SW11_Saint Posted 4 April, 2009 Share Posted 4 April, 2009 Just done a mini feature on Saints showing the cup teams, classic goals from MLT, Beatts, Theo etc. Lots of sympathy from Stelling, and Matt naturally seemed very cut up by the whole thing. Said he's meeting the Administrator on Monday morning "to see how I can help" - definitely more of a PR aid to findining investment, rather than fronting something himself. Said that "those at the top should be having sleepless nights" for what they have done - when pressed by Stelling, he mentioned Lowe, Cowen and also "previous boards" - Wilde and Crouch. Stelling listed off the players sales over the last few years and their values and ask "where has all the money gone?". Matt commented that there had been significant financial mismanagement. Also commented that when we were getting 32k gates in the Prem why didn't we try to chip away at the debt; and also wondered why we didn't "push on" after the Cup Final, when we only spent £4m on players - tellingly alluded to Stracan leaving due to that frustration. Stelling came up with something that has always puzzled me "why is it so difficult to attract investors in one of the richest areas of the country?" [imo suspect the reason has just departed the club - hopefully doors will be now open to positive investment]. Something of a positive note at the end that they hoped a saviour would be found. Cottee commented on what a great club it was. Panel agreed that League will have to dock us the 10 points to be fair to other clubs (bar Matt who didn't comment). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulwantsapint Posted 4 April, 2009 Share Posted 4 April, 2009 Lets get 21 points then worry about any loss of them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SW11_Saint Posted 4 April, 2009 Author Share Posted 4 April, 2009 PS Also mentioned the "magnificent gesture" of Davis, Euell etc. in deferring their wages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottery st mary Posted 4 April, 2009 Share Posted 4 April, 2009 Who would not let go of his toy train and blocked any potential investors at every turn..I now see positive investment for the club and over a few years good recovery.. Hopefully Rupes stays away with Askham and the rest of the three card tricksters. It is all about Saints now, the fans and our new investors....RECOVERY, although belated is on its way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wopper Posted 4 April, 2009 Share Posted 4 April, 2009 The toffy nosed parasite made a good living out of saints. It was never in his interest to get new investment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ART Posted 4 April, 2009 Share Posted 4 April, 2009 "Where has all the money gone?" Where has all the money gone?". "Gone to accountants everywhere, when will we ever learn, when will we ever learn"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There is one common denominator in the entire tragedy. One who survives every twist and turn, every cull and relegation!!!"....................... ..........David Jones, Finance Director! With some much money earned and received and then gone missing, why has there never been a full scale audit and inquiry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottery st mary Posted 4 April, 2009 Share Posted 4 April, 2009 "Where has all the money gone?" Where has all the money gone?". "Gone to accountants everywhere, when will we ever learn, when will we ever learn"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There is one common denominator in the entire tragedy. One who survives every twist and turn, every cull and relegation!!!"....................... ..........David Jones, Finance Director! With some much money earned and received and then gone missing, why has there never been a full scale audit and inquiry? Massive one coming with big investigation to take place.:smt017 There going to search certain Directors trouser pockets. Off shore accounts being looked at as we speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamKimish Posted 4 April, 2009 Share Posted 4 April, 2009 Not many people talking about specific player performances so here goes... Davis - Spectacular, saved a penalty and many more to try and keep us in the game. Mis-kicked a few towards the end however as frustration settled in. Thomson - As we all know, he is not a right back and should never have been played in that position (wonder if Wotte regrets not getting a loan signing now?) Tried his best but didn't get that stuck in. Perry - Got bullied out of the game by two strong forwards, was outpaced and struggled to win much in the air throughout. Saeijis - Wreckless at times today with clumsy challenges and conceded a penalty. Bombed forwards a couple of times though and looked promising. Skacel - IMHO he was sh*te today. Was always found too far forward, leaving massive gaps for the Charlton players to exploit. Seems to have given up already - played for 90 minutes without any heart. Lallana - Had fewer touches on the ball than a few of the ball boys (ball assistants?) Didn't notice he was even on the pitch until he was subbed. Wotton - Ditto, except he won a few more headers and took a few legs out. I always worry he will get sent off... McGoldrick - Took his goal brilliantly and defended well when needed. Didn't see too much of the ball when going forward however as we stupidly stuck to the long ball game til the 85th minute. Surman - Average. Nothing more. Worked well down the left with Skacel and Euell. Looked tired during second half however which is not something I'd expect after a two week break. Euell - Okay game for Jason today. All of our play resulted in a long