Jump to content

Takeover Latest Gossip


saints_is_the_south

Recommended Posts

I don't think the Bank Manager was a Richard Fry and it was Rupert who appointed BT.

 

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/untoldstories/4356000.Barclays____huge_profits_will_only_rile_Lowe___Co/

 

"Richard Fry was the Barclays Bank manager based in Reading who we used to deal with when Leon was football board chairman and I was acting chairman of the PLC board.

 

“Richard Fry was totally onside with us, he used to come to all our board meetings and he used to come to home games."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont put people on ignore as they all have ap art to play.

This RL thing returning is nonsense. At least at board level. He may well see us as a wonderful bargain and perhaps get a group together that would save us at the end of the day.If he came as part of a group and not involved at boardroom level would that make it easier. You have to remember that no board has done us any good in recent history (I myself have never been happy with any of them for 40years) I want the club saved and if it means RL being in the background I would stomach that.If he came back as part of the board then I would like yourself question my support.

 

Thing is tho Nick, that lying barsteward declared in the interview with Solent back in 2006 that he had NO INTENTION OF EVER COMING BACK...

 

Hmmm...what happened next?

 

Well, I don't trust the fooooker...never have never will.

 

He's been silent since his little personal PR campaign just after we went into admin - and I still believe he'd love to take it back again..these recent development in the Admin farce are worrying me greatly.

 

If you read Dubai Phil's posts about how access to creditors has been limited, then it does start to point to an admin period designed to stretch the process...yes I'm big on conspiracy theories...but....

 

My point 6-8 months ago was that RL and MW wanted to be in charge of the train set when we went into Admin....guess what happened.

 

If they come anywhere near my club again - I'll never go back. And having supported this club since the age of 5, I don't make that statement lightly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone with better google skills able to find out if a Mr Richard Fry has recently joined Begbies?

 

Apparently it was on their web site because somebody emailed it to me, however when I google it it shows up on the partner page but there is then no mention of the article, so I am now either in receipt of an email showing games being played OR somebody has covered up and explosive piece of information

 

http://www.begbies-traynor.com/richard_fry/29

 

and the link to us...

 

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/untoldstories/4356000.Barclays____huge_profits_will_only_rile_Lowe___Co/

 

The name occurs just past half way

 

So the man who strangely pulled the plug on our overdraft and appointed Begbues Traynor then appears as a new partner on the BT web site and is then removed...

 

And interestingly the email does have an independent confirmation that the old phot was the same Mr R Fry. But as it no longer exists I can only post the links I can find

 

curiouser and curiouser

 

Phil it has never been stated (To my knowledge) that the overdraft was withdrawn. On Lowes media round he stated, once the cheques were bounced, we took legal advice and had no choice but to place the club into administration. My understanding is that had they continue to trade, the Directors could become personally liable for the debts.

 

Happy to be proved wrong, but fairly confident the overdraft was never withdrawn, until after the club was put in admin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone with better google skills able to find out if a Mr Richard Fry has recently joined Begbies?

 

Apparently it was on their web site because somebody emailed it to me, however when I google it it shows up on the partner page but there is then no mention of the article, so I am now either in receipt of an email showing games being played OR somebody has covered up and explosive piece of information

 

http://www.begbies-traynor.com/richard_fry/29

 

and the link to us...

 

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/untoldstories/4356000.Barclays____huge_profits_will_only_rile_Lowe___Co/

 

The name occurs just past half way

 

So the man who strangely pulled the plug on our overdraft and appointed Begbues Traynor then appears as a new partner on the BT web site and is then removed...

 

And interestingly the email does have an independent confirmation that the old phot was the same Mr R Fry. But as it no longer exists I can only post the links I can find

 

curiouser and curiouser

It gets worse if that is the case.I doubt anything can be done if this is true. Old boys act. if so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/sport/saints/untoldstories/4356000.Barclays____huge_profits_will_only_rile_Lowe___Co/

 

"Richard Fry was the Barclays Bank manager based in Reading who we used to deal with when Leon was football board chairman and I was acting chairman of the PLC board.

