A timely reminder

[nutty nigel 7,902]

Saints'' losses could soon be £1m a month

By Gareth Lewis

SAINTS could soon be haemorrhaging money at the rate of £1m a month, the Daily Echo has learned.

Equivalent to more than £33,000 A DAY, the losses will force bosses to sell star players such as Gareth Bale just to stay afloat.

To avoid the nightmare threat of administration, which attracts an automatic ten-point penalty from the Football League, costs have to be cut back to the bone and the structure of a Premiership club dismantled.

The Echo understands that the club are currently losing around £500,000 a month.

They lost around £416,000 a month in the half-year leading up to December 31, 2006.

But once the parachute payments dry up this summer, the monthly loss will soar towards the £1m mark.

A source said manager George Burley would have to "beg and borrow" players because any cash would go to fill yawning holes in the accounts rather than on transfers.

The dire financial straits mean that unless a wealthy investor such as US billionaire Paul Allen steps in, the club could find itself selling of all its best players and left without a penny to reinvest in the side.

Forecast to lose around £8m this year, club finances are also reeling from the loss of £6.5m a year parachute payments designed to ease relegation from the Premiership over the first two seasons after the drop.

The financial hole is partly the result of Saints'' ill-fated gamble on winning promotion to the Premiership, which saw them splurge £7m - more than any other Championship side apart from promoted Birmingham - on players last summer.

Now the play-off dream has been ended by Derby County, the brutal financial realities are finally becoming clear.

Back in March, Saints revealed a loss before taxation of £2.5m in the six months leading up to December 31, 2006 - £416,000 a month.

The half-yearly statement also included the following sentence: "The Directors have prepared cash flow forecasts for the forthcoming 12 months, which in the event of non-promotion to the Premier League include the sale of various assets and the continued support of the bank."

A source said: "For the year ending June 30 the overall loss will be £8m.

"That kind of loss equates to the money spent on players last year. On a day-to-day basis the club has washed its face.

"Going forward, the loss is exacerbated by the fact that you don''t have the parachute payment anymore. Losing £1m a month is the scenario if you do nothing."

He added that administration - similar to the financial meltdown that recently hit Leeds United - was unlikely.

"I think the answer will be a combination of selling players, particularly Gareth Bale," he said.

"Burley would be hugely limited in his squad, in terms of his ability to bring in the best players in that division. It would be loan players and that sort of thing."

Full story: See today''s Daily Echo.

 

[Karl Pilkington 0]

Thats pure propoganda from Delia''s cousin. To hell with it Gamble Gamble Gamble!!!

[ricardo 8,034]

[quote user="Karl Pilkington"]Thats pure propoganda from Delia''s cousin. To hell with it Gamble Gamble Gamble!!![/quote]

 

Spoken like a true loser Karl.

[Saint Canary 0]

Just after Saints got relegated they held a sit down protest on Northam bridge (closing it) in an attempt to remove Rupert Lowe as Chairman.  Someone even stood as a candidate in council elections with no policies other than removing Lowe as chairman.  It didn''t need all that really as from recollection he only owned around 10% of the shares.

Some of my Saints supporting friends are gutted at how things appear to be panning out.  They wanted Lowe out because he was (to use our word) too prudent.  Unfortunately they got Michael Wilde and he has lived up to his name allowing the club to overspend and being brutally honest here, there is not much in the Saints squad that could be sold on for big sums.  So the money spent has not been invested too wisely either.

Saints saving grace in all this will be their academy.  They have had one of the top academy sides for several years now and Bale will prove their saviour this year when he is sold.  There should also be enough talent coming through to keep them going and players like Mcgoldrick and Dyer may prove to be vital in coming seasons.  The funny thing is that this saving grace was heavily invested in and nurtured by the man Saints fans blamed for their downfall.  Funny old game......

 

[blahblahblah 2]

Sounds like a "come and get me" plea to Paul Allen to me.  He could wipe out their debts without blinking.

[mbncfc 1]

[quote user="Saint Canary"]

Saints saving grace in all this will be their academy.  They have had one of the top academy sides for several years now and Bale will prove their saviour this year when he is sold.  There should also be enough talent coming through to keep them going and players like Mcgoldrick and Dyer may prove to be vital in coming seasons.  The funny thing is that this saving grace was heavily invested in and nurtured by the man Saints fans blamed for their downfall.  Funny old game......

