Mark Fry (Begbies Traynor) given award

[benjii]

Indeed, I have no problem with him getting a pat-on-the-back either.

 

On balance, we should be grateful to him

 

I agree completely.

[Whitey Grandad]

Right result, wrong route to get there.

[up and away]

That is an intersting and plausible scenario you paint but Cortese's comments in the Echo soon after Liebherr's arrival would indicate he at least felt Fry did not take the Swiss bid as seriously as he should have, expecially when it came to light that Pinnacle were not much more than speculators.

 

I think Fry took the easy option, plumped for Pinnacle on the sole basis Leon Crouch had delivered hard cash up to that point. Leon was well-intentioned I am sure but his generosity gave Pinnacle the "clout and gravitas" they did not deserve or warrant.

 

What I do not fully understand is why the exclusivity payment was not extended to other parties, with provisos that would see the money returned should others seal the deal? What does look amiss is the process where the highest return is selected, no matter how marginal, without any form of credit rating going against the competing parties?

 

From the creditors point of view Fry gambled slightly, which could have reduced their returns, but at the end of the day, alls well that ends well. But this has to be seen as an advantage for the fans at the possible expense of the creditors.

 

Things all turned out far better than imagined for all parties involved, but I cannot really see this going down to Fry's skills, more luck. Fry committed a major faux pas in his stance regarding the Football League ruling over acceptance of the administration rulings. Timing was such this could never be clarified in court and just left a delaying decoy for Pinnacle. Fry should have knocked this possibility on the head by aligning behind the League ruling, leaving the option of any action down to the buyers at a point after completion.

[saint_mears]

Nice little earner for begbies to drag it out another month

[dune]

Indeed, I have no problem with him getting a pat-on-the-back either.

 

On balance, we should be grateful to him

 

For those of us who listened to the BBC Solent fans forum and heard Nicola Cortese's comments on Fry it is clear that he thought Fry is an utter ****. I trust Nicolas judgement slightly more than yours.

 

http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=16759

 

Sounds like Fry ****ed about.

 

They had the 500k ready to go in late may.

 

All bank transfers agreed - but Fry called them and said that he'd given ''Pinaccle'' the exclusivity.

 

On May 22nd at 3pm Liebherr made a firm offer to buy the club.

 

Damn that Pinnacle bid!

 

Liebherr lost 3 weeks because of the Pinnacle fiasco.

 

ML turned up on May 27th and ready to go into exclusivity, but just lost out - then had to wait. Not sounding too complimentary about the adminstrators.........

 

Nicola said that it didn't seem like the administrators wanted them

 

they kept pushing the swiss away and putting obstacles in the way.

 

Painting Mark Fry very badly.

 

Sounds like we could have been sorted out by mid June until Fry Gave exclusivity to Pinnacle. NC saying beer prices not top of his prioritys know. NC now saying we are debt free.

 

They nearly walked away because "they weren't wanted". Thank god they didn't!!

 

Cortese basically calls Mark Fry an incompetent dickhead. (obviously not the words he used ). Also Tony Lynams consortium stopped us having a pre season under Marcus Liebherr and almost stopped the deal happening because of their time wasting.

[alpine_saint]

For those of us who listened to the BBC Solent fans forum and heard Nicola Cortese's comments on Fry it is clear that he thought Fry is an utter ****. I trust Nicolas judgement slightly more than yours.

 

http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=16759

 

You are entitled to your opinion, as am I.

 

Far as I am concerned, he played a siginificant role in saving the club. He made a reluctant Lowe resign. If Lowe had stayed on during admin, we might never have found a buyer with his interference.

 

You can trust whoever's judgement you like, as far as I am concerned.

[dune]

Far as I am concerned, he played a siginificant role in saving the club. He made a reluctant Lowe resign.

 

Oh i see. I can see i'm getting out of my depth in this discussion and bow to your superior knowledge.

[up and away]

You are entitled to your opinion, as am I.

 

Far as I am concerned, he played a siginificant role in saving the club. He made a reluctant Lowe resign. If Lowe had stayed on during admin, we might never have found a buyer with his interference.