ball to Euell which the opposition found out quite quickly. Blocked Skacel's shot in the second half from going in (?) unfortunately. Saga - Chased everything. Worked tirelessly for the team today but the ball was rarely played to his feet. Fans - 10/10 ... The Northam didn't stop singing til Charlton scored and even then it was a short break to shout "b0ll0cks" Referee - Sh*t, inconsistent and didn't understand the play on rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamKimish Posted 4 April, 2009 Share Posted 4 April, 2009 Wrong thread, sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 4 April, 2009 Share Posted 4 April, 2009 Who would not let go of his toy train and blocked any potential investors at every turn..I now see positive investment for the club and over a few years good recovery.. Hopefully Rupes stays away with Askham and the rest of the three card tricksters. It is all about Saints now, the fans and our new investors....RECOVERY, although belated is on its way. hate to upset your evening but Guy the snake was sat in the directors bit again today , the man has no shame Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ottery st mary Posted 4 April, 2009 Share Posted 4 April, 2009 hate to upset your evening but Guy the snake was sat in the directors bit again today ' date=' the man has no shame[/quote'] I am going to remain positive and think he will be off soon...Prayers at bedtime....I will not be commenting on anyone being a groupie of anyone else as I will be grown up from now on as The Mighty Saints need me now.:---) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70's Mike Posted 4 April, 2009 Share Posted 4 April, 2009 I am going to remain positive and think he will be off soon...Prayers at bedtime....I will not be commenting on anyone being a groupie of anyone else as I will be grown up from now on as The Mighty Saints need me now.:---) Boring Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dicko Posted 4 April, 2009 Share Posted 4 April, 2009 hate to upset your evening but Guy the snake was sat in the directors bit again today ' date=' the man has no shame[/quote'] Noooooo waaayyyyyy??? You're kidding me?? There's a few things I'd like to say to our friend Guy, however it's 8.51 & they're unrepeatable before 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deano6 Posted 4 April, 2009 Share Posted 4 April, 2009 Also commented that when we were getting 32k gates in the Prem why didn't we try to chip away at the debt; and also wondered why we didn't "push on" after the Cup Final, when we only spent £4m on players. This blatant contradiction in terms shows why Matt shouldn't be let anywhere near the running of a football club! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint_bert Posted 5 April, 2009 Share Posted 5 April, 2009 Just done a mini feature on Saints showing the cup teams, classic goals from MLT, Beatts, Theo etc. Lots of sympathy from Stelling, and Matt naturally seemed very cut up by the whole thing. Said he's meeting the Administrator on Monday morning "to see how I can help" - definitely more of a PR aid to findining investment, rather than fronting something himself. Said that "those at the top should be having sleepless nights" for what they have done - when pressed by Stelling, he mentioned Lowe, Cowen and also "previous boards" - Wilde and Crouch. Stelling listed off the players sales over the last few years and their values and ask "where has all the money gone?". Matt commented that there had been significant financial mismanagement. Also commented that when we were getting 32k gates in the Prem why didn't we try to chip away at the debt; and also wondered why we didn't "push on" after the Cup Final, when we only spent £4m on players - tellingly alluded to Stracan leaving due to that frustration. Stelling came up with something that has always puzzled me "why is it so difficult to attract investors in one of the richest areas of the country?" [imo suspect the reason has just departed the club - hopefully doors will be now open to positive investment]. Something of a positive note at the end that they hoped a saviour would be found. Cottee commented on what a great club it was. Panel agreed that League will have to dock us the 10 points to be fair to other clubs (bar Matt who didn't comment). I saw that. What got on my goat was Thompson, they have to be deducted 10 points blah blah blah. Where was the scouse mong when FDerby did exactly the same thing. Oh yeah bumming Gerrard Houllier. F@@@ing idiot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaintRobbie Posted 5 April, 2009 Share Posted 5 April, 2009 Wotte is going to lead us down. We are likely to relegate. We are likely to lose 10 points. Wouldnt ordinarily suggest this as I would like MLT to stay well away and be a legend without ruining his record with us... but.... Benali and MLT as a TEMPORARY management team unil the end of the season would at least keep SMS packed. Sack Wotte now? Try and add some real red and white spirit into the players? We're down anyway IMHO. May as well start to play for pride. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saint_bert Posted 5 April, 2009 Share Posted 5 April, 2009 Wotte is going to lead us down. We are likely to relegate. We are likely to lose 10 points. Wouldnt ordinarily suggest this as I would like MLT to stay well away and be a legend without ruining his record with us... but.... Benali and MLT as a TEMPORARY management team unil the end of the season would at least keep SMS packed. Sack Wotte now? Try and add some real red and white spirit into the players? We're down anyway IMHO. May as well start to play for pride. Its not a bad shout. Newcastle are doing the same with Shearer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishSaint Posted 5 April, 2009 Share Posted 5 April, 2009 Anyone got a link to the MLT bit on Soccer Saturday? Everyone's telling me about it but I can't find it anywhere sadly, not even google! