trousers Posted 9 November, 2009 Share Posted 9 November, 2009 (edited) Didn't Pinnacle pay for exclusivity, hence they got exclusivity? If Leibherr had paid for it, he would have got it. I believe some people are suggesting that liebherr was trying for 3 days to make an offer to compete with pinnacle's but that Fry became 'unconntactable'. (26th - 29th may). That's just me reading between the lines though.... Edited 9 November, 2009 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fitzhugh Fella Posted 9 November, 2009 Author Share Posted 9 November, 2009 I believe some people are suggesting that liebherr was trying for 3 days to make an offer to compete with pinnacle's but that Fry became 'unconntactable'. (26th - 29th may). That's just me reading between the lines though.... perhaps he was on his honeymoon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 9 November, 2009 Share Posted 9 November, 2009 I believe some people are suggesting that liebherr was trying for 3 days to make an offer to compete with pinnacle's but that Fry became 'unconntactable'. (26th - 29th may). That's just me reading between the lines though.... He favoured Pinnacle at some stage, I expect they offered the creditors more cash, that's the administrators job. Pinnacle's backers obviously pulled out, but Leibherr could be a trillionare, that doesn't mean he wouldn't back out also. Fry obviously played it right because he didn't lose anything by giving Pinnacle a chance to come up with more cash. I expect he was in constant contact with other parties while Pinnacle were messing everyone around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 9 November, 2009 Share Posted 9 November, 2009 perhaps he was on his honeymoon? *sighs* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 9 November, 2009 Share Posted 9 November, 2009 He obviously favoured Pinnacle at some stage, I expect they offered the creditors more cash, that's the administrators job. Pinnacle's backers obviously pulled out, but Leibherr could be a trillionare, that doesn't mean he wouldn't back out also. Fry obviously played it right because he didn't lose anything by giving Pinnacle a chance to come up with more cash. I expect he was in constant contact with other parties while Pinnacle were messing everyone around. Doesnt that sort of undermine the principle of "exclusivity" though ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micky Posted 9 November, 2009 Share Posted 9 November, 2009 Enjoy: You'll forgive me for not watching all of the associated links, but just the one that you posted was far too much excitment for me...! Anybody know how I can get a ticket for next years 'must not miss' event...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 9 November, 2009 Share Posted 9 November, 2009 I believe some people are suggesting that liebherr was trying for 3 days to make an offer to compete with pinnacle's but that Fry became 'unconntactable'. (26th - 29th may). That's just me reading between the lines though.... That's what I heard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 9 November, 2009 Share Posted 9 November, 2009 Doesnt that sort of undermine the principle of "exclusivity" though ? I thought that meant no one else could bid for the club, I think Fry said he realised pretty early on they were a bunch of jokers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eurosaint Posted 9 November, 2009 Share Posted 9 November, 2009 Given that the awards panel would/should not be privvy to insider/confidential information regarding the details of the SLH administration. Is it not reasonable to suggest that the 'gong' was awarded on the basis of the 'result' and nothing else ?? IMHO it is a joke to have an Oscar type ceremony in an industry which preys on the weak and defenceless (cue, big argument!) and where judgement cannot be based on anything other than favouritism or self interest !!!!! Thank the dear Lord that we got the right result and I guess that Mark Fry is thinking the same thing !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clifford Nelson Posted 9 November, 2009 Share Posted 9 November, 2009 From what I can recall from the statements made at the time, the Pinnacle bid was originally a consortium (which potentially provided Fry with the necessary proof of funding) which they whittled down to Micky Fialka on his own. If Fry had already seen proof of funds but was being assured that everything was still on track (which Tony Lynam was doing at that point), then he may hav opted to still prefer the Pinnacle bid if they had made the largest offer at that point. Whether Fry should have re-requested funds in that case is open to debate. Ironically it is similar to whats happened down the road, although for the blue few, their man with no money actually managed to take over!! Logically I think you are right, because that means that Fry has got some excuse for having opted for Pinnacle. It means that there were somebody with real money