How much do the people pulling the SLH strings at Barclays know about football?

[trousers]

Ok, been thinking....

 

So what do we know about the actual human beings at Barclays who have Saints future in their hands?

 

I've seen a "Reading branch" connection posted on here on several occasions. Even a name of a chap has been posted once or twice (even I can't be arsed to trawl back to find it...)

 

But does anyone know how much the person/people who are ultimately determining our fate at the bank know about the nuances of running a football club compared to businesses in other industries?

 

The reason for asking is that I suspect if they aren't "football fans" themselves then they will be treating the club just like any other business and demanding relatively arbitrary cost cutting measures. (Not surprising given that is their job but bear with me....)

 

Whereas, if he/they have some sort of footballing/sporting background (be it as a fan or some sort of sport management qualification) then one would expect/hope that they would take into account the 'false economy' effect that off-loading all our highest-paid (aka "best") players has on the viability of 'the business' in the longer term.

 

The circumstantial evidence is that the string pullers at Barclays are not appreciating the false economy scenario of offloading all our 'star' players over the last 12 months or so. It just appears to the man-in-the-street to be a short term (blinkered?) numbers game at the moment.

 

So, a long-winded way of asking to anyone 'ITK'....what 'running a football club' experience do the club's bankers have (the people running our account, not the bank as a whole)?

 

Thanks.

Edited 6 January, 2009 by trousers

[fos1]

Roger Fry Reading branch !!

[redkeith]

As Barclays are currently borrowing billiions at 14% interest rates from the Middle East, rather than be part nationalised at 12%, it seems they don't know that much about Banking, let alone football.

 

Perhaps they could benefit from a 'Revoloutionary New Banking' set up, and Mr Lowe could advise them on lending policy towards, Hedge Funds, North London Yobo's etc.

[John Smith]

I think you'll find that banks supported football clubs in the past because of two things:

 

1. the revenue stream kept a large amount of money flowing through the bank

2. Looks good in the community and gives them Kudos and extra marketing

 

With these two items, banks allowed football clubs to be run with less restrictions due to the high profile and return. Nowadays, a bank, that has probably been tied in with a club for years, cannot just run them out of business because it will damage their street cred. They have to tread carefully not to ruin their image. They have to treat FC's as clubs rather than business' and look at the wider picture.

 

However, with the credit crunch and a continuous negative equity, banks are able to put the squeeze on clubs because they are seen more as a business by the public than they used to, and people look inward to the board or mismanagement than the bank 'pulling the plug' or 'pulling the rug from under them'.

 

As a club, we were protected somewhat by the community, asa business we are more likely to be treated as a business, and these guidelines will be dictateed by the banks hierarchy and pushed down to the 'account managers'.

 

As support dwindles, it will become more and more likely that the bank will 'pull the plug'. Maybe they are just weighting for a good day for bad news, Credit Crunch anybody?

[Nadia Sllim]

perhaps they will announce us and them (down the M27) going "bust" the same day?

[trousers]

Roger Fry Reading branch !!

 

...

Edited 6 January, 2009 by trousers
dunno

[del boy]

This is one reason I get frustrated by some of the knee jerk stuff we read on the forum.

 

There are many influences at play, including the bank, RL, the board as a whole, Jan, the other coaches, players, agents, FA etc and none of us really knows the whole picture. So its at best "uninformed" to spout off on what should be done and who's to blame etc (I know... wake up smell the coffee, I pay my money so Ive got every right etc zzzz) when we don't really know the full picture.

 

Knee jerk reaction over.

[aintforever]

I doubt the bank is making the decisions, it will be down to Lowe.

 

For example it is unlikely the manager of Barclays Reading branch insisted we sign Smith and that new left back. Or insisted we bring in numerous useless players on loan, injury prone midfielders and a 3rd choice goalie from Spurs that we will never play.

[hughieslastminutegoal]

Roger Fry Reading branch !!

 

Can he still play at fullback?

