posted Apr 24, 2008

He's still defending Lowe, despite banging on for months about how you can not "spend more money than you get in". When provided with proof from the accounts that we ran at a loss of £3.2mil under Lowe's last year, it's now all down to tax purposes.It was our first season in the CCC, the parachute money was running out, the share price was dropping like a stone. If there was any way we could have shown a profit, I'm sure we would have.......

I think I get your take on it now Anti. When post Lowe people posts a loss it's bad financial management, but when it's Lowe it's for tax purposes.......

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 24, 2008

How can you carry on arguing AM, Black is White etc......

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 25, 2008

Anti,

You cannot pick and choose your arguement when you feel like it...

"Doc
If you earn £20,000 a year net, you can only spend £20,000 a year net.
If you then earn £5,000 a year net, you can only spend £5,000 a year net.
Whatever the amount, you should not spend more than you earn!"

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 25, 2008

I know it's argument not arguement !!!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 25, 2008

LD

One of your ploys is to change the subject when you are losing a debate - somethimng you do quite regularly - that's your perogative but shows a weakness in your debating capabilities.

However, out of politeness and for the sake of good order I will respond in the following manner:-

As I said, ask an Accountant! You clearly do not understand how business works. Dig out ALL the Saints Accounts as far back as you want to go, including your favourite era of Ted Bates. You will find that losses are recorded every so often and an Accountant will explain to you the reasons why.

Footnote:-
Even Lowe/Cowan's most ardent critics recognise that they did a very good job running the business. What irks peeps is that Lowe was the Chairman when Rednapp and the underperforming bunch of overpaid prima donnas got us relegated and Lowe is the one they wanted to blame.

Do you think Wilde and the rest of the shareholders - who total 71% - would accept Lowe coming back if they didn't believe in his businss acumen?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 25, 2008

7oaks

It's easy when you're right!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 25, 2008

Doc

You're another one who got sucked it by LD changing tack and using mirrors! He doesn't understand, or chooses to ignore, basic accounting procedure.

The accounbts showed a loss of around £3m for year ending June 2006 which was an extended accounting period to bring it in line with other clubs.
What he doesn't tell you is that there are certain tax advantages to having a loss and he also doesn't tell you that Saints only received a small portion of Walcott's transfer fee in that financial year!

If it was exactly as he said, why did the new board of Ken Dulieu, Lee Hoos, Jim Hone, Leon Crouch, Michael Wilde and David Jones IMMEDIATELY spend £5.7 million on new players? !!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 25, 2008

"The accounbts showed a loss of around £3m for year ending June 2006 which was an extended accounting period to bring it in line with other clubs."







It was 13 months.... one extra month,

£3.2 mil loss.


Anti, you cant spend more than you get in.
If you earn £10,000 you can only spend £10,000. If you earn £5,000 you can only spend £5,000.
You can not go around spending more than you get in.

A wise man told me that...










Unless your name's Lowe-than it's all right....

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 26, 2008

LD

My quote
"What he doesn't tell you is that there are certain tax advantages to having a loss and he also doesn't tell you that Saints only received a small portion of Walcott's transfer fee in that financial year!

If it was exactly as he said, why did the new board of Ken Dulieu, Lee Hoos, Jim Hone, Leon Crouch, Michael Wilde and David Jones IMMEDIATELY spend �5.7 million on new players? !! "

You can twist and turn and duck and dive and lay false trails and introduce spurious arguments but you cannot hide the facts quoted above nor the facts I won the debate with on the voting percentages of shareholders at the time of Lowe's resignation, as they were ALL published on the SAINTS FC website.


On that note, I end my contribution to this thread!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Apr 26, 2008

Oh you mean this report.

http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/news/?page_id=7004


There never has been a list of shereholding published on the offical site, then or now, so stop making things up.


Here's the BBC report of that day.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/5133486.stm



All the offical website pages are archeieved and can be accessed, so please can we have a link to this "list of shareholders" from the offical site.....



They tax year 05 Saints posted a tiny profit of £200,000 despite the figure being "flattered" by housing on the Dell. The dividend paid out a "significantly reduced dividend" of .05p.Therefore the foloing year would have tried if possible to pay out a higher dividend. However none was paid the following year as the Company posted a lose of £3.3 mil. Transfers monies to come in have been accounted the same way every year.

The first season in the CCC, Lowe's financial statement admitted a loss of £3.3 mil and no amount of rubbish from you can alter that fact. No amount of "its for tax purposes, can change that fact, and it backs up what a lot of us beleive, Lowe can not run a lub without the Sky TV money...

add comment | complain about this comment