Rape and Pillage....

[Polaroid Saint]

Well said GM. It's another case of money looking after money, the devil for his own.

 

Fry's seeming 'lack of ability' appears to have contributed to whole debacle dragging on and on. Which in turn meant DmcG and Drew were sold to pay other wages (directly including Mr Fy's of course...)

[once_bitterne]

To be honest, if you are saying that Administrators should always do the best for the creditors and in our case that would have meant selling to the Keith Harris lot as they were offering more then I am very happy that Begbies did such a poor job.

 

I am far happier with the club in the hands of Liebherr than some 'Worldwide Consortium' who could have anyone in its midst and had the legendary figure of Gordon Watson as its 'football face'......

[saintjay77]

if it is only 500k Id be surprised. Perhaps they will lose some of theor charges elsewhere. It would be good if Clapham came on and gave his view on the fee expected.

I also believe that the administrator may also take commission form the sale of players. As I have put elsewhere a business i know of that went into administration put thier stock into auction and not only did they pay auctioneers fees but the adminisrator levied 15% as well.

 

Not sure if they take commission on the players as SFC wasnt in Administration. When Players were sold Fry released a statement to thank the board of SFC for selling players in order to pay staff wages. Sounded like he was still trying to keep SLH and SFC as seperate entities.

 

I would be suprised if 500K was all they got though. Personally I think there should be a set price Administrators get for a set period of time. The quicker they sort it the more profit they make. The longer they take the more they have to stretch that money and the less profit they make.

 

Administrators should get paid and I dont object to them being paid well but I dont like the idea that they could milk a company already in trouble by taking valuable time and money away from where its needed.

 

I bet BT got money before wages at SFC didnt get paid for instance?

[Johnny Bognor]

Well the small creditors would have got next to **** all anyway, as they always do. In every case I have experienced, you are extremely lucky if you get anywhere near 10p in the £. 1p in the £ is still pretty good these days.

 

A good lesson learned in my early days was that you don't extend more credit than you can afford to lose. You also accrue for bad debt so that when it does happen, you can absorb it with relative ease.

 

To be fair, post relegation and looking at the finances of SLH over the last couple of years, they would have been on prepayment terms with me or I would have walked away. "A sale aint made until the money's in the bank", my old man used to say.

 

Having said this, the club can make amends and help those that have lost money by renewing contracts of supply and staying loyal to the local creditors who have lost out. Over time, they will make back their losses and if the club goes on to be more successful (and with our new backer that would seem to be odds on), then the small creditors may even make more out of the club than they would have done if SLH had not gone into administration.

Edited 10 July, 2009 by Johnny Bognor

[Clapham Saint]

if it is only 500k Id be surprised. Perhaps they will lose some of theor charges elsewhere. It would be good if Clapham came on and gave his view on the fee expected.

I also believe that the administrator may also take commission form the sale of players. As I have put elsewhere a business i know of that went into administration put thier stock into auction and not only did they pay auctioneers fees but the adminisrator levied 15% as well.

 

I don't think it would be either appropriate or sensible for me to either defend or criticise Begbies fee. Especially by posting on a public web forum like this one! To do so would be pure speculation as I don’t know the details of what happened during the course of the administration (neither does anybody else not directly involved).

 

GM will take my lack of comment to back up his opinion, this isn’t the case, there is simply not enough information to be able to make an informed comment.

 

A few general points though:

 

An administrator can charge fees either based upon time spent on the case or based on the amount of money realised but not both.

 

In this case it will be based on time spent.

 

There will have been more than just Mark Fry and Taylor working on the case but they also won’t have been working on it every hour of every day. The actual number of hours charged aren’t currently known, however some info on an administrators responsibilities for fees can be found here:

 

http://www.insolvency-practitioners.org.uk/uploads/9.%20SIP%209%20-%20May%202007.pdf

 

In particular para 3.5 on page 6…

 

 

“Regulation 36A of the Insolvency Regulations 1994 (as amended) requires insolvency office holders to provide certain information about time spent on a case, free of charge, upon request by specified persons. The persons entitled to ask for this information are –

i) any creditor in the case;

ii) where the case relates to a company, any director or contributory of that company; and

iii) where the case relates to an individual, that individual.

