Frygate- Tail wags the dog? A forum exposé

[shurlock]

I respectfully disagree - take a look at the threads/posts on here between August and September last year....the majority of people were excited by our pre-season form and early performances. It wasn't until the Autumn that realisation struck...IMHO

 

Autumn - before they had even turned on the floodnights! Nobody thought that the season was going to be easy (the bookies had as favs to go down), so its hard to figure out what people were expecting. I guess alot of fans/teams around us -watford, doncaster, nott forest, derby etc- could have capitulated at similar stages but didn't and eventually dug themselves out of trouble. Points-wise, nobody was ever totally cut off from the pack.

[benjii]

Personally I am not qualified to judge an Administrator as to their competence as I know feck all about teh process or these serious financial issues... but my twopenneth worth... I think Di ck 'dastardly' Fry joining BT is a bit of a coincidence really, the fact that they announced it then withdrew it shows a dropped boll ock, and had there been any 'evil skullduggery' such dropped boll ox would never have happened - they are clever these evil masterminds dont forget.

 

With respect to pinnacle and Fry... I think its a bit daft to speculate and insinuate and alledge rumour and gossip that somehow Fry 'favoured' Pinnacle - No one was saying this was wrong when smack bang in teh middle of the exclusivity period and everything looked on track - afterall teh Swiss bid seemed late and an unknown quantity - No we were all champing at the bit to see MLT return.

 

For me its a case of paraphrasing Occam's razor - the simplest or most obvious is usually right and in our case it was a question of timing - Pinnacle was better than Whacko so they got the nod and the Swiss were too late - when the original backers of pinnacle looked at the running costs they would have to support in L1 for more than 1 or 2 years which was likely given the -10 NOT being overturned, they walked away as is their right - Pinnacle were left in a final desperate attempt to get teh FL to overturn the waiver so that the club could appeal the points and thus the backers might rerturn....

 

Meanwhile in a parallel universe Lowe, has gotten into bed with Bachelor and is determined to score some PR points against Fry to try and destablise the Swiss deal so that he can return in disguise.... the world shakes as we stand on the brink of armageddon...or maybe not...

 

Oh no, shock horror. Have a look at the list of Old Etonians or Harrovains, Winchester, Marlborough et al. Networking in the earliest stages of persons career and develops to be rife in the city, politics, law, sales, golf clubs and masonic lodges and so on and so on

 

Life has always been about who you know and not what you know and if it wasn't there wouldn't be all those consultants out there making a mint on advising movers and shakers how to enhance their networking skills.

 

People need to wake up and move on. No conspiracy theories, no advantage being made from our misery just the many aspects of the machinations of business.

 

So what our bank manager moved to BT, the latter identified a need and felt this individual and his contacts and experience could help them develop their business, is that an issue?. Happens all the time in the city although there is usually a period of garden leave between the transfer to protect the intellectual capital of the company losing the employee.

 

Is this the crux of the matter? Trying to unravel all the posts is a minefield in itself but if it is seriously whats the issue?

 

BT headhunt useful employee from another company because they believe that individual can add significant value to their business. Surely this happens everyday in every business throughout the world and if we weren't the company in administration would any of us care? No.

 

Get over it and those allegedly ITK there is no story, no points to score and instead of feeding the rumour investigate the one thing you won't find on Google. Who paid Pinnacle's deposit if at all and what was their motives? If it can be proved Pinnacle didn't pay a deposit then find out why and how this could have been allowed? www.google.com, of you go and good luck, and don't come back with more suggestion or theory, just facts.

 

Rather strangely and somewhat disarmingly, I find myself in agreement with the above two posters!

[shurlock]

Rather strangely and somewhat disarmingly, I find myself in agreement with the above two posters!

 

Happens all the time and my previous employer happens to have become a feeder-club for the upper echelons of the FA. I know they were paranoid about handling any potential conflicts of interest, however far-fetched. Of course, government is a different beast; but you would expect any high-end commercial outfit to do the same. Maybe BT have been similarly scrupulous but taking your photo off a website may strike people as a bit defensive.

Edited 7 July, 2009 by shurlock

[trousers]

BT headhunt useful employee from another company because they believe that individual can add significant value to their business. Surely this happens everyday in every business throughout the world and if we weren't the company in administration would any of us care? No.

 

Get over it and those allegedly ITK there is no story

 

Fair point but if it's all perfectly normal, why would Begbies Traynor remove his profile from their website a week after publishing it?

