Pompey Takeover Saga

[Doctoroncall]

Calling all experts. I thought there had to be a vote by 'non-associated' creditors - has this happened?

It wasn't that surprising the CVA passed. Football debt is classed as unsecured even though it gets paid in full. Add that to the Gaydy/other shady ex-owners debt and you are over halfway there.

Most of the rest of the creditors would just take it on the chin. Talking to our accountant at work about someone who has gone t1ts up on us I was surprised how relaxed he was about it & I guess that was the case with Terry the builer & the rest.

His £50 grand debt sounds a lot but, as I understand it with a bit of creative accounting, he can claim all the VAT back - £8750, he can set the loss against taxable income - £15000, and he gets up to £12500 back from Poopey, meaning his total loss is under £15k. Mentally it is written off by now, plus there is the promise of more work to come versus the nasty little threat of being named & shamed by Handy Andy.

I know administration has always been a murky world, but in my naivety I imagined an administrator as a neutral overseer of the process, and the power to reject potentially spurious claims as necessary, but it is extraordinary that he can cut a demand by HMRC just because he feels like it

 

Passed with 74%, see MLG post above for details (I didn't see Gaydamaks details in there).

[Gemmel]

Follow up to creditors meeting...

 

http://www.uhy-uk.com/media/download/turnaround-and-recovery/17.06%20Creditors%20meeting.pdf

 

 

Well well well, I didn't think this thread would have anything to offer until the 28th, which would be the last day (I think) that HMRC could contest the CVA.

Some quick highlights from the above;

 

Two CVA votes (We need a Clapham or someone else who knows about these things), first vote 81% passed the CVA, second vote 74.07% (I guess this gets rouned upto 75%????

 

Total Debt is now 105 .4 million (83 unsecured and 22.4 secured), although this bit struck me as a bit strange - they expect the 83 milllion to reduce greatly once creditors have to prove the debt....... (Which is in line with the stories that lots of creditors dets were years old and had been paid a long time ago)....,.but then that means people who voted in favour of the CVA, didnt actually have any right to do so. The other point is that if this does happen, then there is no provision to paythe surplus money to genuine credititors.

 

Now just when you think aa might just actualllty know his stuff, he goes on to say all profits from the European cup competition (If they are allowed to play) will be shared amoungst the creditors...... This isn't champions league son - this WILL cost the club to play in and not that you have a flying fook of a chance at eing enetered.

 

If i have read it right the 74.07% meant they were 0.3% away from having it rejected. With aa admitting alll creditors are not genuine (ANd he can't be talking about HMRC as he only recoginsed 24 out of 32 million of their debt) that has to play in HMRC's favour with an almost guaranteed chance of success, if they challenge

 

I'm sure they will like those odds

[Gorgiesaint]

My initial reaction is how much of an effect this document may have on HMRC's case in their challenge to the football creditors rule. By law, all were allowed to vote but that list is dominated by football creditors who will receive 100% of their debt under the football creditors rule. Had they not been allowed to vote then there is no way that the CVA would have been approved.

 

There are a lack of smaller unsecured creditirs - where have they gone? The schools appear to have completed disappeared. And what has happened to the creditors represented by Griffins?

[dingbattigger]

74.07% would be rounded DOWN. 74.7% would be rounded UP.

[saintjay77]

OK I am confused again.

 

Poopy go into admin suggesting around 30 mil of debt I think, that quickly rose to around 60 mil and AA wanted creditors to prove they are owed the money so he could then proceed to work out the details of a CVA. Once creditors proved what they were owed the debt went up to around 130 mil and the CVA was based on that proven debt.

 

Why now is AA asking creditors to prove what they owe again after the CVA has initialy been approved? Would that CVA be worth anything at all if the amount of debt were to be adjusted again? If he has proposed to pay a creditor 20% of the debt that he has already agreed that is owed how can he now argue it again?

 

Im sure he is making it all up as he goes alone, trying to drag it out as long as possible but I dont get what reason he can have that would make his position any better? For such a high profile job you would think he would want to be seen as to be doing the job as best he can in order to secure future work and make a shed load of wonga.

[Gemmel]

Well this link says that Secured creditors do not vote on the CVA - Only unsecured

http://www.fasimms.com/cva.html

 

That list is full of secured creditors - Am I missing something????