 

The information which must be provided is –

i) the total number of hours spent on the case by the practitioner or staff assigned to the case;

ii) for each grade of staff, the average hourly rate at which they are charged out;

iii) the number of hours spent by each grade of staff in the relevant period. “

 

So if anybody who is a creditor wants details of the costs they can ask for them.

 

They have to be disclosed within 28 days of the request.

 

 

The figure GM indicates is very plausible and is one of the key reasons that the entire process is a conflict of interest. Get the best deal for the creditors versus do it quickly and cheaply.

 

You can’t generalise like this. Doing the first deal available would be the quickest but might not raise the most money for creditors. There is a balance to be found to get the best result (which the administrator, as an officer of the court, is legal bound to seek to achieve).

 

 

 

If an administrator were to continually waste time and “overcharge” he would soon find that he had a reputation for doing so and wouldn’t get any work.

 

GM would prefer that administrators/IPs in general all died out but ultimately somebody needs to deal with insolvent companies and they need difficult qualifications to be able to do so.

 

Somebody needs to do the job and you either need to use less regulated and qualified individuals or acknowledge that professionals with the requisite qualifications will charge more for their time, as will more knowledgeable/qualified engineers/doctors/chemists/etc.

You obviously weren't a creditor, eg a small local business owed money....nor do you have a clue what their responsibility was. Just to help...it wasn't to find a new, rich owner, for a selfish and clueless fan like you....

 

A healthy dose of scare mongering again here (but why let that get in the way of a good rant). GM you well know that the vast majority of small local businesses owed money will have been dealing with Southampton Football Club Limited not with the holding company.

 

Southampton Football Club Limited has not been in administration and has just been purchased by an exceptionally wealthy backer and will be in a position to pay ALL of its creditors in full, to suggest otherwise is deliberate misdirection on your part.

[John B]

I don't think it would be either appropriate or sensible for me to either defend or criticise Begbies fee. Especially by posting on a public web forum like this one! To do so would be pure speculation as I don’t know the details of what happened during the course of the administration (neither does anybody else not directly involved).

 

GM will take my lack of comment to back up his opinion, this isn’t the case, there is simply not enough information to be able to make an informed comment.

 

A few general points though:

 

An administrator can charge fees either based upon time spent on the case or based on the amount of money realised but not both.

 

In this case it will be based on time spent.

 

There will have been more than just Mark Fry and Taylor working on the case but they also won’t have been working on it every hour of every day. The actual number of hours charged aren’t currently known, however some info on an administrators responsibilities for fees can be found here:

 

http://www.insolvency-practitioners.org.uk/uploads/9.%20SIP%209%20-%20May%202007.pdf

 

In particular para 3.5 on page 6…

 

 

 

So if anybody who is a creditor wants details of the costs they can ask for them.

 

They have to be disclosed within 28 days of the request.

 

 

 

You can’t generalise like this. Doing the first deal available would be the quickest but might not raise the most money for creditors. There is a balance to be found to get the best result (which the administrator, as an officer of the court, is legal bound to seek to achieve).

 

 

 

If an administrator were to continually waste time and “overcharge” he would soon find that he had a reputation for doing so and wouldn’t get any work.

 

GM would prefer that administrators/IPs in general all died out but ultimately somebody needs to deal with insolvent companies and they need difficult qualifications to be able to do so.

 

Somebody needs to do the job and you either need to use less regulated and qualified individuals or acknowledge that professionals with the requisite qualifications will charge more for their time, as will more knowledgeable/qualified engineers/doctors/chemists/etc.

 

A healthy dose of scare mongering again here (but why let that get in the way of a good rant). GM you well know that the vast majority of small local businesses owed money will have been dealing with Southampton Football Club Limited not with the holding company.

 

Southampton Football Club Limited has not been in administration and has just been purchased by an exceptionally wealthy backer and will be in a position to pay ALL of its creditors in full, to suggest otherwise is deliberate misdirection on your part.

 

Nice post I am always interested in what you say and if the small creditors have been paid I think going into administration has been a good thing in the long run.