[SOTONS EAST SIDE]

Barclays has no say in what goes on in SLH AT ALL!(its a bank account FFS) Does your bank tell you when to go to work, or when to pay you money in! No of course they dont, all they can do is withdraw credit facilities. I'd be more worried about what Norwhich Union are thinking not FUUUcking Barclays, as they are the people we owe the most money too! And they basically own the stadium.

Edited 6 January, 2009 by SOTONS EAST SIDE

[Window Cleaner]

perhaps they will announce us and them (down the M27) going "bust" the same day?

 

What with them sucking in millions every day??

On the other hand there was a rumour going round Saintslist that we're to be placed in admin this week.

Don't know how reliable Saintlist is nowadays though.

[ottery st mary]

Can he still play at fullback?

 

aerostructures and ex Vosper Thorneycroft man...Bank Manager is only part time in Reading.

[VectisSaint]

Given that people in the banking industry don't understand how to deal with finances, hence the current recession, what hope is there that they understand football? They are just a load of *ankers.

[Saint Billy]

Ok, been thinking....

 

So what do we know about the actual human beings at Barclays who have Saints future in their hands?

 

I've seen a "Reading branch" connection posted on here on several occasions. Even a name of a chap has been posted once or twice (even I can't be arsed to trawl back to find it...)

 

But does anyone know how much the person/people who are ultimately determining our fate at the bank know about the nuances of running a football club compared to businesses in other industries?

 

The reason for asking is that I suspect if they aren't "football fans" themselves then they will be treating the club just like any other business and demanding relatively arbitrary cost cutting measures. (Not surprising given that is their job but bear with me....)

 

Whereas, if he/they have some sort of footballing/sporting background (be it as a fan or some sort of sport management qualification) then one would expect/hope that they would take into account the 'false economy' effect that off-loading all our highest-paid (aka "best") players has on the viability of 'the business' in the longer term.

 

The circumstantial evidence is that the string pullers at Barclays are not appreciating the false economy scenario of offloading all our 'star' players over the last 12 months or so. It just appears to the man-in-the-street to be a short term (blinkered?) numbers game at the moment.

 

So, a long-winded way of asking to anyone 'ITK'....what 'running a football club' experience do the club's bankers have (the people running our account, not the bank as a whole)?

 

Thanks.

 

Cough.....The computer says no.

[Gemmel]

I’m no expert so this is mostly guess work, but if we are working within the confines of our agreed debt reduction, I’d say not a lot. The same if you or I racked up a big overdraft met with the bank manager and agreed to pay so much off each month. If you stuck to it, he wouldn’t care if you spent the rest of your wages on drugs and strippers. If SLH isn’t keeping to the recently agreed reduction than I guess they can have a lot more say. They will be aware of the cash value players, the dwindling support, the AGM and the likelihood of further reduced revenues next season and even Crouch’s offer to inject some cash. If it comes to the crunch to keep Barclays sweet, they will or could dictate player sales.

However, the more I think about it, the more I can’t see either Barclays or Aviva putting us into administration and unless we have any other major creditors or we owe the tax man a chunk of change, then I don’t think it will happen, at least not in the short term.

We owe Barclays 6 to 8 million. If they put us in administration and a buyer was found, they would get what, 10p 20p 30p in the pound? If they put us into administration and there was no buyer, they could get nothing. The same for Aviva, if say our repayments were 1.5 million a year, but we could currently only pay 750k, if they put us into administration they are gambling 23 million. 10p 20p or 30p in the pound represents massive losses, much more than sticking with us and taking half payments. I don’t know what the site would be worth to them for redevelopment, but now is hardly the time. The third option would be for them to sell the ground to someone to lease back to us or even they lease it to us themselves, but for an outside buyer 23million to acquire it and we would still only have the same pot to pay from as before (The fictional 750K) there is nobody or company that would take that risk or return, it just wouldn’t make sense.

That’s all probably hugely over simplified and I could well be missing something, but I can’t see in the short term why it would be in the money men’s best interests to put us into admin, even if they weren’t getting as much as they should be here and now.

[Rogerfryisalegend]

Can he still play at fullback?

Just about, probably just faster than Chris Perry.