on board at that time, which raises other interesting questions, for instance, what on earth was the use for Micky Fialka?! And if he/they really wanted to use Fialka as a front, who on earth were they?! And if there was proof of funds, didn't it raise suspicions that Leon Crouch had to cough up the £1/2M? There is an element of panic in the decision making of Fry if there is that many questions presenting itself as obvious. We we minutes away from total collapse? And still, why wasn't he discussing the matter with Liebherr/Cortese who had already made an offer? There is something in all of this which doesn't make sense if you think that Fry was a professional person trying to do a professional job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fitzhugh Fella Posted 9 November, 2009 Author Share Posted 9 November, 2009 Logically I think you are right, because that means that Fry has got some excuse for having opted for Pinnacle. It means that there were somebody with real money on board at that time, which raises other interesting questions, for instance, what on earth was the use for Micky Fialka?! And if he/they really wanted to use Fialka as a front, who on earth were they?! And if there was proof of funds, didn't it raise suspicions that Leon Crouch had to cough up the £1/2M? There is an element of panic in the decision making of Fry if there is that many questions presenting itself as obvious. We we minutes away from total collapse? And still, why wasn't he discussing the matter with Liebherr/Cortese who had already made an offer? There is something in all of this which doesn't make sense if you think that Fry was a professional person trying to do a professional job. Exactly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorgiesaint Posted 9 November, 2009 Share Posted 9 November, 2009 Logically I think you are right, because that means that Fry has got some excuse for having opted for Pinnacle. It means that there were somebody with real money on board at that time, which raises other interesting questions, for instance, what on earth was the use for Micky Fialka?! And if he/they really wanted to use Fialka as a front, who on earth were they?! And if there was proof of funds, didn't it raise suspicions that Leon Crouch had to cough up the £1/2M? There is an element of panic in the decision making of Fry if there is that many questions presenting itself as obvious. We we minutes away from total collapse? And still, why wasn't he discussing the matter with Liebherr/Cortese who had already made an offer? There is something in all of this which doesn't make sense if you think that Fry was a professional person trying to do a professional job. Some valid questions. As to who the real money man was, we will never know as they wanted to remain in the background at that time, and will remain so having pulled out. Having Crouch pay the £1/2m should have raised suspicions but do we know for sure that Liebherr was prepared to pay that amount at that time to gain exclusivity? My recollection (and I'm happy to be corrected) was that this was payable to be able to final due dilligence on the books and was non-refundable. I don't recall anyone wanting to put their hands in their pockets under those terms. My feeling is that Fry asked for the £1/2m, the two bidders declined & Crouch backed down very quickly through fear of the club going under. I can only speculate as to what would have happened if Crouch hadn't stepped in. Maybe the club would have gone under, or maybe Fry would have gone back to both bidders with plan B - who knows?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 9 November, 2009 Share Posted 9 November, 2009 Logically I think you are right, because that means that Fry has got some excuse for having opted for Pinnacle. It means that there were somebody with real money on board at that time, which raises other interesting questions, for instance, what on earth was the use for Micky Fialka?! And if he/they really wanted to use Fialka as a front, who on earth were they?! And if there was proof of funds, didn't it raise suspicions that Leon Crouch had to cough up the £1/2M? There is an element of panic in the decision making of Fry if there is that many questions presenting itself as obvious. We we minutes away from total collapse? And still, why wasn't he discussing the matter with Liebherr/Cortese who had already made an offer? There is something in all of this which doesn't make sense if you think that Fry was a professional person trying to do a professional job. Because you are ignorant of something it doesn't follow that it doesn't make sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 9 November, 2009 Share Posted 9 November, 2009 Because you are ignorant of something it doesn't follow that it doesn't make sense. Sometimes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luvaduck Posted 10 November, 2009 Share Posted 10 November, 2009 Logically I think you are right, because that means