[Wibble]

Seems the following voted against the CVA

 

Aquacars

Landscape Printers

Shell

Paul Hart

HMRC

Steve Kutner Management ( agent to Tommy Smith)

 

I've been through the original PDF ( the April one) of debts and can see Aquacars for £4,789.52, Landscape for £949.33 & Shell for £5,190.11 but can't find Paul Hart or Steve Kutner - mind you I gave up due to my neck aching because of the stupid pdf and it's vertical listings!

[hypochondriac]

So in order to get a CVA approved, you can invent a load of old debt and get those creditors to approve a CVA. They then cannot prove they are owed any money so you don't actually have to pay them? That's outrageous!

[Wes Tender]

Im sure he is making it all up as he goes alone, trying to drag it out as long as possible but I dont get what reason he can have that would make his position any better? For such a high profile job you would think he would want to be seen as to be doing the job as best he can in order to secure future work and make a shed load of wonga.

 

Or else he could establish a reputation as he already appears to have done, that he is an individual who is prepared to act unethically and to bend the rules to suit those who employ his services rather than the ordinary creditors. I'm certain that there are plenty of dodgy businesses out there who would consider the Android to be the perfect IP for them.

[saintjay77]

Or else he could establish a reputation as he already appears to have done, that he is an individual who is prepared to act unethically and to bend the rules to suit those who employ his services rather than the ordinary creditors. I'm certain that there are plenty of dodgy businesses out there who would consider the Android to be the perfect IP for them.

 

It seems strange that there is not someone above making sure the rules are followed to get rid of dodgy IP's.

 

I know Clapham has stated a few times that AA makes the IP business look bad. But who regulates that business?

[bridge too far]

It seems strange that there is not someone above making sure the rules are followed to get rid of dodgy IP's.

 

I know Clapham has stated a few times that AA makes the IP business look bad. But who regulates that business?

 

 

Found this:

 

http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/snha-05531.pdf

 

see bottom of page 3

 

Also found this:

 

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20050524.htm

[hutch]

Follow up to creditors meeting...

 

http://www.uhy-uk.com/media/download/turnaround-and-recovery/17.06%20Creditors%20meeting.pdf

I've had a quick look through. A few things strike me:

 

• HMRC are still on the Creditor's Committee
  
• 9 months to winding-up is not cast in stone .. "or such further period as creditors may allow"
  
• Payment of the first installment from player sales is only "anticipated"
  
• The CVA relies on HMRC losing the "football creditor's rule" challenge
  
• If (when) AA reduces the actual amount to be paid to creditors, the windfall will go to the paymaster, not the other creditors
  
• The actual amount of UNSECURED creditor claims is £162m. AA has "accepted" £131m
  
• They owe money to approximately 47 current or former players
  
• Those players are claiming £46m. AA has "accepted" £29m
  
• They owe English clubs £8.7m
  
• They owe foreign (French) clubs £6.4m
  
• Chainrai (Portpin) is not the owner, although he clearly tugs the chain
  
• The Fake Sheikh (10%) and Al Mirage (Falcondrone) (90%) are the owners
  

That smell hasn't gone away

[Doctoroncall]

If i have read it right the 74.07% meant they were 0.3% away from having it rejected. With aa admitting alll creditors are not genuine (ANd he can't be talking about HMRC as he only recoginsed 24 out of 32 million of their debt) that has to play in HMRC's favour with an almost guaranteed chance of success, if they challenge

 

I'm sure they will like those odds

 

The second vote is for non-associated creditors and the pass mark is 50%. (the invisible one and the big one are associated being owners).

Edited 22 June, 2010 by Doctoroncall

[saintjay77]

Found this:

 

http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/snha-05531.pdf

 

see bottom of page 3

 

Also found this:

 

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20050524.htm

 

wow shed loads of info. most of it is above me lol.

 

Stange that Clapham suggests he and others think AA give there business a bad name but nothing is done about it. I guess he always manages to act within the lines of those documents.

[rallyboy]

I don't like to kick creditors when they're down but anyone who said yes to 4p in the pound per year LESS the administrator's expenses is an idiot and deserves to be ripped off.

 

I cannot imagine a situation where a normal businessman would accept that - I would happily write off my 3p to dance on the corporate grave of any company that tried to steal money.

That document looks like theft on a grand scale, live the dream and pay it back in dribs and drabs.

 

I look forward to HMRC getting into the detail, establishing the facts, and showing this farce up for what it is.

