Takeover Latest Gossip

[Evo]

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.

 

LOL, 70 ?! Take that Rupes

 

I suppose it comes down to whethr Fry kept the subsidiaries out of admin for convenience or whether it was a play to try and escape the 10 points (thus increasing our value [allegedly, though I'm not convinced]).

 

The subsidiaries must be in administration in all but name because their owner is controlled by the administrator. What strikes me though is that Fry is keen to avoid doing anything like "running a football club".

 

We're left in a strange situation where we're supposed to believe that SLH, which is little more than SFC + SMS, is in administration, yet SFC and SMS are trading solvently. That cannot tally, surely!

 

Anyway, I'm not even sure what I'm babbling on about any more so I'll shut up for now.

[Gemmel]

As long as they were sold for a good price and the fee has also walked in the door then tbh they probably wont care that much.

 

Mr Fry will not be selling a company with cash in the bank

[Whitey Grandad]

I was questioning why we hadn't sold any tickets before we went into administration. And we have been selling assets to pay wages for years, nothing new in that. It's just that we havent been producing the assets any more.

[dockland Dave]

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.

Coming from a regeneration back ground. I suspect that we are valuing a football club and any potential sales are relevant to the price. I don't think the council will allow house building on Staplewood or SMS, it is not in their interests to see the club fold. So in MHO I would state that we can only value Saints and its seperate entities as a football club (Jacksons farm excepted). Anyway how many builders have the cash to land bank at the moment?

[aberdare]

Coming from a regeneration back ground. I suspect that we are valuing a football club and any potential sales are relevant to the price. I don't think the council will allow house building on Staplewood or SMS, it is not in their interests to see the club fold. So in MHO I would state that we can only value Saints and its seperate entities as a football club (Jacksons farm excepted). Anyway how many builders have the cash to land bank at the moment?

 

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.

[Gemmel]

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.

 

Not sure how that translates in English, but would it make a difference if we only owned a small part of staplewood???

 

Not having a go mate, but have you been drinking

[SFC Forever]

Though I can see Aberdare's point I don't go along with all of it. With the current climate we are in a buyers market place. SFC taken as a whole entity can not now be worth as much as it was even a month ago. The buyers are only interested in the amount they need to spend in total to get us up and running again.

Our creditors will realize less by forcing Fry to go for too much. The ground is still worthless to any builder due to it's previous existance. The council is most unlikely to give planning permission for either SMS or Staplewood and redevelopment.

With all the fun and games we had through Pinnacle a buyer worth his salt will know that we are in a very poor position player wise. We desperately need some new blood in the squad and also some with some muscle and ability. All this costs money and even then as we know the spending offers no guarentee of success. Pinnacle taking so long has made it extremely difficult for any party taking over because of the short span of time left before we kick a ball in ernest.

That in my book means we will fetch less.

Edited 1 July, 2009 by SFC Forever

[dockland Dave]

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.

I think Aviva will take the highest bidder currently on the table. Would be interesting to look to see what the Sheffield Development plan says about the land around Staplewood, would development be allowed on it? It would take a brave planning committee to grant planning permission on a football ground or a training ground, but saying that it has been done before! Looking at Ipswich Fc, I think they were brought out of admin for approx 7mm, I suspect we will go between 8 -10mm, perhaps with add ons. Bottom line is that no English football club has any value until they are in the prem. The only people who buy them are fans, publicity seekers or those very few that have deep enough pockets to take us there.

 

As Morph would say , all IMHO

[Gemmel]

I think Aviva will take the highest bidder currently on the table. Would be interesting to look to see what the Sheffield Development plan says about the land around Staplewood, would development be allowed on it? It would take a brave planning committee to grant planning permission on a football ground or a training ground, but saying that it has been done before! Looking at Ipswich Fc, I think they were brought out of admin for approx 7mm, I suspect we will go between 8 -10mm, perhaps with add ons. Bottom line is that no English football club has any value until they are in the prem. The only people who buy them are fans, publicity seekers or those very few that have deep enough pockets to take us there.

 

As Morph would say , all IMHO

 

As above post...we only own a small part of staplewood

[St_Tel49]

Knock, Knock

OK I'll bite. Who's there?

[St_Tel49]

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.

On the first - who would buy a stadium - hence who will provide the competition to drive the price up. On the second - only if planning permission for housing were granted.

[up and away]

Personally I would disagree with you. IMHO, Fry himself set up the format of our admin and as such set the price levels that HE could accept in order to meet Creditor expectations. Personally I think that structur set the buy price too high for any sane businessman to invest in, so unless there is an ego issue or a marketing angle, ANY buyer would find us a bad deal.

