Administration timing

[Alain Perrin]

It's immoral to suggest Saints shouldn't have a points deduction this season regardless of

who/what/where/when triggered administration. Effectively our new owner got a £x million reduction in the asset value of the club because of the administration. That saving means he has more to budget for players etc.

 

So, in my opinion, regardless of what the rules say, a ten point reduction which has an impact (not something meaningless a la Pompey) is fair and proper.

[Dark Munster]

Great thread!

 

Even at the deadline date for Administration, to take the points drop that season, the board still thought they had the support from Barclays and were very shocked when they withdrew their support.

 

Source, please?

 

If this was true, are you saying Barclays lied to them? Or that the board didn't bother to contact Barclays just before the deadline to clarify Barclays' position?

 

 

Four days before we went into admin, Mark Dennis announced on the radio we would be going into admin (In four days) and that they would structure it, so we wouldn't get a points deduction. Which as we know was exactly how it played out.

 

 

Interesting! Thursday March 26th was the crucial deadline day. We went into administration on Wednesday April 1st (how appropriate). So according to Gemmel, Lowe knew administration was inevitable by at least by Saturday March 28th. Here are the possibilities:

 

A) On or shortly before Thursday March 26th Lowe, knowing full well that SFC needed further loans to continue running (salaries coming up., etc.), contacted Barclays to discuss in detail that the March 26th deadline was approaching, and whether they (Barclays) would be able to support them. Barclays responded by saying yes, and a few days later in effect said "Nyah, nyah, we lied" and "pulled the plug" by bouncing a small cheque.

 

B) On or shortly before Thursday March 26th Lowe, knowing full well that SFC needed further loans to continue running (salaries coming up., etc.), contacted Barclays to discuss in detail that the March 26th deadline was approaching, and whether they (Barclays) would be able to support them. Barclays responded by saying no, but Lowe ignored this (for whatever reason), and a few days later Barclays "pulled the plug" by bouncing a small cheque.

 

C) Before Thursday March 26th Lowe, even knowing full well that SFC needed further loans to continue running (salaries coming up., etc.), didn't bother to contact Barclays, crossed his fingers, hoping, or arrogantly assuming, that Barclays wouldn't pull the plug. He was wrong and a few days later Barclays "pulled the plug" by bouncing a small cheque.

 

D) Before Thursday March 26th, Lowe knew full well that administration was shortly inevitable, knew Barclays wouldn't continue to extend the loan, but deliberately waited until just after the deadline to write a bounced cheque (giving him a scapegoat for the disgraceful timing). The attempt to use the parent company loophole was probably a genuine attempt, but was no excuse for not going into admin a few days earlier (as an insurance).

 

Lowe luvvies are telling us A). I believe D).

 

serious question- who gives a flying ****?

 

Considering the -10 may cost us promotion, a hell of a lot of us give a flying **** actually.

[Kingsbridge Saint]

Maybe another factor in Lowe's choice not to go into admin early was that the -10 being applied the following season was viewed as a positive as we weren't yet relegated from the Championship at that point and could still have escaped. -10 in the Championship was maybe viewed as better than -10 in League 1. Hindsight shows we were relegated anyway but that's hindsight.

[SaintRobbie]

Can someone who knows what they are talking about help me out here please?

 

I have seen lots of posts blaming Lowe for deliberately timing administation so that we would lose 10 points this season along with relegation.

 

My understanding when it happened was that the timing had nothing to do with Lowe and that it came about because the bank pulled the plug on us at that particular point in the season.

 

So who instigated it? Lowe or Barclays?

 

Lowe held out for way too long, finally trying Barclays Bank patience for his financial incompetence as well as the fans. Barclays Bank removed Lowe and did this club the greatest favour in our most recent 20 odd year history.

 

Barclays are not to blame for the deduction, purely the imcompetence of Lowe. Without Barclays pulling the plug we'd be in a relegation battle and heading for League 2 with lowe still bumbling on with that eejit Wotte and his pesky kids playing Totally Crap Dutch football.

 

So Barclays are actually far from to blame they are to be congratulated for their decisiveness in setting this Club back on the right path and ridding us of the plc and Lowe forever.

[Professor]

It would be lunatic to take a football club into administration if you don't have to. The outcome could just as easily be complete winding up of the club. If every club chairman whom is depending on a bank to remain in business were to do that more than half the teams in the Premier League would be in administration. As for congratulating Barclays because the club was rescued is like thanking the U-Boat that sank your ship, just because you washed up on a pleasant desert island.

[trousers]

As for congratulating Barclays because the club was rescued is like thanking the U-Boat that sank your ship, just because you washed up on a pleasant desert island.

 

Where said ship already had a great big hole in it and the timely intervention of the u-boat stopped the ship ultimately drifting and sinking into shark invested waters.

 

Yep, sounds like a good analogy to me...;-)

[Fitzhugh Fella]

After his run in with Willy and the BA big guns he probably sees Rupert as a pussycat now!

 

Indeed give me Rupert over Walsh any day.

