St Marco Posted 2 April, 2009 Share Posted 2 April, 2009 Everyone was saying Lowe and Wilde were saving the club money but if im right was our debt not at £27m in the last report? If what the admin guy said in the conference that we "have a debt over £30m" then they did not save us anything and to the contrary increased spending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 2 April, 2009 Share Posted 2 April, 2009 They reduced the od by 30%, and one assumes they were meeting the mortgage payments, so it would appear not. It would seem that they weren't reducing the debt quickly enough, however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 2 April, 2009 Share Posted 2 April, 2009 Why start a new thread? Can you not see the other threads already running ffs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Marco Posted 2 April, 2009 Author Share Posted 2 April, 2009 Why start a new thread? Can you not see the other threads already running ffs? Can you not see the difference between the threads? You should step down as a mod Pancake as you suck at it. The debt is different from "what is going on at the club". It is about what has happened in the last year in Lowe and Wildes tenure. It has nowt to do with admin, points being docked, Lowe resigning etc etc. It has to do with the figures of debt from before they returned and after they returned. Thus we can judge if they did good or bad from that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 2 April, 2009 Share Posted 2 April, 2009 Can you not see the difference between the threads? You should step down as a mod Pancake as you suck at it. The debt is different from "what is going on at the club". It is about what has happened in the last year in Lowe and Wildes tenure. It has nowt to do with admin, points being docked, Lowe resigning etc etc. It has to do with the figures of debt from before they returned and after they returned. Thus we can judge if they did good or bad from that. What a load of bull****, you dont half spout some uninformed crap. Oh, and I "suck"? Is it half term already? ****ing hell... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Marco Posted 2 April, 2009 Author Share Posted 2 April, 2009 What a load of bull****, you dont half spout some uninformed crap. Oh, and I "suck"? Is it half term already? ****ing hell... Yes you suck pancake and you just shown why. Rather then have an inch of intelligence you press the insult button. You don't have the brain power to be a mod. For example you create a thread saying pretty much "admin team out" and you say im the one who is off school on holiday? That is severe double standards you got there Pancake. So i must be a kid for starting a thread to try and work out in the year Lowe and Wilde returned we saved how much money? That is an important question because if as Ponty says they actually reduced the debt by 30% then they did a good job. Admin was inevitable. But hey throw some more insults Pancake, comment on my spelling as i could use a spelling teacher now that im not at school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 2 April, 2009 Share Posted 2 April, 2009 I could just infract and ban you instead of course... but no, I like reading your silly little posts. How is KillZone going? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minty Posted 2 April, 2009 Share Posted 2 April, 2009 Back to the original question... Does it really matter? We're not going to get a breakdown of how the debt is made up, and Lowe and Wilde have gone. Personally, I see little point in wasting my time and energy on them and the events of the past when the ONLY thing that now matters is the next 24 days, and hoping and praying (well what else can I do other than go to the games) that someone comes to buy the club. No offence intended StMarco, but NOTHING ELSE MATTERS right now, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxstone Posted 2 April, 2009 Share Posted 2 April, 2009 For the purposes of this thread Ponty's answer was correct. However I agree with Minty - It does'nt matter right now. Its saving the club that matters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a1ex2001 Posted 2 April, 2009 Share Posted 2 April, 2009 However I agree with Minty - It does'nt matter right now. Its saving the club that matters Me too, it's got to be time to stop the Lowe and Wilde Bashing in every single thread, they are gone good ridance lets move on and try what ever we can to save our club and emerge from this season of bitterness and infighting with at least the fuure to look forward too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freemantle Saint Posted 2 April, 2009 Share Posted 2 April, 2009 I could just infract and ban you instead of course... but no, I like reading your silly little posts. How is KillZone going? Hmmm ban or infract...or indeed insult. A prime example of why this forum is dead on its feet. Thank the lord my crisp fiver remained in its wallet...customer service par excellance!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Marco Posted 2 April, 2009 Author Share Posted 2 April, 2009 Back to the original question... Does it really matter? We're not going to get a breakdown of how the debt is made up, and Lowe and Wilde have gone. Personally, I see little point in wasting my time and energy on them and the events of the past when the ONLY thing that now matters is the next 24 days, and hoping and praying (well what else can I do other than go to the games) that someone comes to buy the club. No offence intended StMarco, but NOTHING ELSE MATTERS right now, IMO. I 100% agree with you Minty and i feel the same. At the end of the day it does not matter because ultimatly were now in admin. But to answer the question that i put i found the results for November 2008 annual report http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/uploads/documents/nov_08/sfc_1227479896_Southampton_Leisure_Holdings_p.doc It says in there our Net Debt was £27.5m. So in the past 4 months our Net debt must have increased by at least £2.5m if what that