[Gorgiesaint]

• They owe money to approximately 47 current or former players
  
• Those players are claiming £46m. AA has "accepted" £29m
  
• They owe English clubs £8.7m
  
• They owe foreign (French) clubs £6.4m
  

 

So even if the football creditors rule stays in place then (assuming the French clubs are outside the rule) then that still £37.7m out of the the £48m of parachute payments gone - not much left for Chainrai!!

[PompeyInReading]

It's quite simple really. If said billionaire owner decides to spend, for example, £100m on Ronaldo and pays him £200k per week out of his own pocket, then the club is living within its means (even if the club only has an average crowd of one man and his dog). The same is true if the money is borrowed and the billionaire owner pays it back at whatever time frame is agreed upon. It may seem unfair for a few clubs to have a sugar daddies, but that's life and it doesn't break any rules.

 

Unless ML defaults on any debts (and by all accounts there aren't even any) Saints are living within their means.

 

It's when an owner (rich or not) borrows money to fund a squad of highly paid mercenaries for a tin-pot club, and otherwise could not afford players on 1/4 of the salaries, and then goes into administration, paying back creditors 20p in the pound, that's when they were living beyond their means. Not only did they steal from creditors, but also from other teams who lived within their means but were denied a place in the PL or progress in the Cup by the

 

CHEATING BASTARDS

 

Precisely my point.

 

At the moment you assume that all funds spent will be either a gift or interest free loan or something similar and don’t imagine that its going to be a problem. As such you can pass it off as not really overspending.

 

We were told this very same thing, but of coursed it did turn out to be a problem. At the time of having all the expensive players we still believed it to be the case. Since then of course Gaydamak has quite literally shafted us.

 

I hope ML doesn’t do it to you (and suspect he wont). BUT, if he does I wont be turning around saying you lot are cheats for whatever you may have achieved during this period.

 

I can see that I am looking at this from a biased point of view and that the real truth is somewhere near the middle. Can you?

 

Lol by the way, with the accounting. I blame the spreadsheet and a lack of brain cells.

 

Also, how come no debt on the stadium – surely that cost a packet? Maybe not, as demonstrated I am no financial expert

[SuperMikey]

Precisely my point.

 

At the moment you assume that all funds spent will be either a gift or interest free loan or something similar and don’t imagine that its going to be a problem. As such you can pass it off as not really overspending.

 

We were told this very same thing, but of coursed it did turn out to be a problem. At the time of having all the expensive players we still believed it to be the case. Since then of course Gaydamak has quite literally shafted us.

 

I hope ML doesn’t do it to you (and suspect he wont). BUT, if he does I wont be turning around saying you lot are cheats for whatever you may have achieved during this period.

 

I can see that I am looking at this from a biased point of view and that the real truth is somewhere near the middle. Can you?

 

Lol by the way, with the accounting. I blame the spreadsheet and a lack of brain cells.

 

Also, how come no debt on the stadium – surely that cost a packet? Maybe not, as demonstrated I am no financial expert

 

The debt on the stadium was what took us into administration in the first place, but when ML bought the club in August he paid off all of our debts, including the re-negotiated stadium debt repayments.

[Weston Super Saint]

Precisely my point.

 

At the moment you assume that all funds spent will be either a gift or interest free loan or something similar and don’t imagine that its going to be a problem. As such you can pass it off as not really overspending.

 

We were told this very same thing, but of coursed it did turn out to be a problem. At the time of having all the expensive players we still believed it to be the case. Since then of course Gaydamak has quite literally shafted us.

 

I hope ML doesn’t do it to you (and suspect he wont). BUT, if he does I wont be turning around saying you lot are cheats for whatever you may have achieved during this period.

 

I can see that I am looking at this from a biased point of view and that the real truth is somewhere near the middle. Can you?

 

Lol by the way, with the accounting. I blame the spreadsheet and a lack of brain cells.

 

Also, how come no debt on the stadium – surely that cost a packet? Maybe not, as demonstrated I am no financial expert

 

No debt on the stadium because ML PAID FOR IT in FULL!!! - we went into admin with lots of debts, ML paid ALL OF THEM IN FULL! and we came out of admin with no debts.

 

I think that sums up the difference between the type of person ML is compared to the many potless, penniless chancers that have run Pompey for the last 10 years....

 

If in the unlikely event that it does all go pear shaped in the next decade for us, then I will not blame you for coming back and gloating that you told us so, however, bearing in mind MLs business philosophy to date, I'm confident you won't get the chance....