 

“Richard Fry was totally onside with us, he used to come to all our board meetings and he used to come to home games."

 

Thanks for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil it has never been stated (To my knowledge) that the overdraft was withdrawn. On Lowes media round he stated, once the cheques were bounced, we took legal advice and had no choice but to place the club into administration. My understanding is that had they continue to trade, the Directors could become personally liable for the debts.

 

Happy to be proved wrong, but fairly confident the overdraft was never withdrawn, until after the club was put in admin

 

The article (old story now) is fairly clear on what happened, ok so the man who wouldn't stretch the overdraft for a few days then...

 

But the point for conspiracy - "it came as a bolt out of the blue" "you never thought Barclays would do what they did" they are pretty clearly stated in the article.

 

So, the man who presided over a "bolt out of the blue" turns up at BT.... is the issue NOt the whole who put us into what and when.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as the FL are concerned Saints have been in administration since April 2nd (???) If what you are saying is true then how come they let us finish the season just gone? How is that, I think, Darlington have played

in their division while under admin?

 

i think this may be a bit of a hoax, but who knows with Saints?

 

FL never said that Saints was in Administration, it is patently untrue. They did say that the football club and SLH were "inextricably linked", as a reason for us being deducted 10 points regardless. I don't think we can argue with this either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thing is tho Nick, that lying barsteward declared in the interview with Solent back in 2006 that he had NO INTENTION OF EVER COMING BACK...

 

Hmmm...what happened next?

 

Well, I don't trust the fooooker...never have never will.

 

He's been silent since his little personal PR campaign just after we went into admin - and I still believe he'd love to take it back again..these recent development in the Admin farce are worrying me greatly.

 

If you read Dubai Phil's posts about how access to creditors has been limited, then it does start to point to an admin period designed to stretch the process...yes I'm big on conspiracy theories...but....

 

My point 6-8 months ago was that RL and MW wanted to be in charge of the train set when we went into Admin....guess what happened.

 

If they come anywhere near my club again - I'll never go back. And having supported this club since the age of 5, I don't make that statement lightly.

I agree he should not be welcomed back but if it meant the club is saved and my daughters and their children have the chance of haivng some of the ups I have had then it is selfish to say no.

I feel the same way as you do about any combination of any of the other former board memebers but I dont think that will stop me going if they took over.I dislike them all to the same degree now. They ALL have been part of it, dont forget many were faces behind RL when things were better and did nothing to stop some of the mistakes. After his removal nobody comes out with flying colours either.Yes LC is marginally best of a bad lot, but dont forget he did not stop Pinnacle let it be known he paid the deposit (and now that does not seem to be sure, add the fact it wa called the Crouch group for a period) None of the last personalities ever to be allowed back into the boardroom and I include former managers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not forgetting, of course, that WH Ireland listed Begbies Traynor on it's "one to watch" list for 2009....

 

Don't go that way - think if this is true you'll hear a different type of response.. more like an explosion followed by a string of new media stories

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What happened to your source in the office who told you not to worry?
Is that aimed a me? It has gone quiet and have not had a word since the trust me quote. Perhaps they have better things to do. If they believe it and their jobs are in jeopardy then who am I to question.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael Fialka explains why Pinnacle are no longer bidding for Southampton.

 

'Yesterday, myself and my Consortium publicly withdrew from being the front runners for our proposed takeover of Southampton Football Club.

 

‘We advised our advisers of this decision, and the basis of that decision, and they in turn made our stance known. Let me be clear that in publicly withdrawing our offer based on the conditions that I understood needing to be met, we did not, nor have lost our interest in the Club. Moreover, we felt that it was necessary to make this decision for the good of the Club, in the event that another interested party were better placed or willing to complete the takeover on the basis of the terms on offer. That decision has not changed.

 

‘However, I was very pleased to learn today that the Football League have made it known that, in the event of a takeover, no further sanctions will be issued to Southampton Football Club. With that in mind, we were advised by Pinnacle today to reconsider our position, and we are now looking at this. In the event of a successful completion, we remain of the opinion that we will have the support of the fans, which of course is crucial. It is deeply regrettable that matters have not yet been concluded, but as confirmed by the Administrators, this is a complex transaction, and if we do proceed, we need to be certain that everything has been looked at and the good of the Club is put first.

