Frank's cousin Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 IF the news is true that the Administrators want 14 mil for Saints - have they not looked at the simple fact no one came in for siants when the share price was rock bottom - bbefore admin someone could have snapped up the entire pLC+ paid off the Overdraft, possibly renegotiated the stadium repayment and kept a few mil in the bank to to cover the current contractual obligations of the high income players for about 12 mil... Sure its more complex than that but 14 mil seems high even with the idea of walking away debt free - as a club paying our debts would be ethically right as well as guarranteeing no further points deductions...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avenue Saint Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 excellent question.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivangolac Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 Although our share price hit rock bottom it would soon have risen if someone had shown an interest in buying us. Wasn't it 60p or more when the Paul Allen rumour did the rounds ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 21 May, 2009 Author Share Posted 21 May, 2009 Although our share price hit rock bottom it would soon have risen if someone had shown an interest in buying us. Wasn't it 60p or more when the Paul Allen rumour did the rounds ? Different scenario though as we were potentially in the CCC playoffs and no huge overdraft - compared to large debta and close to admin - major shareholders may ell have accepted 20p rather than nothing on admin.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Give it to Ron Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 Perhaps the previous board did not want to sell at the price someone offered and try and fix the issues they had created? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgiesaint Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 Two reasons- One- There is no guarantee that Wilde & Lowe would have sold their shares at that price, IMO Lowe would have held out to the bitter end in the belief that he would have turned things around. Two- Assuming you could buy the shares at a cheap price, and pay off the overdraft - you are still looking at re-negotiating £24m of stadium debt. What if Aviva say 'no thanks, we're happy with the terms'. Potentially you've just thrown the millions spent buying the club down the pan because you still can't service the stadium debt and you end up in administration anyway. Administration does give the best opportunity for clearance of the debt, it's also the last chance for Aviva & Barclays to claw any money back so they will be asking Fry to play hardball with anyone & everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 Seems purely to have been the "Lowe won't sell" issue - tends to be backed up by the complete lack of any investor/investment sought commentary on the OS when he was in charge compared to the (failed) efforts of the others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 21 May, 2009 Author Share Posted 21 May, 2009 Administration does give the best opportunity for clearance of the debt, . Exactly why we deserve our points deduction in that acse becaus ethe best way to clear debt is success and financial stability and negotiated repayments in lie with revenue. Aviva would have at least sat down and taklked with new owners - if in L1 they will have recognised the reduced revenues and i am sure a deal could have ben struck thus gaurranteeng aviva 100% return + interest with repayments increased and teh term reduced on promotions etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 21 May, 2009 Author Share Posted 21 May, 2009 Seems purely to have been the "Lowe won't sell" issue - tends to be backed up by the complete lack of any investor/investment sought commentary on the OS when he was in charge compared to the (failed) efforts of the others. Uhm dont really buy that - sure I think egotistically he would have loved to have been teh saviousr and proved folk wrong - but fgiven teh choice between 20p and zero, would he really have been that pig headed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 Although our share price hit rock bottom it would soon have risen if someone had shown an interest in buying us. Wasn't it 60p or more when the Paul Allen rumour did the rounds ? 65p if memory serves me correctly. I still don't understand how a certain short-sleeved chap 'got away with' inflating the share price this time two years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 Devils advocate FC Perhaps they did. Perhaps there were NDA's. Look how little we really know about the process and the "missing 32" interested parties (Oh and without being ITK but just reading I can say one thing happily - somebody DID come in, Fry mentioned it in his first press conference. Nothing happened of course, but he publicly admitted it) HTH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 21 May, 2009 Author Share Posted 21 May, 2009 I still don't understand how a certain short-sleeved chap 'got away with' inflating the share price this time two years ago. Mind addle... who? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 excellent question.. I agree, it is a very interesting question and comes back to the fact the vultures may have sat in the trees to long waiitng for this to play out. Alternatively, if Fry doesn't set the price high enough he is left with little wiggle room. My guess is that you have a far more interesting take on this and I look forward to reading it later on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 Uhm dont really buy that - sure I think egotistically he would have loved to have been teh saviousr and proved folk wrong - but fgiven teh choice between 20p and zero' date=' would he really have been that pig headed?