As for the book, David Bull was keen and contacted the major players but not all of them would talk on record. Maybe we have to let the dust settle.

As for forgiveness - hindsight is a wonderful thing.

When I see some of the crooks who have become involved in football clubs and what they have done to those clubs then I realise Lowe was far from evil and appreciate that he did want what was right for the club - it was just his methods that grew questionable in my mind.

[SaintRobbie]

Indeed give me Rupert over Walsh any day.

As for the book, David Bull was keen and contacted the major players but not all of them would talk on record. Maybe we have to let the dust settle.

As for forgiveness - hindsight is a wonderful thing.

When I see some of the crooks who have become involved in football clubs and what they have done to those clubs then I realise Lowe was far from evil and appreciate that he did want what was right for the club - it was just his methods that grew questionable in my mind.

 

I think that's fair. I don't think Lowe was evil and wanted to destroy the Club, he was just incompetent.

 

Sorry Professor, but Barclay's Bank removed the bloke who forgot to plan to avoid the place where the U Boats patrolled. Barclays Bank provided the lifecraft, after the torpedo, and then provided the conditions for success.

 

I remain convinced we'd have relegated to League 2 with Lowe and Wotte this year. I'm afraid that Barclay's realised that Lowe's methods, leadership, alienation of the fan base, lack of confidence, arrogance and general financial incompetence meant that the ship was already sinking fast.

 

Thank you Barclays for not only landing us on a Tropical Island but for providing us with a luxury yacht to return to the top flight.

Edited 20 April, 2010 by SaintRobbie

[SaintRobbie]

It would be lunatic to take a football club into administration if you don't have to. The outcome could just as easily be complete winding up of the club. If every club chairman whom is depending on a bank to remain in business were to do that more than half the teams in the Premier League would be in administration. As for congratulating Barclays because the club was rescued is like thanking the U-Boat that sank your ship, just because you washed up on a pleasant desert island.

 

It would be lunatic to take your plc into administration when you are the Chairman of a plc... that's what we were under Lowe and his gang, we were not a football club, Southampton Leisure Holdings plc is dead, Long live Southampton Football Club that has risen again from the flames.

 

Remember: It was Southampton Leisure Holdings plc that was destroyed by Barclays, we are now Southampton Football Club once again... and with that comes optimism, success, fun and pride in our club. Best banking decision made in recent years if you ask me!

Edited 20 April, 2010 by SaintRobbie

[sadoldgit]

You do wonder where football in this country would be if every bank called in their debts. Murdoch was a great one for racking up huge debts and daring the banks to pull the plug. I think they were very close to doing that with SKY at one point but he fronted them out. He got away with it. In the big scheme of things our debt wasn't that huge. Perhaps that was Rupert's biggest mistake? Perhaps he should have racked up a bigger debt?

 

It has worked out well for us so far but if ML ever jumps ship we could be back in the mire again. And of course we could have ended up with Pinnacle or some of the dodgy characters that have pitched up elsewhere.

[Professor]

I think that's fair. I don't think Lowe was evil and wanted to destroy the Club, he was just incompetent.

.........

I remain convinced we'd have relegated to League 2 with Lowe and Wotte this year. I'm afraid that Barclay's realised that Lowe's methods, leadership, alienation of the fan base, lack of confidence, arrogance and general financial incompetence meant that the ship was already sinking fast. Thank you Barclays for not only landing us on a Tropical Island but for providing us with a luxury yacht to return to the top flight.

Robbie, You may well be right about potential relegation to L2 but don't imagine Barclays had any interests in the outcome for the club. The bank's only duty was to its shareholders and it decided to pull the plug in order to get its money back, which they could have done earlier in the seasion when they approved Lowe's business plan in replacing Crouch, or they could have done it later. The bank had no interest in what happened after the administration and that Leibherr and Cortese came along was fantastic luck for us, it could have been anyone, or no one, as we well know from the administrator's comments at the time. It has certainly worked out for the best, but that was luck, whereas we could have become an Aldershot or an Accrington.

[Guided Missile]

I think it may be worth providing another view of the circumstances that occured, that meant we couldn't pay our debts when they came due. Is it only me that thinks the unrational anti-Lowe brigade are completely forgetting the period when Lowe wasn't Chairman and that faction, were falling over themselves to support Wilde and his promises of investment.

 

A "Wilde" spending spree to attempt an immediate return to the Premiership, taking the club from solvency, when the lunatic fringe got their way and believed his bull sh!t, to an insolvent hangover, which was worse than any that Burley had from and into which pit, for some unkown reason, Lowe jumped.

 

Lowe's main mistake was to return and that was a purely ego driven misjudgement. Wilde and his motley crew of "local" businessmen caused the administration, end of...

[The9]

I was over all of this mattering in August, what is wrong with you lot ? Enjoy yourselves, we win matches, we buy decent players, we'll be one of the favourites for promotion next season. This stuff is extremely old news and the fact that the -10 might be the difference between going up and not has been known for some 9 months now.

 

If it was the difference between staying in the league and dropping into L2, then I could see why there would be a need to squabble about it.

