Too many consortiums for Mr Fry (and us)?

[Clapham Saint]

As far as I'm aware it's the creditors who decide wrt offers, and that means the secured creditors (ie. Aviva) are the ones in control. As far as I know Barclays don't have a fixed charge do they?

 

As for what we as fans want, well I'm afraid we're at the bottom of the pile too, the ones getting the say are Aviva, the ones getting the money are Aviva and the administrators.

 

Beyond that, it's just fingers crossed it's somebody completely unrelated to the previous business at the club - from Lowe, Wilde, Crouch, Corbett, to LLS, Fulthorpe and Salz. But you can bet your life several of them are involved somewhere in the bids.

 

It is almost certainly a fixed and floating "all assets" debenture. This means that all assets that are fixed (i.e. the stadium, the shares of SFC Limited and all other assets that are "bolted down" will require concent before sales can be completed.

 

Other assets such as stock will be covered by the "floating" element of the charge and so don't require the concent.

 

Mr Fry will do all of the negotiating (as he is the one in control) but he will in all probability keep the banks in the loop throughout the process.

 

If the Bank's have a big issue with anything they will make it known during the negotiations.

[Nineteen Canteen]

Except that as chargeholders Barclays and Aviva will need to concent to the sale of the assets covered by their debentures.

 

They hold significantly more influence than Cedar Press or the milkman. Unfortunately.

 

Clapham, are there rules around timings of receipt of interests and then how long it takes for these be assessed by the Administrator before presentation to the creditors? Is their a duty on the Administrator to prove a 'bid's' claim in terms of available funds/business proposal?

 

Just interested if you have any idea how long we will effectively remain in limbo? Do you have any thoughts on the forensic accounting requested by the League and what conclusion they are most likely to make based on you knowledge on the outside looking in?

 

Your insight would be of interest to many.

[SaintRichmond]

Apologies for starting a new thread on this but with the number of potential consortiums now said to be in the region of 35 I am concerned at how Mr Fry is going to be able to make the right choice (By right I mean in the best interests of the football club).

 

As far as I am aware his duty is to get the best return for the creditors. The more interest there is the more he can drive the price up. If at the end of the day he has a choice between Consortium A who are offering to cough up £12m to settle all debts and Consortium B who are prepared to go to £18m surely he would have to go for option B?

 

But what if Consortium A are a well-respected group of local successful business men who are genuinely committed to the future of SFC while the B bunch are just a group of wealthy speculators who would not invest in the team while looking to sell on for a quick profit? I assume most on this forum would want Consortium A but I am sure at the end of the day Fry would have to go for option B.

 

Consortium A may then be forced to come back and up their bid but the extra money they submit would then not be available to invest in the team building we will certainly need once the dust from this season has settled.

 

I know the identity of one consortium out there and think they to probably be just "what the doctor ordered" for our club but I am concerned they will be "outbid" by much less scrupulous operators better equiped to meet Fry's and the creditors "rising by the minute" expectations! I hope I am wrong.

 

 

Sorry folks, but I just do not like the "smell" of The Administrators (Mr Fry)

 

I know things take time, and I know that of the circa 31 "interested parties", most will not be worth a second look

 

BUT, I get the funny feling that we will NOT be bought out/taken over/have major Investment

 

What I think will happen is just a rehash, ie a "double/triple by pass reverse takeover " scenario ............... with a consortium headed by " I know why I'm not liked" Rupert Lowe

 

Then he can start all over again

[derry]

It is almost certainly a fixed and floating "all assets" debenture. This means that all assets that are fixed (i.e. the stadium, the shares of SFC Limited and all other assets that are "bolted down" will require concent before sales can be completed.

 

Other assets such as stock will be covered by the "floating" element of the charge and so don't require the concent.

 

Mr Fry will do all of the negotiating (as he is the one in control) but he will in all probability keep the banks in the loop throughout the process.

 

If the Bank's have a big issue with anything they will make it known during the negotiations.

 

Would you pm me your contact details in confidence, in case we need advice on this issue?

[Clapham Saint]

Need Clapham Saint to comment but in the unlikely event Lifelong has the strongest bid Fry puts it forward and the Creditors make the decision. Surely, the administrator is obligated to put forward the best bids without influence. Not sure as I'm not accountant but there must be regulatory rules that govern how these bids are managed and fry's role I assume is to complete the due diligence and present them without making any right or worng decisions and certainly not based on what is good for us.

 

If LLS come up with the highest bid then he comes up with the highest bid. There isn't much anyone can do about it.