[/quote'] All the evidence says yes, and more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 Two reasons- One- There is no guarantee that Wilde & Lowe would have sold their shares at that price, IMO Lowe would have held out to the bitter end in the belief that he would have turned things around. Two- Assuming you could buy the shares at a cheap price, and pay off the overdraft - you are still looking at re-negotiating £24m of stadium debt. What if Aviva say 'no thanks, we're happy with the terms'. Potentially you've just thrown the millions spent buying the club down the pan because you still can't service the stadium debt and you end up in administration anyway. Administration does give the best opportunity for clearance of the debt, it's also the last chance for Aviva & Barclays to claw any money back so they will be asking Fry to play hardball with anyone & everyone.[/QUOTE] A successful club could service the stadium debt IMO so we are down to Barclays and other unsecured creditors. If in a very poor season with limited revenues the debt could be reduced by around 30%, was it? (Please confirm) Then there would be fair expectation that as the economy recovers and a maintenance of a tight hold on budgeting and liquidity management this club could have been close to going into credit at Barclays within 3, if not 2 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian the Red Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 IF the news is true that the Administrators want 14 mil for Saints - have they not looked at the simple fact no one came in for siants when the share price was rock bottom - bbefore admin someone could have snapped up the entire pLC+ paid off the Overdraft' date=' possibly renegotiated the stadium repayment and kept a few mil in the bank to to cover the current contractual obligations of the high income players for about 12 mil... Sure its more complex than that but 14 mil seems high even with the idea of walking away debt free - as a club paying our debts would be ethically right as well as guarranteeing no further points deductions...?[/quote'] Simple answer, if buying the club before admin, they would have all the debt: £24m for tehground and £4m from barclays. Now in admin they can have the ground, the club training ground etc etc and no debt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 21 May, 2009 Author Share Posted 21 May, 2009 All the evidence says yes, and more. What 'evidence'? - plenty of speculation and rumour but have not seen anything to substantiate that Lowe said NO to anyone apart from when all three said no to SISU Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 21 May, 2009 Author Share Posted 21 May, 2009 Simple answer, if buying the club before admin, they would have all the debt: £24m for tehground and £4m from barclays. Now in admin they can have the ground, the club training ground etc etc and no debt. BUt teh AViva loan has not really been the problem - its been the overdraft increasing due to a 9 mil + wage bill witha shrinking income and thus cashflow... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 (edited) All the evidence says yes, and more. Ok please post the evidence and not your opinion. If Lowe was 'pig headed' it would have been IMO because he rightly viewed this as a temporary liquidity crisis having in adverse and unprecenented conditions reduced the operating OD with the bank and significnatly reduced costs of the company. Before any of us had heard of the credit crunch if this scenario had played out then, IMO Barclays would have offered a temporary limit increase as they allowed the limit to ramp up in the Wilde, Hone and Crouch era. Having almost turned the mistakes of the previous two seasons around it must have been diffciult for Lowe to walk away having got so close to reaching his goal only for Barclays to withdraw their help as probably any bank would do in the current climate because of the media and shareholder and treasury attention. Difficult to walk away is not the same as 'pig headedly' refusing to accept an offer to cut your losses in preference to seeing the club fail and receiving nothing in the process. This is just my opinion based on my own observations. looking forward to your evidence. (Supporting documentation that isn't media related would be good) Edited 21 May, 2009 by Nineteen Canteen spelling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eelpie Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 Perhaps the previous board did not want to sell at the price someone offered and try and fix the issues they had created? Lowe was dead against selling and always has been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 21 May, 2009 Author Share Posted 21 May, 2009 Lowe was dead against selling and always has been. Bit of a sweeping statement based on rumour though really have you asked him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 What 'evidence'? - plenty of speculation and rumour but have not seen anything to substantiate that Lowe said NO to anyone apart from when all three said no to SISU You asked if he was "that pig headed". Where do we start ? Thinking having a good eye for livestock translated into football scouting knowledge (as discussed in Strachan's autobiography), hanging onto Saints for a whole week past the -10 deadline this season, trying to foist Woodward onto Redknapp, the whole bizarre belief that the Academy ALONE could sustain us in the Championship, getting shot of Pearson for what amounts to no good reason... coming back at all... ...and I'm one of the ones who doesn't just hate him cos he's posh and actually thought he might be capable of saving money and keeping us OUT of the mire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 What 'evidence'? - plenty of speculation and rumour but have not seen anything to substantiate that Lowe said NO to anyone apart from when all three said no to SISU Exactly. All the evidence suggests that Lowe had major costs effeciences and reduced the operating debt with Barclays but was hit by a temporary blip in liquidity. For want of a cash