Mark Fry (Begbies Traynor) given award

[Clifford Nelson]

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

 

I don't think it's a matter of concerns about Fry's competence, just some of us who have difficulty just leaving the unanswered questions behind. This specific issue probably because it is easy to blame Fry, but at closer inspection an insolvency expert from a recognised firm couldn't be quite as daft as all that, could he? And I think that with your comments and those from a few others it starts to emerge that it wasn't as simple as that.

 

It also, of course, had nothing to do with us supporters. That's not why he was here, which I pointed out earlier. He was the creditors man, here to get as much as possible for them.

 

That is coming a bit nearer to satisfy my need for understanding what went on as far as he was concerned.

 

Next in my curiosity is that there must have been money in the Pinnacle bid at the point Fry checked them out. So where on earth did Mickey Fialka come into it. Would anyone with any sense have fronted a bid with him as the future Chairman of the club? Fialka rang instant warning bells with most of us here on the forum at the time and he was exposed by the Echo in less than 24 hours. It looks like an indication that the people with the money didn't have any understanding of PR, so who could they have been?

[Fitzhugh Fella]

Thought I had better check first after my faux pas with the Pompey thread title...

 

Appreciate you did!

[Clifford Nelson]

Appreciate you did!

 

Grateful for your thread, FF, it feels like it has improved some of the understanding. My first reaction was that the insolvency industry was taking the p*ss, but it is also possible that Fry played a very difficult hand.

[Fitzhugh Fella]

Grateful for your thread, FF, it feels like it has improved some of the understanding. My first reaction was that the insolvency industry was taking the p*ss, but it is also possible that Fry played a very difficult hand.

 

Agree - there has been some illuminating posts in this thread but I don't think that is the end of the matter although some more water may need to flow beneath the Itchen bridge before we are any wiser!

 

Fry played a tricky hand and it got us where we all feel happy but could he have played it any better?

[hypochondriac]

Agree - there has been some illuminating posts in this thread but I don't think that is the end of the matter although some more water may need to flow beneath the Itchen bridge before we are any wiser!

 

Fry played a tricky hand and it got us where we all feel happy but could he have played it any better?

 

If reports by posters on here are anything to go by then certainly! Not answering calls for a start could have been one of a number of things which could have resulted in Liebherr getting annoyed and pulling out.

[Clifford Nelson]

Agree - there has been some illuminating posts in this thread but I don't think that is the end of the matter although some more water may need to flow beneath the Itchen bridge before we are any wiser!

 

Fry played a tricky hand and it got us where we all feel happy but could he have played it any better?

 

It won't be the end of the matter until some real knowledge has leaked out, and that is unlikely for some time. I had problem getting past the conclusion that Fry was an incompetent joker who very nearly lost us the club. I knew that was the wrong conclusion, but I had difficulty seeing past it until some of the postings on this thread.

 

I'm satisfied enough to start worrying about the Charlton game tomorrow, so that is kind of a result. It will take longer to stop worrying, it is like it has become rubbed in over years. You know the drill: A striker who hasn't scored in the last thirty will be visiting SMS; a team which hasn't won away since last year; the one legged apprentice we did let go; etc. etc. We just knew what was about to happen, and we were always right. Mind you, this is ammunition for another thread.

[Dark Munster]

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.

 

Apparently Lowe got a slightly different letter:

 

Dear Mr. Lowe,

 

Further to my appointment as joint administrator of the Company on 2 April 2009.

Unfortunately, there are insufficient assets in this matter to enable any distribution to you.

Claims to this affect are a waste of time.

Keep in mind that this decision is final.

 

You should contact Alex Stirling of the Begbies Traynor

Office if you require any further information.

Unfortunately, I will not be available to discuss this with you personally.

 

Yours faithfully

for and on behalf of Southampton Leisure Holdings PLC

Mark R Fry

[hughieslastminutegoal]

 

I suggest you go and read Frank's Cousin's post which is IMO probably a pretty accurate summary of what went on.

 

Yes, I actually go along with much of what he says, especially the bit "When Pinnacle collapsed, it actually put ML/Cortese in a better position as the only bid in town and would probably have helped them negotiate a better price. "

 

So if we go along with FC, the ML/Cortese bid was on the table at probably 12m.

Fry tries to do better for the creditors (as he is obliged to do), so dips into Crouch's pocket to keep going while he tries to squeeze out that bit extra, and it very nearly goes t*ts up, because he gave credence to people who he's said himself lacked credibility.

 

Therefore he may very nearly have lost the only bid that did have credibility. But as FC says, ML/Cortese continued to wait in the background for their bid to be left as the only one in town. So if Fry knew they were still around, and had indeed recognised early on that Pinnacle lacked credibility, Fry and Fry alone dragged the process on, thereby requiring additional monies to keep the club going until he could finally conclude the deal with ML/Cortese, who in the circumstances were unlikely to improve their offer (in fact FC suggests they may even have reduced their offer!).