 

‘I hope today’s events result in a successful takeover now being possible - but if this does not happen, we hope that whoever buys the Club will be able to deliver what the fans deserve.’

 

Still in the running then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here it is, but again ambiguous as per date of the actual statement.

 

From The Jewish Chronicle

Exclusive by Danny Caro

July 2, 2009

Follow the JC on Twitter

 

 

Michael Fialka explains why Pinnacle are no longer bidding for Southampton.

 

'Yesterday, myself and my Consortium publicly withdrew from being the front runners for our proposed takeover of Southampton Football Club.

 

‘We advised our advisers of this decision, and the basis of that decision, and they in turn made our stance known. Let me be clear that in publicly withdrawing our offer based on the conditions that I understood needing to be met, we did not, nor have lost our interest in the Club. Moreover, we felt that it was necessary to make this decision for the good of the Club, in the event that another interested party were better placed or willing to complete the takeover on the basis of the terms on offer. That decision has not changed.

 

‘However, I was very pleased to learn today that the Football League have made it known that, in the event of a takeover, no further sanctions will be issued to Southampton Football Club. With that in mind, we were advised by Pinnacle today to reconsider our position, and we are now looking at this. In the event of a successful completion, we remain of the opinion that we will have the support of the fans, which of course is crucial. It is deeply regrettable that matters have not yet been concluded, but as confirmed by the Administrators, this is a complex transaction, and if we do proceed, we need to be certain that everything has been looked at and the good of the Club is put first.

 

‘I hope today’s events result in a successful takeover now being possible - but if this does not happen, we hope that whoever buys the Club will be able to deliver what the fans deserve.’

 

Last updated: 12:02pm, July 2 2009

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The article (old story now) is fairly clear on what happened, ok so the man who wouldn't stretch the overdraft for a few days then...

 

But the point for conspiracy - "it came as a bolt out of the blue" "you never thought Barclays would do what they did" they are pretty clearly stated in the article.

 

So, the man who presided over a "bolt out of the blue" turns up at BT.... is the issue NOt the whole who put us into what and when.

 

Fair enough, although it was the club that appointed BT, not Barclays

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still in the running then.

 

But wasn't this the league's position all along? Wednesday's Echo piece didn't contain any new revelations. The FL were only restating their position/coming out in public/covering their backs in case they were subsequently criticised for derailing the Pinnacle bid. So why the change in Pinnacle's position? To me, it doesnt make sense.

Edited by shurlock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forgot to add, Hudson has left Begbies for Baker Tilly

 

http://www.accountancyage.com/accountancyage/news/2242923/hudson-leaves-begbies-baker

 

Only one licensed IP with the surname Fry:

 

http://www.insolvency-practitioners.org.uk/membersearch.aspx?s=Fry

 

Unforutnately archive.org stopped archiving begbies-traynor.com in 2007 (at the website's request likely), otherwise we would have been able to look up Phil's link on there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forgot to add, Hudson has left Begbies for Baker Tilly

 

http://www.accountancyage.com/accountancyage/news/2242923/hudson-leaves-begbies-baker

 

Only one licensed IP with the surname Fry:

 

http://www.insolvency-practitioners.org.uk/membersearch.aspx?s=Fry

 

Unforutnately archive.org stopped archiving begbies-traynor.com in 2007 (at the website's request likely), otherwise we would have been able to look up Phil's link on there.

 

Master Bates' link (post #3974) takes you to a Google archive of the BT page in question....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not forgetting, of course, that WH Ireland listed Begbies Traynor on it's "one to watch" list for 2009....

 

 

 

And Lowe appointed Begbies Traynor as Administrators ......... so I expect Fry has been too busy updating Lowe to have any time over to seriously vet any genuine "bidder"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the FL said their concerns were about where the funding was coming from? Nothing to do with Pinnacle pulling out due to further point deductions.

 

Nothing makes sense anymore! :rolleyes:

I agree. The takeover is just such an itch you cant scratch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...