[/quote]

It will certainly keep them out of trouble Saint, but would the kids really be enough for them to challenge for promotion?

As good and Bale is, and allegedly Walcott, the likelihood is one mature, top-quality academy product per season - and it would always be problematic to rely too heavily on the player or the system.

[Smudger 0]

mmm we will see...

Something tells me that the Siants will ofload Bale during the Summer for £10million+

Burley will Re-invest most of this money and take the side that he has built to promotion next season... any debts wiped!!!

You won''t see many Saints fans complaining at that will you???

Just for the record most of the Saints fans I know are quite happy with the way Burley has turned them around over the last year or so... they are probably confident of having a great shot at automatic promotion this coming season.

[Karl Pilkington 0]

[quote user="ricardo"]

[quote user="Karl Pilkington"]Thats pure propoganda from Delia''s cousin. To hell with it Gamble Gamble Gamble!!![/quote]

Spoken like a true loser Karl.

[/quote]

 

Which your mouth. My dads bigger than yours RAAAASSSSSPPPPPP!!!!

[7rew 0]

Smudge, darling, did you actually worry your pretty head about reading the whole of the article and not just the first line?

If you had you would have seen that precisely this eventuallity was

covered in the bulk of the article. He can''t reinvest the money as it

will be used to service the hole in their budget which is larger than

10 million.

[megson 0]

probably right with that smudger.

 

However, you can''t run a club on the presumption you''ll get a Gareth Bale every few years to keep you afloat!

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

What is the difference between them and us.  Before our new directors arrived we would have had a 2 million shortfall - that''s £38,461.54 per week. 

 

I guess Southampton are just trying to find someone to counter this shortfall so they do not have to sell Bale.....

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

oops read that again- - 33,000 a day!! 

 

OK agreed very poor.

[ricardo 8,034]

[quote user="Karl Pilkington"][quote user="ricardo"]

[quote user="Karl Pilkington"]Thats pure propoganda from Delia''s cousin. To hell with it Gamble Gamble Gamble!!![/quote]

Spoken like a true loser Karl.

[/quote]

 

Which your mouth. My dads bigger than yours RAAAASSSSSPPPPPP!!!!

[/quote]

I hope your big dad told you never to bet what you can''t afford to lose.

Some of us had to find out the hard way, not an experience you want to repeat.

[7rew 0]

A quick answer to the difference in our situations is a factor of 6 on that shortfall.  Alternatively £10 million pounds.

[lappinitup 629]

The article said......

For the year ending June 30 the overall loss will be £8m.

"That kind of loss equates to the money spent on players last year. On a day-to-day basis the club has washed its face.

Smudger said......

Something tells me that the Siants will ofload Bale during the Summer for £10million+

Burley will Re-invest most of this money and take the side that he has built to promotion next season... any debts wiped!!!

So smudger.....

Burley spent £8m last year and didn''t get the Saints promoted so what makes you so sure that even if he had the whole £10m for Bale he would do it this season ?

And where would the Saints be if he failed ?

Still a championship side with even more high earners on their books, more debt but no highly rated youngster to sell.

And this is your recipe for the Canaries success.

                    MIND BOGGLING

 

 

[arrdee 2]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

The dire financial straits mean that unless a wealthy investor such as US billionaire Paul Allen steps in, the club could find itself selling of all its best players and left without a penny to reinvest in the side.

 

[/quote]

 

Nutty , if Southampton are going to sell off all their best players , or give some away , could we not pick up that Gary Bale ? he would fit my bill thanks very much.[:D]

[Stevie Wonder 0]

Don''t forget to factor in the Walcot money too - not quite sure how much this was, the full deal is £13M but there were a lot of add ons in that.

Having said that the investment on the playing side at Carrow Road has been pitiful. We have had 3 years of Sky money, 25000 sell outs virtually every game for those 3 years and over £10M in player sales (Ashton, Mckenzie, Green, Francis, Jonson, Helveg) plus their wages. In the same period, we have signed Earnie for £2.75M, Croft £600K, Hughes £500K, Etuhu £450K, Brown £300K plus a few £100K and less transfers. It seems that if we hadn''t had this new "investment" we would have been scratching around the bargain basement looking for uncut gems. However, 10 years ago we were getting no Sky money 15,000 gates and were signing the likes of Iwan (£900K), Fleming (£600K).

Where has all the money gone?[^o)]

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="lappinitup"]

The article said......