 

Meanwhile, in the real world, things are going pretty well for Saints.

[Legod Third Coming]

Greed ? no. Dont reckon he made that much out of us second time around (though maybe he felt he would...)

 

Incompetence ? Oh, yes.

 

An overbearing belief that he is always right and in his infallability ? Deffo.

 

He came back to protect his investment and then proceeded to indulge in the most incompetent maladministration of our club in the spurious belief that two Dutch unproven coaches and a group of youth team players could raise us from the dead...

 

He didn't see administration coming of course, because as you say (and I think this is taken as read even by his admirers) of his unswerving belief that his way was the right way. This is the downfall of all dictators in the end.

[Dalek2003]

I think it may be worth providing another view of the circumstances that occured, that meant we couldn't pay our debts when they came due. Is it only me that thinks the unrational anti-Lowe brigade are completely forgetting the period when Lowe wasn't Chairman and that faction, were falling over themselves to support Wilde and his promises of investment.

 

A "Wilde" spending spree to attempt an immediate return to the Premiership, taking the club from solvency, when the lunatic fringe got their way and believed his bull sh!t, to an insolvent hangover, which was worse than any that Burley had from and into which pit, for some unkown reason, Lowe jumped.

 

Lowe's main mistake was to return and that was a purely ego driven misjudgement. Wilde and his motley crew of "local" businessmen caused the administration, end of...

 

No, no, no. Lowe's mistake was to appoint Sturrock instead of Glenn Hoddle in 2004.

 

For once he listened to the fans, what he didn't realise was this was a vocal minority. It is ironic that when he most needed to stick yo his guns, he actually acceeded.

[Weston Saint]

Great thread!

 

 

 

Source, please?

 

If this was true, are you saying Barclays lied to them? Or that the board didn't bother to contact Barclays just before the deadline to clarify Barclays' position?

 

 

 

Interesting! Thursday March 26th was the crucial deadline day. We went into administration on Wednesday April 1st (how appropriate). So according to Gemmel, Lowe knew administration was inevitable by at least by Saturday March 28th. Here are the possibilities:

 

A) On or shortly before Thursday March 26th Lowe, knowing full well that SFC needed further loans to continue running (salaries coming up., etc.), contacted Barclays to discuss in detail that the March 26th deadline was approaching, and whether they (Barclays) would be able to support them. Barclays responded by saying yes, and a few days later in effect said "Nyah, nyah, we lied" and "pulled the plug" by bouncing a small cheque.

 

B) On or shortly before Thursday March 26th Lowe, knowing full well that SFC needed further loans to continue running (salaries coming up., etc.), contacted Barclays to discuss in detail that the March 26th deadline was approaching, and whether they (Barclays) would be able to support them. Barclays responded by saying no, but Lowe ignored this (for whatever reason), and a few days later Barclays "pulled the plug" by bouncing a small cheque.

 

C) Before Thursday March 26th Lowe, even knowing full well that SFC needed further loans to continue running (salaries coming up., etc.), didn't bother to contact Barclays, crossed his fingers, hoping, or arrogantly assuming, that Barclays wouldn't pull the plug. He was wrong and a few days later Barclays "pulled the plug" by bouncing a small cheque.

 

D) Before Thursday March 26th, Lowe knew full well that administration was shortly inevitable, knew Barclays wouldn't continue to extend the loan, but deliberately waited until just after the deadline to write a bounced cheque (giving him a scapegoat for the disgraceful timing). The attempt to use the parent company loophole was probably a genuine attempt, but was no excuse for not going into admin a few days earlier (as an insurance).

 

Lowe luvvies are telling us A). I believe D).

 

 

 

Considering the -10 may cost us promotion, a hell of a lot of us give a flying **** actually.

My information comes from 3 sources, one who was trying to assist in finding finance abroad, one who was a creditor and constantly in touch with the board and one who was actually sat with Lowe, an ex board member, on the day Admin was declared.

 

As for Mark Dennis, what would he know. He hated Lowe and worshiped Crouch. All his information came from Crouch.

 

As for Barclays, I believe the decision was made the week before following a visit from someone with clout but not part of the board. Lowe was unaware until the cheque bounced.

 

My own view is that Lowe, who had a very poor hand, tried to play poker with Barclays knowing they had a fair bit to lose (overdraft money) and they called his bluff. With the benefit of hindsight thank God they did.

[saint_stevo]

Great thread!

 

 

 

Source, please?

 

If this was true, are you saying Barclays lied to them? Or that the board didn't bother to contact Barclays just before the deadline to clarify Barclays' position?

 

 

 

Interesting! Thursday March 26th was the crucial deadline day. We went into administration on Wednesday April 1st (how appropriate). So according to Gemmel, Lowe knew administration was inevitable by at least by Saturday March 28th. Here are the possibilities:

 

A) On or shortly before Thursday March 26th Lowe, knowing full well that SFC needed further loans to continue running (salaries coming up., etc.), contacted Barclays to discuss in detail that the March 26th deadline was approaching, and whether they (Barclays) would be able to support them. Barclays responded by saying yes, and a few days later in effect said "Nyah, nyah, we lied" and "pulled the plug" by bouncing a small cheque.