 

You can trust whoever's judgement you like, as far as I am concerned.

 

What has Lowe got to do with this? As soon as Fry was appointed, Lowe no longer had any influence, he was neutered! So your now unstinting affection for Fry is based upon a total misconception!

[shurlock]

For those of us who listened to the BBC Solent fans forum and heard Nicola Cortese's comments on Fry it is clear that he thought Fry is an utter ****. I trust Nicolas judgement slightly more than yours.

 

http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=16759

 

I agree and NC is far too diplomatic to get into details. Giving Pinnacle exclusivity was one thing, acting like a cavalier toss*r with ML/NC was another. One did not require the other.

[Gemmel]

What has Lowe got to do with this? As soon as Fry was appointed, Lowe no longer had any influence, he was neutered! So your now unstinting affection for Fry is based upon a total misconception!

 

Actually lowe does play a part in this. I am certainly not sticking up for Fry as I do think he fooked up, but Fry only agreed to take SLH on, if lowe and the other execs resigned. As Alpine pointed out, this was hugely important on many levels, not least Crouch's funding that got us through the worst bits...... Do you really think he would have done that if lowe and his train were still there

[up and away]

Originally Posted by up and away

What has Lowe got to do with this? As soon as Fry was appointed, Lowe no longer had any influence, he was neutered! So your now unstinting affection for Fry is based upon a total misconception!

Actually lowe does play a part in this. I am certainly not sticking up for Fry as I do think he fooked up, but Fry only agreed to take SLH on, if lowe and the other execs resigned. As Alpine pointed out, this was hugely important on many levels, not least Crouch's funding that got us through the worst bits...... Do you really think he would have done that if lowe and his train were still there

 

All Lowe did was start the process by applying for administration, once that was under way he had no further influence. Failing to do so would have made him personally liable. Once Lowe has pressed that button he had no further influence and the administrator is appointed by the major creditors or court, the board of directors no longer exist and is replaced by the administrator. So this was not hugely important on any level.

[alpine_saint]

All Lowe did was start the process by applying for administration, once that was under way he had no further influence. Failing to do so would have made him personally liable. Once Lowe has pressed that button he had no further influence and the administrator is appointed by the major creditors or court, the board of directors no longer exist and is replaced by the administrator. So this was not hugely important on any level.

 

That's rubbish.

 

Lowe originally did not intend to resign. Fry made it a condition of his appointment as administrator.

 

Fry is on record in an Echo interview giving this sequence of events. So my earlier post is correct: we might have found a buyer a lot harder to come by if Lowe had still been on the scene during administration.

[krissyboy31]

That's rubbish.

 

Lowe originally did not intend to resign. Fry made it a condition of his appointment as administrator.

 

Fry is on record in an Echo interview giving this sequence of events. So my earlier post is correct: we might have found a buyer a lot harder to come by if Lowe had still been on the scene during administration.

 

Yup! And Begbies originally refused to take us on. It was only after they were assured of Lowe and his cohort's resignation, that they agreed.

[Gemmel]

All Lowe did was start the process by applying for administration, once that was under way he had no further influence. Failing to do so would have made him personally liable. Once Lowe has pressed that button he had no further influence and the administrator is appointed by the major creditors or court, the board of directors no longer exist and is replaced by the administrator. So this was not hugely important on any level.

 

Sorry up and away, but that is total rubbish . ...... I believe a certain director did stay on.

 

It was a condidtion set by Fry and his words were ... rupert lowe was reluctant, but it was the only terms on which we were prepared to take the case on.

 

What you typed was twaddle

[Nineteen Canteen]

I am merely reporting something that was in tonight's echo.

 

And, as you will see from some of the posts, there are still questions remaining unanswered.

 

Forgive me, as a historian I like questions answered even if it takes years, that is why I enjoy talking to old players. Terry Paine told me something this week about the 60s I found very interesting and I had never heard before - the fact that it happened 50 years to me was irrelevant.

 

No disrespect Apline, but if you find these sort of posts passe - stay off them, mate.

Regards and all that!

 

Very happy and reassured to read this post.