For the year ending June 30 the overall loss will be £8m.

"That kind of loss equates to the money spent on players last year. On a day-to-day basis the club has washed its face.

[/quote]

Calm down.  What this means is that they are NOT in fact losing money every week, contrary to the claims in this truly awful piece of scaremongering journalism.  Week to week they are more or less breaking even.  Next season they''ll have to reduce costs to continue breaking even, but that''s due to the loss of the parachute money not to overspending.

Saints took a calculated risk by spending £7m on players last season, on the basis that they''d recoup it (and probably a bit more besides) when Gareth Bale was sold.  They were realistic enough to accept that it would be impossible to keep Bale in face of competition from established Prem clubs.  They could have sold him sooner and had the money up front to spend, but they also realised that their best chance of a top six finish was to try and keep him for another season, use him as security to strengthen the squad and have the benefit of his input on the field as well.  It was worth the gamble because they only had one year of parachute money left.  They put football first and it nearly came off. 

Next season they''ll be no worse off than we will, for all our cheeseparing.  At least they tried.  I hope no one is suggesting it would be better if they hadn''t. 

[Gingembre 0]

[quote user="Smudger"]

mmm we will see...

Something tells me that the Siants will ofload Bale during the Summer for £10million+

[/quote]He''s already signed for Spurs according to SSN, unveiling on June 1st apparently.

[Mr.Carrow 394]

[quote user="Stevie Wonder"]

Don''t forget to factor in the Walcot money too - not quite sure how much this was, the full deal is £13M but there were a lot of add ons in that.

Having said that the investment on the playing side at Carrow Road has been pitiful. We have had 3 years of Sky money, 25000 sell outs virtually every game for those 3 years and over £10M in player sales (Ashton, Mckenzie, Green, Francis, Jonson, Helveg) plus their wages. In the same period, we have signed Earnie for £2.75M, Croft £600K, Hughes £500K, Etuhu £450K, Brown £300K plus a few £100K and less transfers. It seems that if we hadn''t had this new "investment" we would have been scratching around the bargain basement looking for uncut gems. However, 10 years ago we were getting no Sky money 15,000 gates and were signing the likes of Iwan (£900K), Fleming (£600K).

Where has all the money gone?[^o)]

[/quote]

Good post. The accounts are a bit of a nightmare to be honest and i`ve yet to meet anyone who seems to have a comprehensive understanding of them. However,in the last 3 financial years some £20million has been spent on "infrastructure costs" and last year alone £6.5million was spent on non-player wages. Be warned though, it is apparently verging on sacrilige to some people on here when football fans ask questions about a FOOTBALL club spending millions on non-football activities whilst the team on the pitch is allowed to weaken pathetically.

[Putney Canary 0]

[quote user="Stevie Wonder"]

However, 10 years ago we were getting no Sky money 15,000 gates and were signing the likes of Iwan (£900K), Fleming (£600K).

[/quote]But we were paying bugger all in wages then. Since relegation the wage bill has been huge.I pick up two things from this article;1. Spending money guarantees nothing. This is why being reliant on outside investment which is made for the puposes of earning money NOT for the long term benefit of NCFC is a bad thing2. Despite this ''risk'' the Southampton fans are not happy.You guys are presuming that Southampton will get back the money they spent through selling the players. That may or may not happen. Clubs that HAVE to sell often don''t get the true valuation. Players decide they are off, their agent punts them around to all likely buyers, likely buyers know the club are in a weak negotiating position because they HAVE to sell, unless there is a queue of buyers to push the price back up they may well get a shortfall. And what happens if Bale breaks a leg on holiday?

[Hairy Canary 754]

[quote user="Putney Canary"][quote user="Stevie Wonder"]

However, 10 years ago we were getting no Sky money 15,000 gates and were signing the likes of Iwan (£900K), Fleming (£600K).

[/quote]

But we were paying bugger all in wages then. Since relegation the wage bill has been huge.

I pick up two things from this article;
1. Spending money guarantees nothing. This is why being reliant on outside investment which is made for the puposes of earning money NOT for the long term benefit of NCFC is a bad thing
2. Despite this ''risk'' the Southampton fans are not happy.