 

B) On or shortly before Thursday March 26th Lowe, knowing full well that SFC needed further loans to continue running (salaries coming up., etc.), contacted Barclays to discuss in detail that the March 26th deadline was approaching, and whether they (Barclays) would be able to support them. Barclays responded by saying no, but Lowe ignored this (for whatever reason), and a few days later Barclays "pulled the plug" by bouncing a small cheque.

 

C) Before Thursday March 26th Lowe, even knowing full well that SFC needed further loans to continue running (salaries coming up., etc.), didn't bother to contact Barclays, crossed his fingers, hoping, or arrogantly assuming, that Barclays wouldn't pull the plug. He was wrong and a few days later Barclays "pulled the plug" by bouncing a small cheque.

 

D) Before Thursday March 26th, Lowe knew full well that administration was shortly inevitable, knew Barclays wouldn't continue to extend the loan, but deliberately waited until just after the deadline to write a bounced cheque (giving him a scapegoat for the disgraceful timing). The attempt to use the parent company loophole was probably a genuine attempt, but was no excuse for not going into admin a few days earlier (as an insurance).

 

Lowe luvvies are telling us A). I believe D).

 

 

 

Considering the -10 may cost us promotion, a hell of a lot of us give a flying **** actually.

 

And what can we change about that by talking about it on ere.....again?

 

Just think, without -10 this year there would have been no sticking point for Pinnacle and Tony TyreKicker when they were trying to buy us and Fialka would be our Chairman!

[Legod Third Coming]

And what can we change about that by talking about it on ere.....again?

 

Just think, without -10 this year there would have been no sticking point for Pinnacle and Tony TyreKicker when they were trying to buy us and Fialka would be our Chairman!

 

This is a very adept and mature post, Steve. Are you feelin' ok?

[bender]

Am i the only one absolutely fuming that Pompey are set to go down even with their points deduction. That means their punishment is NOTHING, absolutely squid.

 

Is this not deeply unfair especially considering they got into all theyre trouble just by buying players they shouldnt of had. This to me is discusting.

 

At least we got into our trouble for a reason that had integrity. We took a risk buying a stadium which meant we were depending on top flight football for a few years. They just bought artificial glory

[The9]

No, no, no. Lowe's mistake was to appoint Sturrock instead of Glenn Hoddle in 2004.

 

Speaking of ancient and pointless arguments...

 

Sturrock's record of P 13 W 5 D 2 L 6 would have seen us safely in midtable.

 

In Hoddle's "successful" season when he jumped ship (00/01), he left us when we still had the teams in

1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 11th and 15th place to play.

 

His "success" was gathered by playing all but one of the teams in the bottom half twice, only Liverpool in the top half twice, and bailing out just before it got tricky.

 

And then he was rubbish at Spurs and Wolves, and can't get a job in English football now.

[Thedelldays]

Am i the only one absolutely fuming that Pompey are set to go down even with their points deduction. That means their punishment is NOTHING, absolutely squid.

 

Is this not deeply unfair especially considering they got into all theyre trouble just by buying players they shouldnt of had. This to me is discusting.

 

At least we got into our trouble for a reason that had integrity. We took a risk buying a stadium which meant we were depending on top flight football for a few years. They just bought artificial glory

it is thr rules..how do you know that they may have tried harder without the points deductions

 

ask leyton orient if they think we played fair

[The9]

Am i the only one absolutely fuming that Pompey are set to go down even with their points deduction. That means their punishment is NOTHING, absolutely squid.

 

Is this not deeply unfair especially considering they got into all theyre trouble just by buying players they shouldnt of had. This to me is discusting.

 

At least we got into our trouble for a reason that had integrity. We took a risk buying a stadium which meant we were depending on top flight football for a few years. They just bought artificial glory

 

We'll see what happens to them when they get to the Football League, shall we ?

 

Also, could someone point it out to Avram that even if they get the 9 back they're still bottom, and not only has the deduction has made absolutely no difference to their survival chances, but the Prem have even ignored a bunch of their rules in an effort to make them more competitive ?

[alpine_saint]

Am i the only one absolutely fuming that Pompey are set to go down even with their points deduction. That means their punishment is NOTHING, absolutely squid.

 

Is this not deeply unfair especially considering they got into all theyre trouble just by buying players they shouldnt of had. This to me is discusting.

 

At least we got into our trouble for a reason that had integrity. We took a risk buying a stadium which meant we were depending on top flight football for a few years. They just bought artificial glory

 

If they havent sorted themselves out to the satisfaction of the FL by the time the season is starts, they get more points deduction for next season.

[RedArmy]

Just think, without -10 this year there would have been no sticking point for Pinnacle and Tony TyreKicker when they were trying to buy us and Fialka would be our Chairman!

I think having no money would've proved to be a pretty big sticking point when it came to the actual purchase. They still wouldnt have bought us.