 

As ultimately he failed to get what his prevarication intended, and then he(presumably) accepted what had already been offered (or less), I can't see how that actually warrants an award. But I can see that getting shot of Lowe straight away merits applause.

Edited 10 November, 2009 by hughieslastminutegoal

[up and away]

Let's make one thing clear. Barclays did not put us in Administration. They would need to apply to the court for that (Clapham Saint please confirm the court bit)

 

Barclays refused to honour a couple of cheques. Lowe, acting correctly, decided that, because of that, we were no longer a going concern and put us into Voluntary Administration.

 

I understand from someone close to the action on the inside that initially no one insolvency practitioner wants to get involved. It was thought in the market that Southampton Leisure incorporating SFC was incapable of finding funds for a buy out.

 

Lowe, and I assume his legal/financial advisors, finally was able to persuade Begbies Taylor to take it on. I do not know the terms but I suspect they included a high success premium.

 

Here, I am making a big assumption based on sensible thinking - Lowe wanted to continue to advise Begbies Taylor on the football front. Fry stated that Lowe would have to step aside completely if he was to act. As there were no other takers it was that or liquidation and SFC would be no more.

 

The fact Begbies Taylor and particularly Fry succeeding was the reason the award was given.

 

Let's make this very clear, Barclays action in deciding not to honour Websters cheque is the action which directly led to administration. We had been in all effect in voluntary administration from 18 months previous, with accountants overseeing the finances on Barclays behalf. From the moment that cheque was bounced, Saints were insolvent and Lowe was just a passenger. What appears to cloud things is that Barclays initially tried to continue on a similar vein as before, but this could never function. Lowe could not authorise anything without the possibility of being personally liable and Fry could not act until he was installed. If no one was installed the court would have forced someone to take on the job. As soon as Fry was appointed the board immediately disappears and Fry decides alone what is to be done and who does it within guidelines.

 

I cannot see any reason why Fry should get any award for getting in the way of Liebherrs cheque, any court appointed administrator would be able to manage that.

[benjii]

The court wouldn't appoint some kind of rent-a-job administrator, the creditors would exercise their security and make their own appointments (via a court order, granted). You don't half spout a lot of guff dressed up as fact.

 

Weston Saint's post is (probably! ) spot on. [particularly the point about the succcess fee, contrary to the oft spouted myth on here that Fry was sitting on his arse watching the cash role in for as long as possible].

Edited 10 November, 2009 by benjii

[up and away]

The court wouldn't appoint some kind of rent-a-job administrator, the creditors would exercise their security and make their own appointments (via a court order, granted). You don't half spout a lot of guff dressed up as fact.

 

Weston Saint's post is (probably! ) spot on. [particularly the point about the succcess fee, contrary to the oft spouted myth on here that Fry was sitting on his arse watching the cash role in for as long as possible].

 

Victor Meldrew makes his entrance. How do you think administrators get appointed when no one wants the job? They just let it fester until eternity makes an entrance?

[hypochondriac]

up and away, you are the last poster who should be commenting on financial matters given your previous record.

[Clapham Saint]

Let's make one thing clear. Barclays did not put us in Administration. They would need to apply to the court for that (Clapham Saint please confirm the court bit)

 

Given that Southampton Lesiure Holdings had breached its various Banking covenants they would have needed to file some documents at court but this wouldn't have been difiult contentious.

 

Barclays refused to honour a couple of cheques. Lowe, acting correctly, decided that, because of that, we were no longer a going concern and put us into Voluntary Administration.

 

It was the directors that placed the company into administration. That is a matter of fact rather than opinion and is recorded at Companies House and should be stated in documents received by shareholders.

 

It is however entirely possible that the directors only did so under legal advise to protct thei own (personal) possitions after a QFC gave them an "if you don't we will" ultimatum.

 

I understand from someone close to the action on the inside that initially no one insolvency practitioner wants to get involved. It was thought in the market that Southampton Leisure incorporating SFC was incapable of finding funds for a buy out.

 

Lowe, and I assume his legal/financial advisors, finally was able to persuade Begbies Taylor to take it on. I do not know the terms but I suspect they included a high success premium

 

Here, I am making a big assumption based on sensible thinking - Lowe wanted to continue to advise Begbies Taylor on the football front. Fry stated that Lowe would have to step aside completely if he was to act. As there were no other takers it was that or liquidation and SFC would be no more..

 

I think that's a bit of a leap of faith. It is much more likely that they were introduced by the either Barclays or Aviva. QFC's Barclays and AVIVA would have had the right to trump any administrator proposed by the directors that they were not happy with.

 

Shareholders (of which there are some on here) should have received a copy of the administratos proposals whch will state the basis of remuneration. I'd be amazed if it wasn't "time costs".

