Administration

[saint_bert]

Could someone explain how this works?

 

What happens to shareholders shares etc etc

[Weston Super Saint]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/2336289.stm

 

Harry The Helephant

[saint_bert]

w00t

[KK the 2nd]

Could someone explain how this works?

 

What happens to shareholders shares etc etc

 

Shareholders will be f*cked (including the small ones like me), trust in Rupert he has too much to lose!

[Doctoroncall]

Shareholders will be f*cked (including the small ones like me), trust in Rupert he has too much to lose!

 

That depends on what assets he buys at what price, but you're right it is a bigger risk than what he's doing at the moment of playing some old timers with the youth team and a new management...oh!

[Huffton]

It is a legal procedure that allows a business in financial trouble to keep operating without being forced to sell off assets to pay debts.

 

He will make a series of proposals regarding the company's future - such as a sale of assets like players

 

???:confused:

[charliemiller]

Only the football club Ltd would be put in Admin Not the PLC or stadium Ltd.

 

Being a PLC does have an advantage after all , the Major asset is still protected.

[Gemmel]

Only the football club Ltd would be put in Admin Not the PLC or stadium Ltd.

 

Being a PLC does have an advantage after all , the Major asset is still protected.

 

 

I'm not that is true and in any case the stadium is a debt not an asset

[Weston Saint]

Only the football club Ltd would be put in Admin Not the PLC or stadium Ltd.

 

Being a PLC does have an advantage after all , the Major asset is still protected.

 

Think you may be wrong there M. It is the PLC that has the debt.

[aintforever]

Could SLH sell off SFC as an asset before it goes into admin to avoid getting a 10 point penalty?

[paris]

You happy old soul...

[Gemmel]

Could SLH sell off SFC as an asset before it goes into admin to avoid getting a 10 point penalty?

 

No there are rules and laws to stop companies doing things with major assets prior to going into administration

[70's Mike]

Could SLH sell off SFC as an asset before it goes into admin to avoid getting a 10 point penalty?

 

WE would avoid 10 points and get another 20 on top.

the fa rules are NOW very strict , they were changed , i believe, because both Leicester and Chelsea manipulate the previous rules

[St Marco]

Long story short

 

It is a legal move that places a group in charge of the company. The group has to get the buisness running back within it's means while recovering money for the creditors. Anything that has value will be judged and deemed able to sell. The board and shareholders lose their shares and effectivley the club is put in sole control of the group. This means if the admin team said right were selling the food stall Lowe couldn't object etc.. Then once the debts have been paid to a level accepted by the admin team they file to the judge of the case for release. When this is accepted the club gets put up for sale with normally the highest bidder winning. However with clubs that isn't always the case, sometimes buyers are picked due to their experience in the market and likleyhood they wont bring the company back into admin.

 

People have to remember going into admin isn't a penalty in itself, it is more like intensive care for a company where it is helped and the debts written off. This is why the points penalty was brought in to stop clubs doin this as it was seen as a easy way out of debts that were amassed bt poor leadership.

 

Right now i fail to see the difference of being in admin and what is actually happening. We have sold off players, sacked a lot of staf, closed corners, removed boardroom people, taken cheap option with manager and staff etc.. The only difference i can think of is that while others are losing their jobs WIlde and Lowe keep theirs.

[70's Mike]

Long story short

 

It is a legal move that places a group in charge of the company. The group has to get the buisness running back within it's means while recovering money for the creditors. Anything that has value will be judged and deemed able to sell. The board and shareholders lose their shares and effectivley the club is put in sole control of the group. This means if the admin team said right were selling the food stall Lowe couldn't object etc.. Then once the debts have been paid to a level accepted by the admin team they file to the judge of the case for release. When this is accepted the club gets put up for sale with normally the highest bidder winning. However with clubs that isn't always the case, sometimes buyers are picked due to their experience in the market and likleyhood they wont bring the company back into admin.

 

People have to remember going into admin isn't a penalty in itself, it is more like intensive care for a company where it is helped and the debts written off. This is why the points penalty was brought in to stop clubs doin this as it was seen as a easy way out of debts that were amassed bt poor leadership.

 

Right now i fail to see the difference of being in admin and what is actually happening. We have sold off players, sacked a lot of staf, closed corners, removed boardroom people, taken cheap option with manager and staff etc.. The only difference i can think of is that while others are losing their jobs WIlde and Lowe keep theirs.

 

Legally all correct the problem is the penalties imposed by the FA

[EastleighSoulBoy]

Legally all correct the problem is the penalties imposed by the FA

 

That being the point Mike. 15 / 20 points? Almost certain relegation.