[trousers]

A good example of how a Bank's decision making and strategies can differ depending on who is at the helm.....

Barclays unlikely to renew Premier League contract as credit crunch bites

Last updated at 12:34 AM on 07th January 2009

 

The Premier League are sounding out Barclays over their appetite to renew their sponsorship, worth nearly £70million over three years, but the omens are not good in the credit crunch.

 

There is still a season-and-a-half to run on the current deal but it already looks highly unlikely that Barclays will sign on again, especially as they are spending a meagre £5m over the length of the contract on promoting their sponsorship.

The current deal was signed despite Barclays’ sponsorship team advising against it over concerns about the lack of promotional spend and in-fighting among the various parts of the Barclays operation - such as commercial, retail and capital - some of whom have not been keen on contributing to the football pot.

It needed American Bob Diamond, head of Barclays Capital and a Chelsea fan who enjoys being stage centre when the Premier League trophy is being presented, to commit to endorsing the Premier League until 2010.

But Diamond’s great enthusiasm for football is not expected to win the day again. This time the talks will involve Barclays’ chief executive John Varley, not known as a sports fan.

A decision is expected within the next three months, with the Premier League keen to know where they stand well in advance of the expiry date.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-1107294/Barclays-unlikely-renew-Premier-League-contract-credit-crunch-bites.html

 

Obviously not a close like-for-like when compared to our fate being in the hands of some middle-manager in Reading (alledgedy) but the 'human instinct' principle is comparable.

[Topcat]

Barclays will view us 1) as a Business and 2) a means to improve their own corporate image. Taking each of these in turn.

 

1) As a business we will be in the category of all the other likely bankrupts. We have lost a large chunk of customers and are led by someone who is trashing the brand image of the company (Saints) through his actions of reducing the quality and delivering poor customer service. Lowe is the Ratner of football. Barclays millions in loans are at grave risk of default and they need to act. Forcing the Club to raise £3m+ in this transfer window and result in an increase in the chances of relegation and administration is not in Barclays best interests.

 

2) Regarding Barclays corporate image in Soton. It is being damaged by association with Lowe and they are increasingly viewed in negative terms.

 

Both of the above will force Barclays hand if their Roger Fry has any business sense. His boss ought to be asking him some very blunt questions.

[merrimd]

Firstly, I think you will find that the account is not run by a branch any more, but by a Business Center. No more Mr Mainwairings I am afraid ( In 76, the cup was stored in the strongroom at the local branch for a little while), more like a team of business specialists headed by one or more managers. As for what they know about Football, it is probably the same as they know about window cleaning, pc repair or physiotherapy. Not much but that does not stop them being bankers for those businesses. As for involvement, my experience is that they will probably have a fair bit, with regular meetings with the board. All the time we are ticking along nicely then they will not have anything to do with us, but now the fan is covered in it, they will be taking a close interest in protecting their investment (overdraft). If that means asking for a player to be sold inorder to reduce it by a million, I do not think RL or anyone is actually in a position to tell them to get stuffed. Sad but in light of our current financial predicament it is the way it is imho.

[bridge too far]

If the banks can pull the plug on Woolies, beloved by so many () I'm sure they can do the same to a football club.

[merrimd]

If the banks can pull the plug on Woolies, beloved by so many () I'm sure they can do the same to a football club.

 

Similar scenario actually. Company goes bust because its customers can't be ar5ed to shop there anymore as its too expensive for the tat sold.

[WestSaint]

Similar scenario actually. Company goes bust because its customers can't be ar5ed to shop there anymore as its too expensive for the tat sold.

 

Yes but Woolworths have been on the skids for years. Paid huge amounts in high street rents having sold off freeholds, lost their way through product identity, huge pension deficits etc

 

Whereas we had a chance. I believe we had pretty unanimous support for Pearson under Crouch and if Lowe had backed him instead of what is being attempted at present, there would have been a lot more goodwill towards the club and a lot less negativity.

