 9 March, 2013 Share Posted 9 March, 2013 (edited) Am I the only one who disagrees with our chairman on this issue? Probably In my opinion the loopholes in the current proposals are big enough to drive the Queen Mary through as it allows naming rights to be considered as outside the footballing budget and the Liverpools, Man Cities, Chelseas and now even Arsenals of this world can invite investment way beyond that allowed or available to the majority. I think Cortese's argument is based around the 'businesses' that generate genuine re-investable and sustainable profits are restricted in their being rewarded for that. All my opinion only but never been gladder not to have been born in the PO code! Edited 9 March, 2013 by dronskisaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crab Lungs Posted 9 March, 2013 Share Posted 9 March, 2013 That's odd. I'm sure a skate told me we were running 89% of our turnover and were likely to go pop. Surely not another portsmyth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicestersaint Posted 9 March, 2013 Share Posted 9 March, 2013 Of course we do. Nigel is fully entitled to his pay for the remainder of his contract. The only debate is whether we pay it in one go or as a salary. Nowhere near the level of players wages so marginal impact. Not really sure of you point. Yes quite so - we could still be paying him in a year or two's time as i understand things. It was nice of our esteemed chairman to mention Nigel's contribution to the club's recent success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordswoodsaints Posted 9 March, 2013 Share Posted 9 March, 2013 Sorry for my ignorance, but i thought SFC were not a PLC but 100% privately owned, so the financial figures are basically irrelevant? isn't it a bit like me saying " i earned blah, I spent blah blah, therefore over the year i am blah" I'd love it if we were 100% fan-owned, but we are 0% fan owned (unless you count the Liebher's as fans....) Are you mad?.....I would hate it if the club was owned by the fans,it would be a bleeding catastrophe. I think I would have to find other things to do on a Saturday afternoon if any of you loonies got their hands on the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now