[saintjay77]

The debt on the stadium was what took us into administration in the first place, but when ML bought the club in August he paid off all of our debts, including the re-negotiated stadium debt repayments.

 

The debt on the stadium probably didnt help but it wasnt what took us into admin. The repayments were manageable on CCC funds and they could have probably been re-negotiated to be affordable in League 1.

 

The power struggle at the top cost us the most and the over spending in all directions during that period left us with nothing in the bank and a big (for us) overdraft. As soon as we hit that wall we went into admin.

 

The difference between us and poopy is when our game was up we took admin. Poopy just carried on sinking choosing to ignore any problems that may be there and let there debt get to 130 mil.

 

The stadium mortage and the bank OD were pretty much the only debts we had and were covered with full and final settlements from ML based on around 20 mil. That bought ML everything with no debt. Can anyone imagine someone getting poopy for that kind of money? Would anyone think its worth that kind of money? Even with no debt I think its a struggle to believe it would be a good buy for 20 mil.

 

Maybe cause I am biased but trying to be sensible about it, after the 20 mil it would need a shed load spent on players, ground, training facilitys and building up a trust with its fan base again. Not a purchase that anyone should take lightly IMO

[Matthew Le God]

Also, how come no debt on the stadium – surely that cost a packet? Maybe not, as demonstrated I am no financial expert

 

This is what makes Liebherr different from the many recent Pompey owners.

 

Do some research on the Liebherr dynasty going back to when Markus' dad Hans Liebherr started 60 years ago his consruction company and you will see it is a policy of theirs to not accrue any debt. The takeover wiped out all debt on the stadium, which was the burden around the clubs neck and is no longer there.

 

Liebherr is also investing heavily in a massive training ground & academy upgrade.

 

http://web3.newforest.gov.uk/images/planningimages/129047_1.pdf

 

Also the concourses are being reworked in the summer, corporates facilities being updated and the changing rooms have already been redone. Not the actions of someone in it for the short term!

[Gemmel]

No debt on the stadium because ML PAID FOR IT in FULL!!! - we went into admin with lots of debts, ML paid ALL OF THEM IN FULL! and we came out of admin with no debts.QUOTE]

 

No he didn't - we have the moral high ground, no point in exagerating.

[PompeyInReading]

No debt on the stadium because ML PAID FOR IT in FULL!!! - we went into admin with lots of debts, ML paid ALL OF THEM IN FULL! and we came out of admin with no debts.

 

I think that sums up the difference between the type of person ML is compared to the many potless, penniless chancers that have run Pompey for the last 10 years....

 

If in the unlikely event that it does all go pear shaped in the next decade for us, then I will not blame you for coming back and gloating that you told us so, however, bearing in mind MLs business philosophy to date, I'm confident you won't get the chance....

 

That’s a pretty good sugar daddy you have there.

 

How much did the stadium cost?

[Gemmel]

That’s a pretty good sugar daddy you have there.

 

How much did the stadium cost?

 

Smaller crediotrs were apprently paid in full, Aviva (Stadium) and Bank (Barclays) were not.

 

Total deal for everything was somewhere between 11 and 13 million depending on where the Surman money went, or if the price was dropped by the same as his transfer fee

[Matthew Le God]

 

No he didn't - we have the moral high ground, no point in exagerating.

 

That’s a pretty good sugar daddy you have there.

 

How much did the stadium cost?

 

No one actually knows how much Liebherr paid do they? It is extremely unlikely he paid 100% and was likely much less. However the circa £30 million mortgage with Aviva was until 2026. Aviva didn't need to accept a smaller amount just for it to be paid off. I'm sure if they wanted they could just say "lets keep it until 2026". It was the £5 million overdraft with Barclays that was called in that needed paying sharpish.

Edited 22 June, 2010 by Matthew Le God

[Gemmel]

 

 

 

No one actually knows how much Liebherr paid do they? It is all speculation whether he paid 100% or not. It is extremely unlikely he paid 100% and was likely much less. However the mortgage with Aviva was until 2026. Aviva didn't need to accept a smaller amount just for it to be paid off. I'm sure if they wanted they could just say "lets keep it until 2026".

 

It's not speculation. We know from Mark Fry, the figures to satisfy the crediotrs stood at just under 13 million....as in that was what an investor would need to pay. Then depending on what happened to the surman fee, give us a good idea (If not exact) of what we were sold for.