 

It was the problem with small creditors and staff which worried me

[Rattlehead]

Sod the creditors, we're minted! More fool them for extending credit to a company that was known to be struggling for cash.

 

Where did the £1.5m fee estimate come from anyway? I thought the consensus was it was £500k.

[Guided Missile]

I don't think it would be either appropriate or sensible for me to either defend or criticise Begbies fee. Especially by posting on a public web forum like this one! To do so would be pure speculation as I don’t know the details of what happened during the course of the administration (neither does anybody else not directly involved).

Why does the phrase "As thick as thieves" comes into my mind...?

[notnowcato]

Why does the phrase "As thick as thieves" comes into my mind...?

 

One for your psychotherapist methinks

[Elmore]

I knew it wouldn't last. Two days of happiness and now back to whinging.

[alpine_saint]

I knew it wouldn't last. Two days of happiness and now back to whinging.

 

Indeed. Its pathetic. Its not even Saints-related really.

[miserableoldgit]

Indeed. Its pathetic. Its not even Saints-related really.

There are one or two posters on here who are only happy when they are moaning. If they won £25M pound on the Lottery, they`d moan that it wasn`t £26M!

[Clapham Saint]

Why does the phrase "As thick as thieves" comes into my mind...?

 

No, as I said I'm not passing judgement either way.

 

There isn't the information to make an opinion unless you are prepared to make snap judgements based upon rumours, guesswork and frankly up made up figures.

 

On small fact that you seem to be overlooking when deciding if BT have charged over the odds is what the actual fee is, but this is obviuosly incedental to you.

 

You have read a statement, not issued by BT, that the fee "may rise".

 

The jorno might be right but until BT make a request for fees it is pure speculation.

 

Am sure you will continue to let that slide however.

 

Why not just be pleased about the FACT that we have been saved?

[OldNick]

I don't think it would be either appropriate or sensible for me to either defend or criticise Begbies fee. Especially by posting on a public web forum like this one! To do so would be pure speculation as I don’t know the details of what happened during the course of the administration (neither does anybody else not directly involved).

 

GM will take my lack of comment to back up his opinion, this isn’t the case, there is simply not enough information to be able to make an informed comment.

 

A few general points though:

 

An administrator can charge fees either based upon time spent on the case or based on the amount of money realised but not both.

 

In this case it will be based on time spent.

 

There will have been more than just Mark Fry and Taylor working on the case but they also won’t have been working on it every hour of every day. The actual number of hours charged aren’t currently known, however some info on an administrators responsibilities for fees can be found here:

 

http://www.insolvency-practitioners.org.uk/uploads/9.%20SIP%209%20-%20May%202007.pdf

 

In particular para 3.5 on page 6…

 

 

 

So if anybody who is a creditor wants details of the costs they can ask for them.

 

They have to be disclosed within 28 days of the request.

 

 

 

You can’t generalise like this. Doing the first deal available would be the quickest but might not raise the most money for creditors. There is a balance to be found to get the best result (which the administrator, as an officer of the court, is legal bound to seek to achieve).

 

 

 

If an administrator were to continually waste time and “overcharge” he would soon find that he had a reputation for doing so and wouldn’t get any work.

 

GM would prefer that administrators/IPs in general all died out but ultimately somebody needs to deal with insolvent companies and they need difficult qualifications to be able to do so.

 

Somebody needs to do the job and you either need to use less regulated and qualified individuals or acknowledge that professionals with the requisite qualifications will charge more for their time, as will more knowledgeable/qualified engineers/doctors/chemists/etc.

 

A healthy dose of scare mongering again here (but why let that get in the way of a good rant). GM you well know that the vast majority of small local businesses owed money will have been dealing with Southampton Football Club Limited not with the holding company.

 

Southampton Football Club Limited has not been in administration and has just been purchased by an exceptionally wealthy backer and will be in a position to pay ALL of its creditors in full, to suggest otherwise is deliberate misdirection on your part.

Clapham, thanks for your reply.I myself have found your knowledge very helpful during the most stressful times in the takeover.

Yes administrators are required and do need skills and are needed, sometimes though I feel that they can be the medicine that kills the patient.