that Fry has got some excuse for having opted for Pinnacle. It means that there were somebody with real money on board at that time, which raises other interesting questions, for instance, what on earth was the use for Micky Fialka?! And if he/they really wanted to use Fialka as a front, who on earth were they?! And if there was proof of funds, didn't it raise suspicions that Leon Crouch had to cough up the £1/2M? There is an element of panic in the decision making of Fry if there is that many questions presenting itself as obvious. We we minutes away from total collapse? And still, why wasn't he discussing the matter with Liebherr/Cortese who had already made an offer? There is something in all of this which doesn't make sense if you think that Fry was a professional person trying to do a professional job. An offer to buy is not a guarantee of immediate cash – and at the end of May that is what Fry needed to keep SFC afloat Here is a link to a timeline of events – obviously only includes events that are in the public domain http://www.thisishampshire.net/sport/4481632.From_the_brink_of_oblivion_to_a_billionaire/ It seems to me that the relevant date is 28th May – the staff have not been paid and Fry asks them to work on for a further week as a gesture of goodwill. He needs to sell Dyer and obviously needs more cash to pay the outstanding wages/debts at the end of the month From memory I seem to recall that although ML/NC had made an offer, Pinnacle (through Crouch) were the only group prepared to pay a NON-RETURNABLE Deposit of £500k within the week. This enabled Fry to pay the wages and keep the company afloat so that our eventual owners could complete the deal Interesting to note that although Pinnacle’s exclusivity ended on 19th June, the staff’s wages were not paid again at the end of June and ML/NC did not complete the deal until 8th July Actually, reading through this timeline has brought back the sense of panic that we now could be in the hands of any number of amateurs !!! Thank God that ML/NC stayed with it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 10 November, 2009 Share Posted 10 November, 2009 (edited) An offer to buy is not a guarantee of immediate cash – and at the end of May that is what Fry needed to keep SFC afloat Here is a link to a timeline of events – obviously only includes events that are in the public domain http://www.thisishampshire.net/sport/4481632.From_the_brink_of_oblivion_to_a_billionaire/ It seems to me that the relevant date is 28th May – the staff have not been paid and Fry asks them to work on for a further week as a gesture of goodwill. He needs to sell Dyer and obviously needs more cash to pay the outstanding wages/debts at the end of the month From memory I seem to recall that although ML/NC had made an offer, Pinnacle (through Crouch) were the only group prepared to pay a NON-RETURNABLE Deposit of £500k within the week. How do you know for sure that the exclusivity deposit was 'non returnable' (I.e. Other than reading about it in a newspaper) ...? Edited 10 November, 2009 by trousers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 10 November, 2009 Share Posted 10 November, 2009 Oh lord. The most bizarre conspiracy theory has just entered my head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 10 November, 2009 Share Posted 10 November, 2009 Oh lord. The most bizarre conspiracy theory has just entered my head. Do us all a favour and keep in there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 10 November, 2009 Share Posted 10 November, 2009 FF - can I change the title to show Mr Fry's correct company name please? (Begbies Traynor) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 10 November, 2009 Share Posted 10 November, 2009 How do you know for sure that the exclusivity deposit was 'non returnable' (I.e. Other than reading about it in a newspaper) ...? Just a guess - because it was used to pay off debts and wages? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubai_phil Posted 10 November, 2009 Share Posted 10 November, 2009 Yawn. The requirement to pay 500k for Exclusivity came with a clause that Learned Legal Counsel believed was at worst Illegal under UK Law and at best disingeneous. The views on Fry going AWOL may well be true, but even IF assuming that ML & NC were close to agreeing to pay for the exculsivity it is extremely likely that their lawyers would not have allowed them to. The insertion of that clause could have been viewed as a standard business practice by any administrator, but could also have been seen as "not providing a level playing field" by any prospective bidder. So, it may not have been about the money for Exclusivity, it may have been about the terms and conditions, and the ability of certain parties to communicate in a professional negotiation. Or it could have just been Trouser's conspiracy from the beginning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clifford Nelson Posted 10 November, 2009 Share Posted 10 