 

As for the stadium - see companies house (This was posted on here by Guided Missile) where the debts were discharged for significantly less than was owed.

 

ML did not pay in full for the stadium, anybody that thinks he offered another 15 million because he is a super nice guy, needs help.

[CB Fry]

Aviva didn't need to accept a smaller amount just for it to be paid off. I'm sure if they wanted they could just say "lets keep it until 2026". QUOTE]

 

Yes they did, and no they couldn't.

 

Aviva had a mortgage agreement with SLH, not Leibherr. The whole admin process essentially was about Aviva being forced to write off vast amounts of their mortgage.

 

They took the best offer they could get which was the figure that ML put on the table. Aviva saying "Let's keep it until 2026" was not an option, at all, ever.

 

All this was made pretty clear by Mark Fry and ML/NC a year ago.

[EastleighSoulBoy]

My initial reaction is how much of an effect this document may have on HMRC's case in their challenge to the football creditors rule. By law, all were allowed to vote but that list is dominated by football creditors who will receive 100% of their debt under the football creditors rule. Had they not been allowed to vote then there is no way that the CVA would have been approved.

 

There are a lack of smaller unsecured creditirs - where have they gone? The schools appear to have completed disappeared. And what has happened to the creditors represented by Griffins?

 

Creditors owed £2,500 or less were promised full and final payment by B.C. so they didn't really need to vote or had their vote discounted?

 

Tactical relocation of company debts and voting rights?

[EastleighSoulBoy]

The debt on the stadium was what took us into administration in the first place, but when ML bought the club in August he paid off all of our debts, including the re-negotiated stadium debt repayments.

 

This what I can't understand. At the time was it not that Barclays bounced a cheque for a nominal amount (Ok, £6,000 over the overdraft is immense to me!) ?

 

That wasn't a payment for the stadium mortgage. Although it may have been caused because the mortgage payment took us to our overdraft limit?

[EastleighSoulBoy]

No one actually knows how much Liebherr paid do they? It is extremely unlikely he paid 100% and was likely much less. However the circa £30 million mortgage with Aviva was until 2026. Aviva didn't need to accept a smaller amount just for it to be paid off. I'm sure if they wanted they could just say "lets keep it until 2026". It was the £5 million overdraft with Barclays that was called in that needed paying sharpish.

 

Whilst ML is seen as a philanthropist, from our view, I'd bet he didn't get there by not being tough and taking any pecuniary advantage he could. He does look like a long lost uncle but there's a brain driven by financial acumen inside that avuncular facade.

[Whitey Grandad]

That’s a pretty good sugar daddy you have there.

 

How much did the stadium cost?

 

I seem to remember the original building cost was of the order of £32m. It's more than just a stadium at the moment with all sorts of offfices and things and I'm led to believe is self-financing at the original price.

[Gemmel]

I seem to remember the original building cost was of the order of £32m. It's more than just a stadium at the moment with all sorts of offfices and things and I'm led to believe is self-financing at the original price.

 

In the prem, then yes it was. After that we renegociated the terms twice (Thats in the pulic domain) (Lowe and Crouch once each) as in we couldnt afford the repayments.

There is no cost now as it is ours (Well Marcus's) so nothing to benchmark it against. The repayments were around 2 million a year from memory.

[derry]

I was quoted an outstanding mortgage of about £23m which was settled in full for about £7m. A similar figure to the Ipswich £28m mortgage settlement by Evans when he bought the club. The Stadium along with the club and SLH assets were purchased by Leibherr, the creditors such as Barclays agreed a settlement, leaving the club debt free and SLH liquidated.

[gaz]

Creditors owed £2,500 or less were promised full and final payment by B.C. so they didn't really need to vote or had their vote discounted?

 

Tactical relocation of company debts and voting rights?

 

Thats probably what HMRC were on about when they mentioned the vote was rigged against them.

[bridge too far]

Thats probably what HMRC were on about when they mentioned the vote was rigged against them.

)

This is probably hopeful and misguided but I thought all creditors had to get the same deal (footballing creditors aside)?

[St Chalet]

A number of interesting points:

 

- They paid Eugene Bopp, even though they were barred from signing him IIRC.

 

- Are the sums owed to players wages or image rights? If the former then the amount of tax / NI increases, if the latter then I note that these are directly attributabe to the players (not a trust) and therefore would also incur NI dedcutions.

 

- AA will become liquidator and investigate.....