loan or a delay to the start of the credit crunch and ensuing media and government attention then IMo we would be still on way back and selling ST's for next season. It was the pig headedness of some fans (about 5,000) who chose to stay away and not Lowe's that bought this club down and there is evidence to support this. Oh and Crouch could have helped the short term liquidity problem unconditionally as he is doing now. 25% of his £2m would have been enough and he would IMO been offered a place in the board for his support and foresight whereas now? Well IMO it look more like an efforts to tray and save face. Lowe in charge, Crouch on board, League 1 probably, but no points deduction and ST's being sold. I would settle for that today thank you. Pig-Headedness yes but I think that can be blamed on some uber -fans/customer types and some game play from ex-directors, a game that they lost along with the rest of us. Again just an opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 21 May, 2009 Author Share Posted 21 May, 2009 You asked if he was "that pig headed". Where do we start ? Thinking having a good eye for livestock translated into football scouting knowledge (as discussed in Strachan's autobiography), hanging onto Saints for a whole week past the -10 deadline this season, trying to foist Woodward onto Redknapp, the whole bizarre belief that the Academy ALONE could sustain us in the Championship, getting shot of Pearson for what amounts to no good reason... coming back at all... ...and I'm one of the ones who doesn't just hate him cos he's posh and actually thought he might be capable of saving money and keeping us OUT of the mire. Sure those actions show he is pigheaded, but its still not any evidence to suggest he a) refused to talk to interested parties or b) said no to a 20p offer when teh shareprice is down at 12p.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krissyboy31 Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 BUt teh AViva loan has not really been the problem - its been the overdraft increasing due to a 9 mil + wage bill witha shrinking income and thus cashflow... But not having to pay Aviva, would have meant the overdraft, wage bill etc easier to manage. At the end of the day, a buyer pre-administration, would have had to buy all the shares (even at 10p, I suspect that is more than the actual club/player registration part of the current deal) and taken on the complete debt of the club. We would have been in exactly the same position as before, losing money hand over fist. This way, there is no shares to pay for and a debt free club that owns the stadium 100% for probably not a great deal more in initial outlay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 Mind addle... who? As Lloyd Grossman would say...."the clues are there.... ";) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 21 May, 2009 Author Share Posted 21 May, 2009 Exactly. All the evidence suggests that Lowe had major costs effeciences and reduced the operating debt with Barclays but was hit by a temporary blip in liquidity. For want of a cash loan or a delay to the start of the credit crunch and ensuing media and government attention then IMo we would be still on way back and selling ST's for next season. It was the pig headedness of some fans (about 5,000) who chose to stay away and not Lowe's that bought this club down and there is evidence to support this. Oh and Crouch could have helped the short term liquidity problem unconditionally as he is doing now. 25% of his £2m would have been enough and he would IMO been offered a place in the board for his support and foresight whereas now? Well IMO it look more like an efforts to tray and save face. Lowe in charge, Crouch on board, League 1 probably, but no points deduction and ST's being sold. I would settle for that today thank you. Pig-Headedness yes but I think that can be blamed on some uber -fans/customer types and some game play from ex-directors, a game that they lost along with the rest of us. Again just an opinion. Sorry, NC, but this thread was a question of finance really, not a Lowe thing ..again... really why is it that anyone interested in us waited fro doom to get us on teh cheap rather than offer that support when we really needed it - suggests a pure business decsion rather than any allegience to Saints and that was what has been heavily criticised in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krissyboy31 Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 Lowe was dead against selling and always has been. Not when they reached 65p, he wasn't. He had an over inflated view on how much the shares were actually worth (probably based on the Premiership years) and would not sell at anything below that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 21 May, 2009 Author Share Posted 21 May, 2009 But not having to pay Aviva, would have meant the overdraft, wage bill etc easier to manage. At the end of the day, a buyer pre-administration, would have had to buy all the shares (even at 10p, I suspect that is more than the actual club/player registration part of the current deal) and taken on the complete debt of the club. We would have been in exactly the same position as before, losing money hand over fist. This way, there is no shares to pay for and a debt free club that owns the stadium 100% for probably not a great deal more in initial outlay. Sure, but with points deductions, possibly more to come rebuilding is going to take alot more, than had we avoided admin and the drop by support when really needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 Not when they reached 65p, he wasn't. He had an over inflated view on how much the shares were actually worth (probably based on the Premiership years) and would not sell at anything below that. But that was an artificially high price forced up by non-existent billionaire interest in the club (from what I understand, reading between the lines and all that) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 