November, 2009 It is the first time I have seen it pointed out that Markus Liebherr didn't want to pay the non-returnable deposit, but it fits with Nicola Corteses statement at the fan's forum, that ML had already made an offer to buy the club. If he was ready to complete the sale, why would he want to pay £1/2M for the privilege? Especially as he didn't intend to make something out of the ashes of SLH but intended to pay all the creditors off and start financially with a completely new company. He knew who the creditors were and how much was owned, so further due diligence wasn't going to reveal anything of major relevance. Assuming that without the money SLH would fold before the sale could be achieved, the gamble on Pinnacle wasn't a gamble at all, but a necessary step to get hold of some money and keep the sinking ship afloat. Under those circumstances I can see Fry and his bosses agreeing to the deal in the hope that something came of it. At least it would buy another two weeks, because in case of liquidation the creditors - who Fry represented - could be suspected to get a much worse deal. Does that scenario hold water? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 10 November, 2009 Share Posted 10 November, 2009 It is the first time I have seen it pointed out that Markus Liebherr didn't want to pay the non-returnable deposit, but it fits with Nicola Corteses statement at the fan's forum, that ML had already made an offer to buy the club. If he was ready to complete the sale, why would he want to pay £1/2M for the privilege? Especially as he didn't intend to make something out of the ashes of SLH but intended to pay all the creditors off and start financially with a completely new company. He knew who the creditors were and how much was owned, so further due diligence wasn't going to reveal anything of major relevance. Assuming that without the money SLH would fold before the sale could be achieved, the gamble on Pinnacle wasn't a gamble at all, but a necessary step to get hold of some money and keep the sinking ship afloat. Under those circumstances I can see Fry and his bosses agreeing to the deal in the hope that something came of it. At least it would buy another two weeks, because in case of liquidation the creditors - who Fry represented - could be suspected to get a much worse deal. Does that scenario hold water? My understanding was that to look at the books fully you had to pay the non refundable deposit under the 'exclusivity' noonsense. it was like not being able to have a surveyor check a house out until you had bought it, only then having the opportunity to see if it was riddled with death watch beetle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fitzhugh Fella Posted 10 November, 2009 Author Share Posted 10 November, 2009 FF - can I change the title to show Mr Fry's correct company name please? (Begbies Traynor) Please do - apologies for my slackness! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luvaduck Posted 10 November, 2009 Share Posted 10 November, 2009 How do you know for sure that the exclusivity deposit was 'non returnable' (I.e. Other than reading about it in a newspaper) ...? I know it is a newspaper but it does suggest it is a face to face interview http://mobile.thisishampshire.net/sport/hampshiresport/4487870.Mark_Fry_reveals_all_about_the_Saints_takeover/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 10 November, 2009 Share Posted 10 November, 2009 Please do - apologies for my slackness! Thought I had better check first after my faux pas with the Pompey thread title... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Bates Posted 10 November, 2009 Share Posted 10 November, 2009 "We love you Marky!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bucks Saint Posted 10 November, 2009 Share Posted 10 November, 2009 Just a guess - because it was used to pay off debts and wages? Standard practice in these situations: you need to fund ongoing costs in order to complete a sale, you have very few options, and this is one of them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 10 November, 2009 Share Posted 10 November, 2009 Perhaps Begbies read this forum. Having just yesterday posted that surely they ought to have informed shareholders of the outcome of their administration dealings, two letters plop onto our doormat this morning, one for me, another for my son, informing us that there are insufficient assets to enable any distribution to shareholders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpine_saint Posted 10 November, 2009 Share Posted 10 November, 2009 Perhaps Begbies read this forum. Having just yesterday posted that surely they ought to have informed shareholders of the outcome of their administration dealings, two letters plop onto our doormat this morning, one for me, another for my son, informing us that there are insufficient assets to enable any distribution to shareholders. Well thats my hundred quid gone then. On the bright side, Lowe