Too many consortiums for Mr Fry (and us)?

[dubai_phil]

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.

 

Obviously

 

But at the same time if you go through the list of tangible assets we have in the old annual report, then in theory IF somebody knew - for example - that with their "political contacts" they were a nailed on certainty to get planning permission....

 

So thenthey know they could build 400 properties on Jacksons Farm in say 4 years time for 20mil profit

Say 80 on Staplewood for 5 mil profit,

Could sell season tickets for say 3mil,

Sell this academy lodge for a mil

Run a couple of concerts and make a mil

 

And then of course sell ALL the players in the summer for say 4 mil while "pretending" to worry about the football club

 

Oh and we'll moan but they'll have sold the Football Club to Leon for a quid along with the academy players they couldn't sell and will be renting the stadium to him at 100k a match

 

Be careful what we wish for. This is now about making money, not about happy customers and quality catering

 

On this basis paying 8mil to the administrator is a bargain, but we are royally screwed

[northam soul]

I find it highly unlikely the bank would of allowed us a £5m overdraft without some form of debenture or security on it but on the other hand this is a bank we are talking about.

[jonah]

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.

 

This is not my understanding of events, Duncan - could you tell us the source of this? My understanding was that he clearly bought it for the club on the basis that the money would be paid back (interest free) in time when the club could afford it. I didn't hear the radio interview myself, but I thought Mary C confirmed this quite recently?

 

I would like to hope that none of this will matter soon and we'll have completely new people in charge with all the old names out of the loop - wouldn't it be great to judge potential Directors on their own ability rather than something their relatives did half a century ago? But somehow I can't see it happening can you?

 

I don't want that to start a separate debate, so back to the main point - I am concerned at the number of "bids" as in my mind this simply means more money for the administrators and more time wasted. I hope they have been strict on their starting criteria, lack of evidence of funds should have them kicked into touch... I imagine at least half of those expressions of interest are from dodgy middle-men with no funding of their own.

[Legod Third Coming]

Obviously

 

But at the same time if you go through the list of tangible assets we have in the old annual report, then in theory IF somebody knew - for example - that with their "political contacts" they were a nailed on certainty to get planning permission....

 

So thenthey know they could build 400 properties on Jacksons Farm in say 4 years time for 20mil profit

Say 80 on Staplewood for 5 mil profit,

Could sell season tickets for say 3mil,

Sell this academy lodge for a mil

Run a couple of concerts and make a mil

 

And then of course sell ALL the players in the summer for say 4 mil while "pretending" to worry about the football club

 

Oh and we'll moan but they'll have sold the Football Club to Leon for a quid along with the academy players they couldn't sell and will be renting the stadium to him at 100k a match

 

Be careful what we wish for. This is now about making money, not about happy customers and quality catering

 

On this basis paying 8mil to the administrator is a bargain, but we are royally screwed

 

This is theoretically possible.

 

However, you would not bid to buy a football club on this basis. You would be better waiting to buy the bits that would come up for sale through a liquidation.

 

When you factor in paying those players' salaries and all the ancillary costs, you simply could not make money.

 

Put it this way - if the value of the assets was worth that much, we would not be bust would we!!!! We would simply have higher gearing.

 

If a break-up is/was the way forward, you will see the various elements sold as that - assets - and not to be run as a going concern.

 

It would be high-risk bordering on mental in the current climate to bid unless you believe that you can revive the business and sell at a profit.

 

Property developers can pick up bargains right now that wouldn't involve employing Jason Euell and Rudi Skacel...

[OldNick]

Obviously

 

But at the same time if you go through the list of tangible assets we have in the old annual report, then in theory IF somebody knew - for example - that with their "political contacts" they were a nailed on certainty to get planning permission....

 

So thenthey know they could build 400 properties on Jacksons Farm in say 4 years time for 20mil profit

Say 80 on Staplewood for 5 mil profit,

Could sell season tickets for say 3mil,

Sell this academy lodge for a mil

Run a couple of concerts and make a mil

 

And then of course sell ALL the players in the summer for say 4 mil while "pretending" to worry about the football club

 

Oh and we'll moan but they'll have sold the Football Club to Leon for a quid along with the academy players they couldn't sell and will be renting the stadium to him at 100k a match

 

Be careful what we wish for. This is now about making money, not about happy customers and quality catering

 

On this basis paying 8mil to the administrator is a bargain, but we are royally screwed

You have put what I have tried to point out very well.Thankyou.