[PokingFun]

I certainly agree Fry has some questions he needs answering. In last night's Echo Cortese said even as Pinnacle was given exclusivity " I told him (Liebherr) there was a bit of evidence that the group might not be in a position to complete and we became convinced it was the case......." He also says later in the article "we felt a bit misled" .

 

These are points Fry should clear up - in those 4 weeks while we waited for Pinnacle to sign off the deal Begbies pocketed nearly a quarter of a million.

 

Fry doesn't need to clear anything up, his job is now complete and we should be happy to simply move on now in the knowledge that we have secured someone who seems very serious about our future.

 

Personally, I don't care about the past now, its onwards and upwards I hope!

[alpine_saint]

I really, really dont understand why this b*ll*cks is still going.

 

Some of you claim that Pinnacle held up, nay, jepoardised the Liebherr deal. Having not read Cortese's interview in the Echo, I can only say there is nothing to indicate Liebherr lost interest. In fact, the comment above inidicates they suspected Pinnacle would fall through and were willing to wait.

 

Now conisder this. The fairly public barney between Pinnacle and the FL may not only have made all sides (including the FL) more focused and urgent about concluding when the Liebherr deal came possible again, but it MAY have given the FL a slap to prevent further points deductions.

 

I would suggest you all stop f**king moaning. It's all a part of history as much as Lowe is.

[SP Saint]

Interesting to read Clapham's point that as SFC which was not in Admin has been bought, all the small business creditors of the Club itself will be paid in full. That is good news.

 

Also as Lowe appointed the Administrator, why is GM so surprised that (in his opinion) they have been incompetent? When did Rupes ever get anything right?

[Guided Missile]

You have read a statement, not issued by BT, that the fee "may rise".

 

The jorno might be right but until BT make a request for fees it is pure speculation.

Try to be objective and avoid misquoting what was written, FFS.

 

I read the Times story as follows:

 

"Meanwhile, Begbies Traynor, the firm that handled the club’s 98 days in administration, yesterday reported a 29 per cent rise in revenues to £62.1 million in the year ending April 2009, and no wonder, some will say. Although its fee was originally estimated at £500,000, it has risen to three times that amount for a performance that has impressed few. One rival consortium was especially unhappy that it was unable to succeed with a bid that was higher than that of Liebherr."

 

You seem remarkably sanquine about the fees, seeing as you posted this not too long ago:

 

If Bournmouth fees were £100k then maybe I was too bullish above when I said upwards of £250....

 

I would have thought saints would be similar as although we are a "bigger club" the work required should be similar.

 

Just stick this one in, for good measure:

 

To suggest that Mr. Fry is simply dragging things out to increase his fee is just silly (IMO). I've never met him personally but I would be amazed if he was that unprofessional. (Although I am aware of GM's views of IPs as a whole).

Edited 10 July, 2009 by Guided Missile
Last post....

[Clapham Saint]

Try to be objective and avoid misquoting what was written, FFS.

 

I read the Times story as follows:

 

"Meanwhile, Begbies Traynor, the firm that handled the club’s 98 days in administration, yesterday reported a 29 per cent rise in revenues to £62.1 million in the year ending April 2009, and no wonder, some will say. Although its fee was originally estimated at £500,000, it has risen to three times that amount for a performance that has impressed few. One rival consortium was especially unhappy that it was unable to succeed with a bid that was higher than that of Liebherr."

 

You seem remarkably sanquine about the fees, seeing as you posted this not too long ago:

 

 

 

Just stick this one in, for good measure:

 

Here we go...

 

I'm sure you can tell me exactly what the date was when I posted that, however at the time there was no reason to expect that our administration would last over 3 months or that it would run into the complications (wowever caused) that it obviuosly did. I simply stated that as the work should be similar, I would therefore expect that the fee would be similar. At the time there was no reason to suppose differently.

 

How long did Bournmouth's take?

 

Did they have the same number of legal issues to be resolved?

 

Did they have the same number of biders to sift through?

 

 

You are also still taking the £1.5m as fact when at the moment it is nothing of the sort. As far as I am aware BT have not yet made any request for fees. Although they obviously will, untill they do so you or I (or a jorno) have no idea what there fees are and so can only speculate.