and Askham have lost their little nest-eggs completely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Bates Posted 10 November, 2009 Share Posted 10 November, 2009 (edited) On the bright side, Lowe and Askham have lost their little nest-eggs completely. On the contrary, Lowe still has his er... hers *EDIT He'd actually get it too Edited 10 November, 2009 by Master Bates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eelpie Posted 10 November, 2009 Share Posted 10 November, 2009 Perhaps Begbies read this forum. Having just yesterday posted that surely they ought to have informed shareholders of the outcome of their administration dealings, two letters plop onto our doormat this morning, one for me, another for my son, informing us that there are insufficient assets to enable any distribution to shareholders. Just got mine too. Never have I felt so good about losing fifty quid. Rupes must have got his too. Yippee! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clapham Saint Posted 10 November, 2009 Share Posted 10 November, 2009 Perhaps Begbies read this forum. Having just yesterday posted that surely they ought to have informed shareholders of the outcome of their administration dealings, two letters plop onto our doormat this morning, one for me, another for my son, informing us that there are insufficient assets to enable any distribution to shareholders. Was it just a 1 page letter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Give it to Ron Posted 10 November, 2009 Share Posted 10 November, 2009 Was it just a 1 page letter? About 4 lines worth! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 10 November, 2009 Share Posted 10 November, 2009 It is the first time I have seen it pointed out that Markus Liebherr didn't want to pay the non-returnable deposit, but it fits with Nicola Corteses statement at the fan's forum, that ML had already made an offer to buy the club. If he was ready to complete the sale, why would he want to pay £1/2M for the privilege? Especially as he didn't intend to make something out of the ashes of SLH but intended to pay all the creditors off and start financially with a completely new company. He knew who the creditors were and how much was owned, so further due diligence wasn't going to reveal anything of major relevance. Assuming that without the money SLH would fold before the sale could be achieved, the gamble on Pinnacle wasn't a gamble at all, but a necessary step to get hold of some money and keep the sinking ship afloat. Under those circumstances I can see Fry and his bosses agreeing to the deal in the hope that something came of it. At least it would buy another two weeks, because in case of liquidation the creditors - who Fry represented - could be suspected to get a much worse deal. Does that scenario hold water? I think there is something in this... although personnally I am not sure why there are these concerns about Mr FRy's competence or otherwise. As I see it ML/Cortese came in and put their cards on the table - possibly confirmation that they could proceed now at about 12 mil I believe. We were all under the impression that at the time a deal that the creditors would accept would be mopre like 14-15 mil eg about 50p in the pound. It is encumbant on te administrator to satisfy the demands of the creditors FIRST. If a consortium then apprears that initially shows proof of funds, that is offering more, Fry had to look at this seriously. Because things were slipping and bills needed to be paid, I suspect the 500K non refundable deposit was initiated to help pay these bills and test whether pinnacle were indeed serious. As they came up with teh cash, It would then have been necessary to go with pinnacle and see if a deal could be completed - I recall that at teh time the general thinking was that Pinnacle were offerig around the 15 mil mark which may have been another reason why that route was initially accepted. WEe have to be careful that we dont judge Fry based on what we as fans feel was in the the clubs best interests or ours - all that guff about 'handling the sensitivities of the fans' is just hot air and irrelevent - this was always about what they could get for the creditors. When Pinnacle collapsed, it actrually put ML/Cortese in a better position as the only bid in town and would probably have helped them negotiate a better price. Its the mark of how astute and business like ML and Cortese were that they simply made an offer and waited patiently and quietly and importantly professionally out of the media, with no big names campaign fronted PR rubbish - as we have seen, it was not necessary if your actions build the trust and goodwill from fans - which has been the best thing about ML/Cortese. Actions speak so much louder than words..... as I believe someone clever might have said sometime ago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 10 November, 2009 Share Posted 10 November, 2009 Was it just a 1 page letter? Yes. All it says is:- I write