 

Of course fees are paid from the collective pot and so if Fry didn't make a sale there would be nothing in the pot from which he could be paid any fees...

 

 

The fact Begbies Taylor and particularly Fry succeeding was the reason the award was given.

 

I'm not sure what criteria these awards are judged upon but people shouldn't forget that success in this case doesn't necessarily just mean the company who's customers were happiest.

[trousers]

I've a general question about the administration industry and not about the administration of Southampton leisure holdings so advance apologies for posting it on this thread.

 

Are administrators allowed to engage 'ghost' consortium(s) as a tool in their armoury to raise the stakes with 'real' bidders or would that be against the rules? (morally or legally).

 

As I say, not related to this case at all. Just idol curiosity.

[OldNick]

I've a general question about the administration industry and not about the administration of Southampton leisure holdings so advance apologies for posting it on this thread.

 

Are administrators allowed to engage 'ghost' consortium(s) as a tool in their armoury to raise the stakes with 'real' bidders or would that be against the rules? (morally or legally).

 

As I say, not related to this case at all. Just idol curiosity.

well in the auctioneering world the term used when an auctioneer takes a ghost bid is called 'taking a bid off the wall' totally illegal but they do it all the time. i have seen many bidders run up by auctioneers through their naievity and lack of experience. Therefore i expect administrators do it, but who says or can prove there is not a third party.All part of thier armoury i suggest

[Clapham Saint]

I've a general question about the administration industry and not about the administration of Southampton leisure holdings so advance apologies for posting it on this thread.

 

Are administrators allowed to engage 'ghost' consortium(s) as a tool in their armoury to raise the stakes with 'real' bidders or would that be against the rules? (morally or legally).

 

As I say, not related to this case at all. Just idol curiosity.

 

If you (as an individual) wanted to sell a business that you owned, or your house for that matter, you would want bidders to think that you had other interested parties wouldn't you.

 

An administrator looking to sell a business isn't any different from anybody else in this regard.

 

Going as far as to invent a "ghost" consortium, release press statements, find fake spokesmen etc would be a little OTT though. Also if it didn't work would result is a dent to your reputation when found out as it would have 1) cost a bit to do and 2) make you look a little silly.

[Bucks Saint]

I've a general question about the administration industry and not about the administration of Southampton leisure holdings so advance apologies for posting it on this thread.

 

Are administrators allowed to engage 'ghost' consortium(s) as a tool in their armoury to raise the stakes with 'real' bidders or would that be against the rules? (morally or legally).

 

As I say, not related to this case at all. Just idol curiosity.

 

I am in the industry. Like most industries, there are professional, decent firms that would never do this. Not just because it might not be moral, or unprofessional, or hassle. It could easily backfire and wreck a proposed sale, or at least reduce the price paid, leaving you open to action by disgruntled creditors.

 

The longer term PR damage would be much more costly than whatever fee you might make on that one job. I suggest that most firms would not do it, but there could be some limited exceptions.

[Frank's cousin]

If reports by posters on here are anything to go by then certainly! Not answering calls for a start could have been one of a number of things which could have resulted in Liebherr getting annoyed and pulling out.

 

Thing is, if a period of exclusivity HAD been entered with pinnacle then its likely thet calls were not taken as it may have been in breech of such an agreement? I think we ned to be careful about speculating here... as the timing of any alleged not taking of calls could actually have been contrctual...? Also Astute BUsinessmen like Mr Liebherr and Mr Cortese are unlikely to be phased or withdraw from wat they consider a good deal, just because of a few potential 'snubs' (speculated). They will ahve analysed and judged their bid on its merits and value and would always have gone ahead unless the opportunity was closed IMHO... which has been absolutely fantatstic for us so far! ;-)

[Frank's cousin]

Yes, I actually go along with much of what he says, especially the bit "When Pinnacle collapsed, it actually put ML/Cortese in a better position as the only bid in town and would probably have helped them negotiate a better price. "

 

So if we go along with FC, the ML/Cortese bid was on the table at probably 12m.

Fry tries to do better for the creditors (as he is obliged to do), so dips into Crouch's pocket to keep going while he tries to squeeze out that bit extra, and it very nearly goes t*ts up, because he gave credence to people who he's said himself lacked credibility.

 

Therefore he may very nearly have lost the only bid that did have credibility. But as FC says, ML/Cortese continued to wait in the background for their bid to be left as the only one in town. So if Fry knew they were still around, and had indeed recognised early on that Pinnacle lacked credibility, Fry and Fry alone dragged the process on, thereby requiring additional monies to keep the club going until he could finally conclude the deal with ML/Cortese, who in the circumstances were unlikely to improve their offer (in fact FC suggests they may even have reduced their offer!).

 

As ultimately he failed to get what his prevarication intended, and then he(presumably) accepted what had already been offered (or less), I can't see how that actually warrants an award. But I can see that getting shot of Lowe straight away merits applause.