[SuperMikey]

This what I can't understand. At the time was it not that Barclays bounced a cheque for a nominal amount (Ok, £6,000 over the overdraft is immense to me!) ?

 

That wasn't a payment for the stadium mortgage. Although it may have been caused because the mortgage payment took us to our overdraft limit?

 

When I said that the debt repayments were what took us into admin I didn't mean it was just those, there were obviously other contributing factors. I'm sure that those repayments definitely took us to the brink though, letting Burley spend £7m and then not get us promoted (and then relegated a few seasons later) can't have helped either. £6000 over the overdraft limit is a lot to you and I, but to a football club I should imagine it's peanuts; equivalent to the wages of an average CCC squad player p/w.

[Matthew Le God]

Thats probably what HMRC were on about when they mentioned the vote was rigged against them.

 

)

This is probably hopeful and misguided but I thought all creditors had to get the same deal (footballing creditors aside)?

 

Chainrai paid it out of his own pocket and is legal to do if those involved wipe off the debt I believe. It wouldn't have made much of a difference % wise as would be a relatively small amount.

Edited 22 June, 2010 by Matthew Le God

[PompeyInReading]

A number of interesting points:

 

- They paid Eugene Bopp, even though they were barred from signing him IIRC.

 

- Are the sums owed to players wages or image rights? If the former then the amount of tax / NI increases, if the latter then I note that these are directly attributabe to the players (not a trust) and therefore would also incur NI dedcutions.

 

- AA will become liquidator and investigate.....

 

I could be wrong of course but I am sure I saw articles saying that the overdraft was 6m. Stand to be corrected.

 

To re-cap then, administration was a really good deal for you guys. Basically a free stadium, which will go on to contribute to your income to be used on footballl for the rest of your clubs days. I know ML has paid it in full, but withou going into admin I guess that would have not been possible.

 

I dont think admin will be as kind to us as I dont think we will get to keep the players as you have your stadium as I dont think thats an option. Plus on top of that there is the funds that Gaydamak etc are claiming together with 24m taxes (How they can not pay that beggars beleif to be honest and its an absolute disgrace)

 

Intersting to note that our footballing debt is 22.4m, a similar figure to the mortgage on your stadium. Whats the better value? Stadium probably.

 

The sooner we are rid of all individuals assocaited with this mess the better

[suewhistle]

Well said PompeyinReading: it's just you're going to have a hard job explaining some of these facts to your fellow supporters. The lack of sympathy you might have seen here is partly the result of your club vigorously digging whilst still in a hole and supporters completely ignoring what was going on.

 

We've gone from chuckling at a rival's misfortune, to disbelief, to angry and disgusted disbelief. Nothing personal, you understand.

[Weston Super Saint]

To re-cap then, administration was a really good deal for you guys.

 

No, no it wasn't

 

For the entire season BEFORE we went into admin we cut to the bone - literally

 

You may recall we employed a Dutch clown to run the team, why was that? That's right he was cheap like the budgie. We then got rid of all the high earners / half decent players that we could, and were left with 'the kids' - surely you remember them right?

 

So, instead of spending more money getting in loan deals, we sold everything that was nailed down, even a train painting IIRC in an attempt to keep the ship afloat, which ultimately ended in our relegation

 

You guys on the other hand did what to avoid admin? Oh yeah, that's right you spent some more money and stuck two fingers up to everyone.

[West End Saint]

No, no it wasn't

 

For the entire season BEFORE we went into admin we cut to the bone - literally

 

You may recall we employed a Dutch clown to run the team, why was that? That's right he was cheap like the budgie. We then got rid of all the high earners / half decent players that we could, and were left with 'the kids' - surely you remember them right?

 

So, instead of spending more money getting in loan deals, we sold everything that was nailed down, even a train painting IIRC in an attempt to keep the ship afloat, which ultimately ended in our relegation

 

You guys on the other hand did what to avoid admin? Oh yeah, that's right you spent some more money and stuck two fingers up to everyone.

 

Spot on ! this is really p1ssing me off it will be a outrage if the skates start next season on level points.

 

They have done nothing to sort out there mess in fact they just kept spending and making it worse whilst I know that financialy they are screwed for the foreseeable future I hope the football league find a reason to give them points deductions.

 

I know there is a long way to go and they are still in the poo but if they start on level points it will make my blood boil.

 

Cheating Skate Barstewards

[sidthesquid]

Can someone give us the highlights or print it out in another form. Everytime I try to access this my computer disconnects from the internet. Knows a dodgy, infected site when it sees one, I guess.