 

It's a bit like someone getting 'touchy' when details of the Sundance Marketting company were linked on here....

Edited 7 July, 2009 by trousers

[Alain Perrin]

Fair point but if it's all perfectly normal, why would Begbies Traynor remove his profile from their website a week after publishing it?

 

It's a bit like someone getting 'touchy' when details of the Sundance Marketting company were linked on here....

 

Because it looks bad. Like Michael Jackson, sometimes these things can just be innocent......

[once_bitterne]

The info posted on this forum was more accurate than the Mail. Fry worked at Barclays Reading office and not Canary Wharf.

[Wes Tender]

Depends, if about 500 more people per game had turned up instead of whinging and "protesting" then we wouldn't be in admin. FACT.

OK, I'll bite (yet again) to respond to your trolling.

 

If we, the paying customers of the business, cease attending because we perceive that either the price is too high, the product is inferior, or we are not treated with respect by the owners, then it cannot be the fault of the customer, can it?

 

But as we are possibly as soon as today to be taken over by a Swiss owner considerably more wealthy than anybody else who has owned the club in its entire history, things will hopefully change for the better. Simultaneously, we are getting shot of our debt and at the same time removing all of the charlatans who brought this once great club to its knees. As a result, I'm inclined to feel that if we had the chance to rewind the clock, I wouldn't have done anything different to have kept those losers in charge to die a more painful and lingering death.

 

Lastly, your statement is NOT a fact. It is pure speculation.

[bungle]

Lastly, your statement is NOT a fact. It is pure speculation.

 

I think you'll find I put FACT, and therefore this makes my statement a fact, as I have FACTed the occasion. Thus, the issues I raised are not up for discussion.

 

These are the rules of FACT. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

[saintjay77]

The way I read it, they will be buying everything. Lock, Stock, the Fcking lot!

 

Our creditors take the hit and the loss.

 

Ah well if thats the case then its a fookin good deal. I cant see that much of the motage getting wiped though.

 

I thought that the stadium will be bought at a minimal cost but the mortage would be taken on by the new owners. Maybe even restructured. either way the loan would not have been wiped. Ive not seen it mentioned anywhere that the whole shebang is being sold for 15 mil anyway which is why im confused.

 

hopefully we will find out soon enough though. todays the day isnt it?

[Scummer]

Ive not seen it mentioned anywhere that the whole shebang is being sold for 15 mil anyway which is why im confused.

 

It's been mentioned everywhere.

 

Whether that means it's true or not, who knows......

[Evo]

M Fry - well he is doing his job and being paid for it. Some may think it immoral or whatever, but he is allowed to be paid for doing a job, and if the economy didn't think it was a fair payment, it would be reduced!

 

Can't say I agree with this.

 

In a previous working life I had a job that involved a lot of dealings with Insolvency Practitioners. They have to be the most ridiculous old-boy one-hand-washes-the-other bunch of malcontents that I've ever had the mis-pleasure to deal with. You, as creditors, can't go elsewhere! Take this theoretical case of Mr Joe Punter:

 

Assets:

 

£10,000

 

Debts:

 

£50,000

 

An IVA is proposed - the creditors (one of which would have been me...) receive a proposal.

 

You'd think the IP would take perhaps a couple of hundred quid and then pay out the rest out pro-rata wouldn't you?

 

Do they f*ck!

 

This was a typical case (and no doubt fits within the Department for Trade and Industry remuneration guidelines):

 

Assets: £10,000

Liabilities: £50,000

Gross dividend: 20p in the £

 

IP Fees : £8,500

Net Dividend: 3p in the £

 

These chumps rely on a quorum passing the proposal without negotiation. So when it goes to some overworked, under-appreciated Charlies at Big Bank plc, they don't even bother to question it and the greedy gits get away with it.

 

However, when we had a large %'age of the debt, we'd damn well negotiate it back to something sensible (rarely below £1,500 in fees though). Bear in mind that for £1,500 they are entering some figures into a standard template, receiving one cheque and then sending out a couple of cheques. They'd quote partner fee rates yet it will be some junior clerk actually doing the work.

 

When the IVA involved instalments they were even worse. They can get nasty if you try to cut their fees too. Don't like the fees - go elsewhere? Ha! Fat chance, they all do it.

 

So, you'd think I have a chip on my shoulder the size of Mount Everest about IPs and you'd probably be right; but only because I've seen first hand amounts to a cartel.