 

I am speculating as with everyone else, but lets assume that given the obvious credibilty of the Liebherr bid, at around ay 12-13 mil, Fry will have known he had a banker. Now had FRy's role been all about ensureing what was best for the club, I am positive he would have seen this as such and gone with the Liebherr Bid from the start. The issue is that he was not employed to do that, but to get as much as possible for the creditors... as such he would would not be concerned about the characters involved in pinnacle if they ahd initially shown proof of funds - now as someon else pointed out, the 500K exclusivity deposit is not something that is that normal in these circumstances and to me this says quite simply that, given the fact we were inundated with some 30 or so 'interested parties' - mostly time wasters and pinnacle may not have had the best credibilty, Fry put in place the 5ook thing to test the seriousness of the bidders - I suspect he was probably surprized that Pinnacle came up with the cash first. As mentioned previously, I think if ML had been offering 15 mil from the start, they would have secured a deal then and there, but as they were (speculation again) maybe as much as 3 mil shy of what pinnacl were potentially offering, Fry would not have been doing his job had he ignored the pInnacle bid, simply because of the 'credibilty or lack of it of the pinnacle bid. I can only speculate again, that initially the pinnacle bid/consortium did contain names that would have provided the credibilty necessary for Fry to take them seriously. Its VERY interesting that Matt Le God, only became involved later - possibly when some of these backers pulled out in an attempt to add a PR face that might attract new consortium members within the 3 week time frame - it no coincidence that the pinnacle bid suddenly had alot more interest and support after matty became involved.

 

So I dont see Fry as having done anything wrong depsite how frustrating and worrying it was at the time for fans - I susupect he knew if Pinnacle failed the Swiss would be back, albeit in a stronger negotiating position, but that given he was duty bound to get as much as possible for creditors, it was risk worth taking?

 

All speculation of cause, but its an interesting theory.

[luvaduck]

I am speculating as with everyone else, but lets assume that given the obvious credibilty of the Liebherr bid, at around ay 12-13 mil, Fry will have known he had a banker. Now had FRy's role been all about ensureing what was best for the club, I am positive he would have seen this as such and gone with the Liebherr Bid from the start. The issue is that he was not employed to do that, but to get as much as possible for the creditors... as such he would would not be concerned about the characters involved in pinnacle if they ahd initially shown proof of funds - now as someon else pointed out, the 500K exclusivity deposit is not something that is that normal in these circumstances and to me this says quite simply that, given the fact we were inundated with some 30 or so 'interested parties' - mostly time wasters and pinnacle may not have had the best credibilty, Fry put in place the 5ook thing to test the seriousness of the bidders - I suspect he was probably surprized that Pinnacle came up with the cash first. As mentioned previously, I think if ML had been offering 15 mil from the start, they would have secured a deal then and there, but as they were (speculation again) maybe as much as 3 mil shy of what pinnacl were potentially offering, Fry would not have been doing his job had he ignored the pInnacle bid, simply because of the 'credibilty or lack of it of the pinnacle bid. I can only speculate again, that initially the pinnacle bid/consortium did contain names that would have provided the credibilty necessary for Fry to take them seriously. Its VERY interesting that Matt Le God, only became involved later - possibly when some of these backers pulled out in an attempt to add a PR face that might attract new consortium members within the 3 week time frame - it no coincidence that the pinnacle bid suddenly had alot more interest and support after matty became involved.

 

So I dont see Fry as having done anything wrong depsite how frustrating and worrying it was at the time for fans - I susupect he knew if Pinnacle failed the Swiss would be back, albeit in a stronger negotiating position, but that given he was duty bound to get as much as possible for creditors, it was risk worth taking?

 

All speculation of cause, but its an interesting theory.

 

I posted this link earlier

 

http://mobile.thisishampshire.net/sp...ints_takeover/

 

In the interview Fry answers a lot of the questions especially about the panic around the end of May when the wages weren't paid - but it probably raises other questions as well

[luvaduck]

Sorry try this one!!

 

http://mobile.thisishampshire.net/sport/hampshiresport/4487870.Mark_Fry_reveals_all_about_the_Saints_takeover/

[Singapore Saint]

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.

 

I too feel Mark Fry has done a good job and we should be grateful to him. He seemed to work his socks off to save the club.

[Singapore Saint]

I am in the industry.

 

Well Bucks, do you think Mark Fry deserves his award?