At present SFC will be looked at by highly professional people who will try and assertain its worth if it gets split into lots of little packages, the good sold off the skelton left for the 'fans' to pick up. This could rightly be called scaremongering, but I would put it as realism.

Those people will have a lcearer picture to get their value from.They will not need to worry about whether they have to invest 20m on new players, but how much they can hive off until they give the club to the fans.

IMO they would have the easiest and most profitable route.I dearly hope that Im not proved right, it is not important to me as it may to others on here.

[Clapham Saint]

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.

 

Aviva don't have the right to prevent anybody from taking any debenture.

 

Barclays will definately definately definately have a debenture over all assets of the comapny.

 

The ranking of the debentures (in the absence of any signed agreement to the contrary) will be the order in whcih they were created.

 

It is likely (although I haven't specifically checked) that:

 

For the mortgage, Aviva have a fixed charge debenture over the stadium.

They may or may not have a charge over other assets, I don't know.

 

For the overdraft, Barclays will have a fixed and floating debenture over all assets of the Company as well as there being cross guarantees.

 

Aviva will definately rank first for proceeds from the stadium.

 

As for who ranks first for proceeds from other assets, this will depend upon the order in which the charges were created.

 

If the Barclays Support Manager who authorised the overdraft did so without a debenture in place he would not just been fired he would have been thrown out of the top floor of 1CP.

[Legod Third Coming]

You have put what I have tried to point out very well.Thankyou.

At present SFC will be looked at by highly professional people who will try and assertain its worth if it gets split into lots of little packages, the good sold off the skelton left for the 'fans' to pick up. This could rightly be called scaremongering, but I would put it as realism.

Those people will have a lcearer picture to get their value from.They will not need to worry about whether they have to invest 20m on new players, but how much they can hive off until they give the club to the fans.

IMO they would have the easiest and most profitable route.I dearly hope that Im not proved right, it is not important to me as it may to others on here.

 

Nick,

 

Can you name that clubs that have been asset stripped in this way?

[Frank's cousin]

Obviously

 

But at the same time if you go through the list of tangible assets we have in the old annual report, then in theory IF somebody knew - for example - that with their "political contacts" they were a nailed on certainty to get planning permission....

 

So thenthey know they could build 400 properties on Jacksons Farm in say 4 years time for 20mil profit

Say 80 on Staplewood for 5 mil profit,

Could sell season tickets for say 3mil,

Sell this academy lodge for a mil

Run a couple of concerts and make a mil

 

And then of course sell ALL the players in the summer for say 4 mil while "pretending" to worry about the football club

 

Oh and we'll moan but they'll have sold the Football Club to Leon for a quid along with the academy players they couldn't sell and will be renting the stadium to him at 100k a match

 

Be careful what we wish for. This is now about making money, not about happy customers and quality catering

 

On this basis paying 8mil to the administrator is a bargain, but we are royally screwed

 

This is probably over dramatic and drama queenish.... but i hope we dont end up nostalgically viewing the 'Quality catering' as a glorious past - becareful what you wish for indeed.

[Frank's cousin]

Nick,

 

Can you name that clubs that have been asset stripped in this way?

 

Well Brighton might have an axe to grind with certain owners more interested in profit than the life of the club....

[Clapham Saint]

This is theoretically possible.

 

However, you would not bid to buy a football club on this basis. You would be better waiting to buy the bits that would come up for sale through a liquidation.

 

When you factor in paying those players' salaries and all the ancillary costs, you simply could not make money.

 

Put it this way - if the value of the assets was worth that much, we would not be bust would we!!!! We would simply have higher gearing.

 

If a break-up is/was the way forward, you will see the various elements sold as that - assets - and not to be run as a going concern.

 

It would be high-risk bordering on mental in the current climate to bid unless you believe that you can revive the business and sell at a profit.

 

Property developers can pick up bargains right now that wouldn't involve employing Jason Euell and Rudi Skacel...

 

Agree completely with this.

 

Don't forget that a consortium doesn't have to buy absolutely everything. There is no reason why consortium 1 couldn't buy the club, consortium 2 the stadium (leasing or renting it to the club) and a.n. other developer buy Jackson's farm.

[dubai_phil]

This is theoretically possible.

 

However, you would not bid to buy a football club on this basis. You would be better waiting to buy the bits that would come up for sale through a liquidation.