Goodwill may not pay the bills but it counts for a lot. Lowe needed the fans onside

 

Still I guess we will neve know Just my opinion

[SP Saint]

Yes but Woolworths have been on the skids for years. Paid huge amounts in high street rents having sold off freeholds, lost their way through product identity, huge pension deficits etc

 

Whereas we had a chance. I believe we had pretty unanimous support for Pearson under Crouch and if Lowe had backed him instead of what is being attempted at present, there would have been a lot more goodwill towards the club and a lot less negativity.

Goodwill may not pay the bills but it counts for a lot. Lowe needed the fans onside

 

Still I guess we will neve know Just my opinion

 

Quite agree. The reappearance of Lowe combined with the loss of Pearson must have cost an enormous amount in 'customer' goodwill imo.

[Snowballs2]

Quite agree. The reappearance of Lowe combined with the loss of Pearson must have cost an enormous amount in 'customer' goodwill imo.

 

 

Ah but Wilde and lowe will never admit that. What puzzles me is , what reaction did Lowe think he would get from the supporters on his return?

[SP Saint]

He seems arrogant enough to believe he can walk on water doesn't he?

 

IF his great experiment had worked he'd have been a hero (perhaps).

 

As it is A failed company is not going to look very good on his CV.

 

Didn't all his money come from Daddy? Perhaps he's not quite as bright and business savvy as he'd like us to think he is.

[Puddings and Monkeys]

As Barclays are currently borrowing billiions at 14% interest rates from the Middle East, rather than be part nationalised at 12%, it seems they don't know that much about Banking, let alone football.

 

Perhaps they could benefit from a 'Revoloutionary New Banking' set up, and Mr Lowe could advise them on lending policy towards, Hedge Funds, North London Yobo's etc.

 

Technically they aren't borrowing are they, but even so I think they will find that 2% is a very small price to pay for not having politicians on the Board and as majority shareholders. The global ambitions of any bank that has taken Gordon's money are going to be severely ****ed so Barclays are actually in a very good positiopn - all politicians care about is looking good for themselves here in the UK, in general terms they know bugger all about running banks or anything else for that matter.

[southamptonfclegend]

the really important questions is "how much do the people pulling the strings at SFC no about football?"

[southamptonfclegend]

know* i don't pay haha

[bridge too far]

Technically they aren't borrowing are they, but even so I think they will find that 2% is a very small price to pay for not having politicians on the Board and as majority shareholders. The global ambitions of any bank that has taken Gordon's money are going to be severely ****ed so Barclays are actually in a very good positiopn - all politicians care about is looking good for themselves here in the UK, in general terms they know bugger all about running banks or anything else for that matter.

 

Unlike the banks - they know EXACTLY how to run banks don't they

[Puddings and Monkeys]

Unlike the banks - they know EXACTLY how to run banks don't they

 

Good point...8-)....but not the one I was trying to make.

[bridge too far]

Good point...8-)....but not the one I was trying to make.

 

I know

[Window Cleaner]

Unlike the banks - they know EXACTLY how to run banks don't they

 

I am not at all surprised that so many banks have gone off the rails.

If you lend money to people who can't pay it back-well you're heading for trouble ain't you.

 

 

A former colleague of mine(ex Nat West man) had a little book entitled

"How not to Pay your debts". Being a bit extravagant with his pay he always had recourse to it. Worked like a charm.

 

Told by the bank manager to "adjust his balance, he took out a further £10,

when the guy screamed and howled at him over the phone,he simply said "well you shouldn't have lent me money in the first place. That stumped them for a month or so.

[Jimbo]

Ok, been thinking....

 

So what do we know about the actual human beings at Barclays who have Saints future in their hands?

 

I've seen a "Reading branch" connection posted on here on several occasions. Even a name of a chap has been posted once or twice (even I can't be arsed to trawl back to find it...)

 

But does anyone know how much the person/people who are ultimately determining our fate at the bank know about the nuances of running a football club compared to businesses in other industries?

 

The reason for asking is that I suspect if they aren't "football fans" themselves then they will be treating the club just like any other business and demanding relatively arbitrary cost cutting measures. (Not surprising given that is their job but bear with me....)