 

Although the Banks have to concent they are not the ones in charge.

 

The Banks are not allowed to "unreasonably withold concent" to a sale.

 

If the one consortium offers enough to allow amounts to be paid to the creditors further down the food chain, whilst others didn't then Mr Fry would have a responsibility to seek to sell to that party. If the Bank's don't like it they can only withhold concent with good reason.

 

Sadly there is no definition of what constitutes "unreasonable".

[The Rover]

Just as Administration was pretty much a foregone conclusion as soon as Lowe kicked off the Dutch Revolution, it was always clear that SLH would go to the highest bidder whatever their motives.

 

I think many of us were worried that there would actually be too few bidders and that Lowe and/or Wilde would gain control again on the cheap.

 

At least with several interested parties (35 is a joke of course), SLH will go to a group with real money. There's no guarantee that they would have the football club's interests at heart but they would have to be extremely bullish speculators to put a great deal of value in anything else that the group owns.

 

Jacksons Farm seems many years away from any chance of gaining planning permission for development and of course the housing and industrial market are in slump now anyway. I should think any potential investor looking at this type of site would be able to find something with a far more certain return over a shorter period elsewhere.

 

There are no guarantees but I think on balance that having large number of interested parties is a positive thing for the future of the football club.

[up and away]

Apologies for starting a new thread on this but with the number of potential consortiums now said to be in the region of 35 I am concerned at how Mr Fry is going to be able to make the right choice (By right I mean in the best interests of the football club).

 

As far as I am aware his duty is to get the best return for the creditors. The more interest there is the more he can drive the price up. If at the end of the day he has a choice between Consortium A who are offering to cough up £12m to settle all debts and Consortium B who are prepared to go to £18m surely he would have to go for option B?

 

But what if Consortium A are a well-respected group of local successful business men who are genuinely committed to the future of SFC while the B bunch are just a group of wealthy speculators who would not invest in the team while looking to sell on for a quick profit? I assume most on this forum would want Consortium A but I am sure at the end of the day Fry would have to go for option B.

 

Consortium A may then be forced to come back and up their bid but the extra money they submit would then not be available to invest in the team building we will certainly need once the dust from this season has settled.

 

I know the identity of one consortium out there and think they to probably be just "what the doctor ordered" for our club but I am concerned they will be "outbid" by much less scrupulous operators better equiped to meet Fry's and the creditors "rising by the minute" expectations! I hope I am wrong.

 

From what I can gather from generalisations rather than specifics is that 80-90% of these are blaggers and Walter Mittys. Some who actually have the money and have looked at us before and two groups who have had involvement with Saints previously.

 

I can't see those with money doing anything until they actually know which division we will be in next year and equally with what point deduction. Either way it will be post administration before they will move.

 

It is perfectly clear from Crouch that they cannot afford to move until administration wipes out the debts and contracts to give his money any chance of doing anything. If he can't afford the £0.5M to keep us afloat and buy out the club, there does not seem very much coming from that route!

 

This is why I cannot see anyone moving until we have been through administration.

[trousers]

Or ex manager ?

As regards Marc Jackson (LLS), if Mark Fry were to see that famous TV interview he had while trying to big it up at Bournemouth, then that should be the last we here of him.

 

ITV are in the process rebuilding the 'ITV Local' website and the original link doesn't currently work anymore:

 

http://www.itvlocal.com/meridian/sport/?player=MER_Sport_15&void=175029

[Victor]

There are a lot of things that I am unclear about but which seem to have a relevance on the money that Fry will be able to raise and the value of the football club. e.g.:

 

The stadium – I believe is owned by another arm of the Plc. Who will own it when the dust settles? How much will they charge the football club for using it? Will the club have guaranteed use (presumably Fry will have to obtain assurances that it will be available to the club & not knocked down for development otherwise SFC will be worth no more than its existing assets, less its debts)?

 

Jackson's Farm - which part of SLH owns this? I don't believe it is SFC and therefore will not affect SFC's value. Did not the Corbett family donate it with provisos that affect its use, and therefore value?

 

Does anyone know the situation regarding these?

 

These things are interlinked, will affect the value of SFC and will have to be considered by Fry, but at the end of the day IMO it will be the highest bidder gets the club.

[miserableoldgit]

He's just a small time business man whose ego is bigger than any of his appendages, apart from his head.

 

I can't believe that anyone would take him seriously.

You know this how??

[bridge too far]

You know this how??