 

Now! Maybe that might be the point at this stage? Take it on the chin? It would all depend when those points are deducted and if it's some now (enough to relegate) and then another lump to start next season?

 

It just doesn't bode well no matter how I look at it.

 

Then when we are in administration who will get to pick us up for nuppence? None other than . . . . like I said, it doesn't bode well at all.

[70's Mike]

That being the point Mike. 15 / 20 points? Almost certain relegation.

 

Now! Maybe that might be the point at this stage? Take it on the chin? It would all depend when those points are deducted and if it's some now (enough to relegate) and then another lump to start next season?

 

It just doesn't bode well no matter how I look at it.

 

Then when we are in administration who will get to pick us up for nuppence? None other than . . . . like I said, it doesn't bode well at all.

 

The Administrator would love it , a bidding war between , Lowe v Wilde v Crouch v Fullthorpe.

[charliemiller]

Think you may be wrong there M. It is the PLC that has the debt.

 

 

Had a long discussion with SG at last weeks game ....apparently all been discussed on the basis above and agreed that it works .

 

Greater men than me with more PLC knowledge see a way of manovering Ron .

[Gemmel]

Had a long discussion with SG at last weeks game ....apparently all been discussed on the basis above and agreed that it works .

 

Greater men than me with more PLC knowledge see a way of manovering Ron .

 

Really not quite sure your getting at, as you talk about the major asset being protected.....I assume that you mean the stadium?

Which is a debt and not an asset.....if we lose the debt, we lose the stadium, same as your house.

 

We could take a few local companies for a couple of quid and maybe even the bank, but nothing that acheives anything in the long term. Add the minus points on and it spells nothing but disaster.

[Window Cleaner]

Really not quite sure your getting at, as you talk about the major asset being protected.....I assume that you mean the stadium?

Which is a debt and not an asset.....if we lose the debt, we lose the stadium, same as your house.

 

We could take a few local companies for a couple of quid and maybe even the bank, but nothing that acheives anything in the long term. Add the minus points on and it spells nothing but disaster.

 

I don't know if the stadium is our major asset, I'm not au fait with stuff like planning permission and land values but I suspected in terms of straight cash

and saleability Jackson's Farm has a greater value than SMS when you take away the residual mortgage on it.Now it would seem to me thatBovis have an option on JF until 2009, if we went into total administration could they not claim it at a knockdown price?

[Snowballs2]

I don't know if the stadium is our major asset, I'm not au fait with stuff like planning permission and land values but I suspected in terms of straight cash

and saleability Jackson's Farm has a greater value than SMS when you take away the residual mortgage on it.Now it would seem to me thatBovis have an option on JF until 2009, if we went into total administration could they not claim it at a knockdown price?

 

Your not right about Jacksons farm being available at a knockdown price if administration comes. It is the duty of the administrator to get the highest price for a saleable asset.

[Window Cleaner]

Your not right about Jacksons farm being available at a knockdown price if administration comes. It is the duty of the administrator to get the highest price for a saleable asset.

 

But Bovis do have an option don't they? Can you sell something to the highest bidder when someone has a long standing option for which they have paid 500K which would have to be returned ?

[Snowballs2]

But Bovis do have an option don't they? Can you sell something to the highest bidder when someone has a long standing option for which they have paid 500K which would have to be returned ?

 

 

If administration comes Bovis would lose their money along with many smaller suppliers

[bridge too far]

But Bovis do have an option don't they? Can you sell something to the highest bidder when someone has a long standing option for which they have paid 500K which would have to be returned ?

 

I speak with no knowledge here, but applying a little bit of logic, wouldn't Bovis lose their money because they've bought an option (to buy) and not the actual land itself?

 

However, given the state of the land market at the moment, and assuming there's no Planning Permission or oil on the land, there probably wouldn't be much interest from other developers.

 

If we can hang on until the option expires in April 09 (?) the question becomes irrelevant anyway.

[SaintRichmond]

Long story short

 

It is a legal move that places a group in charge of the company. The group has to get the buisness running back within it's means while recovering money for the creditors. Anything that has value will be judged and deemed able to sell. The board and shareholders lose their shares and effectivley the club is put in sole control of the group. This means if the admin team said right were selling the food stall Lowe couldn't object etc.. Then once the debts have been paid to a level accepted by the admin team they file to the judge of the case for release. When this is accepted the club gets put up for sale with normally the highest bidder winning. However with clubs that isn't always the case, sometimes buyers are picked due to their experience in the market and likleyhood they wont bring the company back into admin.