 

You are operating on the assumptions that

 

1) BT's fees are going to be £1.5m

2) BT are not able to justify the time that will make up this amount.

 

You might (that's MIGHT) be proved correct, however it is also quite possible that BT will charge the £500k that they originally quoted or that that the delays weren't their fault. WE DO NOT KNOW.

 

What I object to isn't that you think the fees charged (be they £1bn or £1) are too high, (that is obviously your opinion and up to you), its that you whip yourself up into a foaming fury based upon half facts and guesswork and then present your guesses as cast iron fact.

[St Marco]

Could not give a flying **** how much money they made from this club, if it is £1 or £3m. If someone said would you pay £3m to get rid of Lowe and all the depressing crap that has happened to gain a billionaire who is serious about taking the club forward then that is money well spent.

 

People need to let go of these negatives they seem to have. Reading some peoples remarks over the past few days they seem really bitter and upset that we have a new owner, giving off the impression they wanted the old days to continue....

[Clapham Saint]

Could not give a flying **** how much money they made from this club, if it is £1 or £3m. If someone said would you pay £3m to get rid of Lowe and all the depressing crap that has happened to gain a billionaire who is serious about taking the club forward then that is money well spent.

 

People need to let go of these negatives they seem to have. Reading some peoples remarks over the past few days they seem really bitter and upset that we have a new owner, giving off the impression they wanted the old days to continue....

 

+1.

[VectisSaint]

Could not give a flying **** how much money they made from this club, if it is £1 or £3m. If someone said would you pay £3m to get rid of Lowe and all the depressing crap that has happened to gain a billionaire who is serious about taking the club forward then that is money well spent.

 

People need to let go of these negatives they seem to have. Reading some peoples remarks over the past few days they seem really bitter and upset that we have a new owner, giving off the impression they wanted the old days to continue....

Agreed completely. It is a bit rich to go blaming the Administrator for doing their job. If there is blame to be apportioned then it sits squarely with those that took us into Administration (and I don't mean Barclays) not with begbies Taylor. GM's original post is as usual written to look convincing but is as often the case based on speculation and little factual evidence.

 

We have been taken over by a seemingly very cleaver and switched on billionaire, we are no longer restricted by a stupid plc set up by an even more stupid failed businessman, we have got rid of a useless manager, and some other consortium is a bit ****ed off.

 

Like most I really don't give a monkeys about the fees of the Administrator, and accept the fact that the pay off to the creditors was agreed by (the vast majority at least) of those creditors.

 

Is it just possible that we can all just be pleased that we actually still exist and have a bright future, because if it wasn't for the Administrator we would have been wound up some time ago.

[Fowllyd]

Agreed completely. It is a bit rich to go blaming the Administrator for doing their job. If there is blame to be apportioned then it sits squarely with those that took us into Administration (and I don't mean Barclays) not with begbies Taylor. GM's original post is as usual written to look convincing but is as often the case based on speculation and little factual evidence.

 

We have been taken over by a seemingly very cleaver and switched on billionaire, we are no longer restricted by a stupid plc set up by an even more stupid failed businessman, we have got rid of a useless manager, and some other consortium is a bit ****ed off.

 

Like most I really don't give a monkeys about the fees of the Administrator, and accept the fact that the pay off to the creditors was agreed by (the vast majority at least) of those creditors.

 

Is it just possible that we can all just be pleased that we actually still exist and have a bright future, because if it wasn't for the Administrator we would have been wound up some time ago.

 

Top post.

[David Strover]

He's a very angry man - a very angry man.

[1976_Child]

This thread is gay

[shurlock]

If the barrow boys have done a poor job while picking up a cushty fee, dont think they won't be consequences. The media is picking this story up in droves (befitting the high-profile nature of the adminstration) so BT's reputation is under scrutiny. It the media's analysis is correct, it is not implausible that others will, as a result, have second thoughts about using them.

 

That's their problem, not ours. Ours is to get a manager and squad together and prepare to get up the table as quickly as possible.