 

Just a guess. It's usually the way with little men.

 

The only thing big about them are the chips on their shoulders.

[Clapham Saint]

I think the short term debts such as Cedar Press would be taken care of by the football club not in administration. I expect those sort of things have been taken care of.

 

Duncan, if you really think that, then maybe a call to your contact, to make them aware that there is an initiative specifically to assist in that event. I obviously know who you are talking about and endorse their suitability from the limited information at my disposal.

 

As a matter of interest it is anticipated £15m would buy SLH and it's assets and clear the debt.

 

If Cedar press are owed money then they are almost definately owed money by SFC Limited.

 

SFC Limited is not in administration. If somebody buys the shares of SFC Limited it makes no difference to the amount that is owed to Cedar Press or the way in which it should be repaid in the normal course of business buy SFC Limited.

[Fitzhugh Fella]

I think the short term debts such as Cedar Press would be taken care of by the football club not in administration. I expect those sort of things have been taken care of.

 

Duncan, if you really think that, then maybe a call to your contact, to make them aware that there is an initiative specifically to assist in that event. I obviously know who you are talking about and endorse their suitability from the limited information at my disposal.

 

As a matter of interest it is anticipated £15m would buy SLH and it's assets and clear the debt.

 

Done!

[jonah]

Jackson's Farm - which part of SLH owns this? I don't believe it is SFC and therefore will not affect SFC's value.

 

Listed in the SLH accounts, last valued in OCtober 2007 at £1.1m.

 

Did not the Corbett family donate it with provisos that affect its use, and therefore value?

 

No they did not! John Corbett bought it on Saints' behalf on the understanding he was repaid in full which he was. No donation, no gift, Saints paid for it.

[derry]

Done!

 

Thanks, don't you have a strike to organise? Another arrogant little **** that needs taking down a peg.

[SP Saint]

If LLS come up with the highest bid then he comes up with the highest bid. There isn't much anyone can do about it.

 

Although the Banks have to concent they are not the ones in charge.

 

The Banks are not allowed to "unreasonably withold concent" to a sale.

 

If the one consortium offers enough to allow amounts to be paid to the creditors further down the food chain, whilst others didn't then Mr Fry would have a responsibility to seek to sell to that party. If the Bank's don't like it they can only withhold concent with good reason.

 

Sadly there is no definition of what constitutes "unreasonable".

 

If Cedar press are owed money then they are almost definately owed money by SFC Limited.

 

SFC Limited is not in administration. If somebody buys the shares of SFC Limited it makes no difference to the amount that is owed to Cedar Press or the way in which it should be repaid in the normal course of business buy SFC Limited.

 

You're not Lifelong Saint by any chance are you?

[SP Saint]

Listed in the SLH accounts, last valued in OCtober 2007 at £1.1m.

 

 

 

No they did not! John Corbett bought it on Saints' behalf on the understanding he was repaid in full which he was. No donation, no gift, Saints paid for it.

 

As Mary C acknowledged in a radio interview a few months back.

[Clapham Saint]

You're not Lifelong Saint by any chance are you?

 

Ha no.

 

However happy to admit that I can't spell for sh1te so it's lucky I earn my salary from numbers rather than words.:cool:

[SP Saint]

Ha no.

 

However happy to admit that I can't spell for sh1te so it's lucky I earn my salary from numbers rather than words.:cool:

 

Sorry - thought you were a lawyer who couldn't spell 'consent' which would have been a bit worrying.

[NickG]

Apologies for starting a new thread on this but with the number of potential consortiums now said to be in the region of 35 I am concerned at how Mr Fry is going to be able to make the right choice (By right I mean in the best interests of the football club).

 

As far as I am aware his duty is to get the best return for the creditors. The more interest there is the more he can drive the price up. If at the end of the day he has a choice between Consortium A who are offering to cough up £12m to settle all debts and Consortium B who are prepared to go to £18m surely he would have to go for option B?

 

But what if Consortium A are a well-respected group of local successful business men who are genuinely committed to the future of SFC while the B bunch are just a group of wealthy speculators who would not invest in the team while looking to sell on for a quick profit? I assume most on this forum would want Consortium A but I am sure at the end of the day Fry would have to go for option B.

 

Consortium A may then be forced to come back and up their bid but the extra money they submit would then not be available to invest in the team building we will certainly need once the dust from this season has settled.

 

I know the identity of one consortium out there and think they to probably be just "what the doctor ordered" for our club but I am concerned they will be "outbid" by much less scrupulous operators better equiped to meet Fry's and the creditors "rising by the minute" expectations! I hope I am wrong.