 

Now IF Fry hadn't tried to be clever with the 10 points and had put SFC Ltd into admin on day one I think the cost of the club would have been lower and we would have been bought by now.

 

Whether that is Fry's fault or the SLH structure is open for debate I just think we are too expensive - AT the moment

 

You have a point, but I would guess the true figure to lie between Jackson and Pinnacle, but my guess would be at best £10M. Get the value down too low and Aviva will be thinking it being far better to lay the stadium barren until the council will be begging you to redevelop. Without at least access to the stadium, everything is up in smoke. Then everything else falls in line until you get up to 75% of creditors acceptance and you are off and running. Barclays have a lot of their debt secured against assets and that will be another factor for determining the recovery rate. You can easily see because of the nature and importance of these two creditors that scrap value alone will not be good enough and you may have to find some serious middle ground.

 

Fry's job is to gauge things and go with the option that gives the best practical return. The only thing I would say is that football clubs are very specialised even for Fry and I cannot believe he has performed in this sector previously, or we would not have got that monumental blunder of the position on the points appeal. I can't believe a professional made such a stupid error. They got Krasner in at Bournemouth to guide them through, why oh why did they not do it here? The SFC point is a red herring, just accept the fact there will be a -10 start with more if a CVA for SLH cannot be found and proceed on that basis.

 

I don't know exactly how the exclusivity period worked, but if it just stopped anyone else from buying the club during that 21 days with everyone else still allowed full access / discussion, that would have made sense in our position.

[SaintBobby]

Apparently Le Tissier is trying to get money together through his contacts at Sky to buy the club.

 

To whom is this apparent?

[JustMike]

haha there is probably a very good reason why most of the posters above only come out at night

[StInky]

Now IF Fry hadn't tried to be clever with the 10 points and had put SFC Ltd into admin on day one I think the cost of the club would have been lower and we would have been bought by now.

 

Whether that is Fry's fault or the SLH structure is open for debate I just think we are too expensive - AT the moment

 

There is a growing misconception . . Lowe put us into administration. He appointed BT. And if that was on April 1st (?) then you can be fairly certain that he and Mark Fry of BT had been discussing the situation (long?) before this.

[Flyer]

No i'm sure they don't > paying 14 million for everything and 10% + of the assets have just walked out the door :rolleyes::rolleyes:

 

My logic says perhaps the buyers havent got £14m. So the club sells a couple of players with the consent of the potential buyers and £12m is paid for the club.

 

The creditors still get their £14m but the buyers dont pay as much and dont have the bad publicity of having a fire sale right after they take over.

[StInky]

Just to reiterate . . . if you sell a player for 1m, you're swapping one asset (the player) for another (cash), so no change in the value of the company.

[alpine_saint]

Just to reiterate . . . if you sell a player for 1m, you're swapping one asset (the player) for another (cash), so no change in the value of the company.

 

.....except the £1m is being used to pay a back-log of wages and probably other short-term debt.

 

I also believe that the exodus of players can only cause a drop in the residual value of SLH and its assets

[JustMike]

Just to reiterate . . . if you sell a player for 1m, you're swapping one asset (the player) for another (cash), so no change in the value of the company.

 

only correct if that "cash" is kept. In this case its been used to pay wages etc. So i doubt there is much left. Like Alps said, with those players going the residual value of the club would decrease.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

Sorry, but all of this talk of 14m, where does this come from? Would Aviva and whoever is buying the club and ground not prefer to re-negotiate the mortgage??!

[Pip]

Firstly, when talk of selling McG and Surman first came about Fry stated that the asking price for SFC would be "altered to reflect this"

 

Secondly, the moment Fry stated that our house of cards would come crashing down on Friday if it wasn't sold the price must have plummeted. Buyers market.

[Master Bates]

Takeover to be completed next week at the earliest.

[smarmy]

What I don't understand is why Aviva wouldn't take possession of the stadium and then rent it back to whatever SFC entity emerged. That would make the sale easier, which would guarantee them an income stream at least, and the value of the land can only go up from here, post credit crunch/recession etc, should they have to tear it down and develop. They could put the rent up as and when we got promoted and/or sell the ground to a sale/leaseback company who specialise in these sorts of things. Sadly, the training ground/facilities could just be sold to Portsmouth, wooden lockers and all.

 

Trousers' avatar is a picture of Orbital, by the way.

[StInky]

.....except the £1m is being used to pay a back-log of wages and probably other short-term debt.

 

1m less cash (asset) = 1m less debt (liability). The company's value still doesn't change! But I agree, whilst the company is trading unprofitably there will be a cash drain.

[The Godfather]

Takeover to be completed next week at the earliest.

 

We will have no players left by then, Fry would of sold them all.

 

Time to find those old boots, might get a game afterall.