21 May, 2009 Author Share Posted 21 May, 2009 Not when they reached 65p, he wasn't. He had an over inflated view on how much the shares were actually worth (probably based on the Premiership years) and would not sell at anything below that. To be fair, that statement was made when the shareprice was closer to 55p and CRouch had just bougght his 10% at 65p from that Asset managemnet company that began with P (smart move) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 You asked if he was "that pig headed". Where do we start ? Thinking having a good eye for livestock translated into football scouting knowledge (as discussed in Strachan's autobiography), hanging onto Saints for a whole week past the -10 deadline this season, trying to foist Woodward onto Redknapp, the whole bizarre belief that the Academy ALONE could sustain us in the Championship, getting shot of Pearson for what amounts to no good reason... coming back at all... ...and I'm one of the ones who doesn't just hate him cos he's posh and actually thought he might be capable of saving money and keeping us OUT of the mire. Strachan's view is not fact, its an opinion. Hanging on to Saints past the deadline? Where is the facts? How do you know Barclays did not give him reason that we were ok? Do you think Barclays cared about a football club's league deadlines? Did he fois t Woodward onto Redknapp? Do you think he consulted Redknapp before, do you know even? The bizarre belief the academy sustain us in the CCC is a belief, a decision borne out of necessity and nothing to do with being pig headed. Ergo Pearson. He got rid based on your opinion of no good reason Lowe made a decision based on how the fluck he could get by with no resources and save the club at the same time. You consider that a wrong decision but not pig headed. Rationally, I understood his thinking. For the sake of what Crouch has donated alone Lowe was tantalisingly close to turning us around and even with relegation going down solvent would have been a tad better. The pigheadnesses of our supporters and unrealistic expectations as usual screwed us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cambsaint Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 As I have asked you before 19c :- If Lowe wasn't pig-headed then why on earth didn't he attempt a rescue along the lines of a rights issue or debenture loans by the major shareholders. To my simple mind a fairly small investment would have rescued Saints and probably allowed us to stay in the CCC. I accept that as we were a basket case underwriting the issue may have been a problem, but I suspect that many fans would have bought shares. It certainly would have been preferable to passing around the begging bowl as happened. Also I cannot see any logic in Aviva's position- they own a stadium that Southampton CC are very unlikely to allow any substantial planning change of use for, and it is virtually valueless in our current situation. Surely a more pro-active negotiation on both sides could have avoided administration, in which Aviva will probably be the biggest loser. To my eyes at first sight there appears to have been pig-headedness to the extent of fatal swine-flu on these negotiations by one or both parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 Sorry' date=' NC, but this thread was a question of finance really, not a Lowe thing ..again... really why is it that anyone interested in us waited fro doom to get us on teh cheap rather than offer that support when we really needed it - suggests a pure business decsion rather than any allegience to Saints and that was what has been heavily criticised in the past.[/quote'] Not sure I understand where you ae coming from Frank. I'm aware of the thread title but responding to The9's comments and your questioning response that you didn't consider it was Lowe's pigheadnesses perceived or otherwise. To answer your question you need to assess how close we were to survival or failure and if we could have been brought as a genuine going concern. IMO I thought we were close but the fans perception of Lowe kept them away and that was always going to make things difficult and recent events suggests that same problem could rear it's stupid head again (jackson). A buy out pre-administration had no guarantee of success and nor will any until the fan base of this club accept to support the team through thick and thin as other well supported clubs have shown, instead of basing their support on boardroom personalities. Revenue streams are going to be a massive concern for any new owners unless we land some oligarch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 As I have asked you before 19c :- If Lowe wasn't pig-headed then why on earth didn't he attempt a rescue along the lines of a rights issue or debenture loans by the major shareholders. To my simple mind a fairly small investment would have rescued Saints and probably allowed us to stay in the CCC. I accept that as we were a basket case underwriting the issue may have been a problem, but I suspect that many fans would have bought shares. It certainly would have been preferable to passing around the begging bowl as happened. Also I cannot see any logic in Aviva's position- they own a stadium that Southampton CC are very unlikely to allow any substantial planning change of use for, and it is virtually valueless in our current situation. Surely a more pro-active negotiation on both sides could have avoided administration, in which Aviva will probably be the biggest loser. To my eyes at first sight there appears to have been pig-headedness to the extent of fatal swine-flu on these negotiations by one or both parties. Camb I read your first sentence and I have answered your question before with a reasoned reply and your lack of response I took as agreement. Therefore I have ignored the rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cambsaint Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 I regret that I missed it