[eurosaint]

It strikes me that:

 

a) the creditors are happy with the deal !

b) the purchaser is happy with the deal !

c) the administrator is happy with the deal !

d) the supporters are happy with the deal !

e) Christ, even Alpine is happy with the deal !

z) Guided Missile is p*ssed off with the deal !

 

There's always at least one isn't there ????

[Give it to Ron]

Which in turn meant DmcG and Drew were sold to pay other wages (directly including Mr Fy's of course...)

 

If you think we could of kept hold of Drew instead of him going to a Premiership side for god knows how much more salary and the chance to play 2 divisions higher then you are way off.

McG wanted to go back to Nottingham to be near his family for months...there is no way he would of stayed to play in League 1 unless we paid him silly money.

[Chez]

I'll ask again GM, how many pennies in the pound did creditors get? You must know this to know they have been ripped off.

[alpine_saint]

I'll ask again GM, how many pennies in the pound did creditors get? You must know this to know they have been ripped off.

 

If the numbers being bandied about are true, its about 50p to the pound.

 

That is NOT a rip-off.

[Weston Super Saint]

Try to be objective and avoid misquoting what was written, FFS.

 

 

 

"Meanwhile, Begbies Traynor, the firm that handled the club’s 98 days in administration, yesterday reported a 29 per cent rise in revenues to £62.1 million in the year ending April 2009, and no wonder, some will say. Although its fee was originally estimated at £500,000, it has risen to three times that amount for a performance that has impressed few. One rival consortium was especially unhappy that it was unable to succeed with a bid that was higher than that of Liebherr."

 

 

On the subject of being objective....

 

How do they KNOW their bid was higher than LIebherr's bid?

 

The club was bought for an 'undisclosed' amount of money, so unless Fry [or one of his employees], told this rival bid what the figure was, then they would be speculating just like you are.

 

On the other hand if Fry has been spouting the figures of the 'undisclosed' bid to all and sundry, I'll send you some rope to hang him with

[Bucks Saint]

As someone who personally is an IP, and has worked on many Administrations etc over more than 15 years, then I can only say that GM's post, and several others on here, are simply based on a blissful ignorance of what is actually involved in trying to rescure a business which is not only bust, but is very publicly bust.

 

I am working on a similar job now, where a sale was expected some weeks ago, but for various reasons (all of which are related to purchasers "mucking about", seeking unreasonable last minute changes etc) it has yet to happen. This is frustrating and damaging and leads to challenges from creditors, staff, suppliers, customers. It is absolutely not in my interest to spin anything out / charge too much, or else I would struggle to work again. For BT, who have developed a reputation for dealing with footie clubs, this is even more the case. Creditors approve their fees and can challenge them in Court if need be. If Fry has done a poor job he will get paid less, and win less work in future, end of.

[um pahars]

As someone who personally is an IP, and has worked on many Administrations etc over more than 15 years, then I can only say that GM's post, and several others on here, are simply based on a blissful ignorance of what is actually involved in trying to rescure a business which is not only bust, but is very publicly bust.

 

I am working on a similar job now, where a sale was expected some weeks ago, but for various reasons (all of which are related to purchasers "mucking about", seeking unreasonable last minute changes etc) it has yet to happen. This is frustrating and damaging and leads to challenges from creditors, staff, suppliers, customers. It is absolutely not in my interest to spin anything out / charge too much, or else I would struggle to work again. For BT, who have developed a reputation for dealing with footie clubs, this is even more the case. Creditors approve their fees and can challenge them in Court if need be. If Fry has done a poor job he will get paid less, and win less work in future, end of.

 

I would agree 100% (and I said as much at the time when some others tried to claim that BT were stringing this out for their own benefit).

 

Insolvency is a regulated profession and some of the claims thrown at BT & Fry don't hold water (and I haven't seen any of the creditors moaning or complaining to the Head of Regulation).

 

As you have mentioned there are many IP's out there and if BT & Fry were seen to be putting their own interests before the creditotrs, then it wouldn't take long for word to get around the market place.

[Frank's cousin]

It strikes me that:

 

a) the creditors are happy with the deal !

b) the purchaser is happy with the deal !

c) the administrator is happy with the deal !

d) the supporters are happy with the deal !

e) Christ, even Alpine is happy with the deal !

z) Guided Missile is p*ssed off with the deal !