 

Now, I was of the opinion that a corporate administrator != an insolvency practitioner. From what I've read on here and heard from some friends of late, that opinion is fast changing...

[Wes Tender]

I think you'll find I put FACT, and therefore this makes my statement a fact, as I have FACTed the occasion. Thus, the issues I raised are not up for discussion.

 

These are the rules of FACT. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

 

OK. I'll play the game. The statement that you made was pure speculation.

 

FACT.

 

How did I do?

[eelpie]

The info posted on this forum was more accurate than the Mail. Fry worked at Barclays Reading office and not Canary Wharf.

 

Rupes trying to disguise his tracks?

[saintjay77]

It's been mentioned everywhere.

 

Whether that means it's true or not, who knows......

 

I did type out a fairly lengthy responce but it thankfully got lost. lol

 

If the funds are being transfered then I guess we will soon find out what they are buying.

 

As I understood things though the 15 Mill (now supposed to be around 12.5 due to the sales) is for SFC.

 

If Aviva are righting off that much of the debt then there will be no CVA for SLH and we could see another backtrack from the FL.

 

Lets hope its not another false dawn and we can have a happier season.

[itchen]

Mmm, in the meantime we lose the first IX for peanuts, have no training or management staff under contract and can't even buy a season ticket. Life is good.

 

That's it! I wondered what was wrong last season. Were we playing an untested and confusing system? Were our players too young and inexperienced? Did the coach not really know what he was doing? No. We were only fielding 9 players! Now it all makes sense.

[saintjay77]

That's it! I wondered what was wrong last season. Were we playing an untested and confusing system? Were our players too young and inexperienced? Did the coach not really know what he was doing? No. We were only fielding 9 players! Now it all makes sense.

 

LMFAO that made me chuckle lol

[um pahars]

Wouldn't say its the fans fault - too many proverbial chicken and eggs. Did our dismal performances cause fans to stay away or did the fans hit the confidence of players? Certainly, the difference between our home and away form makes it an open question.....

 

LMFAO.

 

The headline reads:

 

"Club In Poor Performances Suffers Falling Crowds" shocker.

 

So poor attendances had nothing to do with the low season ticket take up due to the dire season before?

 

Then did attendances dwindle as a result of poor performances and results (particularly at home)?

 

There was nothing there to inspire anyone but the diehards to turn up, but once again the fools on here look at the symptons as opposed to the cause of them.

 

Why not lash out at the 95%+ of Sotonians who don't attend matches, why not have a pop at the 000's who left post relegation from the top flight????

 

Crowds are primarily driven by results and success on the pitch and to think/claim or pontificate otherwise is dinlo stuff.

[aintforever]

I did type out a fairly lengthy responce but it thankfully got lost. lol

 

If the funds are being transfered then I guess we will soon find out what they are buying.

 

As I understood things though the 15 Mill (now supposed to be around 12.5 due to the sales) is for SFC.

 

If Aviva are righting off that much of the debt then there will be no CVA for SLH and we could see another backtrack from the FL.

 

Lets hope its not another false dawn and we can have a happier season.

 

My understanding is that Aviva will have to agree with the deal for it to go through so there is no reason why SLH cannot get a CVA. 15mill is not alot when compared to the debt but it is way more than what they would have got had everything been wound up.

 

No one would want to buy the club with a massive mortgage so the buyers would make sure they got the lot and a CVA - I think.

[saintjay77]

My understanding is that Aviva will have to agree with the deal for it to go through so there is no reason why SLH cannot get a CVA. 15mill is not alot when compared to the debt but it is way more than what they would have got had everything been wound up.

 

No one would want to buy the club with a massive mortgage so the buyers would make sure they got the lot and a CVA - I think.

 

I think thats sort of right.

 

The scenarios as I see it are:

 

Swiss buy SFC for 15 mil and rent the ground from AVIVA at an agreed rate. SLH still need to offload the stadium before they liquify so not sure how that would work but I suppose its a possability but the CVA would be up in the air.

 

Swiss buy SFC and someone else buys the Stadium at over the 75% CVA requisit and all are happy but we are charged the rent that the stadium owners set. Could be costly in the long run but all would be happy.

 

Swiss buy SFC for 15 mil and take on the mortage of the Stadium and therefor owning the stadium too. The 75% bit would be covered because the debt will no longer be with SLH and the Swiss would own it all. I guess there would be a charge on top of the 15 mil but very little as it would be more of a transfer of debt than a sale.