admin guy said was correct in that we owe £30m+. I think the important thing is that we now all just do our bit by getting to the games and help the lads by cheering them on. Until we know what the football league will do on tues we must assume we have not been docked and thus can still stay up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 2 April, 2009 Share Posted 2 April, 2009 I 100% agree with you Minty and i feel the same. At the end of the day it does not matter because ultimatly were now in admin. But to answer the question that i put i found the results for November 2008 annual report http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/uploads/documents/nov_08/sfc_1227479896_Southampton_Leisure_Holdings_p.doc It says in there our Net Debt was £27.5m. So in the past 4 months our Net debt must have increased by at least £2.5m if what that admin guy said was correct in that we owe £30m+. I think the important thing is that we now all just do our bit by getting to the games and help the lads by cheering them on. Until we know what the football league will do on tues we must assume we have not been docked and thus can still stay up. The net debt is calculated by adding 39.6 million fixed assets to the receivables (trade and other) and subtracting the OD,trade payables and the stadium balance, giving a total 27.5 m debt. I suspect the 30 million is what we owe without taking into account that the fixed assets are 39.6 million. The two figures are probably not comparable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Channon's Sideburns Posted 2 April, 2009 Share Posted 2 April, 2009 I posted this on an earlier thread..but just think... 5,000 stayaways x £25 = £125,000 If Lowe hadn't come back that £110k over our overdraft may never have happened... Hypothetical nonsense I know, but who knows?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topcat Posted 2 April, 2009 Share Posted 2 April, 2009 The evidence is clear that under Lowe's revolutionary coaching scheme and his "play the youngsters" strategy, debt went up. The average loss of supporters per game was closer to a £250k hit per game. 20 games = £5m lower revenue. Something that dwarfs all Lowe's savings and just shows what a useless bunch of businessmen he and his backers were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 2 April, 2009 Share Posted 2 April, 2009 The net debt is calculated by adding 39.6 million fixed assets to the receivables (trade and other) and subtracting the OD,trade payables and the stadium balance, giving a total 27.5 m debt. I suspect the 30 million is what we owe without taking into account that the fixed assets are 39.6 million. The two figures are probably not comparable. No it isn't. Net debt is calculated by adding up all the loans, O/D's etc and then including any positive bank balances/deposits. I think you're getting confused with a net assets calculation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintwarwick Posted 2 April, 2009 Share Posted 2 April, 2009 I posted this on an earlier thread..but just think... 5' date='000 stayaways x £25 = £125,000[/b'] If Lowe hadn't come back that £110k over our overdraft may never have happened... Hypothetical nonsense I know, but who knows?? The evidence is clear that under Lowe's revolutionary coaching scheme and his "play the youngsters" strategy, debt went up. The average loss of supporters per game was closer to a £250k hit per game. 20 games = £5m lower revenue. Something that dwarfs all Lowe's savings and just shows what a useless bunch of businessmen he and his backers were. I think you'll find Channon's Sideburns figures is closer to the mark. Also back to original question, we shipped out 14 players in the summer some on high wages and the kids were in effect cheaper options. We also shipped out Rasiak and John on loan for the season again players on high wages. Had we kept all these high earners I'm sure the debt would of been a lot higher months ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Marco Posted 2 April, 2009 Author Share Posted 2 April, 2009 I think you'll find Channon's Sideburns figures is closer to the mark. Also back to original question, we shipped out 14 players in the summer some on high wages and the kids were in effect cheaper options. We also shipped out Rasiak and John on loan for the season again players on high wages. Had we kept all these high earners I'm sure the debt would of been a lot higher months ago. Indeed But i think we all knew they were cost cutting. They took many different actions to do that such as shutting the corners. But if these numbers are correct then that means they actually increased our debt not decreased it such was our assumption. For me the question then becomes is that increase 100% purely down to just the debts interest? I.e because we had a £27m debt we have to probably assume we have to pay interest on that. So is the increase just down to that? Which if it is leads me to believe that the only way this club was going to avoid admin in Lowes return was to sell players in the jan window. The fact we didn't sell anyone might have been a key factor in the bank saying enough is enough. But realisticly if we do look at our players who we could of sold only really Davis,Lallana and Surman stand out. Davis at that point could speak to other clubs if he wanted anyway so doubt he could of had a big fee due to contract expiring. Surman and Lallana on the other hand is a big question mark. Both have a lot of potential even if at that point were not playing so great. If we had got the offers in how much would of made a difference? I really wonder how much doing the dutch way cost the club. We had something like 6 guys come in behind the scenes. They all have to be paid. Then add to that the signings of players, some on loans and some on permanent deals. Didn't someone say we paid £200k to agents in the last 5 months or something? I guess we will never know now what the cost of this approach was in terms of actual figures. 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