 

very simplistic view is those who can out bid are those who

a) want it more

b) have more backing

 

therefore not bad starting point.

 

I know its far too simplistic but without seeing the various presentations what else can we go on?

[Clapham Saint]

Sorry - thought you were a lawyer who couldn't spell 'consent' which would have been a bit worrying.

 

Accountant. :smt066

[InvictaSaint]

Robbie you really make me laugh and cry in equal measure. You got your cake and now you want to it, well time to wake up and smell the coffee all our rights went out the window when Fry and Co walked in. In essence we pretty much have got what we deserved as we failed to support the club and the one thing you want you are not going to get unless you are creditor.

 

The administrator is there to act on behalf of the creditors and ensure they are repaid what they are owed (A) and hopefully sell the club as a going concern (B).

 

If A can't be achieved with B and debts repaid in full then the club will be either liquidiated and closed down and proceeds put towards the companies debt for distribution or partial repayment agreed couple with most convincing business plan to satisfy future repayment of creditors.

 

Your reassurance doesn't come into Robbie we as supporters are out of the loop. Lets all have a boycott to show our displeasure shall we?

 

19C, you make some eminently sensible points and then blow it all out of the water with this nonsense. I have been warming to your views on the current situation and I am more convinced now than ever that you have the club's best interests at heart. I looked up your name recently and was intrigued to find it is an old Scots expression meaning "a long or undetermined amount of time ago". I can only assume therefore that you are of the silver surfer generation and that your mind has somewhat addled over time in order to come out with this sort of statement. :-)

 

Firstly, it is disingenuous in the extreme to blame fans who chose not to turn up in the Lowe era (part two). Having been referred to as "customers" for some time by Mr. Lowe, our former Chairman then found out how customers, in even the most fiercely loyalty driven industry around, react when treated as imbeciles, when given a fifth-rate manager in JP and kids just out of nappies for a team (only to then back-track on the whole mental experiment when it became apparent even to Lowe that it had done tits up). There are only so many insults and kicks in the teeth even the most ardent of Saints supporters will take before these "customers" decide they have had enough.

 

Furthermore you have the manic overspending of Lowe's recent turncoat partner Michael Wilde during the two years Lowe was away. Too many overpaid players on silly wages for a club in the CCC, and our future was gambled away by Wilde, Crouch et al when they gave Burley (a Lowe appointment) the job of getting us promoted; a job he ultimately failed to do successfully. Lowe then returns and you have the ultimate recipe for alienating the fans - three years of nearly but not quite followed by Lowe's return, massive (necessary) cutbacks, redundancies, player sales and desperately poor decision making on the football front.

 

Had the fans returned in their droves it may well have staved off the current situation for a while, but you cannot expect supporters to keep on stumping up cash to see a team which, the previous year, they could have got to see for free! Lowe may well have done what needed to be done, but he did so without any thought or consideration for the fact that in such situations a club needs to be united, and supporters have to be able to see that all efforts are being made to support the footballing side of the club to at least hold its own. Had he done so, I feel he would have had a greater chance of succeeding, but we all know it's not his MO don't we?

 

In essence, many people are indeed to blame for the current situation, but to blame long-suffering, often hard up supporters is shoddy in the extreme.

 

However.....the debate you bring is improving with every post, so keep it up old fella. :-)

[LGTL]

35 is better than 0.

[Clapham Saint]

35 is better than 0.

 

Exactly.

[NickG]

This news scares me too.

 

Surely Mr Fry would look at LLS's past 'endeavours' and realise that he's not very good at this sort of thing (c*ck up at Bournemouth springs to mind) and not take him seriously?

I do hope so.

 

 

he dealt with Bournemouth as administrator as well

[itchen]

Please can we not turn this (quite interesting) thread into yet another round of pro- and anti-Lowe insults? There are plenty of other threads to do that on.

[thefuriousb]

You know this how??

 

He is/was a photocopier salesman, right? Not a photocopier repair man in a porno.

 

I think on this basis, we can assume that the ego is far larger :-)

[OldNick]

Duncan you are a 100% correct pointing this out.Some have tried but only fans like yourself who have the ear of many will be listened too.

Asset strippers will be there and waiting, they will assess thevalue to them by slicing off the good take their profit and leave the bad.It is out of the peoples hands who had respect for the club as an entity.RL or LC who both in their way had the best for the club at heart will not be there to check who takes over.