amongst your many postings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 21 May, 2009 Author Share Posted 21 May, 2009 (edited) Thing is the 'truth hurts' so to speak and fans never like to acknowledge any negative part in their clubs position - there is always justfication for fan action.... if its ours involved in a pitch invasion it was 'provoked' and therefor deserved.... or staying away was the only way to get rid of Lowe... it was also sadly a guaranntee of admin - and yes when comparing like for like, when push came tyo shove enough fans did not turn up for a number of reasons... not having any intersetin crap football in the lower reaches of teh CCC, as protest to Lowe, credit crunch etc - valid reasons from a personal perspective but as a collective fan base it showed us as a much smaller club that we liked to imgaine.... sorry digress, but the point of the question was not about lOwes saying yes or no, we have no information or insights into that, but why if genuinely interested in a) football, b) saints would someone not look to save us whilst we were in a better position footballing wise than wait until it all went tits up - especially as 14 mil is not cheap - sure 'dedt free, but its funny how if not a creditor we all suddenly have no moral problem with that - OK so the vultures circulating were not responsible for the debt - but by bidding low they are in effect screwing creditors and yes I do have a moral issue with that - because I have been left in that situation before - company goes bust - lose money - new owners buy it for a song and have a streanmmlined debt free business that they can milk for all its worth.... Edited 21 May, 2009 by Frank's cousin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cambsaint Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 Thankyou 19C. I have located your reply and read it. I agree it is reasoned, but IMO it may still have worked if done immediately he had control. Regrettably I also believe that personality clashes and the way Lowe regained control prevented any sensible working together of those with sufficient funds to save us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 Camb I read your first sentence and I have answered your question before with a reasoned reply and your lack of response I took as agreement. Therefore I have ignored the rest. Amusingly I took the same approach to your defence of Lowe above, which is why this is my only response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 For the sake of what Crouch has donated alone Lowe was tantalisingly close to turning us around and even with relegation going down solvent would have been a tad better. The pigheadnesses of our supporters and unrealistic expectations as usual screwed us. Surely you have enough intelligence to realise that the circumstances of our downfall is all cause and effect. You put it all down to the pig-headedness and unrealistic expectations of our supporters, but that is a ridiculous thing to say. That is effect and one has to ask what the cause was. The answer is obvious. Those 5000 fans who you say stayed away did it for good reason. Some reasons that immediately spring to mind are the return of Lowe and the Quisling, the dismissal of Pearson, the introduction of incompetant managers to replace him, the playing of the youngsters whilst farming out the best strikers, the price of tickets to watch the youngsters, the number of matches lost at home are examples. Many forecasted that these ridiculous measures would end in our relegation, administration, or both. If it had not occurred to Lowe that his return in tandem with the hugely discredited Wilde and the introduction of his bizarre experiment would have no impact on the attendances, then he has been naive in the extreme. If he knew that his re-appearance in control would have this effect, then his pig-headiness is proved. Which was it, Nineteen? Anyway, you persist in blaming everything on the fans, the customers of the business. The product is crap, but the customers are to blame for not buying it! As for your assertion that Crouch could have kept us afloat with the money that he has put in since, how would that have come about? Should Crouch have offered to assist just to prop up Lowe's discredited regime? Was Lowe just too arrogant and proud to have even gone cap in hand to Crouch and asked him? Who knows? But placing any sort of blame on Crouch for not funding our shortfall earlier is pretty disingenous in light of the history between him and Lowe. Had Lowe proposed that all three major shareholders worked together at the start of the season, kept on Pearson and allowed him to pick the team within the financial restraints that we had, all this could have been avoided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMike Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 Lowe wanted too much per share Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Mockles Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 Surely you have enough intelligence to realise that the circumstances of our downfall is all cause and effect. You put it all down to the pig-headedness and unrealistic expectations of our supporters, but that is a ridiculous thing to say. That is effect and one has to ask what the cause was. The answer is obvious. Those 5000 fans who you say stayed away did it for good reason. Some reasons that immediately spring to mind are the return of Lowe and the Quisling, the dismissal of Pearson, the introduction of incompetant managers to replace him, the playing of the youngsters whilst farming out the best strikers, the price of tickets to watch the youngsters, the number of matches lost at home are examples. Many forecasted that these ridiculous measures would end in our relegation, administration, or both. If it had not occurred to Lowe that his return in tandem with the hugely discredited Wilde and the introduction of his bizarre experiment would have no impact on the attendances, then he has