Depends on what prediction you are refering to. I seam to recall you saying we would not make top three and that we would not make the GF. And that next season we'll be outside the top four. Not sure what your prediction was for CC.

If the prediction you are quoting is simply that we wont win the GF. Thats not exactly tipping against the odds. Most teams wont win the GF.

But in terms of other predictions made I think you were on shall we say the glass half empty side of the fence.

No Sherlock

I don't think he has blown it at all. He is a fantastic saints fan but he hasn't donated £6M for no return. He has a loan which is likely to be very favourable to Saints but it will not be interest free. He also has a £3M bond which will have a coupon/interest rate - again probably very low but he has the option at some stage to convert this into shares.

In 2010, as a measure of their commitment to Saints some £725K of directors loans were converted to shares at a value of £15.15 per share and assuming the most recent £850K loan was converted at the same rate this would mean 56,105 new shares with the balance to share premium, giving a current share capital of 331,938.

If Mike Coleman is able to convert at the same conversion rate is he could end up the proud owner of an additional 198,000 shares to go with 4950 shares he is getting from his part in the directors' loan conversions. If this is the scenario he is on tract to own around 38.3% which given his commitment he would fully deserve!
The other good thing would be that as the biggest shareholder (Mac and family would be diluted to around 15% of the club) Mike Coleman unlikely to want to call in his £3M loan as would owe it largely to himself.



I would also like to make the point that we should also thank the other directors who converted their loans to shares; Fergus Lyons, Andrew Bell and Kevin Marren.





One other thing is the questions earlier in this thread about whether this new debt is additional or replacement, the answer appears to be without much doubt that it is replacing existing debt. This is shown as £850K of directors debt is being converted into shares and Mac's statement that there will be NO bank debt. The ONLY other debt is the remains of an old brewery loan of only £8K.

It does transform our balance sheet as will the stadium asset. This fantastic gesture by Mike Coleman and his fellow directors gives the club real stability which few if any other clubs have.
It s now up to Saints fans everywhere to repay this vote of confidence by buying season tickets where they can and for those who can't coming ot as many home games as possible.
[size=200COYS !!![/size

Who owns the stadium? If its you why do you need a 999 year lease on it?

oh god, not again! google "leasehold"

selling players to RU doesnt count as diversification.

That's about the land and not the stadium. Saints own the stadium; the land is leasehold. There is nothing unusual about that.

We own our workplace on a 100 year leasehold, as does the rest of the industrial estate we're on. As you say, not unusual these days.

999 years will not worry any of us LOL, I was quite happy to accept a 99 year lease myself.

My Mrs has just sold a leasehold flat. She'll be most disappointed to learn she didn't actually own it and will have to pay a couple of hundred grand back.

You a Saints fan again?

Yeah I was thinking that as well,thought he was a Quins/Broncos fan.

Those kinds of players are rarely around in such abundance these days, certainly all in the same team.

Which also supports my view that we're not in a position to dominate anything. The increase in both the NRL and Union caps means that the majority of the elite British players will now be playing the peaks of their careers in one of those competitions. We've seen a dumbing down and levelling off in Super League recently. So how does one club step up and dominate? You could argue Leeds are dominant, but as Sinfield, Peacock and Burrow retire you could also argue their time is up.

My understanding was that a lot of the grants we got for the stadium were only payable on the completion of the stadium (which is likely to be quite soon) to prevent anyone running off with the money and not delivering.

The club has needed to take out a "bridging loan" to cover the debt between the stadium payment and the payment of the grants. This could have something to do with this or maybe not. But I thought it was worth a mension. Sorry if this has been said before.

No she hasn't. She has just sold on the rights under the lease not the property itself.

Well, I need to tell my parents that because they were convinced they bought the house they have been living in for 25 years. According to their solicitor they had bought it anyway and indeed are free to sell it as their own property. But there is an annual £1 rental to pay to a landlord for the land.