[hughieslastminutegoal]

What I don't understand is why Aviva wouldn't take possession of the stadium and then rent it back to whatever SFC entity emerged. That would make the sale easier, which would guarantee them an income stream at least, and the value of the land can only go up from here, post credit crunch/recession etc, should they have to tear it down and develop. They could put the rent up as and when we got promoted and/or sell the ground to a sale/leaseback company who specialise in these sorts of things. Sadly, the training ground/facilities could just be sold to Portsmouth, wooden lockers and all.

 

If push came to shove wouldn't it be best for Aviva to buy the club, run it as cheaply as possible in L1 just to stabilize it, and then flog it later when it's all not so much of a rush?

 

The stadium is no good to anyone else, and as for letting players go that would cost millions to replace, I'm sure you could pick up players good enough for L1 on frees, and in the current climate they wouldn't need to be on big wages either. The running costs might even be kept close to what Aviva might otherwise lose in income on the loan, and they at least have a fighting chance to flog the whole lot, or bits, later in a better ecomomic climate.

 

What do they have to lose?

[dubai_phil]

1m less cash (asset) = 1m less debt (liability). The company's value still doesn't change! But I agree, whilst the company is trading unprofitably there will be a cash drain.

 

Nope

 

You forget the magic word - burn rate.

 

The club was losing around 800k a month last year. That figure will have come down, but apart from two games and a loan from (allegedly) Leon, there has been zero income for almost two months.

The PAYE was due on the day Pinnacle failed to complete for May wages and from what I have heard, the player salaries in June included all their appearance/goal/win bonus type payments.

The sale of Dyer paid May wages, the sale of Surman willl make a hole in the amount needed to pay the June wages. It will not affect the debt position. Wages will still need to be paid in July with little income UNLESS the ST's go on sale.

 

In simple terms, Drew's sale was needed because the Pinnacle deal did not complete in time for their takeover money to pay the June wages. Not throwing blame at them it is simply a consequence of what happened.

 

Now the PROBLEM again becomes Fry wants something close to 15mil including deferred payments - that is the figure he can accept and as no bidder is allowed to neogtiate directly with creditors like Barclays or Aviva in this type of situation until they have bought the business.

 

So the price remains the same and yet the saleable asset value and "playing quality" of the squad has again dropped...

 

And as others have said, Jones/Fry cannot sell the ST's as that will destroy the chance of a new owner setting a playing budget vs an expectation of income. How many people would actually buy ST's right now? a couple of thousand? at possibly the wrong price? not going to happen!

[CanadaSaint]

That's never going to work. Aviva have a clear business focus and they can't step in and take control of completely unrelated businesses just because their loan goes sour. They'd end up owning and operating all kinds of stuff - and they'd almost certainly screw most of it up. These finance companies budget a delinquency rate and budget to wave goodbye to money in situations like this. It's just one of their costs of doing business.

[Wes Tender]

That's never going to work. Aviva have a clear business focus and they can't step in and take control of completely unrelated businesses just because their loan goes sour. They'd end up owning and operating all kinds of stuff - and they'd almost certainly screw most of it up. These finance companies budget a delinquency rate and budget to wave goodbye to money in situations like this. It's just one of their costs of doing business.

 

So it is rumoured that one of the bidders for the club is an International Finance services company. Doesn't exactly the same thing apply to them, then?

[JustMike]

Takeover to be completed next week at the earliest.

 

from the echo?

 

they know as much as we do, and change it every day!

[aberdare]

Not sure how that translates in English, but would it make a difference if we only owned a small part of staplewood???

 

Not having a go mate, but have you been drinking

 

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

[StInky]

Nope

 

You forget the magic word - burn rate.

 

Nope. "Trading unprofitably" just about covers it!

[CanadaSaint]

So it is rumoured that one of the bidders for the club is an International Finance services company. Doesn't exactly the same thing apply to them, then?

 

Wes, there's a world of difference between consciously investing in something and taking control of a loanee company in the (possibly vain) hopes of getting some of you loan money back. And "international financial services" can cover a lot of things - including venture capitalists and hedge funds.

[Evo]

Nope

no bidder is allowed to neogtiate directly with creditors like Barclays or Aviva

 

Any bidder with an ounce of sense will have direct contact with Barclays and Aviva though...

[John D]

So it is rumoured that one of the bidders for the club is an International Finance services company. Doesn't exactly the same thing apply to them, then?

 

Nope - Aviva are predominately into the Insurance / Assurance market - not quite sure how they ended up with the securitisation deal

 

For Int Fin Services company I read hedge fund

[iansums]

- that is the figure he can accept and as no bidder is allowed to neogtiate directly with creditors like Barclays or Aviva in this type of situation until they have bought the business.