been naive in the extreme. If he knew that his re-appearance in control would have this effect, then his pig-headiness is proved. Which was it, Nineteen? Anyway, you persist in blaming everything on the fans, the customers of the business. The product is crap, but the customers are to blame for not buying it! As for your assertion that Crouch could have kept us afloat with the money that he has put in since, how would that have come about? Should Crouch have offered to assist just to prop up Lowe's discredited regime? Was Lowe just too arrogant and proud to have even gone cap in hand to Crouch and asked him? Who knows? But placing any sort of blame on Crouch for not funding our shortfall earlier is pretty disingenous in light of the history between him and Lowe. Had Lowe proposed that all three major shareholders worked together at the start of the season, kept on Pearson and allowed him to pick the team within the financial restraints that we had, all this could have been avoided. What he said!! Needn't say more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveyR Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 +1 Top Post Wes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Smith Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 Lowe wanted too much per share I haven't read all of this thread, but wanted to say, £14m! Is this a direct quote? Is this £14mil up front or a down payment (£8m) with the proof of the means to service at least circa £6m? I can't recall, and please provide evidence with links if at all possible, as I am truly interested, of any other club where the payment required by the administrators was as high as this? £14mil seems an awful lot of money that has gone into administration because it couldn't service it's high debts and is now in an even worse financial position to service these debts if a new owner is found? The bulk of this 14mil, cannot come from the bidder, surely? And I wouldn't have thought the creditors would expect the business to find 14mil over a short period of time, when it had a consistent overdraft facility of about a 1/3 of that total and are now, potentially, operating at a lower income from ticket sales and TV deals? In short, is this £14m figure an accurate, upfront figure? Because, if it were and I wasn't a fan of SFC, I can't imagine any Businessman, looking at our situation and believing £14mil was a great investment in the bargain basement of clubs in administration! How would I recoup that 14m in a realtive time frame PLUS invest on the squad in order to advance and make more money. So, throw in an extra couple of mill to help us compete in this league and some more to guarentee promotion (look at Leicesters squad), with purchases + wages + bonuses (win and promotion), 1 year of 'investment', plus the £14mill purchase, in order to gain promotion to the CCC, will be close to £20mil! For a L1 club! No chance! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat from Poole Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 Strachan's view is not fact, its an opinion. Hanging on to Saints past the deadline? Where is the facts? How do you know Barclays did not give him reason that we were ok? Do you think Barclays cared about a football club's league deadlines? Did he fois t Woodward onto Redknapp? Do you think he consulted Redknapp before, do you know even? The bizarre belief the academy sustain us in the CCC is a belief, a decision borne out of necessity and nothing to do with being pig headed. Ergo Pearson. He got rid based on your opinion of no good reason Lowe made a decision based on how the fluck he could get by with no resources and save the club at the same time. You consider that a wrong decision but not pig headed. Rationally, I understood his thinking. For the sake of what Crouch has donated alone Lowe was tantalisingly close to turning us around and even with relegation going down solvent would have been a tad better. The pigheadnesses of our supporters and unrealistic expectations as usual screwed us. Just utter tosh. You get a completely sensible reply from Scott to your trolling and you just can't help yourself. How was Lowe tantalisingly close to turning us around? Did he have a manager lined up last season who knew something about English football? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 21 May, 2009 Author Share Posted 21 May, 2009 If it had not occurred to Lowe that his return in tandem with the hugely discredited Wilde and the introduction of his bizarre experiment would have no impact on the attendances, then he has been naive in the extreme. If he knew that his re-appearance in control would have this effect, then his pig-headiness is proved. Which was it, Nineteen? Anyway, you persist in blaming everything on the fans, the customers of the business. The product is crap, but the customers are to blame for not buying it! . On that first point whilst very true, it could be that Lowe DID appreciate the possible impact but was under the impression that if JP nd Wotte and the kids managed to somehow do well then this would be a bigger factor in maintaining the gate? On the second point - the difficulty seems to be the honesty factor - the FACTS are that fans stayed away and this directly impacted on our revenue - There are two seperate issues really. As you say some stayed away because of Lowe - but I really do think this was the smallest group... many stayed away because we were crap (yes this can be attributed to Lowed decisons if you wish), but many other teams are equally crap and this did not impact on their gate (Norwich), because it became to expensive in te credit crunch - all fair enough, but the reason we are so against acknowledging this is becauise it DOES paint us collectively to teh outsiode football world as smaller that we would like to think we are - and that simply hurts our ego... Am open minded on this and if we see 15000-18000 in League 1 under new owners (equivalent to say 23-25k in teh CCC) then I will