[mikee]

Surely the point is that had Lowe put us into Administration 1 week earlier, we would still have Markus and Nicola but not the points deduction this season and would therefore be on course for automatic promotion.

 

The point deduction this season and ML are not mutually exclusive.

 

We all have our views on his motives and many of us believe he only returned to protect his equity and had very little regard for the club and certainly none for its fans. For me it was a combination of ego, greed and desperation.

 

Happy with where we are now but it could have been even better without the -10 this season.

[alpine_saint]

No, no, no. Lowe's mistake was to appoint Sturrock instead of Glenn Hoddle in 2004.

 

For once he listened to the fans, what he didn't realise was this was a vocal minority. It is ironic that when he most needed to stick yo his guns, he actually acceeded.

 

I dont know how you keep it up, Glenn..

[saint_stevo]

No, no, no. Lowe's mistake was to appoint Sturrock instead of Glenn Hoddle in 2004.

 

For once he listened to the fans, what he didn't realise was this was a vocal minority. It is ironic that when he most needed to stick yo his guns, he actually acceeded.

 

Good news Dalek, Glenn is back in Southampton........bought a house, joined the local golf club.........

[saint_stevo]

This is a very adept and mature post, Steve. Are you feelin' ok?

 

My name isn't Steve!

 

But thanks, im trying it out

[saintjay77]

When Lowe came back in we were a club heading for Administration and as FF says Lowe expressed his fears to Salz some weeks before.

 

To give Lowe his due when he came back he knew the game was nearly over and he and Cowan tried everything to try to save the club from liquidation. I am reliably informed that including offering to convert much of the stadium debt into equity from Aviva, something I understand they rejected, an attempt to get investment from Hoddle's academy principlals but highjacked before it got off the ground by a ruling at the top of football.

 

Even at the deadline date for Administration, to take the points drop that season, the board still thought they had the support from Barclays and were very shocked when they withdrew their support.

 

It was on that day they sought an Administrator. The shares were immediately suspended and the few hours between the suspension and Admin being announced was spend persuading Lowe to step away from the business with immediate effect, something he did with reluctance but understanding.

 

Lowe & Cowan were in the driving seat but Wilde and his appointees fatally damaged the business.

 

I did not like Lowe. He was arrogant, he could not communicate and he did not listen but anyone who suggests he delayed Administration on purpose purely out of spite really do not understand what went on in the club in recent times.

 

Probably the most balenced post on this whole thread.

 

Dont think anyone "liked" Lowe but some of the carp that is spouted off about how he did this and that is amazing. It doesnt matter any more and it will do none of us any good by arguing about it still.

 

We were a club on the delcine after the FA Cup final. Poor decissions back then probably cost us our place in the prem and thats where I lay blame at Lowe's feet.

 

After that there was a collection of errors from all party's with who ever was on the outside looking in causing as much trouble as possible.

 

Lowe did himself no favours in coming back and in hindsight he probably wished he never did as the club went the same direction it was heading anyway. The only way anyone of them were going to "rescue" the club was if they had 100% support from everyone else including fans, shareholders and the bank.

 

The good thing about it is its all in the past and we have managed to get the best possible outcome. A new owner that doesnt want to run the club based on debt but wants the club to be one of the best.

 

Cant ask for more really.

[saintjay77]

Am i the only one absolutely fuming that Pompey are set to go down even with their points deduction. That means their punishment is NOTHING, absolutely squid.

 

Is this not deeply unfair especially considering they got into all theyre trouble just by buying players they shouldnt of had. This to me is discusting.

 

At least we got into our trouble for a reason that had integrity. We took a risk buying a stadium which meant we were depending on top flight football for a few years. They just bought artificial glory

 

If poopy went into admin after the end of march then surly they should be blessed with the same set of rules that applied to us?

 

If it was before the end of march then the points wont carry over.

 

On top of that as others have said, if they dont have an agreement to take them out of admin by the time the next season starts then they are possibly up for a further 15 points.

 

Dont think the FL have made any comment on the matter yet but I would expect them to be starting on -10

[saintjay77]

Surely the point is that had Lowe put us into Administration 1 week earlier, we would still have Markus and Nicola but not the points deduction this season and would therefore be on course for automatic promotion.

 

The point deduction this season and ML are not mutually exclusive.

 

We all have our views on his motives and many of us believe he only returned to protect his equity and had very little regard for the club and certainly none for its fans. For me it was a combination of ego, greed and desperation.

 

Happy with where we are now but it could have been even better without the -10 this season.

 

1 week earlier we were a club that was going no-where fast but were still servicing all our debts.

 

Show me a company that is holding its head above the water and then puts its self into admin.....

 

Also had we taken the points last year the new owners could well have been pinacle and whats his face. as a more attractive option they could well have scraped together the cash and bought us before ML had a chance.

 

We would no doubt be on route to another relegation and a future spell in admin had that been the case as that lot had no more money than Rupes.

[stmusicdude]

Great thread!

 

 

 

Source, please?

 

If this was true, are you saying Barclays lied to them? Or that the board didn't bother to contact Barclays just before the deadline to clarify Barclays' position?