The administrator will do the job professionally for the best for the creditors, not the customer.Sadly only now will the penny start to drop, you may be able to whip the fans up in a frenzy to help your friends who are trying to buy but that will not mean a thing to Mr Fry.

His job will to be get the most and that may not be best for us.

A very sad day that the bank decided to pull the plug on us.

[bridge too far]

he dealt with Bournemouth as administrator as well

 

And he's an erstwhile chairman of Leeds and led them out of administration, apparently. I didn't know this.

[Victor]

Listed in the SLH accounts, last valued in OCtober 2007 at £1.1m.

 

 

 

No they did not! John Corbett bought it on Saints' behalf on the understanding he was repaid in full which he was. No donation, no gift, Saints paid for it.

 

 

Fair enough, there are no restrictions, but you have confused me as to who owns it - SLH or SFC (in my world 'Saints' is SFC, not SLH)?

 

And what guarantee is there that SFC will have a stadium?

[Mr Saints]

Exactly 1 week ago, I was terrified we wouldn't have a club to support next season.

 

As long as 1 of these 'parties' is capable of buying us, I really do not care.

[derry]

Fair enough, there are no restrictions, but you have confused me as to who owns it - SLH or SFC (in my world 'Saints' is SFC, not SLH)?

 

And what guarantee is there that SFC will have a stadium?

 

SLH. Can't be used for much else due covenant. Would have to be bought out from BG.

[Fitzhugh Fella]

Listed in the SLH accounts, last valued in OCtober 2007 at £1.1m.

 

 

 

No they did not! John Corbett bought it on Saints' behalf on the understanding he was repaid in full which he was. No donation, no gift, Saints paid for it.

 

I don't want to re-ignite the whole Corbett debate Mark, but to be fair to John Corbett your assessment is not quite accurate. When he bought the land (at a very good price) it was his then intention for it to remain in his possesion. It was only quite a few years later that he decided to let the club have it (at the same price he paid) for future investment. The gesture of letting the club have it at the same price, even though it was worth more, was the benevolent act that later got misconstrued that he "gave" the club the land.

[Tamesaint]

How important is the division in which we are playing next season to the different consortiums?

 

If we stay in the championship does that make us more attractive to an "asset stripper" type of consortium or less attractive? Are we only of interest to a "real supporter" consortium if we slip down a division?? Television money will be a lot less next season in Div 1 than in the Championship which would IMHO suggest that we would be less attractive to the asset strippers.

 

Are we more likely to get a "real supporter" consortium in League 1 ?? And if so, should we (very ironically) want to get relegated to get the better sort of owner??

[alpine_saint]

Duncan you are a 100% correct pointing this out.Some have tried but only fans like yourself who have the ear of many will be listened too.

Asset strippers will be there and waiting, they will assess thevalue to them by slicing off the good take their profit and leave the bad.It is out of the peoples hands who had respect for the club as an entity.RL or LC who both in their way had the best for the club at heart will not be there to check who takes over.

The administrator will do the job professionally for the best for the creditors, not the customer.Sadly only now will the penny start to drop, you may be able to whip the fans up in a frenzy to help your friends who are trying to buy but that will not mean a thing to Mr Fry.

His job will to be get the most and that may not be best for us.

A very sad day that the bank decided to pull the plug on us.

 

More scaremongering.

[um pahars]

I don't want to re-ignite the whole Corbett debate Mark, but to be fair to John Corbett your assessment is not quite accurate. When he bought the land (at a very good price) it was his then intention for it to remain in his possesion. It was only quite a few years later that he decided to let the club have it (at the same price he paid) for future investment. The gesture of letting the club have it at the same price, even though it was worth more, was the benevolent act that later got misconstrued that he "gave" the club the land.

 

And of course we must also remember his and others support during some very dark days in the 1950's when John Corbett very often paid the players wages out of his own pocket.

 

I'm sure it was said by Brian Hunt this was an act that he reckoned saved the Club from turning semi professional (with the associated downward slide it would have brought).

 

Going slightly off on a tangent, but then again we do find ourselves in a very similar position 50 years on, so let's hope there are still some generous benefactors around this time.

[Chez]

Apologies for starting a new thread on this but with the number of potential consortiums now said to be in the region of 35 I am concerned at how Mr Fry is going to be able to make the right choice (By right I mean in the best interests of the football club).