take this back, but I think gates will fall again whoever is in charge until season end if we are either in with a playoff push or in a relegation struggle as always happens. You have to remember that Fottball is not like other businesses as we have a loyalty and an emotional investment - its considered by most to be the illogical logic of football supporting that despites how crap your team is you hang in there - its not success or lack of it that dictates alliegence, but the 'in the blood' - and this is the mantra of the vast majority of fans.... Thats why some do question those who 'staywed away because of Lowe' - because if that mantra is true, then it should not have mattered who was in the boardroom as the club is bigger than any one you sits in teh directors box and always should be.... Can you say that there are no fans who simply no longer wanted to watch us because we were a bit crap have not used the Lowe thing as a convenient excuse? I dont think its unreasonable to ask that question. Are fans to blame then, NO of course not because we still do have a choice - the board Is to blame by over estimating the revenues when setting up contracts long term and NOT taking into account the potential loss of revenue should we have no success - but ofcourse had they budgeted accordingly (the slighter wiser more sensibl business decision) it would have been derided by many as 'budgeting for failure' or lacking ambition. Its this fickleness that makes it impossible to always do the 'right thing' by fans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nineteen Canteen Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 Surely you have enough intelligence to realise that the circumstances of our downfall is all cause and effect. You put it all down to the pig-headedness and unrealistic expectations of our supporters, but that is a ridiculous thing to say. That is effect and one has to ask what the cause was. The answer is obvious. Those 5000 fans who you say stayed away did it for good reason. Some reasons that immediately spring to mind are the return of Lowe and the Quisling, the dismissal of Pearson, the introduction of incompetant managers to replace him, the playing of the youngsters whilst farming out the best strikers, the price of tickets to watch the youngsters, the number of matches lost at home are examples. In this case the effect happened before the cause. Average attendances on last season were down from the start. Over time those 5000 may have become frustrated with the product but knowing the position the football club was in their actions I believe can be considered counter-intuitive for a football fan allegedly supporting their club's battle for survival. The playing of youngsters and farming out the the best strikers on 5 figure weekly salaries was a no brainer otherwise this precarious position we are in now would have happened a lot earlier with different set of dire circumstances. Lowe did what any other businessman would have done given the circumstances and anyone who could not read between the lines as to why it was happening were blinded by hatred. Many forecasted that these ridiculous measures would end in our relegation, administration, or both. Correct including myself but without those measures administration was a certainty not to mention of course compounded by the declining revenues. Fans IMO have been blinded by their hatred of Lowe as I mentioned above but as the popular saying goes - keep your friends close and your enemies closer still. Lowe did with Wilde and if Crouch had joined the party minus his ridiculous conditions on that £2m we would not be discussing the merits of Marcus Jackson as a future director of this club. If it had not occurred to Lowe that his return in tandem with the hugely discredited Wilde and the introduction of his bizarre experiment would have no impact on the attendances, then he has been naive in the extreme. If he knew that his re-appearance in control would have this effect, then his pig-headiness is proved. Which was it, Nineteen? The fact is Wes your pig-headedness discounts you from accepting the fact without Lowe and Wilde trying to rebuild the club we would have gone bust before Christmas as I don't remember Crouch acknowledging the wage to turnover ratio. Remember Crouch's infamous words at the beginning of 2008 about the fact players would not be released for financial reasons? Pearson's managerial record at the time did not indicate anything other than a relegation battle which we would have to face anyway if we were to get seriously tough on cutting costs. I don't see how anyone other than Lowe from the available sources at the time could have achieved in cost cutting. Lowe was strong enough to get on with the job and ignore the flak whereas Crouch would have been concerned with fan friendly policies and rhetoric which is fair enough in happier times but not what was required last season by a country mile IMO. You call the youth policy a bad experiment which I acknowledge turned out to be largely the case. However, if that is all you got and another piper is calling the tunes (The Bank) then it is not unreasonable to go to the acknowledged centre of excellence for Youth Football in an attempt to get the best out of those resources. It only appears bizarre to you now but at the time there was plenty of rationale and dare I say it support for the decision. Anyway, you persist in blaming everything on the fans, the customers of the business. The product is crap, but the customers are to blame for not buying it! As for your assertion that Crouch could have kept us afloat with the money that he has put in since, how would that have come about? Should Crouch have offered to assist just to prop up Lowe's discredited regime? Was Lowe just too arrogant and proud to have even gone cap in hand to Crouch and asked him? Who knows? But placing any sort of blame on Crouch for not funding our shortfall earlier is pretty disingenous in light of the history between