[Nineteen Canteen]

Actually lowe does play a part in this. I am certainly not sticking up for Fry as I do think he fooked up, but Fry only agreed to take SLH on, if lowe and the other execs resigned. As Alpine pointed out, this was hugely important on many levels, not least Crouch's funding that got us through the worst bits...... Do you really think he would have done that if lowe and his train were still there

 

Well he was alledgedly prepared to stump up the cash with restrictions when Lowe was there and save the club from administration and I don't think that mean't Lowe leaving. I still don't understand how a man can fund the club like Crouch did and then simply walk away when it was saved by Liebherr. Did Crouch get repaid under some conditions added to his investement or was he purely focused on being a prominient director? IMO the answer to your rhetorical question is IMO I think Crouch would have done anything to get on board, so the answer is YES and you just have to look at his track record before and since IMO, to reach the same conclusion.

[saint_stevo]

Fry- Smug pr*ck

[saintwarwick]

Fry- Smug pr*ck

 

Why, he was just doing his job. Does that make you a smug pr*ck for doing your job? Also I'm still waiting for an answer from my previous reply to a post from you.

[saint_stevo]

which post?

[saintwarwick]

If the swiss bid was good enough in the end, why ignore them in favour of the tyre kicking moron and his home boy fialka earlier on in the process when they had the money for exclusivity before Pinnacle and obvious proof of funds?

 

Do you have any evidence they were up front with the money before Pinnacle?

 

which post?

 

As above

[eelpie]

That's rubbish.

 

Lowe originally did not intend to resign. Fry made it a condition of his appointment as administrator.

 

Fry is on record in an Echo interview giving this sequence of events. So my earlier post is correct: we might have found a buyer a lot harder to come by if Lowe had still been on the scene during administration.

 

You make a very important point there.

Fry's insistence that Lowe and Wilde resign was crucial. I do believe that the wretched man would have clung on to power if he could, and possibly a different administrator might not have been so decisive. The thought gives me nightmares.

[trousers]

From what I heard over the summer, through the medium of PMs and text messages, my conclusion at the time was that Mark Fry was out of his depth. Just a subjective opinion based on anecdotal evidence. Which is why I'm very surprised to hear about this award.

 

I'd have been less surprised if RICHARD Fry had won it.... ;-)

[Gemmel]

Well he was alledgedly prepared to stump up the cash with restrictions when Lowe was there and save the club from administration and I don't think that mean't Lowe leaving. I still don't understand how a man can fund the club like Crouch did and then simply walk away when it was saved by Liebherr. Did Crouch get repaid under some conditions added to his investement or was he purely focused on being a prominient director? IMO the answer to your rhetorical question is IMO I think Crouch would have done anything to get on board, so the answer is YES and you just have to look at his track record before and since IMO, to reach the same conclusion.

 

You raise some very interesting points and the bit about Crouch walking away when Liebherr came in doesn't make sense to me either (As previously posted). Crouch was a good fan long before he was anywhere near the board and I can't belive he has just walked away. You will read on here that he is now assoiciated with Eastleigh ( I don't know if that is true) but at the same time of helping out Saints he was also financially helping out Lymington.

The next bit is second hand, so can't vouch for its authenticity, (But friend of a friend and all that bollcks) he wasnt interested in joining the new board and to be fair he had publicy said he had no interest in the Chaimans job again.

 

I do think he saved the club, with his money and genuinely don't understand the bad press he gets. If money was given with terms and conditions, for me it changes nothing and quite frankly unless you were dealing with a drunken lottery winner, then of cause there would have been clauses and I hope he has got his money back. But if it is true that he no longer goes (Which I personally don't believe) then something has happened which the ordinary fans don't know about...... It certainly isn't about not getting a free ticket.

[INFLUENCED.COM]

If money was given with terms and conditions, for me it changes nothing and quite frankly unless you were dealing with a drunken lottery winner, then of cause there would have been clauses and I hope he has got his money back.

 

...... It certainly isn't about not getting a free ticket.

 

I agree with the first bit and suggested the same at the time, would still question his judgement over the Pinnacle alignment but as said many times he was not the only one.