 

There's always at least one isn't there ????

 

LOL - especially the bit about Alps! ;-) Made me chuckle, but it is kinda great that we are all pretty happy with the deal

[Fitzhugh Fella]

I really, really dont understand why this b*ll*cks is still going.

 

Some of you claim that Pinnacle held up, nay, jepoardised the Liebherr deal. Having not read Cortese's interview in the Echo, I can only say there is nothing to indicate Liebherr lost interest. In fact, the comment above inidicates they suspected Pinnacle would fall through and were willing to wait.

 

Now conisder this. The fairly public barney between Pinnacle and the FL may not only have made all sides (including the FL) more focused and urgent about concluding when the Liebherr deal came possible again, but it MAY have given the FL a slap to prevent further points deductions.

 

I would suggest you all stop f**king moaning. It's all a part of history as much as Lowe is.

 

Alpine I suggest you do read the interview before making your mind up and also can I say if Pinnacle had not been given undeserved exclusivity then Surman and McGoldrick might still be wearing the red and white of Saints tomorrow at Dean Court. That very fact alone means it is far from history.

[alpine_saint]

Alpine I suggest you do read the interview before making your mind up and also can I say if Pinnacle had not been given undeserved exclusivity then Surman and McGoldrick might still be wearing the red and white of Saints tomorrow at Dean Court. That very fact alone means it is far from history.

 

Can you provide a link ? I'm happy to do so.

 

I am not completely certain that I am that bothered about losing those players, TBH. Besides, until I read the interview, the link between Pinnacle's exclusivity and them going seems like pure conjecture to me; both are young, impatient and want to ply their trade at a higher level, and I reckon McG was off back to Nottingham whatever happened.

[Fitzhugh Fella]

It strikes me that:

 

a) the creditors are happy with the deal !

b) the purchaser is happy with the deal !

c) the administrator is happy with the deal !

d) the supporters are happy with the deal !

e) Christ, even Alpine is happy with the deal !

z) Guided Missile is p*ssed off with the deal !

 

There's always at least one isn't there ????

 

Don't think LC is too happy either

 

and I think Drew Surman would have been quite happy to still be a Saint next season.

 

Don't get me wrong I am delighted to have my club owned by what appears to be an absolute godsend and one who is exceedingly wealthy and doesn't smuggle guns but I still think initial aspects of the attempted Pinnacle purchase were not handled well.

 

Tbh I am surprised that the carpet at SMS has any room for any more dirt.

 

When Wilde came I was one of the first lemmings over the cliff celebrating the demise of Lowe. 2nd time around I prefer to spare a second looking over my shoulder.

[Fitzhugh Fella]

Can you provide a link ? I'm happy to do so.

 

I am not completely certain that I am that bothered about losing those players, TBH. Besides, until I read the interview, the link between Pinnacle's exclusivity and them going seems like pure conjecture to me; both are young, impatient and want to ply their trade at a higher level, and I reckon McG was off back to Nottingham whatever happened.

 

Indeed McG would have gone whatever I suspect but not Drew. Whether or not you like him is irrelevant really - he went to pay the staff and adminstrators and had Pinnacle not delayed the Swiss taking over by 6 weeks then that would not have been neccessary. If Surman turns into a world super star (unlikely I know) we will all be hacked off he was forced to leave because a couple of North London property developers fancied making a few bob.

 

Sorry haven't a link, Alpine but I quoted some relevant excerpts in my first post on page 1.

[shurlock]

Can you provide a link ? I'm happy to do so.

 

I am not completely certain that I am that bothered about losing those players, TBH. Besides, until I read the interview, the link between Pinnacle's exclusivity and them going seems like pure conjecture to me; both are young, impatient and want to ply their trade at a higher level, and I reckon McG was off back to Nottingham whatever happened.

 

I think Surman was more likely to stay than DMG (and is probably the better player, so a bigger loss). On the other hand, now that we know that this takeover is not just any old takeover, a changing of the guard but promises to be pretty revolutionary, both might have been tempted to stay.If we manage to keep Schneiderlin in these circumstances (and unlike Surman and DMG, he doesnt have the attachment of coming up through the academy), I would have put good money on them staying. Certainly the likes of Beckford, Delph, Cox etc have shown you can get plenty of exposure in L1, even if you are young and impatient.