 

When you factor in paying those players' salaries and all the ancillary costs, you simply could not make money.

 

Put it this way - if the value of the assets was worth that much, we would not be bust would we!!!! We would simply have higher gearing.

 

If a break-up is/was the way forward, you will see the various elements sold as that - assets - and not to be run as a going concern.

 

It would be high-risk bordering on mental in the current climate to bid unless you believe that you can revive the business and sell at a profit.

 

Property developers can pick up bargains right now that wouldn't involve employing Jason Euell and Rudi Skacel...

 

Of course...

 

Hence my use of IF and FOR EXAMPLE

 

In reality my point is that in these situations our own assumptions, egos, positions and beliefs can close our eyes to what others would call the bleedin obvious.

Exactly the same can happen to a consortium bidding (or proposing to)

 

IF a consortium views matters in this light, then with so many bidders they MAY not get away with a bit just for some juicy pieces.

Obviously IF there are enough diverse bids that add up to more than the bids for the whole then leaving the club to somebody else is feasible, but IF you think it is a ripper of a deal then you have to join in the whole darned poker game

 

If you prepare for the unexpected you have a better chance of winning - and if one or more bidders have the good of the club at heart taking on everything then we need them to win don't we?

Edited 9 April, 2009 by dubai_phil

[Frank's cousin]

Agree completely with this.

 

Don't forget that a consortium doesn't have to buy absolutely everything. There is no reason why consortium 1 couldn't buy the club, consortium 2 the stadium (leasing or renting it to the club) and a.n. other developer buy Jackson's farm.

 

Thats most likely,and who buys Jacksons farm is frankly irrelevent - its who buys the stadium and who buys teh club that is important - because I cant see any of teh consortia offering 5p a share for the whole shebang taking on teh debts - and then delisting.

 

This is the worry, because we may have 34 parties - but these are ALL groups who were waiting for administration before stepping forward - had any of them truely had the clubs interests first and foremost in tehir hearts why not step forward and help BEFORE it got to this stage? If they did not like Lowe, why not do it when CRouch or Wilde was incharge which would most likely have meant LOwe not returning in teh first place?

 

This is now all about money.

[OldNick]

Nick,

 

Can you name that clubs that have been asset stripped in this way?

No I cant I did realise that when I posted. SFC do have assets that Leeds Bournemouth didnt. I think Im corect that the others did not have a freehold on land ,stadium, etc.

As i said i do hope my worries are unfounded but asset stripping is a profitable business.

[Legod Third Coming]

Of course...

 

Hence my use of IF and FOR EXAMPLE

 

In reality my point is that in these situations our own assumptions, egos, positions and beliefs can close our eyes to what others would call the bleedin obvious.

Exactly the same can happen to a consortium bidding (or proposing to)

 

If you prepare for the unexpected you have a better chance of winning - and if one bidder has the good of the club at heart then we need them to win don't we?

 

I don't really want someone with the 'good of the club' at heart.

 

I want someone who thinks they can improve us and sell us at a profit.

 

In such circumstances, I genuinely believe that this would lead them to appoint a decent manager and invest in the playing squad.

 

While I really admire and appreciate loyalty, it's not modern sport.

 

Call me old fashioned, but I believe that if the focus of the 'management' (ie. the board) is on the first team, the rest of the club will run itself.

 

Like Enzo Ferrari used to say, "win on sunday, sell on Monday..."

 

What we need is a management that can see the success of the top clubs around the world has come through an investment in the manager and the quality of the players.

 

I would even support an increase in ticket prices, IF the management could tell me how that money would go to improve my team and increase the likelihood of us winning football matches.

[aintforever]

Surely as we are in administration if someone wanted to buy the farm or Staplewood they would just have to give Mr Fry a call. Isn't that why he's there, to sell stuff and give the cash to the creditors?

[Legod Third Coming]

Thats most likely,and who buys Jacksons farm is frankly irrelevent - its who buys the stadium and who buys teh club that is important - because I cant see any of teh consortia offering 5p a share for the whole shebang taking on teh debts - and then delisting.

 

This is the worry, because we may have 34 parties - but these are ALL groups who were waiting for administration before stepping forward - had any of them truely had the clubs interests first and foremost in tehir hearts why not step forward and help BEFORE it got to this stage? If they did not like Lowe, why not do it when CRouch or Wilde was incharge which would most likely have meant LOwe not returning in teh first place?