 

Don't think it has ever been suggested Crouch's absence is due to having to pay for a ticket and, like you, would like to know what, if we are to believe he no longer goes, did happen to warrant staying away.

[John B]

From what I heard over the summer, through the medium of PMs and text messages, my conclusion at the time was that Mark Fry was out of his depth. Just a subjective opinion based on anecdotal evidence. Which is why I'm very surprised to hear about this award.

 

QUOTE]

 

Well it appears that people with knowledge of the Administration Industry think otherwise.

[Nineteen Canteen]

You raise some very interesting points and the bit about Crouch walking away when Liebherr came in doesn't make sense to me either (As previously posted). Crouch was a good fan long before he was anywhere near the board and I can't belive he has just walked away. You will read on here that he is now assoiciated with Eastleigh ( I don't know if that is true) but at the same time of helping out Saints he was also financially helping out Lymington.

The next bit is second hand, so can't vouch for its authenticity, (But friend of a friend and all that bollcks) he wasnt interested in joining the new board and to be fair he had publicy said he had no interest in the Chaimans job again.

 

I do think he saved the club, with his money and genuinely don't understand the bad press he gets. If money was given with terms and conditions, for me it changes nothing and quite frankly unless you were dealing with a drunken lottery winner, then of cause there would have been clauses and I hope he has got his money back. But if it is true that he no longer goes (Which I personally don't believe) then something has happened which the ordinary fans don't know about...... It certainly isn't about not getting a free ticket.

 

I would certainly agree with the last comment because as an acknowledged and passionate supporter of this club before Liebherr I doubt he would be that churlish. Real fans support their clubs through many things they don't agree with and Crouch didn't walk away during Lowe's tenure. As for McMenemy IMO it is all about the price of the ticket and it has been mentioned as such on this forum from people who have or know someone who has allegedly asked him.

 

I don't understand Crouch's antics this year and I remain unconvinced he helped more than he hindered but compare him with McMenemy and his pettiness then perhaps IMO (once again) Crouch's biggest mistake was aligning himself with a footballing anachronism.

Edited 9 November, 2009 by Nineteen Canteen

[Junior Mullet]

I can assure you that Fry actually did a very good job in the circumstances.

 

Markus did not come on the scene until late on and up to that point there was actually very little else on the table. Fry had to give Pinnacle exclusivity because he needed their bunce to keep the club running. Things were tighter and more precarious than most people on here would dare dream of. I was certainly surprised to learn how close we were to the wire.

 

In all I felt he did do a good job. He did understand the fans and did take us into account when he frankly did not have to. Might stem from him being a football fan himself.

[trousers]

From what I heard over the summer, through the medium of PMs and text messages, my conclusion at the time was that Mark Fry was out of his depth. Just a subjective opinion based on anecdotal evidence. Which is why I'm very surprised to hear about this award.

 

 

Well it appears that people with knowledge of the Administration Industry think otherwise.

 

I think it's most people's natural instinct to 'protect' the industry they are in. Doesn't mean they're not right of course. I'm happy to be proved wrong, as ever. As I said, just a subjective view based on anecdotal evidence. That's all. Guilty as charged m'lud.

 

I still hold the opinion that the 'Administration Industry' is one of the most 'vested-interest' industries in the world. There seems no incentive to get the job done quickly and efficiently. As I understand it (which, again, could be totally wrong of course) the longer the administration process goes on the more the administrator gets paid. No?

Edited 9 November, 2009 by trousers

[eelpie]

I can assure you that Fry actually did a very good job in the circumstances.

 

Markus did not come on the scene until late on and up to that point there was actually very little else on the table. Fry had to give Pinnacle exclusivity because he needed their bunce to keep the club running. Things were tighter and more precarious than most people on here would dare dream of. I was certainly surprised to learn how close we were to the wire.

 

In all I felt he did do a good job. He did understand the fans and did take us into account when he frankly did not have to. Might stem from him being a football fan himself.

 

It would be interesting to know your source and exactly when ML came onto the scene This is of historical importance (if you are correct.) Presumably Nicola had previously been making enquiries beforehand, but we know that Fry was getting some interest from a few tyre kickers. How would he know if Cortese wasn't just another one?