 

http://www.uhy-uk.com/media/download/turnaround-and-recovery/17.06%20Creditors%20meeting.pdf

[FMPR]

No, no it wasn't

 

For the entire season BEFORE we went into admin we cut to the bone - literally

 

You may recall we employed a Dutch clown to run the team, why was that? That's right he was cheap like the budgie. We then got rid of all the high earners / half decent players that we could, and were left with 'the kids' - surely you remember them right?

 

So, instead of spending more money getting in loan deals, we sold everything that was nailed down, even a train painting IIRC in an attempt to keep the ship afloat, which ultimately ended in our relegation

 

You guys on the other hand did what to avoid admin? Oh yeah, that's right you spent some more money and stuck two fingers up to everyone.

 

What did we do?

 

Sold Glen Johnson, Lassana Diarra, Jermain Defoe, Peter Crouch, Sulley Muntari, Sylvain Distin, Asmir Begovic for one

[Sevvy]

But where did the money go?

[pfc123]

It's not speculation. We know from Mark Fry, the figures to satisfy the crediotrs stood at just under 13 million....as in that was what an investor would need to pay. Then depending on what happened to the surman fee, give us a good idea (If not exact) of what we were sold for.

 

As for the stadium - see companies house (This was posted on here by Guided Missile) where the debts were discharged for significantly less than was owed.

 

ML did not pay in full for the stadium, anybody that thinks he offered another 15 million because he is a super nice guy, needs help.

 

Right, in light of the above statement, this purile, immature "Cheats" thing when referring to us is laughable, because you are no different to us. YOU tried to cheat by saying that SLH and southampton FC were two different entities when everyone knew they weren't- even Leon Crouch admitted as much, and the giveaway was SLH's official website address: saintsfc.co.uk!!

 

You spent money you didn't have on a stadium you couldn't afford if you got relegated, so you gambled- sound familiar does it? You then gambled another 7 million on signing players you knew you couldn't afford to sign in an attempt at getting back into the Premiership- sound familiar? Then the whole house of cards comes tumbling down when the bank draw a line under you because you're effectively trading whilst insolvent- sound familiar?

 

So, when the dust settles you owe 32-34 million? The Cranemeister then comes in and pays 13 million plus maybe the Surman fee- so debts NOT paid in full and in fact nowhere near paid in full- sound familiar?

 

I was quoted an outstanding mortgage of about £23m which was settled in full for about £7m. A similar figure to the Ipswich £28m mortgage settlement by Evans when he bought the club. The Stadium along with the club and SLH assets were purchased by Leibherr, the creditors such as Barclays agreed a settlement, leaving the club debt free and SLH liquidated.

 

If you owe £23m and you only pay £7m of that back that is not settled in full is it? Admit it, the rest was written off wasn't it?

 

Spot on ! this is really p1ssing me off it will be a outrage if the skates start next season on level points.

 

They have done nothing to sort out there mess in fact they just kept spending and making it worse whilst I know that financialy they are screwed for the foreseeable future I hope the football league find a reason to give them points deductions.

 

I know there is a long way to go and they are still in the poo but if they start on level points it will make my blood boil.

 

Cheating Skate Barstewards

 

You are no different to us......

[FMPR]

But where did the money go?

 

Who knows (and shouldnt you be doing some work), but we were told those players were being sold to get us back on an even keel

[miserableoldgit]

Who knows (and shouldnt you be doing some work), but we were told those players were being sold to get us back on an even keel

The words "Mary Rose" come to mind!

[Gingeletiss]

You are no different to us......

 

Oh but we are, by a country mile, but you and your fellow bottom dwellers, fail to see that. How am I not surprised! Been in admin before have we? learnt how to do it bigger and better this time? Don't come on here claiming the moral highground, ffs, we can't even post on your poxy comments section in that crappy local rag you have:x, let alone go on your forums without vile abuse being levied at us!.

[Doctoroncall]

You are no different to us......

 

I would believe you if:

 

we'd racked up £50m plus in debt,

lied to the FL about the amount of debt,

played our first team instead of the youth and reserve players

didn't cut costs at the club

employed 500 people which were later shown to be a lie

employed a manager on more money than your chauffeur

traded while insolvent

gone to court facing a winding up order

transfered players in when trading insolvent

owed monies to charities

owed HMRC tax revenue

 

then yes we would be no different.