 

According to the Echo the Swiss group WERE negotiating with creditors:

 

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/4467677.Potential_foreign_owners_in_late_night_Saints_talks/

[dubai_phil]

According to the Echo the Swiss group WERE negotiating with creditors:

 

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/news/4467677.Potential_foreign_owners_in_late_night_Saints_talks/

 

Creditors types

 

Trade Creditors

Football Creditors

HMRC

Secured Creditors

 

Cannot see HMRC working "late into the night"

Apparently Fry would not let anyone near the secured creditors 4 weeks ago

Football creditors must be cleared under FL regs, so it would leave the smaller trade creditors IMHO

[trousers]

OK I'll bite. Who's there?

 

Little old lady

[dubai_phil]

Any bidder with an ounce of sense will have direct contact with Barclays and Aviva though...

 

Ah ha, somebody spotted the first of the reasons to ask whether the administrator was doing the best he could to get a deal....

 

Yes obviously anyone with sense, but apparently Fry did not allow that in the stage of putting a bid together, so you had to use only his figure......

 

And yet others not bidding at the time or since were rumouored to have been able to meet with them.....

[NickG]

Ah ha, somebody spotted the first of the reasons to ask whether the administrator was doing the best he could to get a deal....

 

Yes obviously anyone with sense, but apparently Fry did not allow that in the stage of putting a bid together, so you had to use only his figure......

 

And yet others not bidding at the time or since were rumouored to have been able to meet with them.....

 

 

what are you saying Phil, Marc Jackson wasn't allowed to meet them but the Swiss and Pinnacle were?

[SaintRichmond]

Takeover to be completed next week at the earliest.

 

 

A) By Whom ????????

 

B) Is there an Investment "Money Man" ???????

 

C) If Lowe is in ANY way involved ..... Delete "B"

[Toomer]

Lowe has been mentioned once or twice, my concern is that he may come in with backers on the 11th hour and pick us up on the cheap.

[trousers]

Vinicio Fioranell's Swiss consortium lost out on Roma recently....how many Swiss consortiums are out there looking for a football team? Can't be many can there?

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKLO34150520090624

[Pancake]

Lowe has been mentioned once or twice, my concern is that he may come in with backers on the 11th hour and pick us up on the cheap.

 

Fine, rather Lowe in League One that being in the Blue Square for me.

[StInky]

When is the next stadium loan payment due? 31st August? £2m?

[Badger]

Vinicio Fioranell's Swiss consortium lost out on Roma recently....how many Swiss consortiums are out there looking for a football team? Can't be many can there?

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKLO34150520090624

 

Further info:

http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=it&u=http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinicio_Fioranelli&ei=SW9MStarJ-WhjAeso4HMBQ&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=10&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DVinicio%2BFioranelli%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DG

[trousers]

Further info:

http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=it&u=http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinicio_Fioranelli&ei=SW9MStarJ-WhjAeso4HMBQ&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=10&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DVinicio%2BFioranelli%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DG

 

 

"Come here....there's more...."

 

http://www.wikio.co.uk/news/Vinicio+Fioranelli

 

[Guest Dark Sotonic Mills]

Further info:

http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=it&u=http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinicio_Fioranelli&ei=SW9MStarJ-WhjAeso4HMBQ&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=10&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DVinicio%2BFioranelli%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DG

 

 

Great, described by an Italian Investigating Magistrate as a 'crook'. Also he is under investigation for all sorts of fraud crimes.

 

Seems he would be better suited to take over that mob down the road.

[OldNick]

Lowe has been mentioned once or twice, my concern is that he may come in with backers on the 11th hour and pick us up on the cheap.

Not what i want but sadly he has the opportunity to do so if he requires.If he did I odubt that we'd know or he would have any role in the boardroom.He knows it would be counterproductive.I add i dont believe he would come back.

[trousers]

Great, described by an Italian Investigating Magistrate as a 'crook'. Also he is under investigation for all sorts of fraud crimes.

 

Seems he would be better suited to take over that mob down the road.

 

Hmmmm....

 

"Rome - Negotiations for the sale of Serie A club Roma were on hold Wednesday after a prospective buyer failed to deposit a guarantee at an Italian investment bank. News reports said that the Rome club is now likely to be auctioned as the investment bank Mediobanca didn't receive an expected guarantee worth 200 million euros (282 million dollars) from Vinicio Fioranelli, a Swiss entrepreneur and football agent. Fioranelli leads a group of investors who appeared keen on acquiring the majority of the club's shares. "

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/274595,roma-auction-likely-after-potential-buyer-fails-to-make-deposit.html

 

.....all sounds a tad familiar. Probably not them then.....