 

As far as I am aware his duty is to get the best return for the creditors. The more interest there is the more he can drive the price up. If at the end of the day he has a choice between Consortium A who are offering to cough up £12m to settle all debts and Consortium B who are prepared to go to £18m surely he would have to go for option B?

 

But what if Consortium A are a well-respected group of local successful business men who are genuinely committed to the future of SFC while the B bunch are just a group of wealthy speculators who would not invest in the team while looking to sell on for a quick profit? I assume most on this forum would want Consortium A but I am sure at the end of the day Fry would have to go for option B.

 

Consortium A may then be forced to come back and up their bid but the extra money they submit would then not be available to invest in the team building we will certainly need once the dust from this season has settled.

 

I know the identity of one consortium out there and think they to probably be just "what the doctor ordered" for our club but I am concerned they will be "outbid" by much less scrupulous operators better equiped to meet Fry's and the creditors "rising by the minute" expectations! I hope I am wrong.

 

 

At the end of the day you are only going to make money out of the club if we are in the premiership and businessmen know they are going to have to spend a few bob to do that. As fans thats exactly what we want - someone to come in and speculate to accumalate.

 

The concern for me is that the new buyer will just spend till the cows come home but using money he is lending the club in the form of a loan that at some point they might call in and leave us back where we started - desperately seaking a buyer to prevent us from going into liquidation.

[benjii]

It is almost certainly a fixed and floating "all assets" debenture. This means that all assets that are fixed (i.e. the stadium, the shares of SFC Limited and all other assets that are "bolted down" will require concent before sales can be completed.

 

Other assets such as stock will be covered by the "floating" element of the charge and so don't require the concent.

 

Mr Fry will do all of the negotiating (as he is the one in control) but he will in all probability keep the banks in the loop throughout the process.

 

If the Bank's have a big issue with anything they will make it known during the negotiations.

 

Barclays only supply the overdraft. Aviva wouldn't have let them take an all-encompassing debenture.

 

To the best of knowledge, Aviva are the only secured creditor and quite what that security covers is unknown. I have indicated elsehwere that noises almost seem to suggest the loan is provided on limited recourse but that seems quite odd.

 

If anyone wants to check the point re Barclays they need to have a look on the company charges register.

[Gordon Mockles]

As far as I'm aware it's the creditors who decide wrt offers, and that means the secured creditors (ie. Aviva) are the ones in control. As far as I know Barclays don't have a fixed charge do they?

 

As for what we as fans want, well I'm afraid we're at the bottom of the pile too, the ones getting the say are Aviva, the ones getting the money are Aviva and the administrators.

 

Beyond that, it's just fingers crossed it's somebody completely unrelated to the previous business at the club - from Lowe, Wilde, Crouch, Corbett, to LLS, Fulthorpe and Salz. But you can bet your life several of them are involved somewhere in the bids.

 

I'd hardly shoo away Salz and you can hardly say he was previously related to the previous business, other than in a very small capacity of offering some advice to Crouch following Leon's initial errors. I also don't understand your disdain towards the Corbetts seeing as they've been life long fans and propped the club up in the 80s. Still, some people don't understand the meaning of respect and gratitude.

 

I do think we need a clean sweep and new blood to the club. If only to find some management with ambition. Someone who is willing (once the bureaucracy, fiduciary and legal duties have been met) to invest into the FOOTBALL TEAM and CLUB. It's long overdue.

 

very simplistic view is those who can out bid are those who

a) want it more

b) have more backing

 

therefore not bad starting point.

 

I know its far too simplistic but without seeing the various presentations what else can we go on?

 

I really wish you sometimes thought a little more about what you type. Maybe thinking slightly outside the box and not viewing everything through rose tinted spectacles!

 

Someone could outbid a decent consortium by simply ploughing all the available money (or running up their own personal debt) into the bid, leaving nothing for the team/club. Diligence, foresight or prudence may not be their strong points, just over-shadowed by their overwhelming desire and ego trip of owning or running a football club. Then we are lumbered with clueless people who could kill the club off. It's happened before, eh?!

 

Do you have any thoughts on the forensic accounting requested by the League and what conclusion they are most likely to make based on you knowledge on the outside looking in?

 

Your insight would be of interest to many.

 

Is someone worried about what the FA may find out? Are you scouting? Missing Millions or illicit payments?! All allegedly of course.

 

Deny away!

 

On the whole, I just hope we get the luck which has evaded us, as a club, for way too long. We deserve some good fortune, if only for the fans (not the irrationally scorned fans Nineteen/Sundance likes to chastise in his right wing world of misplaced resentment) and those who share the love and passion for Saints, as a football club. A sensible consortium, looking to take control of the club (but for the right reasons).