 

Swiss buy SFC for 15 mil and also buy the Stadium for say 25 Mil (or what ever 75% of the debt is on the stadium) They own it all and SLH get the CVA which keeps us in the clear.

 

Either way it happens I cant see the swiss just paying 15 Mil and getting the lot with no debt. As surly that would pave the way to futther points deductions with things as they stand.

Maybe thats what Pinnacle were trying to do? Get the club for 15 mil then think they could get the stadium for pence?

[aintforever]

I think thats sort of right.

 

The scenarios as I see it are:

 

Swiss buy SFC for 15 mil and rent the ground from AVIVA at an agreed rate. SLH still need to offload the stadium before they liquify so not sure how that would work but I suppose its a possability but the CVA would be up in the air.

 

Swiss buy SFC and someone else buys the Stadium at over the 75% CVA requisit and all are happy but we are charged the rent that the stadium owners set. Could be costly in the long run but all would be happy.

 

Swiss buy SFC for 15 mil and take on the mortage of the Stadium and therefor owning the stadium too. The 75% bit would be covered because the debt will no longer be with SLH and the Swiss would own it all. I guess there would be a charge on top of the 15 mil but very little as it would be more of a transfer of debt than a sale.

 

Swiss buy SFC for 15 mil and also buy the Stadium for say 25 Mil (or what ever 75% of the debt is on the stadium) They own it all and SLH get the CVA which keeps us in the clear.

 

Either way it happens I cant see the swiss just paying 15 Mil and getting the lot with no debt. As surly that would pave the way to futther points deductions with things as they stand.

Maybe thats what Pinnacle were trying to do? Get the club for 15 mil then think they could get the stadium for pence?

 

I think you're misunderstanding the 75% thing. It doesn't matter if the creditors get 1p in the pound or 99p as long as 75% of them agree to what they are getting.

 

I think the swiss will be buying the lot.

Edited 7 July, 2009 by aintforever

[Leslie Charteris]

I wonder if part of the hold up has been agreeing the administrator's fees? After 92 days or whatever, it's going to be a big pay day for Begbies Traynor.

[Clapham Saint]

I think you're misunderstanding the 75% thing. It doesn't matter if the creditors get 1p in the pound or 99p as long as 75% of them agree to what they are getting.

 

I think the swiss will be buying the lot.

 

A lot of people misunderstand the 75%.

 

Aintforever is correct above, the amount paid to creditors is irrelevant in a CVA, it is getting 75% of creditors to AGREE to whatever level of payment is made which is required.

 

There is a separate FL rule that football creditors have to paid in full, but this is a different issue.

 

And I'd be amazed if the £15m didn't buy everything football related, including the stadium.

[saintjay77]

I think you're misunderstanding the 75% thing. It doesn't matter if the creditors get 1p in the pound or 99p as long as 75% of them agree to what they are getting.

 

I think the swiss will be buying the lot.

 

Ah fair enough then. Based on that if the swiss pay 15 mil and get the lot then they have got a massive deal and I am gutted I didnt win the euro millions a lil while back.

 

A few seasons of upwards progress and a turn in the economy and the swiss could make a killing on selling us on.

[saintjay77]

A lot of people misunderstand the 75%.

 

Aintforever is correct above, the amount paid to creditors is irrelevant in a CVA, it is getting 75% of creditors to AGREE to whatever level of payment is made which is required.

 

There is a separate FL rule that football creditors have to paid in full, but this is a different issue.

 

And I'd be amazed if the £15m didn't buy everything football related, including the stadium.

 

yeah I understood it as 75% of the debt not of the creditors.

 

I stand corrected and we shall hopefully find out whats been bought in the next 24 hours. Hopefully all of it with no debt but I wouldnt be suprised if the mortage still exists in some form for the new guys.

[Nineteen Canteen]

LMFAO.

 

The headline reads:

 

"Club In Poor Performances Suffers Falling Crowds" shocker.

 

So poor attendances had nothing to do with the low season ticket take up due to the dire season before?

 

QUOTE]

 

Where is this headline from, 'The Derby Evening News'. Something like 32 home games without a win and yet when during that run they were relegated they remained one of the best (relatively speaking) supported teams in the country and still acheived gates c28k in the CCC. Imagine what Saints fans would do if we endured a run like that, there would be more stewards than home fans not to mention the away fans.

 

As to your last question it depends how big that club is and how important it is within it's local community. Derby, Norwich, Sunderland and so on may be in the minority but living with the excuse of the majority (don't play well, we won't support) doesn't make it right IMO.