him and Lowe. Had Lowe proposed that all three major shareholders worked together at the start of the season, kept on Pearson and allowed him to pick the team within the financial restraints that we had, all this could have been avoided. I think I have covered your conclusion except my take on the Crouch issue is that he sought to gain political capital out of his offer of a £2m investment knowing the condition for Wilde in particular would never be met. It backfired on him spectacularly and regardless of his subsequent support it remains for me a questionable decision. Lowe's regime discredited? Not as much as the previous two years Wes, not as much as the prevous two years, and for the sake of probably £500k and some March madness ST sales Lowe would have made it. Perhaps the real nail in the coffin was not selling or being able to get rid of the overhyped and ridiculously overpaid Skacel and / or Euell. Hi Wes, Put my response in your message above. BTW sorry I don't have your intelligence. I think I have been consistent and reasoned in my views on this matter from the start so please don't try to question my intelligence simply on the basis that i don't agree with you. It weakens your argument like another poster on here who tries to discredit me at every opportunity without ever attempting to comment on the content, which at least you do of course. My opinion will never change as I'm sure yours won't either so have the last word by all means but don't expect a response. Lets focus on Jackson and Green. Best regards NC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legod Third Coming Posted 21 May, 2009 Share Posted 21 May, 2009 IF the news is true that the Administrators want 14 mil for Saints - have they not looked at the simple fact no one came in for siants when the share price was rock bottom - bbefore admin someone could have snapped up the entire pLC+ paid off the Overdraft' date=' possibly renegotiated the stadium repayment and kept a few mil in the bank to to cover the current contractual obligations of the high income players for about 12 mil... Sure its more complex than that but 14 mil seems high even with the idea of walking away debt free - as a club paying our debts would be ethically right as well as guarranteeing no further points deductions...?[/quote'] The 14m I suspect will be debt free. Before admin would be at least 30m of debt. Big difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 21 May, 2009 Author Share Posted 21 May, 2009 The 14m I suspect will be debt free. Before admin would be at least 30m of debt. Big difference. This part of the problem - we are in effect only 6mil in debt and the 24 mil is a susatinable 'mortgage' - If investors looked at it that way, rather than this media headline figure that always sound better and more scary, I think we would not be in such a negative outlook right now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 22 May, 2009 Share Posted 22 May, 2009 Nineteen Canteen: In this case the effect happened before the cause. Average attendances on last season were down from the start. Over time those 5000 may have become frustrated with the product but knowing the position the football club was in their actions I believe can be considered counter-intuitive for a football fan allegedly supporting their club's battle for survival. The playing of youngsters and farming out the the best strikers on 5 figure weekly salaries was a no brainer otherwise this precarious position we are in now would have happened a lot earlier with different set of dire circumstances. Lowe did what any other businessman would have done given the circumstances and anyone who could not read between the lines as to why it was happening were blinded by hatred. I'll not argue everything that you've written in response, as I'm not net savvy enough to do multiple quotes and frankly I can't be arsed anyway. But I'll respond to this bit above, as it is essentially the nub of the matter. Firstly, as far as I'm aware, it is impossible to have an affect before the cause. If I'm wrong, perhaps you would kindly give me an anecdotal example to illustrate the point. In your comment that the numbers at the start of the season were down on last year's, I had covered that by saying that some was as a result of Lowe and Wilde's return, some because of the dismissal of Pearson, economic factors, pricing, playing the kids, etc. So there was already a cause that pre-dated the effect, not the other way about. Also, as has been argued many times before, it was not a financial necessity to farm out all three of the main strikers; we could have kept at least one and rationalised the cost by more prudent outlay on other purchases and loans. Neither was it an imperative to play only the kids, only to have brought in the inexperienced Double Dutch, only to play one up front, etc. It is clearly the case that these were the causes of our predicament and the effect was certainly the relegation and probably also the resultant administration. As for saying that Lowe only did what any other businessman would have done, that is plainly absurd. Even he had other options, different perspectives and emphasis that he could have applied. But then, his record is plain to see over a period in excess of a decade and he made some mistakes and errors of judgement even when things were relatively OK and he wasn't so forced into a corner by financial pressures. Did he do only what other businessmen would have done then? So your contention that anybody who could not read between the lines was blinded by their hatred of Lowe, holds no water. It is patently clear that things could have been done differently even within the financial straitjacket and yet a different approach might have produced better results on the pitch, which in return would have resulted in better attendances and therefore more revenue, thus less financial pressure. All cause and effect, not effect and cause. 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