You guys are presuming that Southampton will get back the money they spent through selling the players. That may or may not happen. Clubs that HAVE to sell often don''t get the true valuation. Players decide they are off, their agent punts them around to all likely buyers, likely buyers know the club are in a weak negotiating position because they HAVE to sell, unless there is a queue of buyers to push the price back up they may well get a shortfall. And what happens if Bale breaks a leg on holiday?
[/quote]

Spending money might not guarantee success but it certainly helps. The richest clubs are in the top leagues and the poorest ones are at the bottom (mostly). That is why investing in money generating schemes that bring regular long term cash to NCFC is a good thing.

I agree with your other point about selling players. Also Southampton have Bale who could be worth £10m which allowed them to take a risk at promotion this year. Thats a good strategy IMO. We don''t have anyone worth anything like that sort of cash unfortunately!

[nutty nigel 7,902]

[quote user="Saint Canary"]

Just after Saints got relegated they held a sit down protest on Northam bridge (closing it) in an attempt to remove Rupert Lowe as Chairman.  Someone even stood as a candidate in council elections with no policies other than removing Lowe as chairman.  It didn''t need all that really as from recollection he only owned around 10% of the shares.

Some of my Saints supporting friends are gutted at how things appear to be panning out.  They wanted Lowe out because he was (to use our word) too prudent.  Unfortunately they got Michael Wilde and he has lived up to his name allowing the club to overspend and being brutally honest here, there is not much in the Saints squad that could be sold on for big sums.  So the money spent has not been invested too wisely either.

Saints saving grace in all this will be their academy.  They have had one of the top academy sides for several years now and Bale will prove their saviour this year when he is sold.  There should also be enough talent coming through to keep them going and players like Mcgoldrick and Dyer may prove to be vital in coming seasons.  The funny thing is that this saving grace was heavily invested in and nurtured by the man Saints fans blamed for their downfall.  Funny old game......

 

[/quote]

Saint Canary - I read somewhere that Rupert Lowe had never even been to a football match until just before he took over at Southampton and that he was a hockey player and a rugby fan. It does seem as though he did somethings well, like the move to St. Mary’s but he regularly fell out with football people including fans favourite and legend Lorry McMenemy. Then there was all that stuff with his rugby mate Sir Clive Woodward! Didn’t Graeme Souness famously say something like “Is there anyone else in football called Rupert?”.

My interest in all of this stems from finding their financial review online at the time we were discussing our accounts. The new board readily admitted that they spent money that they didn’t have in the summer and it looks to have been quite a gamble. When they took over the previous years accounts revealed a loss of over 3m despite receiving 14m in transfer fees on top of the parachute payments.  It seems their plan A was to spend more money and get promoted and plan B was to attract a big investor especially if they didn’t get promotion. I believe Michael Wilde has since resigned because he couldn’t attract an investor.

I see they are about to get 6m from Spurs for Bale. I would imagine that the 6m will just buy them a little more time to find that elusive investor. Is that how the saints fans see it?

I don’t think our club can learn anything from this situation at Southampton. I think we learned our own lessons when we were relegated in the 90’s. But I think Southampton could learn from us.

 

 

[blahblahblah 2]

[quote]You guys are presuming that Southampton will get back the money they

spent through selling the players. That may or may not happen. Clubs

that HAVE to sell often don''t get the true valuation. Players decide

they are off, their agent punts them around to all likely buyers,

likely buyers know the club are in a weak negotiating position because

they HAVE to sell, unless there is a queue of buyers to push the price

back up they may well get a shortfall. And what happens if Bale breaks

a leg on holiday?[/quote]Well said Putney.  I for one am glad that the financial status of NCFC isn''t down to the fitness or otherwise of a youth player.  That sounds precarious to me.

[nutty nigel 7,902]

[quote user="mystic megson"][quote user="lappinitup"]

The article said......

For the year ending June 30 the overall loss will be £8m.

"That kind of loss equates to the money spent on players last year. On a day-to-day basis the club has washed its face.

[/quote]

Calm down.  What this means is that they are NOT in fact losing money every week, contrary to the claims in this truly awful piece of scaremongering journalism.  Week to week they are more or less breaking even.  Next season they''ll have to reduce costs to continue breaking even, but that''s due to the loss of the parachute money not to overspending.

Saints took a calculated risk by spending £7m on players last season, on the basis that they''d recoup it (and probably a bit more besides) when Gareth Bale was sold.  They were realistic enough to accept that it would be impossible to keep Bale in face of competition from established Prem clubs.  They could have sold him sooner and had the money up front to spend, but they also realised that their best chance of a top six finish was to try and keep him for another season, use him as security to strengthen the squad and have the benefit of his input on the field as well.  It was worth the gamble because they only had one year of parachute money left.  They put football first and it nearly came off. 