 

Whereas, if he/they have some sort of footballing/sporting background (be it as a fan or some sort of sport management qualification) then one would expect/hope that they would take into account the 'false economy' effect that off-loading all our highest-paid (aka "best") players has on the viability of 'the business' in the longer term.

 

The circumstantial evidence is that the string pullers at Barclays are not appreciating the false economy scenario of offloading all our 'star' players over the last 12 months or so. It just appears to the man-in-the-street to be a short term (blinkered?) numbers game at the moment.

 

So, a long-winded way of asking to anyone 'ITK'....what 'running a football club' experience do the club's bankers have (the people running our account, not the bank as a whole)?

 

Thanks.

 

slight tanget:

 

The bank's focus will not be to speculate on retaining players etc (your version of the false economy). The bank will be fully aware of the financial position of the club, that without the event of a takeover/return to the premership this season (which is not going to happen even if they retain everyone) we are likely to be close to administration.

 

Their viewpoint will be, quite simply, to not worsen their current exposure. Therefore cost cutting, disposals of any players etc will all be seen as bebenficial as it reduces their current exposure. Commercial (as opposed to investment) banks aren't interested in the potential l-t growth of businesses (equivalent to an equity stake in an ordinary business), they will just want to see their debt repaid.

 

Anyone hoping they will speculate to accumulate etc is just wishfully thinking I'm afraid

[Jimbo]

Barclays will view us 1) as a Business and 2) a means to improve their own corporate image. Taking each of these in turn.

 

1) As a business we will be in the category of all the other likely bankrupts. We have lost a large chunk of customers and are led by someone who is trashing the brand image of the company (Saints) through his actions of reducing the quality and delivering poor customer service. Lowe is the Ratner of football. Barclays millions in loans are at grave risk of default and they need to act. Forcing the Club to raise £3m+ in this transfer window and result in an increase in the chances of relegation and administration is not in Barclays best interests.

2) Regarding Barclays corporate image in Soton. It is being damaged by association with Lowe and they are increasingly viewed in negative terms.

 

Both of the above will force Barclays hand if their Roger Fry has any business sense. His boss ought to be asking him some very blunt questions.

 

Unfortunately banks don't work like that. The bank's view will be to maximise their returns based on the existing scenario. The flipside to your view is that we are very likely to get relegated without sales and then the bank would be £3m plus the wages from Feb-June incurred worse off.

[Jimbo]

Yes but Woolworths have been on the skids for years. Paid huge amounts in high street rents having sold off freeholds, lost their way through product identity, huge pension deficits etc

 

Whereas we had a chance. I believe we had pretty unanimous support for Pearson under Crouch and if Lowe had backed him instead of what is being attempted at present, there would have been a lot more goodwill towards the club and a lot less negativity.

Goodwill may not pay the bills but it counts for a lot. Lowe needed the fans onside

 

Still I guess we will neve know Just my opinion

 

We have been on the downlope for years, since relegation. The time to gamble was when Lowe was ousted. They gambled. We lost. We have been on the down and out since the playoff failure.

[St Landrew]

What does it matter really..? I would imagine that Barclays have their eyes even more on the bottom line that the current Chairman, if that's possible.

[trousers]

slight tanget:

 

The bank's focus will not be to speculate on retaining players etc (your version of the false economy). The bank will be fully aware of the financial position of the club, that without the event of a takeover/return to the premership this season (which is not going to happen even if they retain everyone) we are likely to be close to administration.

 

Their viewpoint will be, quite simply, to not worsen their current exposure. Therefore cost cutting, disposals of any players etc will all be seen as bebenficial as it reduces their current exposure. Commercial (as opposed to investment) banks aren't interested in the potential l-t growth of businesses (equivalent to an equity stake in an ordinary business), they will just want to see their debt repaid.

 

Anyone hoping they will speculate to accumulate etc is just wishfully thinking I'm afraid

 

Cheers for that. So it would seem that the writing is on the wall regardless of which movers and shakers in barclays are dealing with the SLH account....