 

This is now all about money.

 

 

Not really.

 

Two weeks ago, buying the club would have lined Lord Lowe's pocket.

 

Now it goes to the people who put up the finance for the club.

 

That is a fundamental difference, much as you and I don't like it.

[OldNick]

I don't really want someone with the 'good of the club' at heart.

 

I want someone who thinks they can improve us and sell us at a profit.

 

In such circumstances, I genuinely believe that this would lead them to appoint a decent manager and invest in the playing squad.

 

While I really admire and appreciate loyalty, it's not modern sport.

 

Call me old fashioned, but I believe that if the focus of the 'management' (ie. the board) is on the first team, the rest of the club will run itself.

 

Like Enzo Ferrari used to say, "win on sunday, sell on Monday..."

 

What we need is a management that can see the success of the top clubs around the world has come through an investment in the manager and the quality of the players.

 

I would even support an increase in ticket prices, IF the management could tell me how that money would go to improve my team and increase the likelihood of us winning football matches.

sadly the last 5vyears we have performed like Enzo's team have so far this season

[Legod Third Coming]

sadly the last 5vyears we have performed like Enzo's team have so far this season

 

Lol - nice one

 

But I would write off Ferrari at your peril....

[OldNick]

Lol - nice one

 

But I would write off Ferrari at your peril....

yep they'll have Button and the rest disqualified for daring to compete.I must add that I dont follow the sport of watching advertising bill boards driving around a track at 200mph but a staff member tells me about it.

[um pahars]

but these are ALL groups who were waiting for administration before stepping forward - had any of them truely had the clubs interests first and foremost in tehir hearts why not step forward and help BEFORE it got to this stage?

 

Who is to say that some weren't knocking around but getting nowhere witht the then current board;)

 

How many of us (and therefore others) saw Administration coming so quickly after coming through the transfer window with no sales, positive comments regarding the Creditor's ongoing support etc etc etc.

 

And why didn't Lowe and Co try to sort out a Pre Pack when they finally saw the writing on the wall by trying to search out these interested parties.

 

IMHO These last few months have not been very clever on or off the pitch.

 

If they did not like Lowe' date=' why not do it when CRouch or Wilde was incharge which would most likely have meant LOwe not returning in teh first place? . [/quote']

 

Becasue back then 42% of our shareholders were lining up behind Lowe and his Revolutionary Coaching Set Up which was going to save us anyway!!!!

 

No one else stood a chance of preventing Lowe's triumphant return and stopping him from returning us to our former glory!!!!

[OldNick]

Who is to say that some weren't knocking around but getting nowhere witht the then current board;)

 

How many of us (and therefore others) saw Administration coming so quickly after coming through the transfer window with no sales, positive comments regarding the Creditor's ongoing support etc etc etc.

 

And why didn't Lowe and Co try to sort out a Pre Pack when they finally saw the writing on the wall by trying to search out these interested parties.

 

IMHO These last few months have not been very clever on or off the pitch.

 

 

 

Becasue back then 42% of our shareholders were lining up behind Lowe and his Revolutionary Coaching Set Up which was going to save us anyway!!!!

 

No one else stood a chance of preventing Lowe's triumphant return and stopping him from returning us to our former glory!!!!

As I have said RL was showing people around the club weeks before administration.

[Legod Third Coming]

yep they'll have Button and the rest disqualified for daring to compete.I must add that I dont follow the sport of watching advertising bill boards driving around a track at 200mph but a staff member tells me about it.

 

As someone who has already identified one process improvement today, could I suggest buying a television. This would save the time and money of the staff member watching and then relaying the action...

[OldNick]

As someone who has already identified one process improvement today, could I suggest buying a television. This would save the time and money of the staff member watching and then relaying the action...

I thought he had a stammer when he kept saying Vodafone, Vodafone, Vodafone until I saw him watching the adverts flashing across the screen on those noisy billboards.

[Frank's cousin]

Becasue back then 42% of our shareholders were lining up behind Lowe and his Revolutionary Coaching Set Up which was going to save us anyway!!!!

 

No one else stood a chance of preventing Lowe's triumphant return and stopping him from returning us to our former glory!!!!

 

NO before that, when Wilde and CRouch were still pals ;-) and then when CRouch was on his own.

[slickmick]

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.