[up and away]

I am speculating as with everyone else, but lets assume that given the obvious credibilty of the Liebherr bid, at around ay 12-13 mil, Fry will have known he had a banker. Now had FRy's role been all about ensureing what was best for the club, I am positive he would have seen this as such and gone with the Liebherr Bid from the start. The issue is that he was not employed to do that, but to get as much as possible for the creditors... as such he would would not be concerned about the characters involved in pinnacle if they ahd initially shown proof of funds - now as someon else pointed out, the 500K exclusivity deposit is not something that is that normal in these circumstances and to me this says quite simply that, given the fact we were inundated with some 30 or so 'interested parties' - mostly time wasters and pinnacle may not have had the best credibilty, Fry put in place the 5ook thing to test the seriousness of the bidders - I suspect he was probably surprized that Pinnacle came up with the cash first. As mentioned previously, I think if ML had been offering 15 mil from the start, they would have secured a deal then and there, but as they were (speculation again) maybe as much as 3 mil shy of what pinnacl were potentially offering, Fry would not have been doing his job had he ignored the pInnacle bid, simply because of the 'credibilty or lack of it of the pinnacle bid. I can only speculate again, that initially the pinnacle bid/consortium did contain names that would have provided the credibilty necessary for Fry to take them seriously. Its VERY interesting that Matt Le God, only became involved later - possibly when some of these backers pulled out in an attempt to add a PR face that might attract new consortium members within the 3 week time frame - it no coincidence that the pinnacle bid suddenly had alot more interest and support after matty became involved.

 

So I dont see Fry as having done anything wrong depsite how frustrating and worrying it was at the time for fans - I susupect he knew if Pinnacle failed the Swiss would be back, albeit in a stronger negotiating position, but that given he was duty bound to get as much as possible for creditors, it was risk worth taking?

 

All speculation of cause, but its an interesting theory.

 

Fry was obligated to take the higher bid as you say, but the £500k was more to avoid liquidation according to Fry's quotes on how close it had come. The one area where Fry let himself down was taking a position on the League ruling over administration, something he should have stayed clear of.

 

We have been very, very lucky over this whole affair. Liebherr could easily have switched his attention to Charlton for example after feeling he had just missed out on Saints. Or does anyone know it was only Saints he was prepared to buy?

 

I appreciate that Pinnacle were doing their best to aid the situation, but as soon as they knew their backers were disappearing at an early stage, they should have come clean to minimise the possible damage they could be doing. Luckily, Liebherr stuck around and the rest is history.

[Draino76]

Isn't if Fry's job to spot a bunch of chancers? "Hello, I'm Micky Fialka and I have a million billion pounds to buy the club; it just that it should be here, erm in a couple of months. I don't live with my mum BTW or sell photocopiers."

[dubai_phil]

Fry was obligated to take the higher bid as you say, but the £500k was more to avoid liquidation according to Fry's quotes on how close it had come. The one area where Fry let himself down was taking a position on the League ruling over administration, something he should have stayed clear of.

 

We have been very, very lucky over this whole affair. Liebherr could easily have switched his attention to Charlton for example after feeling he had just missed out on Saints. Or does anyone know it was only Saints he was prepared to buy?

 

I appreciate that Pinnacle were doing their best to aid the situation, but as soon as they knew their backers were disappearing at an early stage, they should have come clean to minimise the possible damage they could be doing. Luckily, Liebherr stuck around and the rest is history.

 

Ah - unfortunately here we see one of the main misunderstandings that are held by us fans because of a lack of clarity about the process and the events of the days when Fry was in charge.

 

You comment is wrong. Simple, not because YOU are wrong, but because it paints a far too simple picture of what actually construed "an offer".

 

The assumption we hold (because it is how our lives exist in the real world) is that an offer was all about "The cash" that was to be transferred from one bank account on the day of sale to the BT Client account. The highest OFFER need not have been from Pinnacle or for that matter likely to have come from ML. It could have been the magical Irish for all we will ever know!

 

What the "focus" on the cash value does is to take out the myriad of ways and means that any bid could have been "Structured".

 

So, as a REALLY simplistic example, it could have been possible to offer to only pay off the Footballing Debts to allow the playing licence to be granted, and then "as an EXAMPLE" to offer to pay the other creditors IN FULL, based on achieving certain "goals". The cash transfer involved COULD have been in the low single figure millions, but the TOTAL potential value of the sale for the Creditors COULD have been closer to the full 30+ million.

 

This is a difficult proposition to comprehend, BUT it helps to explain some of the reasons behind all the ups and downs during that period.

 

For example - perhaps Aviva MAY have preferred to have recieved 1 pound from the Admin, but a contract to be paid a bonus at each subsequent promotion making their "return" on their debt closer to say 100% than whatever they actually got.

 

You had 3 different stakeholders at play, what was good for the "Overall Admin" - ie Fry, what the "club could have afforded in a brighter future" ie what the bidders actually had to get out of their bank accounts, and what the creditors could have actually squeezed out of the deal.

 

At the end of the day Fry's award shows that he "stumbled" on the right balance, but there is a lot of information that has never nor will it ever come out about those days.

 

There were a lot of fingers in a lot of pies before admin, don't imagine for one moment that they weren't around in some form or another. Whatever happened to the Council for example?

[Chicken With A Banjo]

What if the Pinnacle bid was nothing to do with buying the club and was only really about testing the Football Leagues resolve with respect to the -10 point deduction?