 

 

 

Interesting! Thursday March 26th was the crucial deadline day. We went into administration on Wednesday April 1st (how appropriate). So according to Gemmel, Lowe knew administration was inevitable by at least by Saturday March 28th. Here are the possibilities:

 

A) On or shortly before Thursday March 26th Lowe, knowing full well that SFC needed further loans to continue running (salaries coming up., etc.), contacted Barclays to discuss in detail that the March 26th deadline was approaching, and whether they (Barclays) would be able to support them. Barclays responded by saying yes, and a few days later in effect said "Nyah, nyah, we lied" and "pulled the plug" by bouncing a small cheque.

 

B) On or shortly before Thursday March 26th Lowe, knowing full well that SFC needed further loans to continue running (salaries coming up., etc.), contacted Barclays to discuss in detail that the March 26th deadline was approaching, and whether they (Barclays) would be able to support them. Barclays responded by saying no, but Lowe ignored this (for whatever reason), and a few days later Barclays "pulled the plug" by bouncing a small cheque.

 

C) Before Thursday March 26th Lowe, even knowing full well that SFC needed further loans to continue running (salaries coming up., etc.), didn't bother to contact Barclays, crossed his fingers, hoping, or arrogantly assuming, that Barclays wouldn't pull the plug. He was wrong and a few days later Barclays "pulled the plug" by bouncing a small cheque.

 

D) Before Thursday March 26th, Lowe knew full well that administration was shortly inevitable, knew Barclays wouldn't continue to extend the loan, but deliberately waited until just after the deadline to write a bounced cheque (giving him a scapegoat for the disgraceful timing). The attempt to use the parent company loophole was probably a genuine attempt, but was no excuse for not going into admin a few days earlier (as an insurance).

 

Lowe luvvies are telling us A). I believe D).

 

 

 

Considering the -10 may cost us promotion, a hell of a lot of us give a flying **** actually.

 

There ARE other things that COULD of occured durring this period.

I don't accept it is as black & white as you have implied in either A or B

Lowe prob did make mistakes, but then the damage was done more so in the year he was "away" & it was I think unless we had a good year unrecoverable.

I have an open mind on what went wrong & who is to blame, but it's not really important at all now. Actually the other bid prolly did us more damage than all this .

[Capel Saint]

Probably the most balenced post on this whole thread.

 

Dont think anyone "liked" Lowe but some of the carp that is spouted off about how he did this and that is amazing. It doesnt matter any more and it will do none of us any good by arguing about it still.

 

We were a club on the delcine after the FA Cup final. Poor decissions back then probably cost us our place in the prem and thats where I lay blame at Lowe's feet.

 

After that there was a collection of errors from all party's with who ever was on the outside looking in causing as much trouble as possible.

 

Lowe did himself no favours in coming back and in hindsight he probably wished he never did as the club went the same direction it was heading anyway. The only way anyone of them were going to "rescue" the club was if they had 100% support from everyone else including fans, shareholders and the bank.

 

The good thing about it is its all in the past and we have managed to get the best possible outcome. A new owner that doesnt want to run the club based on debt but wants the club to be one of the best.

 

Cant ask for more really.

 

Indeed it is. I understand that Barclays put the plc into administration for two reasons. Firstly, they were unhappy that no players were sold during the January transfer window to service the debt (as previously posted). Secondly, they reduced the overdraft from £5m to £4m which put the plc over the limit. There are rumours that Barclays had told Lowe and the Board in January that they were going to do this but they called Barclay's bluff and got a nasty shock. Barclays by January could see that the toxic debt of investments and the recession were starting to bite and were therefore reducing overdrafts on a number of businesses.

 

Unfortunately, also being a plc stucture no one was going to buy the club in its current state and going into admin was pretty well the only option left. I believe the Board thought that they could hold admin off until the summer but Barclays didn't wait that long.

 

I agree with other posters that Lowe thought that the FA wouldn't punish the club because he had seen Derby get away with a plc going into administration before and the club not get a points deduction. Again, he didn't realise that Malwhinney wanted to close this loophole and make an example of Saints.

 

At least 12 months on, everything is so much rosier and the club is really benefitting being in private hands with one owner and one Chairman who are in process of rebuilding this great club.

[alpine_saint]

Indeed it is. I understand that Barclays put the plc into administration for two reasons. Firstly, they were unhappy that no players were sold during the January transfer window to service the debt (as previously posted). Secondly, they reduced the overdraft from £5m to £4m which put the plc over the limit. There are rumours that Barclays had told Lowe and the Board in January that they were going to do this but they called Barclay's bluff and got a nasty shock. Barclays by January could see that the toxic debt of investments and the recession were starting to bite and were therefore reducing overdrafts on a number of businesses.

 

Unfortunately, also being a plc stucture no one was going to buy the club in its current state and going into admin was pretty well the only option left. I believe the Board thought that they could hold admin off until the summer but Barclays didn't wait that long.

I agree with other posters that Lowe thought that the FA wouldn't punish the club because he had seen Derby get away with a plc going into administration before and the club not get a points deduction. Again, he didn't realise that Malwhinney wanted to close this loophole and make an example of Saints.