 

As has been discussed, it's a very critical time and I hope no jokers with money come in and totally eradicate what Lowe and Wilde substantially destroyed. Before, we had the worst of both worlds - little spending on the team (back in the glory days of the Premiership/forgotten land), selling all our best stars but the worn out mantra that we kept in the black. Evidently, we didn't for that catalogue of errors by the recently departed, amongst others.

 

We need a new, solid foundation. Financial prudence, a football savvy management team and wise businessmen. Not an impossible equation. It's scary to think about some of the tye kickers or wasters currently circling but I have hope. I'm confident some very good suitors are involved. My shared concerns with most on here (and Duncan) is, will they get a look in? Money talks...

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

More scaremongering.

 

I'm not even sure asset stripping is legal in this situation. I thought it was a combination between money for the creditors and keeping the business running?

[saint_mears]

Well i dont know who nineteen canteen is but having read and not replied to his posts before. I can only ask Are you really a Saints fan ? You sound totally cuckoo

[Frank's cousin]

More scaremongering.

 

Not really ... a sad and worrying aspect of administration. I can understand the desire of fans to have the club in the hands of those that really care, have ambition and the resources to drive the club forward - and I would be being dishonest if I did not believe someone like Crouch (with the exception of the resources) did not hold those ideals - but in his own way so did Lowe - what was is debated is the abilty to deliver it and the level of misjudgement v risk.... and for me Crouch did not seem to want to do the nasty or unpopular aspects of the job.

 

Administration leaves us open to all manner of possibilties, some we will view with suspicion and cynicism, others will be welcomed, yet we will only know the REAL consequences after any sale and when the true plans are put into action. beore hand we will just get the typical assurances and fan friendly bull**** to win over the PR battle - although it will have little sway with teh administrators who as many have already pointed out will only be considering the creditor returns

 

There is an argument that supports the administrator looking to put the club in 'good' hands especially finding a solution for a going concern that wil provide continued repayment of the debts rather than just writing it off - but they are also likely to want this wrapped up sooner rather than later, so it will also be a case of who comes up with proof of funds first at alevel that satisfies the creditors even at the detriment of the club - they will ahve done their job and thats it. They will not wait for the 'right' deal for the club, but jump in with the first that satisfies Barclays and Aviva - that is the worrying aspect to all this. Its also why I supported Lowe (and would have supported Crouch) in any decisions designed to avoid administration at all costs. I simply cant believe those that stated on here they preferred administration to continuing with Lowe....

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

Well i dont know who nineteen canteen is but having read and not replied to his posts before. I can only ask Are you really a Saints fan ? You sound totally cuckoo

 

Rumours are abound that NC is someone who also used to be called Sundance Beast. Think of Alpine's nemesis and you'll be there...

[Chez]

Barclays only supply the overdraft. Aviva wouldn't have let them take an all-encompassing debenture.

 

To the best of knowledge, Aviva are the only secured creditor and quite what that security covers is unknown. I have indicated elsehwere that noises almost seem to suggest the loan is provided on limited recourse but that seems quite odd.

 

If anyone wants to check the point re Barclays they need to have a look on the company charges register.

 

I thought these stadium loans tended to be secured on future ticket sales.

[Dibden Purlieu Saint]

Not really ... a sad and worrying aspect of administration. I can understand the desire of fans to have the club in the hands of those that really care, have ambition and the resources to drive the club forward - and I would be being dishonest if I did not believe someone like Crouch (with the exception of the resources) did not hold those ideals - but in his own way so did Lowe - what was is debated is the abilty to deliver it and the level of misjudgement v risk.... and for me Crouch did not seem to want to do the nasty or unpopular aspects of the job.

 

Administration leaves us open to all manner of possibilties, some we will view with suspicion and cynicism, others will be welcomed, yet we will only know the REAL consequences after any sale and when the true plans are put into action. beore hand we will just get the typical assurances and fan friendly bull**** to win over the PR battle - although it will have little sway with teh administrators who as many have already pointed out will only be considering the creditor returns

 

There is an argument that supports the administrator looking to put the club in 'good' hands especially finding a solution for a going concern that wil provide continued repayment of the debts rather than just writing it off - but they are also likely to want this wrapped up sooner rather than later, so it will also be a case of who comes up with proof of funds first at alevel that satisfies the creditors even at the detriment of the club - they will ahve done their job and thats it. They will not wait for the 'right' deal for the club, but jump in with the first that satisfies Barclays and Aviva - that is the worrying aspect to all this. Its also why I supported Lowe (and would have supported Crouch) in any decisions designed to avoid administration at all costs. I simply cant believe those that stated on here they preferred administration to continuing with Lowe....