Next season they''ll be no worse off than we will, for all our cheeseparing.  At least they tried.  I hope no one is suggesting it would be better if they hadn''t. 

[/quote]

That''s your view Mystic but this is the view of the Southampton Chief Executive.

JIM Hone admits the new board of directors spent money the club didn''t have in the summer.

But the St Mary''s chief executive is in no mood to offer any apologies for the close season spending spree.

During the first eight weeks of the Michael Wilde regime, the new directors sanctioned the arrival of ten new players.

Over £5m was spent on the likes of Rudi Skacel (£1.6m), Pele (£900,000), Kelvin Davis (£800,000), Bradley Wright-Phillips (£750,000), Jhon Viafara (£750,000) and Inigo Idiakez (£250,000).

The money was spent for one reason only - to get Saints back into the cash-rich Premiership.

If George Burley can indeed win promotion this season, Hone reckons the elevation back into the top flight would be worth around £55m to the club.

To that end, a £5m investment seems chicken feed.

"What was clear pretty quickly after coming into the company was that there was no reserves, what some might call a warchest," said Hone.

"Money that had been brought in by player trading was just used to keep the company afloat.

"When we came in we had no idea what we would find."

Saints'' yearly accounts released last week showed a loss of £3.3m in the 13 months ending June 30, 2006 - ironically, the day former chairman Rupert Lowe quit.

During that period, Saints sold Peter Crouch, Theo Walcott, Antti Niemi, Nigel Quashie and Kevin Phillips for around £14m.

"If not for selling players, the losses would be absolutely horrendous," Hone added.

So without any warchest'', how have Saints paid for their manager''s close season rebuilding.

"It''s in staged payments for the players, but it''s been done on debt by and large," Hone revealed.

He added: "The priority after we came in was to make money available to the manager.

"There are plans to refinance the business to bring new investment in. By that, we mean new investment.

"If we go up this season, the new investment won''t be so necessary."

 

[megson 0]

I agree as well. You CANOT run a clubs finances on the hope that player A can be sold for amount X.

If bale had picked up an injury like Earnie''s or Ashtons, or Owens, or even Notmans near the end of the season would they still be getting £6m from spurs? I think not.

Massive gamble that could easily of gone horribly horribly wrong.

If it had what would the saints fans be saying? If we did something similar and it went wrong we would (rightly) be running the board out of town (city!).

[Citizen Journalist Foghorn 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

I don’t think our club can learn anything from this situation at Southampton. I think we learned our own lessons when we were relegated in the 90’s. But I think Southampton could learn from us.

 

 

[/quote]

Learn what??  How to **** up on relegation?  I think a lot of clubs can look at us to see many pointers as what not to do on promotion and subsequent relegation...

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="Saint Canary"]

Just after Saints got relegated they held a sit down protest on Northam bridge (closing it) in an attempt to remove Rupert Lowe as Chairman.  Someone even stood as a candidate in council elections with no policies other than removing Lowe as chairman.  It didn''t need all that really as from recollection he only owned around 10% of the shares.

Some of my Saints supporting friends are gutted at how things appear to be panning out.  They wanted Lowe out because he was (to use our word) too prudent.  Unfortunately they got Michael Wilde and he has lived up to his name allowing the club to overspend and being brutally honest here, there is not much in the Saints squad that could be sold on for big sums.  So the money spent has not been invested too wisely either.

Saints saving grace in all this will be their academy.  They have had one of the top academy sides for several years now and Bale will prove their saviour this year when he is sold.  There should also be enough talent coming through to keep them going and players like Mcgoldrick and Dyer may prove to be vital in coming seasons.  The funny thing is that this saving grace was heavily invested in and nurtured by the man Saints fans blamed for their downfall.  Funny old game......

 

[/quote]

Saint Canary - I read somewhere that Rupert Lowe had never even been to a football match until just before he took over at Southampton and that he was a hockey player and a rugby fan. It does seem as though he did somethings well, like the move to St. Mary’s but he regularly fell out with football people including fans favourite and legend Lorry McMenemy. Then there was all that stuff with his rugby mate Sir Clive Woodward! Didn’t Graeme Souness famously say something like “Is there anyone else in football called Rupert?”.