 

At least 12 months on, everything is so much rosier and the club is really benefitting being in private hands with one owner and one Chairman who are in process of rebuilding this great club.

 

So, Lowe made three colossal errors of judgement, not just one.

 

And some still question where the responsibility lies

[ottery st mary]

I could write pages about SIMPLE JACK, who just would not listen to anybody.

The Bank warned him many times ...Eventually cheques bouncing all over the place and at least a couple made out to him and his naughty colleague for large amounts....Wages/bonus or last attempt to extract sum dosh before the plug was pulled? You naughty, naughty boyzz ... He always knew better..

 

Sorry...Forgot to mention...points...SPITE otherwise He is just a bigger IDIOT than I realised.

 

 

Some posters try to this day to excuse Simple Jack....

Edited 20 April, 2010 by ottery st mary

[saintjay77]

Indeed it is. I understand that Barclays put the plc into administration for two reasons. Firstly, they were unhappy that no players were sold during the January transfer window to service the debt (as previously posted). Secondly, they reduced the overdraft from £5m to £4m which put the plc over the limit. There are rumours that Barclays had told Lowe and the Board in January that they were going to do this but they called Barclay's bluff and got a nasty shock. Barclays by January could see that the toxic debt of investments and the recession were starting to bite and were therefore reducing overdrafts on a number of businesses.

 

Unfortunately, also being a plc stucture no one was going to buy the club in its current state and going into admin was pretty well the only option left. I believe the Board thought that they could hold admin off until the summer but Barclays didn't wait that long.

 

I agree with other posters that Lowe thought that the FA wouldn't punish the club because he had seen Derby get away with a plc going into administration before and the club not get a points deduction. Again, he didn't realise that Malwhinney wanted to close this loophole and make an example of Saints.

 

At least 12 months on, everything is so much rosier and the club is really benefitting being in private hands with one owner and one Chairman who are in process of rebuilding this great club.

 

Hadnt the club reduced the amount of debt by around 3 million leading up to the transfer window without selling anyone?

 

Maybe the board thought they would continue to get the banks support as they had shown that they could run the business on a shoe string and reduce the debt?

 

I dont claim to know any facts and not many on here can but looking at all the info it looks to me like Lowe tried everything to keep the club running at least.

 

The right thing to to when the club was insolvent was to put the club into administration.(something Poopy forgot to do when the time came) I dont think any loop hole came into the thinking when the decission was made. The club tried to use the make up of the PLC as a way to avoid the -10 and any other club in the same situation would have done the same thing.

 

Malwnker didnt close any loop hole and even stated before that if the holding company went into admin the club would not be punished. The loop hole is still there now but the FL will continue to choose how it implys its rules. We were on the wrong end of that decission this time (wrightly IMO) but it was worth a shot.

 

Although the points in the whole debate can be argued forever more I couldnt agree more with your last point and its bloody fantastic that we all have something so positive to support. Them lot down the road will be looking up to us for a long long time to come.

[Capel Saint]

So, Lowe made three colossal errors of judgement, not just one.

 

And some still question where the responsibility lies

 

I think the responsibilty lies with the whole Board which had Lowe, Wilde and Crouch on Board so yes, the Board made three colossal errors. I know Crouch helped the club during the Admin period but unfortunately he was as much to blame as anyone, as they constantly argued and undermined each other.

[saintjay77]

So, Lowe made three colossal errors of judgement, not just one.

 

And some still question where the responsibility lies

 

those 3 errors being:

 

1. A Rumour

2. The boards thoughts

3. A rule that fitted our situation perfectly but the FL then went with the deduction anyway

 

And some still question the facts

 

[alpine_saint]

I think the responsibilty lies with the whole Board which had Lowe, Wilde and Crouch on Board so yes, the Board made three colossal errors. I know Crouch helped the club during the Admin period but unfortunately he was as much to blame as anyone, as they constantly argued and undermined each other.

 

those 3 errors being:

 

1. A Rumour

2. The boards thoughts

3. A rule that fitted our situation perfectly but the FL then went with the deduction anyway

 

And some still question the facts

 

 

I must have missed something. I thought Lowe was the Chairman (leader) of the board....

[Capel Saint]

Hadnt the club reduced the amount of debt by around 3 million leading up to the transfer window without selling anyone?

 

Maybe the board thought they would continue to get the banks support as they had shown that they could run the business on a shoe string and reduce the debt?

 

I dont claim to know any facts and not many on here can but looking at all the info it looks to me like Lowe tried everything to keep the club running at least.

 

The right thing to to when the club was insolvent was to put the club into administration.(something Poopy forgot to do when the time came) I dont think any loop hole came into the thinking when the decission was made. The club tried to use the make up of the PLC as a way to avoid the -10 and any other club in the same situation would have done the same thing.

 

Malwnker didnt close any loop hole and even stated before that if the holding company went into admin the club would not be punished. The loop hole is still there now but the FL will continue to choose how it implys its rules. We were on the wrong end of that decission this time (wrightly IMO) but it was worth a shot.

