aberdare

One place above us?

Perhaps harder still to believe that anyone with coaching knowledge would stand on a terrace bellowing instructions at a professional match (however poorly they are playing), and as for your son, is it not you drawing attention to the poor kid with your behaviour?

Which group? All you are naming are the partners of the accountancy practice in Cleckheaton who set the companies up. Ambercrombie Fitch & Wild for one has absolutely no connection whatsoever with Ambercrombie and Fitch. So we have Cleckheaton accountants who deal with company formations amd with board roles, and one of the partners is on the board of one company which is successful, which you don't name. Quality.

A firm of accountants in Cleckheaton doesn't shout obvious good news.... I doubt many international businesses conduct their bsiness through there...

that is the address of some accountants called Greenwood, Barton & Co

http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/a2630b635a8016c768f2b24dfdc4a8c4/compdetails Don't get too excited, shell company, incorporated 1st April, by a chartered accountant practice in Cleckheaton Yorkshire called Greenwood, Barton & Co

+1 Perfectly summed up

Managed it subtly with a minute to spare

At least one club has gone bust most decades. The FL response is not going to change because otherwise Saints will go bust. Complete delusion.

IF the swiss bid is being in any way orchestrated by Ramon Vega, and I would think that a decent each way bet, his previous attempts to buy clubs including the "neighbours" have all revolved round absolutely nothing up front (the literal quid) but the consideration to be paid over a significant period of time from trading and transfers. Whilst on paper that would suggest Fry can tell the creditors they are getting x in the £, it may well be that a smaller number paid instantly is equally or more attractive to the creditors.

Unless Pinnacle suggested to the Administrator they would pay more money and claimed they could prove it, in which case Fry would be pretty much duty bound to have a look at it.

If the grounds for appeal were that SFC and SLH were entirely separate entities (something I would suggest Stevie Wonder could see they aren't), would not the administrator of SLH appealing on behalf of SFC rather lose the case before it even started?

Very VERY clearly stated in the FL regulations as being made within 7 days of the penalty being imposed....... There was a right to appeal, no one did so. [doh point made previously by others]

No offence taken, but not for about 17 years...... I wonder how many others here can say the same?

Fair call. Very few, but most would find the cash were land in the Staplewood vicinity became available at a relative discount. Check out the old BAT ground at Totton? SMS one could argue is driven more by what Aviva can get past their shareholders without anyone falling on their sword as a consequence. I would be surprised if that was less than perhaps 30-40p in the pound. The potential lack of alternative use might be a hindrance. If SFC is being sold purely as a football club in league one with -10 points and half a team, I would find any suggestion of 14m as deluded. That 14m surely has it's basis in the cost of settling Aviva and not being seen to pay under the odds for Staplewood, however it is dressed up as a football deal.

Would you care to explain why or is it just an unpalatable truth? What is the minimum you think Aviva could/would settle at for the 20+m mortgage? What is the minimum price a purchaser would have to pay to secure the training ground in an auction against housebuilders. Add the two together, deduct from the price you think needs to be paid. What amount does that leave for players and other assets both tangible and intangible - the answer I come up with is very small perhaps even nil. I'm open to persuasion.

It would be unusual in dealing with a holding company to bother going through the additional expense of putting subsidiaries into administration, there is nothing to gain by so doing, just expense and greater formality. One instance I was involved with had a holding company and over 70 subsids, the subsids were just left to eventually fall off the Companies House shelves, as they were unable to trade without the holding company, but did not merit the expense of calling meetings, producing separate accounts and resolutions etc.

The primary driver of price in this instance is real estate not players, and the value acceptable to Aviva for SMS and the value of the training ground have not altered. I think most people have accepted an estimate of something in the region of 10-12m as being about right (excluding on going capital). That values the playing staff at two fifths of sweet foxtrot alpha....... because SMS isn't going to change hands for much under 8-10m and the training ground would probably raise a couple of million for housing.

Fair play and not looking for an argument, but it isn't just about wages is it? Presumably SFC should be paying something for use of the training ground and the offices at SMS, and while we may still have a few silver gilt teaspoons left to sell, presumably our liabilities rack up every day. I have no idea what the terms of payment are on the two player sales, but I would hazard a guess that Wolves and Forest didn't send down a few million in cash bags on the spot, so there is liquidity as well as solvency to consider. If SLH goes into liquidation on Friday, which does seem possible, where will the players train next week? Boltcutters r us?........:confused:

How is SFC trading solvently? It is only paying wages by selling assets and the assets have nearly run out......

It is alleged that the only way the SFC wages were paid in May was Pinnacle paying SLH for exclusivity, the inter company debt between SLH and SFC consequently grew. If SLH are liquidated, that debt will be repayable on demand to the liquidator, and the club will additionally either need to make an offer to purchase SMS (as per domestic reposession) or move elsewhere. Where would that money come from? 15k STHs (let's be optimistic) at say 400 (ave, net of VAT) produces 6m. That money has also to last 12 months to cover payroll, rent/mortgage/running costs. I find it hard to see it stretching to include repayment of all holding company loans, let alone player acquisition. Like it or not, unless someone is going to invest cash, SFC is currently insolvent. It is to be hoped that with sufficient inward investment it can trade out of that situation, but the real money from trading will only come when the club is tiptoeing in or around a return to the Premier League, in the short term therefore solvency is likely to become a greater rather than lesser issue, and will need white knight financing.

Really? If the two companies are entirely distinct both should be able to trade independently. Were they entirely distinct I suspect the learned Lords might agree with you. I don't suppose anyone at the FL is even losing sleep let alone scared. A football club needs a ground. It need not own that ground it might rent it. Could SFC pay it's rent at a full market rate which allowed the landlord to trade, and still itself trade solvently? Very hard to see how without the club benefitting from walking away effectively from the true cost of SMS. If SFC is solvent, the simple answer would of course be simply for SFC to take over the mortgage to Aviva from SLH, Aviva would be delighted I am sure. The fact is we all know that the football operation at Saints regardless of corporate entity cannot pay it's bills and cannot afford to service that level of debt. Everything else is wishful thinking hoping that Lowe might have actually engineered something clever. It is possible that SFC might win a case suggesting that the initial -10 was technically incorrect. How many days do you think it would be before SFC then entered administration when no funding was available from SLH and the rent needed to be paid. Where would the players be training, where would the administrative staff be located?

So you think that even if SLH is liquidated SFC is solvent?

I think even that is moot. The only way SFC has been able to pay bills in the last two months is by using SLH money. SLH also owns the ground. Therefore yes SFC is not in admin and should not be deducted points, but it would by now be in administration and would have nowhere to play, and therefore it would be deducted points. The semantics to my mind are only timescales. Does anyone actually believe SFC is viable and solvent, without hiding behind SLH defaulting on the mortgage?

Agree entirely that -10 is justified. The subsequent one is harder though, how do you word that without it reading like carte blanche immunity which would not be reasonable?