[benjii]

What if the Pinnacle bid was nothing to do with buying the club and was only really about testing the Football Leagues resolve with respect to the -10 point deduction?

 

The they should have put their £500,000 towards an appeal instead!

[WestSaint]

What if the Pinnacle bid was nothing to do with buying the club and was only really about testing the Football Leagues resolve with respect to the -10 point deduction?

 

They paid money for exclusivity did they not?

[hughieslastminutegoal]

I am speculating as with everyone else, but lets assume that given the obvious credibilty of the Liebherr bid, at around ay 12-13 mil, Fry will have known he had a banker. Now had FRy's role been all about ensureing what was best for the club, I am positive he would have seen this as such and gone with the Liebherr Bid from the start. The issue is that he was not employed to do that, but to get as much as possible for the creditors... as such he would would not be concerned about the characters involved in pinnacle if they ahd initially shown proof of funds - now as someon else pointed out, the 500K exclusivity deposit is not something that is that normal in these circumstances and to me this says quite simply that, given the fact we were inundated with some 30 or so 'interested parties' - mostly time wasters and pinnacle may not have had the best credibilty, Fry put in place the 5ook thing to test the seriousness of the bidders - I suspect he was probably surprized that Pinnacle came up with the cash first. As mentioned previously, I think if ML had been offering 15 mil from the start, they would have secured a deal then and there, but as they were (speculation again) maybe as much as 3 mil shy of what pinnacl were potentially offering, Fry would not have been doing his job had he ignored the pInnacle bid, simply because of the 'credibilty or lack of it of the pinnacle bid. I can only speculate again, that initially the pinnacle bid/consortium did contain names that would have provided the credibilty necessary for Fry to take them seriously. Its VERY interesting that Matt Le God, only became involved later - possibly when some of these backers pulled out in an attempt to add a PR face that might attract new consortium members within the 3 week time frame - it no coincidence that the pinnacle bid suddenly had alot more interest and support after matty became involved.

 

So I dont see Fry as having done anything wrong depsite how frustrating and worrying it was at the time for fans - I susupect he knew if Pinnacle failed the Swiss would be back, albeit in a stronger negotiating position, but that given he was duty bound to get as much as possible for creditors, it was risk worth taking?

 

All speculation of cause, but its an interesting theory.

 

Yes good cause for speculation. The question is "was what Fry did worth an award?" Obviously he did "a job", but a great job? Not for me. And not for you either if you think your speculation is close to the mark. Fry had his banker, as you put it, perservered for too long with his attempt to get more from a shambles of a "consortium", then went with the banker who (according to Cortese) wasn't overly impressed with Fry's efforts.

 

Little more than a bog standard job really, though stressful for being so public, admittedly. I think it was working in the public eye that swung the award for him, not the quality of the job done for the creditors (who's options were what exactly? Aviva get left with an unlettable stadium?)

 

But do I really care that he won an award? No. Does the industry giving out awards to itelf interest me? A bit.

[Frank's cousin]

Fry was obligated to take the higher bid as you say, but the £500k was more to avoid liquidation according to Fry's quotes on how close it had come. The one area where Fry let himself down was taking a position on the League ruling over administration, something he should have stayed clear of.

 

We have been very, very lucky over this whole affair. Liebherr could easily have switched his attention to Charlton for example after feeling he had just missed out on Saints. Or does anyone know it was only Saints he was prepared to buy?

 

I appreciate that Pinnacle were doing their best to aid the situation, but as soon as they knew their backers were disappearing at an early stage, they should have come clean to minimise the possible damage they could be doing. Luckily, Liebherr stuck around and the rest is history.

 

Hi again

 

I also believe that if Pinnacle had teh best interests of teh club at heart, as you say they should have bowed out teh moment it became clear investors were having second thoughts... The problem was that if Crouch had stumped up the 500k, I can see why he would have been reluctant to throw in the towel - I know I would have been.

 

I suspect that communications between Cortese and Fry were such that Fry did believe ML would come back, but the danger was in the timing - For ML/Cortese, it would have been a balance between waiting to get the best deal, and not being too late and seeing all the playing assets sold... which also illustrates why the ML bid was accepted at a lower value as Surman and dyer? had been sold etc as far as I recall.

 

Dubai Phil, makes the point about it being too simplistic to assume the highest bid must be paid - fair enough, but the point I was trying to make was that Fry's duty was to get the best DEAL for creditors, or one they would accept, and that would in our case also have included who was offering the most cash given that we really only had 2 major creditors- Aviva and Barclays. Yes it may have been possible to buy the club for 5 mil by paying off Barclays, but taking on the 25 mil Aviva loan by demonstrating it could be properly serviced, but why do that when you can in effect write it off by offering 50p in the pound?