 

 

What if option B honoured the debts that meant we would definately avoid a points deduction ?

Who would you prefer then ?

[landford.saint]

Sorry if this has been answered before, I haven't had time to read all the posts on the forum but could Fry sell off all the assetts:- SFC, JF, ST MARYS, ETC to a person or consortium,(or several consortia) and leave SLH dead. If so would all the money go to SLH to be shared out amongst the shareholders as they would have a company with no business.?

[ottery st mary]

As I have said RL was showing people around the club weeks before administration.

 

 

Money was so tight Rupert personally led the tour of the stadium in order to get a few quid in tips for himself.

 

nick what schools did you go to please..curious you once told me Bellemoor..

I have a bet with a lad who went to Hounsdown.

[um pahars]

As I have said RL was showing people around the club weeks before administration.

 

Came to nothing though!

[um pahars]

NO before that' date=' when Wilde and CRouch were still pals ;-).[/quote']

 

Maybe a large tranche of shareholders were asking too much for their shares;)

 

and then when CRouch was on his own.

 

Crouch was never on his own long enough to get anything done.

 

The minute he froze Wilde out of the boardroom after kicking out Hone & Co, the 42% were out there making their move (when did you meet with Wilde????) and trying to get Lowe the Saviour back on the throne.

[SOTONS EAST SIDE]

If the majority of the debt on the stadium is still held by Aviva(NU), cant they sell to whoever they like. SCC for example, and not to who Mr Fry recomends!

[Frank's cousin]

Maybe a large tranche of shareholders were asking too much for their shares;)

 

 

 

Crouch was never on his own long enough to get anything done.

 

The minute he froze Wilde out of the boardroom after kicking out Hone & Co, the 42% were out there making their move (when did you meet with Wilde????) and trying to get Lowe the Saviour back on the throne.

 

We met wilde in April - but Crouich should have been smarter - and recognised Wilde for what he was - looking after his own interests first and foremost - the 180 turn designed to ensure HE had control of the destiny of potentially lucrative assets, the moment it became obvious that JF etc was being used as a carrot to potential investors - and that some of these may have cut him out the loop...

 

I dont think Lowe gave much thought at all to JF, realising that without planning it was a field - the option on it that expires this year raised a few quid for the club which was smart, but not really on LOwe's radar - For Lowe the idea of the return was two fold IMHO. 1) because he believed he was better than Crouch at preventing admin - which teh evidence at that time suggested - Crouch afterall had not called time on that 7.5 mil purchases - and 2) because his ego demanded at least an attempt to put things right.

 

Its interesting to think what might have happened had Crouch initially sided with Lowe rather than wilde - and been able to provide a convincing argument for Lowe to step down as football club chairman - the tighter financial control that we would probably have had countered by CRouchs more fan approachable style may have made fans mor receptive to the limitations of reduced spending and revenues....

[OldNick]

Money was so tight Rupert personally led the tour of the stadium in order to get a few quid in tips for himself.

 

nick what schools did you go to please..curious you once told me Bellemoor..

I have a bet with a lad who went to Hounsdown.

I hope you haven't laid out more than you can afford.

[OldNick]

Came to nothing though!

No but it came mightily close didnt it? All 11th hour stuff.

[ottery st mary]

I hope you haven't laid out more than you can afford.

 

Answer...put me out of my misery....You told me Bel...He says Houns

I'll give my winnings to Saints.

[um pahars]

We met wilde in April ....

 

Do you want to go and check your diary?????

 

Because I vividly remember telling someone at the Fanfs Forum in march that Wilde and Lowe had temaed up a while back and were mounting a come back and your meeting was way before this.

 

-

but Crouich should have been smarter - and recognised Wilde for what he was - looking after his own interests first and foremost - the 180 turn designed to ensure HE had control of the destiny of potentially lucrative assets, the moment it became obvious that JF etc was being used as a carrot to potential investors - and that some of these may have cut him out the loop...

 

I dont think Lowe gave much thought at all to JF, realising that without planning it was a field - the option on it that expires this year raised a few quid for the club which was smart, but not really on LOwe's radar - For Lowe the idea of the return was two fold IMHO. 1) because he believed he was better than Crouch at preventing admin - which teh evidence at that time suggested - Crouch afterall had not called time on that 7.5 mil purchases - and 2) because his ego demanded at least an attempt to put things right.