 

People have to remember going into admin isn't a penalty in itself, it is more like intensive care for a company where it is helped and the debts written off. This is why the points penalty was brought in to stop clubs doin this as it was seen as a easy way out of debts that were amassed bt poor leadership.

 

Right now i fail to see the difference of being in admin and what is actually happening. We have sold off players, sacked a lot of staf, closed corners, removed boardroom people, taken cheap option with manager and staff etc.. The only difference i can think of is that while others are losing their jobs WIlde and Lowe keep theirs.

 

 

THAT is absolute FACT ..... In Lowe's Business Jargon, it is "Covering One's Anus Luvvie "

 

Ironically, the only thing I believe about Lowe is that he is a Businessman ....... but it is amazing how many people really think he cares one iota about Southampton Football

[Window Cleaner]

I

If we can hang on until the option expires in April 09 (?) the question becomes irrelevant anyway.

 

 

And so we will.I am as yet unconvinced that this season is loss making. As long as we're in the Carling with the hope of a mega pay day somewhere down the line ,with the cuts that have been made, I think we'll be OK, not great but OK.

I think there is vast vast underestimation on the level of cut backs. They've got to get those 2007-2008 figures out for you all to believe me on the astronomical sums we were squandering on utter garbage,player wise and coach wise.

[Window Cleaner]

THAT is absolute FACT ..... In Lowe's Business Jargon, it is "Covering One's Anus Luvvie "

 

Ironically, the only thing I believe about Lowe is that he is a Businessman ....... but it is amazing how many people really think he cares one iota about Southampton Football

 

Lowe gets paid on a basis of 2 days a week I think, Wilde gets absolutely sweet FA as far as I know. Why you keep on and on and on about their salaries beggars belief, they get no more than ambassador man Laurie Mac got in expenses.

[um pahars]

And so we will.I am as yet unconvinced that this season is loss making.

 

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

We lost £13m on normal operations (i.e. excluding player transfers) and a further £2m went out the door for the mortgage payments last year.

 

We may have managed to defer some of the mortgage, shut the corners, cut back on buses, laid off some coaching staff & some admin bods and me may have shifted some players on good wedges, but I don't think we've cutback £15m!!!!!!

 

We're still loss making at an operational level.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

We lost £13m on normal operations (i.e. excluding player transfers) and a further £2m went out the door for the mortgage payments last year.

 

We may have managed to defer some of the mortgage, shut the corners, cut back on buses, laid off some coaching staff & some admin bods and me may have shifted some players on good wedges, but I don't think we've cutback £15m!!!!!!

 

We're still loss making at an operational level.

 

Couldn't agree more .

If you factor in the seriously reduced match day income resulting from lower 'gates' of 14/15k we could easily end up with a operating loss of around £10m this FY even after all the summers cost cutting .

[Window Cleaner]

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

We lost £13m on normal operations (i.e. excluding player transfers) and a further £2m went out the door for the mortgage payments last year.

 

We may have managed to defer some of the mortgage, shut the corners, cut back on buses, laid off some coaching staff & some admin bods and me may have shifted some players on good wedges, but I don't think we've cutback £15m!!!!!!

 

We're still loss making at an operational level.

 

 

I shall wait and see, the end of year accounts should be out in a month or so.

We shall then see the true extent of the operational losses last year and their source. From then on we'll have a better idea of where we stand.

[um pahars]

I shall wait and see, the end of year accounts should be out in a month or so.

We shall then see the true extent of the operational losses last year and their source. From then on we'll have a better idea of where we stand.

 

Have a look here for the top line figures:

 

http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/news/?page_id=10348

 

"an operating loss before player trading of around £13m.", and then you have to add the £2m interest payments on to this.

[saintwarwick]

Lowe gets paid on a basis of 2 days a week I think, Wilde gets absolutely sweet FA as far as I know. Why you keep on and on and on about their salaries beggars belief, they get no more than ambassador man Laurie Mac got in expenses.

 

I'm pretty sure Lowe gets more than what Lawrie got.

[Window Cleaner]

I'm pretty sure Lowe gets more than what Lawrie got.

 

Doubt it actually.

[saintwarwick]

Doubt it actually.

 

Do you know for sure or are you guessing? I don't know for sure but previous threads/posts suggested that Lawrie was on about £75k whereas Lowe is into six figures.

[aintforever]

I've heard that Lowe draws a pretty hefty salary - it was from one of the old directors though.

[Mole1]

Don't forget the cushy severence packages Lowe and Cowen will have drawn up for themselves again.

[benjii]

The stadium is an asset.