[dubai_phil]

Hi again

 

I also believe that if Pinnacle had teh best interests of teh club at heart, as you say they should have bowed out teh moment it became clear investors were having second thoughts... The problem was that if Crouch had stumped up the 500k, I can see why he would have been reluctant to throw in the towel - I know I would have been.

 

I suspect that communications between Cortese and Fry were such that Fry did believe ML would come back, but the danger was in the timing - For ML/Cortese, it would have been a balance between waiting to get the best deal, and not being too late and seeing all the playing assets sold... which also illustrates why the ML bid was accepted at a lower value as Surman and dyer? had been sold etc as far as I recall.

 

Dubai Phil, makes the point about it being too simplistic to assume the highest bid must be paid - fair enough, but the point I was trying to make was that Fry's duty was to get the best DEAL for creditors, or one they would accept, and that would in our case also have included who was offering the most cash given that we really only had 2 major creditors- Aviva and Barclays. Yes it may have been possible to buy the club for 5 mil by paying off Barclays, but taking on the 25 mil Aviva loan by demonstrating it could be properly serviced, but why do that when you can in effect write it off by offering 50p in the pound?

 

Just to clarify that, an "offer" could have paid say 50% off to Barclays in cash and 10% to Aviva, however a new agreement with (for example) Aviva COULD have been made to pay them say an extra 2 mil on promotion to the CCC, 5mil on propmotion to the PL and say a further 2mil a season for 3 years. In monetary terms, the "less cash offer" is potentially worth a LOT more MONEY to one of the creditors.

 

The permutations were endless, what we do not know is what would the creditors have been preferring? Personally I expect Fry was pushing for as much cash now as possible but that could have led to other issues with his creditors.... we will never know

[alpine_saint]

I am speculating as with everyone else, but lets assume that given the obvious credibilty of the Liebherr bid, at around ay 12-13 mil, Fry will have known he had a banker. Now had FRy's role been all about ensureing what was best for the club, I am positive he would have seen this as such and gone with the Liebherr Bid from the start. The issue is that he was not employed to do that, but to get as much as possible for the creditors... as such he would would not be concerned about the characters involved in pinnacle if they ahd initially shown proof of funds - now as someon else pointed out, the 500K exclusivity deposit is not something that is that normal in these circumstances and to me this says quite simply that, given the fact we were inundated with some 30 or so 'interested parties' - mostly time wasters and pinnacle may not have had the best credibilty, Fry put in place the 5ook thing to test the seriousness of the bidders - I suspect he was probably surprized that Pinnacle came up with the cash first. As mentioned previously, I think if ML had been offering 15 mil from the start, they would have secured a deal then and there, but as they were (speculation again) maybe as much as 3 mil shy of what pinnacl were potentially offering, Fry would not have been doing his job had he ignored the pInnacle bid, simply because of the 'credibilty or lack of it of the pinnacle bid. I can only speculate again, that initially the pinnacle bid/consortium did contain names that would have provided the credibilty necessary for Fry to take them seriously. Its VERY interesting that Matt Le God, only became involved later - possibly when some of these backers pulled out in an attempt to add a PR face that might attract new consortium members within the 3 week time frame - it no coincidence that the pinnacle bid suddenly had alot more interest and support after matty became involved.

 

So I dont see Fry as having done anything wrong depsite how frustrating and worrying it was at the time for fans - I susupect he knew if Pinnacle failed the Swiss would be back, albeit in a stronger negotiating position, but that given he was duty bound to get as much as possible for creditors, it was risk worth taking?

 

All speculation of cause, but its an interesting theory.

 

 

Blimey.

 

An F_C post I can wholeheartedly agree with.

 

Had to happen sooner or later.

[up and away]

Just to clarify that, an "offer" could have paid say 50% off to Barclays in cash and 10% to Aviva, however a new agreement with (for example) Aviva COULD have been made to pay them say an extra 2 mil on promotion to the CCC, 5mil on propmotion to the PL and say a further 2mil a season for 3 years. In monetary terms, the "less cash offer" is potentially worth a LOT more MONEY to one of the creditors.

 

The permutations were endless, what we do not know is what would the creditors have been preferring? Personally I expect Fry was pushing for as much cash now as possible but that could have led to other issues with his creditors.... we will never know

 

I just cannot see it working like that. It would have been a straight price / £ on the company with the money being distributed to a set formulae laid out by Fry after his meetings with the creditors. You cannot be having the apples and oranges situation where you are trying to get the best possible price as a going concern with a myriad of deals in place, rather than let it go to liquidation where you are then bartering over individual aspects.

 

One of the main functions of the administrator is to get the best and fairest deal for all the creditors. A scheme as you are suggesting could easily marginalise the smaller creditors, which the administrator would be trying to avoid. Pretty sure this would be a straight best p/£ deal for what was on offer.

[Frank's cousin]

Blimey.

 

An F_C post I can wholeheartedly agree with.