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SW11_Saint Posted 5 April, 2009 Author Share Posted 5 April, 2009 This blatant contradiction in terms shows why Matt shouldn't be let anywhere near the running of a football club! Agree, that bit was somewhat contradictory - but the Matt's a footballer (and a genius at that), not on the board. I think the latter point is the most important - why didn't we push on after the Cup Final when we had the chance? Thing is with Lowe, he did neither! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintsdan Posted 5 April, 2009 Share Posted 5 April, 2009 This blatant contradiction in terms shows why Matt shouldn't be let anywhere near the running of a football club! I can't say I've seen the piece on sky but I think the question must be why we neither paid off much of the debt or invested more in the squad? If we had been paying off significant chunks of the stadium debt then the lack of investment following the cup final would be understandable; but we did neither. I am struggling to comprehend how the debt on the stadium is the same now as it was when it was built given that we have been making mortgage payments on it for 10 years!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishSaint Posted 5 April, 2009 Share Posted 5 April, 2009 I can't say I've seen the piece on sky but I think the question must be why we neither paid off much of the debt or invested more in the squad? If we had been paying off significant chunks of the stadium debt then the lack of investment following the cup final would be understandable; but we did neither. I am struggling to comprehend how the debt on the stadium is the same now as it was when it was built given that we have been making mortgage payments on it for 10 years!! Maybe interest only? But who know's with all the different boards we've had in during that time. Lets not forget, none of the Boards did anything about it, not just Lowe's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintsdan Posted 5 April, 2009 Share Posted 5 April, 2009 Maybe interest only? But who know's with all the different boards we've had in during that time. Lets not forget, none of the Boards did anything about it, not just Lowe's. It must have been. I'd be amazed though if someone decided to take out an interest only morgage on a debt of £24 million. Especially when they had premiership income and claimed to have some business acumen! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Professor Posted 5 April, 2009 Share Posted 5 April, 2009 I can't say I've seen the piece on sky but I think the question must be why we neither paid off much of the debt or invested more in the squad? If we had been paying off significant chunks of the stadium debt then the lack of investment following the cup final would be understandable; but we did neither. I am struggling to comprehend how the debt on the stadium is the same now as it was when it was built given that we have been making mortgage payments on it for 10 years!! St Mary's was always a risk. At the time, Lowe said that going ahead with it was dependant on the team remaining in the Prem. In practice we were always one of those clubs likely to be in the relegation mix most seasons, so the risk was always strong, but even when we went down it was a close run thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint_clark Posted 5 April, 2009 Share Posted 5 April, 2009 PS Also mentioned the "magnificent gesture" of Davis, Euell etc. in deferring their wages. First i've heard of this???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deano6 Posted 5 April, 2009 Share Posted 5 April, 2009 I can't say I've seen the piece on sky but I think the question must be why we neither paid off much of the debt or invested more in the squad? If we had been paying off significant chunks of the stadium debt then the lack of investment following the cup final would be understandable; but we did neither. I am struggling to comprehend how the debt on the stadium is the same now as it was when it was built given that we have been making mortgage payments on it for 10 years!! Where would the extra money for either have come from? It's not like we've been sitting on a huge pile of cash! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golac's Iron Gonads Posted 5 April, 2009 Share Posted 5 April, 2009 The comment about chipping away at the debt was made after Jeff Stelling had read a long long list of players sold in the last 5 years and the money received for them. He repeatedly asked Tiss 'Where has the money gone? Where has the money gone?' it was to this that Tiss said something along the lines of 'I don't know, could have paid for the stadium 3 times over. There has been gross mismanagement and you would have thought they would have been chipping away at the debt' I got the impression Tiss couldn't fathom how the stadium debt had barely been reduced with influx of money from TV, increased attendances and player sales with no great expenditure on buying players. As mentioned above, he noted after the cup final we spent only £4 million during the summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eelpie Posted 5 April, 2009 Share Posted 5 April, 2009 hate to upset your evening but Guy the snake was sat in the directors bit again today ' date=' the man has no shame[/quote'] Why is he allowed in the directors seats when he has had to resign as director? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Landrew Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 This blatant contradiction in terms shows why Matt shouldn't be let anywhere near the running of a football club! I think you're missing the point Deano6 in your effort to make yours. It's perfectly logical to point out the lack of zeal in eroding the debt, seeing as capacity crowds were at St Marys. It's also perfectly logical to cite the lack of ambition after the 2003 FA Cup Final/Season. You can push on, or erode debt, or do a little bit of both, or neither. The fact was that every direction in which the board went during that time was half-hearted. Or maybe, some of that money, made by SFC, went to prop up SLH. Whatever happened, the board took their eyes off the main priority; that being, success on the pitch. It's what the whole club exists for. Of course, certain people wanted to diversify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintsdan Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 I think you're missing the point Deano6 in your effort to make yours. It's perfectly logical to point out the lack of zeal in eroding the debt, seeing as capacity crowds were at St Marys. It's also perfectly logical to cite the lack of ambition after the 2003 FA Cup Final/Season. You can push on, or erode debt, or do a little bit of both, or neither. The fact was that every direction in which the board went during that time was half-hearted. Or maybe, some of that money, made by SFC, went to prop up SLH. Whatever happened, the board took their eyes off the main priority; that being, success on the pitch. It's what the whole club exists for. Of course, certain people wanted to diversify. Thank you. You've explained that far better than I did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deano6 Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 I think you're missing the point Deano6 in your effort to make yours. It's perfectly logical to point out the lack of zeal in eroding the debt, seeing as capacity crowds were at St Marys. It's also perfectly logical to cite the lack of ambition after the 2003 FA Cup Final/Season. You can push on, or erode debt, or do a little bit of both, or neither. The fact was that every direction in which the board went during that time was half-hearted. Or maybe, some of that money, made by SFC, went to prop up SLH. Whatever happened, the board took their eyes off the main priority; that being, success on the pitch. It's what the whole club exists for. Of course, certain people wanted to diversify. There's a fixed amount of money available. It can go into: a) investing in football team b) paying off debts c) sat on the build up cash reserves (possibly then also distributed via dividends, tho this is unlikely to any great extent in a football club) Since c) definitely didn't happen, I fail to see how you could simultaneously increase a) and b). If you are saying you wished we had more money available, then I agree with you, but that is different to saying we should have distributed what we had differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 There's a fixed amount of money available. It can go into: a) investing in football team b) paying off debts c) sat on the build up cash reserves (possibly then also distributed via dividends, tho this is unlikely to any great extent in a football club) Since c) definitely didn't happen, I fail to see how you could simultaneously increase a) and b). If you are saying you wished we had more money available, then I agree with you, but that is different to saying we should have distributed what we had differently. We did spend cash on share buy backs, and I'm sure it was a few million and we also saw cash go in the form of dividends, again a few million. Looking back maybe those sums could have been better used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SW11_Saint Posted 6 April, 2009 Author Share Posted 6 April, 2009 Maybe interest only? But who know's with all the different boards we've had in during that time. Lets not forget, none of the Boards did anything about it, not just Lowe's. Agreed, but Lowe was on the board for 80%+ of the time so only fair that the spotlight is 80%+ on him at the moment... (regardless of how much he's trying to deflect it!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deano6 Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 We did spend cash on share buy backs, and I'm sure it was a few million and we also saw cash go in the form of dividends, again a few million. Looking back maybe those sums could have been better used. If you believe divident payments are the issue here you are completely missing the big picture. We were not building up a big stockpile of cash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
um pahars Posted 6 April, 2009 Share Posted 6 April, 2009 If you believe divident payments are the issue here you are completely missing the big picture. We were not building up a big stockpile of cash. I totally agree, just merely pointing out that over that period something around £6m went out the Club this way. Perhaps that money would have been better off reducing some of the indebtedness, and only a perhaps mind, as I'm sure there are a myriad of different views and priorities on this one (as well as the stadium "loan" probably having certain restrictive clauses attached to it) And as someone else pointed out the other day, we entered into a 10 year £1m loan in 2003 at the same time as we were using £1.1m cash to buy back shares from the market. We're still left with half of that loan, but of course no shares!!!!!!! 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