 

I agree, it is madness that people wanted this to happen. Absolute madness.

[Legod Third Coming]

Why do people think we could end up in the 'wrong hands'????

 

Why would anyone who did not think they could return us to the Premier League bid??

 

That is the ONLY way to profit through taking on a football club, surely.

 

Whomever takes us over (if anyone) if they don't want a return then you have to question their sanity let alone their motivation.

 

If they do want a return, then success on the field is their number one priority.

[um pahars]

Barclays only supply the overdraft. Aviva wouldn't have let them take an all-encompassing debenture.

 

To the best of knowledge, Aviva are the only secured creditor and quite what that security covers is unknown. I have indicated elsehwere that noises almost seem to suggest the loan is provided on limited recourse but that seems quite odd.

 

If anyone wants to check the point re Barclays they need to have a look on the company charges register.

 

The reason I mentioned it was due to seeing the following two notes in recent accounts:

 

Note 11

 

Properties of the Group with a net book value of £34m are subject to charges held by Barclays Bank PLC and the loan note holders.

 

It's obvious regarding the loan note holders (Aviva), but was unsure what the Barclays bit referred to????

 

Was it the overdraft (we've often used one in the past)???? or were Barclays who we borrowed the £1million loan from in 2003 and so that's why they're mentioned here?

 

Note 18

 

The bank overdraft, loans and loan notes are secured on freehold land and buildings (see note 11).

 

So here it specifically states that the overdraft is secured against assets, hence my earlier post.

[beatlesaint]

Why do people think we could end up in the 'wrong hands'????

 

Why would anyone who did not think they could return us to the Premier League bid??

 

That is the ONLY way to profit through taking on a football club, surely.

 

Whomever takes us over (if anyone) if they don't want a return then you have to question their sanity let alone their motivation.

 

If they do want a return, then success on the field is their number one priority.

 

At last - a voice of reason and common sense.

Exactly the point i tried to make on another thread - you are not going to buy theis football club to lead it down the path it has already been taken down, that would be suicide.

[Frank's cousin]

The reason I mentioned it was due to seeing the following two notes in recent accounts:

 

Note 11

 

Properties of the Group with a net book value of £34m are subject to charges held by Barclays Bank PLC and the loan note holders.

 

It's obvious regarding the loan note holders (Aviva), but was unsure what the Barclays bit referred to????

 

Was it the overdraft (we've often used one in the past)???? or were Barclays who we borrowed the £1million loan from in 2003 and so that's why they're mentioned here?

 

Note 18

 

The bank overdraft, loans and loan notes are secured on freehold land and buildings (see note 11).

 

So here it specifically states that the overdraft is secured against assets, hence my earlier post.

 

BUt it does seem not to mention player assets which we presume remain the property of the club, if it can avoid liquidation when all contracts become null and void. I am assuminmg that if SFC ltd can therefore only be sold 'with its players' as without them its worth next to nothing - is JF property of the PLC or SFC Ltd?, Is the land and properties mentioned SMS ltd and/or staplewood? its diificult to understand what is likely because I dont know how an administrator deals with a parent comapny that has sole ownership of subsidaries in this way...

 

I guess what we have is:

 

SLH in administration owing 27mil to Barclays and Aviva

 

Assets however include:

SFC Ltd with the value based on its revenue stream and players

SMS Ltd - Its value based on the land + earning percentage of any gate?

JF - owned by PLC or SFC?

Staplewood - owned by PLC or SFC?

 

Anything else?

 

Can anyone shed light on this and the impact

[Frank's cousin]

At last - a voice of reason and common sense.

Exactly the point i tried to make on another thread - you are not going to buy theis football club to lead it down the path it has already been taken down, that would be suicide.

 

No but if you can do a deal and buy the club for 3mil debt free and sell of playing assets and close it down you van make a few quid.

 

You could do a deal with Aviva and buy SMS ltd for 6 mil clearing the debt, sit on it and then apply fro rezoning and make significant profits if planning is garnted for other residential or commercail properties in future - maybe getting a return from a lease back in teh short term during teh credit crunch impact on property - remember these bastards think longtern and property is now cheap - the best time to invest....