 

The debt is a debt.

 

Divesting a company of assets for an undervalue, during a "relevant period" prior to the onset of insolvency of a company, can be overturned on application to the court by an administrator.

 

Of course if someone is willing to pay a fair price for the asset it isn't a problem, although only some sort of benevolent saviour is going to pay an amount no less than the balance outstanding under the loan notes in any case.

 

I'm not sure who the person who thinks the PLC is protected was talking to - Steward? Mate of the groundsman? Someone from the ticket office?

 

In any case, with respect to the stadium, I think you'll find that's owned by the SPV set-up for the original securitisation and bond issue. Possibly "St Marys Stadium Limited", the business of which is to "operate sports arenas & stadiums".

[benjii]

Ps - Any significant debt held by any group company is bound to be guaranteed by the parent company.

[Window Cleaner]

Do you know for sure or are you guessing? I don't know for sure but previous threads/posts suggested that Lawrie was on about £75k whereas Lowe is into six figures.

 

I said I doubt it that's all. We all know that Lowe is salaried on the basis of

2 days per week, said so himself. It's not an urban myth it's fact. In the 2006/7

campaign the directors emoluments came to 529 K ish plus pension fund + NHS charges.That's a lot of dosh, that's nothing to do with Lawrie Mac,he got "expenses" .If you look at the accounts for 2005/6 you'll see that the highest paid directors (presumably Lowe) was paid about 140K for the year. 2/5ths of that makes about 56K per annum.

[aintforever]

If we go into admin and Crouch/Fulphorpe/whoever offer a rescue package that is better than Lowe's could we see SFC rid of Lowe and the PLC?

 

And could this happen without losing the stadium etc?

[St Marco]

If we went into admin the stadium would be sold off and rented back to the club. I think this is what happens at other clubs i.e Crystal Palace,leeds etc..

[Flyer]

The stadium is an asset.

Is it? Saints dont own the stadium so surely it is the banks asset until the mortgage is 100% paid off.

[70's Mike]

Is it? Saints dont own the stadium so surely it is the banks asset until the mortgage is 100% paid off.

 

nothing to do with the bank, think it is Norwich Union.

[Gemmel]

The stadium is an asset.

 

The debt is a debt.

 

".

 

It's not our asset benji, it is our debt with Norwich Union.

[bridge too far]

So could it be possible for one group to 'buy' the stadium and lease it to the club that could be bought by another group?

[Flyer]

nothing to do with the bank' date=' think it is Norwich Union.[/quote']

 

Which is what I mean, Its NUs until Saints pay off 100% of the debt. It doesnt really matter if the mortgage is with a bank or building society, its theirs until the final payment.

[benjii]

It's not our asset benji, it is our debt with Norwich Union.

 

I will say again:

 

The stadium is an asset.

 

The debt is a debt.

 

The debt is secured against assets.

 

It's quite simple - sorry if this sounds facetious.

[Gemmel]

I will say again:

 

The stadium is an asset.

 

The debt is a debt.

 

The debt is secured against assets.

 

It's quite simple - sorry if this sounds facetious.

 

I understand the point you are making and if that makes you techincally correct then so be it.

 

But we don't own the Asset - Norwich union do

[benjii]

I understand the point you are making and if that makes you techincally correct then so be it.

 

But we don't own the Asset - Norwich union do

 

No, we (one of the group companies anyway) do own it.

 

Our debts will be secured against it (as well as just about everything else owned by the group).

 

Anyway, this is a side issue really...

 

The main point I was trying to make was that the suggestion that the PLC will be immune from administration and that some sort of ingenious hiving-up of assets will protect the football team is implausible, subject to challenge and, in some circumstances, potentially illegal.

 

The only way we could get away with such a plan is if our secured creditors have seriously deficient security in place. Seeing as our two -(assuming our overdraft is secured; in any case NU will have all encompassing security) - main creditors are large financial insitutions this seems particularly unlikely.

[dubai_phil]

No, we (one of the group companies anyway) do own it.

 

Our debts will be secured against it (as well as just about everything else owned by the group).

 

Anyway, this is a side issue really...

 

The main point I was trying to make was that the suggestion that the PLC will be immune from administration and that some sort of ingenious hiving-up of assets will protect the football team is implausible, subject to challenge and, in some circumstances, potentially illegal.

 

The only way we could get away with such a plan is if our secured creditors have seriously deficient security in place. Seeing as our two -(assuming our overdraft is secured; in any case NU will have all encompassing security) - main creditors are large financial insitutions this seems particularly unlikely.

 

hmmmm

 

Benji outed as ITK?