 

Regarding Crouch, I am convinced that but for him paying the players wages the club would have been wound up. For good. (Even if miraculously we had survived in some form we would certainly not have Lallana, Schneiderlin and and Lloyd with us now.) Crouch's detractors have selective memories.

[Doctoroncall]

We have to look at this in perspective.

The judges for this award would not have experienced the heart-stopping moments that most of us went through this summer.

As objective outsiders what they would see is that a once successful Premiership football club fell on hard times, went into administration, was kept alive throughout the worst part of the year, was successfully sold off to a Swiss Billionaire and is now attracting one of the highest attendances in League One.

From an objective point of view that sounds like a successful outcome

Remember that Fry’s job was to obtain the best deal for the creditors, not the fans.

The simplest (and to him, less stressful and probably also on a time/income basis the most profitable ) would have been to have wound up the company, sold off all the assets individually, pocketed his fee and walked away.

But he recognised that there is a hardcore of loyal fans and there was a possibility of selling the company/club as a going concern.

To do that the company/club had to generate income throughout the period of administration to pay for the ongoing expenses- that is why we were all asked to turn up in numbers to the last few games of the season

But once the season was over there is no income (Bon Jovi are not touring until next year!) but the expenses/wages still have to be paid

That is why our “best” players were sold – that is why Crouch put in his first contribution to make sure the wages were paid.

From my reading of the situation Fry had got to a stage where unless he received a further contribution he would have had to wind up the company – so he set the target for exclusivity in return for a financial contribution.

AS far as I can remember the Swiss Consortium were not ready to make a contribution in that timescale

So I don’t think Pinnacle were AWARDED exclusivity, they BOUGHT it when Crouch aligned himself to their bid and stumped up the cash – and Fry had bought himself another month to keep the club going and hope that a sale could go ahead

Thankfully Cortese/Liebherr held their nerve and patiently waited until Pinnacle fell apart – true professionals who have dealt with this sort of thing before – which is why our owner is a billionaire!!

 

I think your view that Pinnacle bought exclusivity is correct but not for the right reasons.

 

I don't think before exclusivity started, Fry did the appropriate due diligence for the Swiss group as it was known at the time as surely the names Liebherr and Cortese would be significant enough to dig a bit first to gauge the seriousness of interest.

 

Either Fry persevered with the Pinnacle bid suffering from White coat syndrome or it was a major slip up not to find out more from the Swiss group. Besides, wasn't Pinnacle's exclusivity extended by a few day?

[Fowllyd]

You raise some very interesting points and the bit about Crouch walking away when Liebherr came in doesn't make sense to me either (As previously posted). Crouch was a good fan long before he was anywhere near the board and I can't belive he has just walked away. You will read on here that he is now assoiciated with Eastleigh ( I don't know if that is true) but at the same time of helping out Saints he was also financially helping out Lymington.

The next bit is second hand, so can't vouch for its authenticity, (But friend of a friend and all that bollcks) he wasnt interested in joining the new board and to be fair he had publicy said he had no interest in the Chaimans job again.

 

I do think he saved the club, with his money and genuinely don't understand the bad press he gets. If money was given with terms and conditions, for me it changes nothing and quite frankly unless you were dealing with a drunken lottery winner, then of cause there would have been clauses and I hope he has got his money back. But if it is true that he no longer goes (Which I personally don't believe) then something has happened which the ordinary fans don't know about...... It certainly isn't about not getting a free ticket.

 

I would certainly agree with the last comment because as an acknowledged and passionate supporter of this club before Liebherr I doubt he would be that churlish. Real fans support their clubs through many things they don't agree with and Crouch didn't walk away during Lowe's tenure. As for McMenemy IMO it is all about the price of the ticket and it has been mentioned as such on this forum from people who have or know someone who has allegedly asked him.

 

I don't understand Crouch's antics this year and I remain unconvinced he helped more than he hindered but compare him with McMenemy and his pettiness then perhaps IMO (once again) Crouch's biggest mistake was aligning himself with a footballing anachronism.