further to my appointment as joint administrator of the Company on 2 April 2009. Please be advised that there are insufficient assets in this matter to enable any distribution to shareholders. Should you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact Alex Stirling of this office, Yours faithfully for and on behalf of Southampton Leisure Holdings PLC Mark R Fry Like the others, I console myself that the loss of our shares is a small price to pay for getting our club back on its feet again and it is heartwarming to know that those others who shafted us over the years have lost much more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedWillie Posted 10 November, 2009 Share Posted 10 November, 2009 also got my letter but I wish mine was just a fifty quid loss.....! never mind - jack all I can do about it.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hughieslastminutegoal Posted 10 November, 2009 Share Posted 10 November, 2009 To be fair, maybe he knew Leibherr was happy to play second fiddle. If so he doesn't deserve an award, as he did nothing spectacular. Maybe Cortese/Leibherr played a canny game, got the club cheaper than Fry was trying to get for it. If so Fry did nothing out of the ordinary for the creditors, other than take the only real offer being made, at the very last minute. I wish everyone could win an award for taking the only option available to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hughieslastminutegoal Posted 10 November, 2009 Share Posted 10 November, 2009 (edited) thing is..we just dont know what really happened.....there must be a reason why he is getting praised so much... Isn't that a bit like saying bankers must have done something right for their enormous bonuses? Sounds more like "people like me like people like me..." Edited 10 November, 2009 by hughieslastminutegoal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hughieslastminutegoal Posted 10 November, 2009 Share Posted 10 November, 2009 I don't know. Neither do you. Obviously there was a reason. He's not some sort of idiot. His peers, who know about these things, seem impressed. His job was to get a deal acceptable to creditors not fans of SFC, hence the praise for him apparently doing both. I hope you don't accept everything so unquestioningly. It sounds awfully subservient to me .. the rich and powerful, by being rich and powerful must by defintion know more than me, so I will trust them implicitly and completely (and I'll try to disuade everyone else from even asking questions). Presumably you would support the statement that RBS (for example) was run by professionals who knew what they were doing, and therefore no one else outside of the banking industry should be concerned enough to ask why did it all happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 10 November, 2009 Share Posted 10 November, 2009 I hope you don't accept everything so unquestioningly. It sounds awfully subservient to me .. the rich and powerful, by being rich and powerful must by defintion know more than me, so I will trust them implicitly and completely (and I'll try to disuade everyone else from even asking questions). Presumably you would support the statement that RBS (for example) was run by professionals who knew what they were doing, and therefore no one else outside of the banking industry should be concerned enough to ask why did it all happen? Of course not because there is clear evidence to the contrary. Don't be a spanner. In this case there is clear evidence that: SFC has survived; The creditors received a satisfactory settlement; The position was extremely parlous; There were a host of people intent on playing out their roles in the media; We are owned by a billionaire. No ill-informed abnd poorly conceived conspiracy, no desire to wag the finger out of jealousy at someone doing a good job and being rewarded for it, acceptance that you, as an outsider, do not need and are not entitled to know every detail. I suggest you go and read Frank's Cousin's post which is IMO probably a pretty accurate summary of what went on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningtonCrescent Posted 10 November, 2009 Share Posted 10 November, 2009 How very odd, the timing of this "award", the tittle tattle on here and mention of ot having heard from Fry re: shares...... then letters start dropping on mats in the following days! What a really great job Mrk Fry did! He forgot to notify the shareholders that their investment was now worthless! THAT'S really looking after them, isn't it! Shocking episode that deserves to be relegated to history. Fry should never have received an award for this, but then when is life ever fair? Let's hope it doesn't come out later that the "major" shareholders manages to negotiate anything out of this, leaving the small shareholders (fans) with nothing..... Time to move on, there's nothing to see here...