 

Although the points in the whole debate can be argued forever more I couldnt agree more with your last point and its bloody fantastic that we all have something so positive to support. Them lot down the road will be looking up to us for a long long time to come.

 

Indeed. It is nice to see Saints contining to improve on and off the field with an owner that generally cares for the club and knows the huge positive effect it has with the fans and the community.

 

I have no doubt that Portsmouth, now that they are relegated to the Championship, could potentially fall further down the league as a new owner is facing a club with an outdated, crumbling ground, a threadbare squad, no training ground assets, probably no scouting network either and would be very surprised if Avram Grant was still managing them next season.

[The9]

If poopy went into admin after the end of march then surly they should be blessed with the same set of rules that applied to us?

 

If it was before the end of march then the points wont carry over.

 

On top of that as others have said, if they dont have an agreement to take them out of admin by the time the next season starts then they are possibly up for a further 15 points.

 

Dont think the FL have made any comment on the matter yet but I would expect them to be starting on -10

 

The Premier League have different rules to the FL. Which is why people keep saying "we'll see" about what the FL will do if they're still in Admin.

 

I've been saying since the start of the season that there's the possibility of their -9 (which was inevitable even then) having zero effect and them not being penalised by the Football League because they're not a member at the moment, but either way if they're in admin when they apply to join the Championship they'll get a deduction.

 

I'm kinda hoping someone will mention their financial irregularities as well...

[saintjay77]

I must have missed something. I thought Lowe was the Chairman (leader) of the board....

 

Not even worth arguing it with you bud.

[alpine_saint]

Not even worth arguing it with you bud.

 

Up to you. We all know the board room at SMS was dictatorial under his chair.

[saintjay77]

The Premier League have different rules to the FL. Which is why people keep saying "we'll see" about what the FL will do if they're still in Admin.

 

I've been saying since the start of the season that there's the possibility of their -9 (which was inevitable even then) having zero effect and them not being penalised by the Football League because they're not a member at the moment, but either way if they're in admin when they apply to join the Championship they'll get a deduction.

 

I'm kinda hoping someone will mention their financial irregularities as well...

 

Trouble is, this situation has never happened so its hard to say what they will do.

 

I would have thought other clubs will have something to say if the FL let them in with no penalty.

 

We went into admin after the end of March and we had to start the following season with a points penalty. Does it really matter what league we were in before?

 

The FL could well use its own rules as a guide line and impose the same punishment based on all its members being treated the same. Why treat poopy differently just because they are coming from the prem? Our decline started in the prem but we managed to make our decline take a few seasons where as Poopy went down faster than the titanic.

 

Have the FL said anything about how they will treat Poopy? I wonder if NC will take any action if they dont get a deduction. It looked like he was routing for them a while back when they were trying to get out of there initial -9.

[saintjay77]

Up to you. We all know the board room at SMS was dictatorial under his chair.

 

Of course it was, only not as much as it is under NC.

[Wopper]

I must have missed something. I thought Lowe was the Chairman (leader) of the board....

 

He was definitely the biggest w*nker.

[once_bitterne]

Speaking of ancient and pointless arguments...

 

Sturrock's record of P 13 W 5 D 2 L 6 would have seen us safely in midtable.

 

In Hoddle's "successful" season when he jumped ship (00/01), he left us when we still had the teams in

1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 11th and 15th place to play.

 

His "success" was gathered by playing all but one of the teams in the bottom half twice, only Liverpool in the top half twice, and bailing out just before it got tricky.

 

And then he was rubbish at Spurs and Wolves, and can't get a job in English football now.

 

Anyone who thinks that Sturrock could have been an effective Premier League manager needs sectioning.

[Gemmel]

.

 

As for Mark Dennis, what would he know. He hated Lowe and worshiped Crouch. All his information came from Crouch.QUOTE]

 

Well he broke it first and I tried to find the post about it, but the history doesnt go back that far. THinking abbout it now, it could well have been a week before and not the four days. Which if the case, is relevant to the original question as it would that effect when the points were deducted.

 

As most have said and I agree, it's all irrelevant now anyway and just enjoying the ride.

[St_Tel49]

You do wonder where football in this country would be if every bank called in their debts. Murdoch was a great one for racking up huge debts and daring the banks to pull the plug. I think they were very close to doing that with SKY at one point but he fronted them out. He got away with it. In the big scheme of things our debt wasn't that huge. Perhaps that was Rupert's biggest mistake? Perhaps he should have racked up a bigger debt?

 

It has worked out well for us so far but if ML ever jumps ship we could be back in the mire again. And of course we could have ended up with Pinnacle or some of the dodgy characters that have pitched up elsewhere.

 

You owe the bank £5k and cannot pay - you are in trouble. You owe the bank £5bn and can't pay - the bank's in trouble. Clearly Murdock's principle and he has got away with it.

[alpine_saint]

Of course it was, only not as much as it is under NC.

 

Didnt realise we still had a board at all, to be honest.

 

I dont care about dictatorial control if it achieves something.