 

Nope, sorry - I've read Gemmel's post several times, and I still can't see the bit where he mentions McMenemy. But what the hell, don't let that stop you reaching for the old obsession once again. Oh, it didn't.

[Fowllyd]

I think it's most people's natural instinct to 'protect' the industry they are in. Doesn't mean they're not right of course. I'm happy to be proved wrong, as ever. As I said, just a subjective view based on anecdotal evidence. That's all. Guilty as charged m'lud.

 

I still hold the opinion that the 'Administration Industry' is one of the most 'vested-interest' industries in the world. There seems no incentive to get the job done quickly and efficiently. As I understand it (which, again, could be totally wrong of course) the longer the administration process goes on the more the administrator gets paid. No?

 

I doubt that it's ever as simple as that, to be honest. I've worked for several major law firms (lawyers also charge by the hour, and the rates of top partners in the big City firms make Fry's look like chickenfeed) and for the most part clients will negotiate a fee which they consider reasonable for the work carried out. In practice (if you'll forgive the pun), law firms often write off a significant amount of time before a bill is even prepared, as they know they can't simply charge for every minute spent on the matter by every lawyer involved.

[alpine_saint]

I really have difficulty in understanding why this one is still rumbling along.

 

I understand Dunc's gnawing curiousity and desire for events to be documented as part of the history of the club, but what value does analysis of Fry's actions add to the club ?

 

We survived and are bouncing back because in no small part due to his efforts.

 

Criticism of Fry makes about as much sense as criticism of Crouch.

[hypochondriac]

I can assure you that Fry actually did a very good job in the circumstances.

 

Markus did not come on the scene until late on and up to that point there was actually very little else on the table. Fry had to give Pinnacle exclusivity because he needed their bunce to keep the club running. Things were tighter and more precarious than most people on here would dare dream of. I was certainly surprised to learn how close we were to the wire.

 

In all I felt he did do a good job. He did understand the fans and did take us into account when he frankly did not have to. Might stem from him being a football fan himself.

Well that isn't what Nicola said at the fans forum and I know who I am more inclined to believe.

[Clifford Nelson]

I really have difficulty in understanding why this one is still rumbling along.

 

I understand Dunc's gnawing curiousity and desire for events to be documented as part of the history of the club, but what value does analysis of Fry's actions add to the club ?

 

We survived and are bouncing back because in no small part due to his efforts.

 

Criticism of Fry makes about as much sense as criticism of Crouch.

 

Some of us have more of an interest in history than others, and find it difficult to just leave unanswered questions behind without at least plausible explanations. I don't think that makes people like us better or worse than anybody else.

 

This thread was started by an historian and raised an issue of interest to people of that ilk (me for instance). Mark Fry is in the title, so it seems rather obvious what it was about.

 

It is less obvious why you just didn't leave the thread alone, since you're not interested in it, rather than barge in and have a go at those who likes to discuss it. Seems a bit like seeking out a fight for the sake of it.

[trousers]

Some of us have more of an interest in history than others, and find it difficult to just leave unanswered questions behind without at least plausible explanations. I don't think that makes people like us better or worse than anybody else.

 

This thread was started by an historian and raised an issue of interest to people of that ilk (me for instance). Mark Fry is in the title, so it seems rather obvious what it was about.

 

It is less obvious why you just didn't leave the thread alone, since you're not interested in it, rather than barge in and have a go at those who likes to discuss it. Seems a bit like seeking out a fight for the sake of it.

 

First time for everything on the SaintsWeb Forum....

[alpine_saint]

Some of us have more of an interest in history than others, and find it difficult to just leave unanswered questions behind without at least plausible explanations. I don't think that makes people like us better or worse than anybody else.

 

This thread was started by an historian and raised an issue of interest to people of that ilk (me for instance). Mark Fry is in the title, so it seems rather obvious what it was about.

 

It is less obvious why you just didn't leave the thread alone, since you're not interested in it, rather than barge in and have a go at those who likes to discuss it. Seems a bit like seeking out a fight for the sake of it.