[um pahars]

Where is this headline from, 'The Derby Evening News'. Something like 32 home games without a win and yet when during that run they were relegated they remained one of the best (relatively speaking) supported teams in the country and still acheived gates c28k in the CCC. Imagine what Saints fans would do if we endured a run like that, there would be more stewards than home fans not to mention the away fans.

 

As to your last question it depends how big that club is and how important it is within it's local community. Derby, Norwich, Sunderland and so on may be in the minority but living with the excuse of the majority (don't play well, we won't support) doesn't make it right IMO.

 

And you can have Man City as well if you want (that's almost as many teams as you've had user names on here;)), but you can't get away from the fact that for the vast majority of clubs, attendances will ebb and flow with reference to performances, success and the opposition.

 

As some of those other clubs have shown, there is a possibility to engender a spirit of togetherness in the absence of success on the pitch, but there was nothing or no-one at our Club last season who could engender that spirit.

 

How did some of your other clubs (Charlton, Leeds, Villa, Aldershot et al) fare at diffferent times of their history???

[trousers]

Question....

 

If Fry had sold the club on, say, day 10, would he have been paid more or less than if he sells the club on, say, day 98?

 

Logic suggests that the earlier he sells an asset the better he has been at his job but would that be reflected in his pay packet?

[Thedelldays]

Question....

 

If Fry had sold the club on, say, day 10, would he have been paid more or less than if he sells the club on, say, day 98?

 

Logic suggests that the earlier he sells an asset the better he has been at his job but would that be reflected in his pay packet?

does it matter..

[trousers]

does it matter..

 

In terms of justifying the last 98 days of my life, yes....

[Thedelldays]

In terms of justifying the last 98 days of my life, yes....

let it go

 

i am wodering what saga next summer will bring,,

[Nineteen Canteen]

And you can have Man City as well if you want (that's almost as many teams as you've had user names on here;)), but you can't get away from the fact that for the vast majority of clubs, attendances will ebb and flow with reference to performances, success and the opposition.

 

As some of those other clubs have shown, there is a possibility to engender a spirit of togetherness in the absence of success on the pitch, but there was nothing or no-one at our Club last season who could engender that spirit.

 

How did some of your other clubs (Charlton, Leeds, Villa, Aldershot et al) fare at diffferent times of their history???

 

Um I don't disagree with you as I said in my post but neither does it make it right. To draw an analogy you may as well say that smoking or drinking more 28 units of alcohol a week is a good for you. Many do but it doesn't make it right. Team performs badly, fans withdraw their support that is the norm I agree but the effect is usually very damaging ergo not right.

 

There was no one at the club to engender that spirit, very true because for most of it they were being kicked instead of supported and from corners of our fanbase that should have known better. Hardly surprising the draw bridge was lifted - wouldn't you?

 

I hope we don't have the same problem with the very professional but probably dour and germanic swiss with need a jingoistic spirit engendered into us.

[suewhistle]

let it go

 

i am wodering what saga next summer will bring,,

 

Hasn't he left yet?

 

Back to trousers' (?) point - yes, it bloody well is relevant if the club could have been sold in a tenth of the time. The whole point about the recent world financial crisis is that it has been engendered by systems that benefit the traders and not the customers.. there has been no no downsides to the rsiks the traders have taken, at least not for them. It's

part of the whole unequal game. I don't mind people benefiting from taking risks, it's when there's no risk to THEM..

[um pahars]

Um I don't disagree with you as I said in my post but neither does it make it right.

 

There's nothing wrong or right about supporting a team. You support it how you want to and ultimately it is up to the Club to engender the loyalty and also to provide entertainment and value for money.

 

With a few short term exceptions, every club's attendances will be be majorly impacted by success, performance, value for money, etc etc etc and to think we are any different is dinlo stuff.

 

I do find it ironic talking about support and loyalty with someone who has supported more clubs than he has had user names though:D

[dubai_phil]

does it matter..

 

To the employees and owners of the smaller trade creditors yes it does.

 

98 days at the previously suggested figure of 10k per day, no doubt plus expenses takes a big lump out of the money available for the smaller businesses around Southampton, it's not far off double what it could have been in fees....

 

Add to that the loss of Surman, Dyer, DMG. While we all have opinions as to their value to the team, we don't YET know enough to understand whether they will be replaced by Tessem (as an example)