My interest in all of this stems from finding their financial review online at the time we were discussing our accounts. The new board readily admitted that they spent money that they didn’t have in the summer and it looks to have been quite a gamble. When they took over the previous years accounts revealed a loss of over 3m despite receiving 14m in transfer fees on top of the parachute payments.  It seems their plan A was to spend more money and get promoted and plan B was to attract a big investor especially if they didn’t get promotion. I believe Michael Wilde has since resigned because he couldn’t attract an investor.

I see they are about to get 6m from Spurs for Bale. I would imagine that the 6m will just buy them a little more time to find that elusive investor. Is that how the saints fans see it?

I don’t think our club can learn anything from this situation at Southampton. I think we learned our own lessons when we were relegated in the 90’s. But I think Southampton could learn from us.

[/quote]

My goodness Nutty. Lawrie Sheffield and now Lorry McNemeny. Just what is it you have against good old Laurie?

By the way, are you really Delia''s cousin? [:-*]

OTBC

 

[nutty nigel 7,902]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

My goodness Nutty. Lawrie Sheffield and now Lorry McNemeny. Just what is it you have against good old Laurie?

By the way, are you really Delia''s cousin? [:-*]

OTBC

 

[/quote]

Now why on earth would I have parked that lorry there bly??

I see those clever chappies from Archant have been re-arranging your letters again [8-|]  Beats me how they do that [*-)]

Yes I am [:|]

 

[canary cherub 1]

[quote user="nutty nigel"][quote user="mystic megson"][quote user="lappinitup"]

The article said......

For the year ending June 30 the overall loss will be £8m.

"That kind of loss equates to the money spent on players last year. On a day-to-day basis the club has washed its face.

[/quote]

Calm down.  What this means is that they are NOT in fact losing money every week, contrary to the claims in this truly awful piece of scaremongering journalism.  Week to week they are more or less breaking even.  Next season they''ll have to reduce costs to continue breaking even, but that''s due to the loss of the parachute money not to overspending.

Saints took a calculated risk by spending £7m on players last season, on the basis that they''d recoup it (and probably a bit more besides) when Gareth Bale was sold.  They were realistic enough to accept that it would be impossible to keep Bale in face of competition from established Prem clubs.  They could have sold him sooner and had the money up front to spend, but they also realised that their best chance of a top six finish was to try and keep him for another season, use him as security to strengthen the squad and have the benefit of his input on the field as well.  It was worth the gamble because they only had one year of parachute money left.  They put football first and it nearly came off. 

Next season they''ll be no worse off than we will, for all our cheeseparing.  At least they tried.  I hope no one is suggesting it would be better if they hadn''t. 

[/quote]

That''s your view Mystic but this is the view of the Southampton Chief Executive.

JIM Hone admits the new board of directors spent money the club didn''t have in the summer.

But the St Mary''s chief executive is in no mood to offer any apologies for the close season spending spree.

During the first eight weeks of the Michael Wilde regime, the new directors sanctioned the arrival of ten new players.

Over £5m was spent on the likes of Rudi Skacel (£1.6m), Pele (£900,000), Kelvin Davis (£800,000), Bradley Wright-Phillips (£750,000), Jhon Viafara (£750,000) and Inigo Idiakez (£250,000).

The money was spent for one reason only - to get Saints back into the cash-rich Premiership.

If George Burley can indeed win promotion this season, Hone reckons the elevation back into the top flight would be worth around £55m to the club.

To that end, a £5m investment seems chicken feed.

"What was clear pretty quickly after coming into the company was that there was no reserves, what some might call a warchest," said Hone.

"Money that had been brought in by player trading was just used to keep the company afloat.

"When we came in we had no idea what we would find."

Saints'' yearly accounts released last week showed a loss of £3.3m in the 13 months ending June 30, 2006 - ironically, the day former chairman Rupert Lowe quit.

During that period, Saints sold Peter Crouch, Theo Walcott, Antti Niemi, Nigel Quashie and Kevin Phillips for around £14m.

"If not for selling players, the losses would be absolutely horrendous," Hone added.

So without any warchest'', how have Saints paid for their manager''s close season rebuilding.

"It''s in staged payments for the players, but it''s been done on debt by and large," Hone revealed.

He added: "The priority after we came in was to make money available to the manager.

"There are plans to refinance the business to bring new investment in. By that, we mean new investment.

"If we go up this season, the new investment won''t be so necessary."

[/quote]

And your point is . . .?