 

I "didnt leave the thread alone" and "barged in" because I have every right to express the opinion that the nit-picking is counter-productive. Where did I say I am not interested ? I just dont think this is the time or place for it.

 

Got it ?

 

You can now start the fight you seem to be itching to start if you want.

 

I would suggest calling me a tw*t.

[Horley CTFC Saint]

I "didnt leave the thread alone" and "barged in" because I have every right to express the opinion that the nit-picking is counter-productive. Where did I say I am not interested ? I just dont think this is the time or place for it.

 

Got it ?

 

You can now start the fight you seem to be itching to start if you want.

 

I would suggest calling me a tw*t.

 

Sounds like a bit of a tw*t.

 

Carry on everyone

[RonManager]

I "didnt leave the thread alone" and "barged in" because I have every right to express the opinion that the nit-picking is counter-productive. Where did I say I am not interested ? I just dont think this is the time or place for it.

 

Got it ?

 

You can now start the fight you seem to be itching to start if you want.

 

I would suggest calling me a tw*t.

 

If you truly are a Vulcan, Spock, then where's all this emotion coming from?

Have a word with Bones.

[JackFrost]

For me the jury's still out on Fry.

 

There were definitely a few question marks as to why Pinnacle were given the number 1 spot ahead of Liebherr and co, but what sucked a lot of people in (and probably contributed to Fry's judgement) was MLT publicly endorsing the Pinnacle deal.

 

At that point MLT was saying he would publicly back any serious bidder as the club was days away from being wound up. Now MLT backed the Pinnacle bid to to act as a figurehead and to unite the fans. he backed them with every good intention. As soon as that happened it meant that it had the vast majority of the fanbase behind it as well. At the time it seemed like the best (and to a lot of people) the only option, but why did Pinnacle not come up with the goods?

 

Either Fry was suckered in like the rest of us, took the easy option and didn't scrutinise Pinnacle as thoroughly as he should, or he was lied to and Pinnacle turned out to be a bunch of lightweights, when it came to what they were willing (or able) to put into the club.

 

Now I don't know enough about the financial dealings to make an accurate judgement on this but compared to Liebherr et al., Pinnacle were around for a relatively long time considering they couln't come up with the goods.

[RonManager]

According to Nicola Cortese's interview with the Echo, he and ML visited SMS and made an offer to buy the club on Tuesday 26th May. Pinnacle were offered exclusivity on Friday 29th May.

[Wes Tender]

Well that isn't what Nicola said at the fans forum and I know who I am more inclined to believe.

Me too. If people are interested in the goings on from an historical perspective, I still have not been convinced as to the propriety of the other Fry from Barclays, the one responsible for pulling the plug on us, then being appointed by Begbies Traynor. As far as I'm aware, in all probability somebody at his level of executive seniority in an organisation like Barclays would have to serve at least 3 months notice, thus putting him in the time frame for having applied to work for the very administrators who were awarded the contract for dealing with the club as a result of his actions whilst at Barclays.

 

On the other hand, I must say that I'll be forever grateful that he did pull the plug on the board, as I loathed and detested Lowe and Askham and their cronies.

 

All that rankles is the timing that prevented us avoiding the ten point deduction. Otherwise, the deduction is a small price to pay to rid us of all that dross, even if it means that we have to spend an extra season in this division. But even that scenario becomes less likely with each week that passes.

[trousers]

According to Nicola Cortese's interview with the Echo, he and ML visited SMS and made an offer to buy the club on Tuesday 26th May. Pinnacle were offered exclusivity on Friday 29th May.

 

Indeed. I'm sure I heard someone say that Fry became 'very difficult to get hold of' during those three days....

 

Somewhat blows out the "Fry had no choice" hypothesis from the SWF 'administration experts'...? Perhaps....?

Edited 9 November, 2009 by trousers

[trousers]

Me too. If people are interested in the goings on from an historical perspective, I still have not been convinced as to the propriety of the other Fry from Barclays, the one responsible for pulling the plug on us, then being appointed by Begbies Traynor. As far as I'm aware, in all probability somebody at his level of executive seniority in an organisation like Barclays would have to serve at least 3 months notice, thus putting him in the time frame for having applied to work for the very administrators who were awarded the contract for dealing with the club as a result of his actions whilst at Barclays.