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 10 November, 2009 Share Posted 10 November, 2009 How very odd, the timing of this "award", the tittle tattle on here and mention of ot having heard from Fry re: shares...... then letters start dropping on mats in the following days! What a really great job Mrk Fry did! He forgot to notify the shareholders that their investment was now worthless! THAT'S really looking after them, isn't it! Shocking episode that deserves to be relegated to history. Fry should never have received an award for this, but then when is life ever fair? Let's hope it doesn't come out later that the "major" shareholders manages to negotiate anything out of this, leaving the small shareholders (fans) with nothing..... Time to move on, there's nothing to see here...... Anyone who didn't already know that should probably not be investing in shares in the first place. I'd love to hear your analysis of Fry's failure to exercise his professional duties competently and achieve a good outcome.... actually, I wouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toomer Posted 10 November, 2009 Share Posted 10 November, 2009 About 4 lines worth! Received the same letter envelope not sealed and a photo copied letter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningtonCrescent Posted 10 November, 2009 Share Posted 10 November, 2009 Anyone who didn't already know that should probably not be investing in shares in the first place. I'd love to hear your analysis of Fry's failure to exercise his professional duties competently and achieve a good outcome.... actually, I wouldn't. Ooh, get you Benji! Where did I state that people would've thought anything other than their investment was worthless? Many people invested in their Football Clubs shares for that sole reason, so why ridicule them, just because they're not "stockbroker belt"? If you don't want to know my analysis of Fry's incompetence in sending out timely letters to the shareholders as part of wrapping up the process of rescuing SLH, then why ask only to rescind the request immediately? You clearly know far more about good corporate ethics than I do, so no need to reply to this! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 10 November, 2009 Share Posted 10 November, 2009 I'd love to hear your analysis of Fry's failure to exercise his professional duties competently and achieve a good outcome.... Speaking generally, poor practice and good outcomes aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Good outcomes can also happen through luck and circumstances rather than just through skill and experience. Granted, good outcomes are probably more likely with the latter than the former. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 10 November, 2009 Share Posted 10 November, 2009 Anyone who didn't already know that should probably not be investing in shares in the first place. I'd love to hear your analysis of Fry's failure to exercise his professional duties competently and achieve a good outcome.... actually, I wouldn't.it surely is courtesy to do such a thing.Afterall they were earning plenty out of shareholders misfortune. I myself was impressed with Fry at first but then as i heard various snippets I lost faith in him.Hence my thread 'Fry fiddles as Rome burns' or something on those lines.I took plenty of flak for doing so, but in the end i was quite near the mark. He/we IMO got very lucky that our new owners kept their patience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 10 November, 2009 Share Posted 10 November, 2009 Let's hope it doesn't come out later that the "major" shareholders manages to negotiate anything out of this, leaving the small shareholders (fans) with nothing..... I was wondering that too but the wording on the letter suggests that it applies to all shareholders: "Please be advised that there are insufficient assets in this matter to enable any distribution to shareholders." Although, arguably, it may have been better to have said: ".....distribution to any shareholders" ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bucks Saint Posted 10 November, 2009 Share Posted 10 November, 2009 I was wondering that too but the wording on the letter suggests that it applies to all shareholders: "Please be advised that there are insufficient assets in this matter to enable any distribution to shareholders." Although, arguably, it may have been better to have said: ".....distribution to any shareholders" ? This certainly means that nothing at all is being paid to any shareholder. There is no way any individual can "negotiate" a better outcome - it is governed by legislation that says all shareholders have to be treated equally. As I have mentioned, all of the receipts and payments in the Administration have to be disclosed to Companies House in due course, so it is a matter of public record Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonManager Posted 10 November, 2009 Share Posted 10 November, 2009 So RL got at least one letter today! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now