 

Had to happen sooner or later.

 

:-) Made me chuckle Alps

[Frank's cousin]

Just to clarify that, an "offer" could have paid say 50% off to Barclays in cash and 10% to Aviva, however a new agreement with (for example) Aviva COULD have been made to pay them say an extra 2 mil on promotion to the CCC, 5mil on propmotion to the PL and say a further 2mil a season for 3 years. In monetary terms, the "less cash offer" is potentially worth a LOT more MONEY to one of the creditors.

 

The permutations were endless, what we do not know is what would the creditors have been preferring? Personally I expect Fry was pushing for as much cash now as possible but that could have led to other issues with his creditors.... we will never know

 

I think in most cases this is possible... but for a football club where promotion and even revenue is not guarranteed no matter how cast iron your business plan is, I doubt creditors would have been interested in such a structured deal with further payments due on promotions etc. I think this was possibly a weakness of the Pinnacle deal - The total offer may have been higher, but the way its structured would ahve potentially put creditors off accepting it. ML went for a straight cash bid which would if you ask me have been the bets option for creditors given that you get your 40-50p now not 20 now and the rest on 'potential promotions' especially as it would have indicated that teh buyer did not have that big a pot to spend and thus making promotion less likely -

 

Any bid that was based around a structured deal would have IMHOP spelled disaster as the if by some miracle we were promoted, what would th eimpact have been on the club if any additional revenues were then paid back to creditors thus leaving the club in a tougher division with no money left over for strengthening the squad?

[trousers]

They paid money for exclusivity did they not?

 

So we were told....

[dubai_phil]

I think in most cases this is possible... but for a football club where promotion and even revenue is not guarranteed no matter how cast iron your business plan is, I doubt creditors would have been interested in such a structured deal with further payments due on promotions etc. I think this was possibly a weakness of the Pinnacle deal - The total offer may have been higher, but the way its structured would ahve potentially put creditors off accepting it. ML went for a straight cash bid which would if you ask me have been the bets option for creditors given that you get your 40-50p now not 20 now and the rest on 'potential promotions' especially as it would have indicated that teh buyer did not have that big a pot to spend and thus making promotion less likely -

 

Any bid that was based around a structured deal would have IMHOP spelled disaster as the if by some miracle we were promoted, what would th eimpact have been on the club if any additional revenues were then paid back to creditors thus leaving the club in a tougher division with no money left over for strengthening the squad?

 

FC, you are perfectly correct in saying that such a deal would have placed a "burden" and held risk.

 

Unfortunately, you say that with the wisdom of hindsight. We were effing lucky that NC discovered the opportunity in April (his words) and persuaded ML to close the deal.

 

But, if you truly think back to the dark days out of the 36 or so interested parties, how many moved to a bid situation? What IF at the time, the options are simpler

 

Budget to survive or budget to have a dream solution.... The reality was, before ML "did the deal" the question was simple - Could the club be saved?

 

Again, you assume that for someone like a major creditor cash is important. For us, and for a football club in a recession with all forms of income reduced, of course cash is King. But for major corporations and their marvellous accounting systems, that is not always the case. Just look how much effort the major banks around the world have put in to "avoid" writing off "toxic" debts. Doesn't mean the debts aren't toxic, just that there can be creative methods of avoiding a major hit on your balance sheet (and profits) at the wrong time.

 

I'm not trying to say that my interpretation is the right one, just that with so many stakeholders involved with so many different angles, what would constitute common sense for all of us in our normal or our business lives may not have been in play and we should understand that WE WERE LUCKY.

 

Hell, the process that got us into the mess in the first place bore no relation to any sane person's versions of reality

[luvaduck]

Budget to survive or budget to have a dream solution.... The reality was, before ML "did the deal" the question was simple - Could the club be saved?

 

In the interview Fry says that his choice of Pinnacle was one of desperation He needed to get somebody over the line.

He hadn’t paid the wages.

It was a very difficult time and not paying the staff and keeping everything together to enable it to be sold, it could have fallen apart very easily.

Quote – “Whether or not we had preferred options at that point, unfortunately we just didn’t have the luxury of time, so it was really just a case of the first across the line with the non-refundable deposit. “

[Wopper]

Does anyone know if Marcus had any business dealings with previous chairman ?

[SaintRichmond]

How the hell did he get an award ? apart from **** of the year maybe. He damn near killed us !

 

He must obviously be friends with Gordon Brown, and all his Chums ... ie Managers of Banks

 

Brown & The Banks Equation .....

 

" The Bigger The Loss, The Bigger The Bonus's ":D

[Bucks Saint]

Well Bucks, do you think Mark Fry deserves his award?

 

No idea. I dont know what he had to contend with (no one does, unless they were involved) and I dont know who else was up for the award. I dont know how anyone on here can really judge this, but that does not stop most! To me, he helped save the club, even if only a little bit, so for that I say cheers