 

Not forgetting the curious 'coincidence' that his image and profile were removed from the Begbies Traynor website when the 'news' of his appointment was discussed on here....

[RonManager]

If it would help the discussion, I still have the Cortese interview PDF and will post it if Admin feel that it is OK to do so. It's been a few months now so will the Echo play up if I did?

[Gorgiesaint]

I really have difficulty in understanding why this one is still rumbling along.

 

I understand Dunc's gnawing curiousity and desire for events to be documented as part of the history of the club, but what value does analysis of Fry's actions add to the club ?

 

We survived and are bouncing back because in no small part due to his efforts.

 

Criticism of Fry makes about as much sense as criticism of Crouch.

 

Its rumbling on because of human nature wanting to know everything that went on during a 'traumatic' period in our history.

 

However, we are unlikely to ever find out the truth due to NDA's and those involved trying to paint their picture that bit better than reality was.

 

Doesn't make wrong to have a thread though, a sort of on-line physchiatrists (sp) couch as it were....

[alpine_saint]

Its rumbling on because of human nature wanting to know everything that went on during a 'traumatic' period in our history.

 

However, we are unlikely to ever find out the truth due to NDA's and those involved trying to paint their picture that bit better than reality was.

 

Doesn't make wrong to have a thread though, a sort of on-line physchiatrists (sp) couch as it were....

 

And I get told I have issues.

 

I wonder when people will finally have closure on what happened.

 

Back in the CCC ? Reckon we'll be there this next season or the one after latest.

 

Back in the PL ? Sadly, I think it might not happen, or it will be a bounce up-and-down. Besides, I think the whole League format is going to go through a few big changes in the next 5-odd years.

[Graffito]

I really have difficulty in understanding why this one is still rumbling along.

 

I understand Dunc's gnawing curiousity and desire for events to be documented as part of the history of the club, but what value does analysis of Fry's actions add to the club ?

 

We survived and are bouncing back because in no small part due to his efforts.

 

Criticism of Fry makes about as much sense as criticism of Crouch.

 

Outcome bias - it turned out ok so Fry did a good job. No, based on the facts which have been made public, my opinion is that Fry made a major error of judgement in giving exclusivity to Pinnacle which could so easily have lost us ML's investment. I recognise that he had a difficult job and I suppose if his peers want to give him an award that's fine but I can't see why he deserves praise from Saints fans.

[Supersubpuckett]

Agree - he was brought in to do a job and did it. I'm sure he always acted in our best interests. It's MLT we should be asking questions of, especially as he's gone so quiet.

 

2009 Insolvency Awards eh? Woo hoo, sounds like a wild night.

[Doctoroncall]

For me the jury's still out on Fry.

 

There were definitely a few question marks as to why Pinnacle were given the number 1 spot ahead of Liebherr and co, but what sucked a lot of people in (and probably contributed to Fry's judgement) was MLT publicly endorsing the Pinnacle deal.

 

At that point MLT was saying he would publicly back any serious bidder as the club was days away from being wound up. Now MLT backed the Pinnacle bid to to act as a figurehead and to unite the fans. he backed them with every good intention. As soon as that happened it meant that it had the vast majority of the fanbase behind it as well. At the time it seemed like the best (and to a lot of people) the only option, but why did Pinnacle not come up with the goods?

 

Either Fry was suckered in like the rest of us, took the easy option and didn't scrutinise Pinnacle as thoroughly as he should, or he was lied to and Pinnacle turned out to be a bunch of lightweights, when it came to what they were willing (or able) to put into the club.

 

Now I don't know enough about the financial dealings to make an accurate judgement on this but compared to Liebherr et al., Pinnacle were around for a relatively long time considering they couln't come up with the goods.

 

But that doesn't mean that he couldn't have done some research about the swiss bid to see how serious they were and how respected those involved were. That's what doesn't sit right with me - was it complacency, tiredness of the whole thing or something else from the administrators?