[jam]

Can you provide a link ? I'm happy to do so.

 

I am not completely certain that I am that bothered about losing those players, TBH. Besides, until I read the interview, the link between Pinnacle's exclusivity and them going seems like pure conjecture to me; both are young, impatient and want to ply their trade at a higher level, and I reckon McG was off back to Nottingham whatever happened.

 

Surman might not have had the best of seasons last year but from the games I saw, he was one of our better players.

 

He will be a loss, imho.

[Weston Super Saint]

Indeed McG would have gone whatever I suspect but not Drew. Whether or not you like him is irrelevant really - he went to pay the staff and adminstrators and had Pinnacle not delayed the Swiss taking over by 6 weeks then that would not have been neccessary. If Surman turns into a world super star (unlikely I know) we will all be hacked off he was forced to leave because a couple of North London property developers fancied making a few bob.

 

Sorry haven't a link, Alpine but I quoted some relevant excerpts in my first post on page 1.

 

?????

 

They had a 21 day exclusivity period = 3 weeks.

[saint_mears]

I am sure i read that GM you had run ins with administration ?

[EastleighSoulBoy]

You obviously weren't a creditor, eg a small local business owed money....nor do you have a clue what their responsibility was. Just to help...it wasn't to find a new, rich owner, for a selfish and clueless fan like you....

 

GM once again endearing himself to people with his vast knowledge and... err.. cultured(?) responses.

[Johnny Bognor]

I am sure i read that GM you had run ins with administration ?

 

 

Indeed, don't blame the administrators, blame the incompetent business owners.........

[EastleighSoulBoy]

I have no idea - perhaps he's having a bad day!!

 

Bad life more like!

[Fitzhugh Fella]

?????

 

They had a 21 day exclusivity period = 3 weeks.

 

I can tell you they first contacted Mark Fry on 29th April and they pulled out on June 30th, 10 whole days after exclusivity had lapsed. Therefore they were "around" for more than 2 months.

[Weston Super Saint]

I can tell you they first contacted Mark Fry on 29th April and they pulled out on June 30th, 10 whole days after exclusivity had lapsed. Therefore they were "around" for more than 2 months.

 

I'm sure they were!

 

But to say they 'stood in the way' and 'held up' the Swiss deal for over six weeks is complete nonsense!

 

They had an exclusivity period for 21 days only. Outside of those 21 days Mr Fry was free to talk to anyone who had something to say, hell he even spoke to Marc 'Big Top' Jackson!

[belgrave]

"Administrators do well in times of financial crisis shock horror"

 

Virtually all the firms that do admin work have seen a rise in (admin) business over the past 18 months.

[As have HR legal advisories, as have back office outsourcers].

 

Some administrators are no doubt better than others.

 

Fee rates would range from £600 per day to over £3K per day

 

I'd doubt if BT are charging anything other than market rates

 

If there is fault here, it is with the "selection of administrator" process.

[Clapham Saint]

Also one other thing which I should have mentioned on my previous replies to GM...

 

I don't beleive that BT will actually charge £1.5m in fees.

 

GM, you are welocme to save this post to avoid you having to search for it future (or whatever it is that seem to enjoy doing so much) but if Begbies are paid (or even request to be paid for that matter) £1.5m then I will be amazed, owe GM a heartfelt appology and start a threat about how I should have listened to him.

 

If they don't I will make a note to remember to point out to him that he is a scaremongering, trolling, tit only happy when he has something to be outraged.

[70's Mike]

I'm sure they were!

 

But to say they 'stood in the way' and 'held up' the Swiss deal for over six weeks is complete nonsense!

 

They had an exclusivity period for 21 days only. Outside of those 21 days Mr Fry was free to talk to anyone who had something to say, hell he even spoke to Marc 'Big Top' Jackson!

 

i suppose the point is that Fry had to decide who to initially go with, a swiss business mam or a group backed by the biggest hero in the club's history which had proved to him it had funds.