 

Its interesting to think what might have happened had Crouch initially sided with Lowe rather than wilde - and been able to provide a convincing argument for Lowe to step down as football club chairman - the tighter financial control that we would probably have had countered by CRouchs more fan approachable style may have made fans mor receptive to the limitations of reduced spending and revenues....

 

but now you've gone off on a complete tangent.

 

This was about why none of the potential bidders came sniffing during Crouch's tenure.

[Clapham Saint]

If the majority of the debt on the stadium is still held by Aviva(NU), cant they sell to whoever they like. SCC for example, and not to who Mr Fry recomends!

 

No. Aviva's debt is secured on the stadium, but SLH still owns it.

 

In the same way that you owe the bank the £2m (maybe) that you needed to buy your house doesn't mean that the bank own your house.

 

The difference is that in the case of a person the Bank can foreclose and seek to reposess, when you are dealing with a corporate entity they can appoint administrators instead.

 

The ace that Aviva do have is that Mr Fry requires their consent before he can complete a sale, however they are not allowed to withold consent "unreasonably".

 

(Must have written the above on about 20 threads, I really should learn to cut and paste):roll:

[hypochondriac]

No but it came mightily close didnt it? All 11th hour stuff.

 

When was that then?

[OldNick]

Answer...put me out of my misery....You told me Bel...He says Houns

I'll give my winnings to Saints.

what happens to the bet if you are both right or wrong do I get it?

[Clapham Saint]

Sorry if this has been answered before, I haven't had time to read all the posts on the forum but could Fry sell off all the assetts:- SFC, JF, ST MARYS, ETC to a person or consortium,(or several consortia) and leave SLH dead. If so would all the money go to SLH to be shared out amongst the shareholders as they would have a company with no business.?

 

 

This is exactly what ewill happen.

 

Mr Fry will sell all of the assets. The liabilities (i.e. mortgage and overdraft etc) will remain.

 

This will leave a shell company which has cash but still owes more money than it has cash available.

 

The cash available will be shared out between the creditors.

 

This will leave a company with no money or assets which will then be dissolved.

[OldNick]

When was that then?

When we were about to go into administration it was put back from 5 at night to 11pm as an investor was there wanting to buy.I think the reason was proof of funds could not be shown.It was in the media on the day

[hypochondriac]

When we were about to go into administration it was put back from 5 at night to 11pm as an investor was there wanting to buy.I think the reason was proof of funds could not be shown.It was in the media on the day

 

Was it the same people though?

[OldNick]

Was it the same people though?

Well RL was in charge.

[Nineteen Canteen]

Surely as we are in administration if someone wanted to buy the farm or Staplewood they would just have to give Mr Fry a call. Isn't that why he's there, to sell stuff and give the cash to the creditors?

 

If we sell Staplewood separately then presumably we are looking for an investor with a big garden? Big ask.

[ottery st mary]

what happens to the bet if you are both right or wrong do I get it?

I'ii start a consortium with you and buy out Saints....Obviously both?:cool:

[um pahars]

When we were about to go into administration it was put back from 5 at night to 11pm as an investor was there wanting to buy.I think the reason was proof of funds could not be shown.It was in the media on the day

 

Too little, too late.

 

Administration should have been avoided at all costs and I just get the impression that we had our head in the sand thinking Barclay's wouldn't foreclose.

 

It looks as though we just blindly walked into administration.

[OldNick]

Too little, too late.

 

Administration should have been avoided at all costs and I just get the impression that we had our head in the sand thinking Barclay's wouldn't foreclose.

 

It looks as though we just blindly walked into administration.

but somebody was there.Much like when the others tried it all came to nothing.Tyrekickers are still there and costing us money again.I hate to think how much the proposed takeovers cost the club before this last jaunt into the unknown. Edited 9 April, 2009 by OldNick

[Window Cleaner]

Now I know what ITK means

 

Insolvent Tyre Kicker, always wondered before.

[OldNick]

I'ii start a consortium with you and buy out Saints....Obviously both?:cool:

Im sure the administrators would be delighted, the could then clock up some more fees. The Krankies consortium.

Of course both were right but both wrong, I thought your dossier will be full now.I do hope the pictures you have on your wall of me are taken from my best side.

[OldNick]

Now I know what ITK means

 

Insolvent Tyre Kicker, always wondered before.

a sad Lol

[SOTONS EAST SIDE]

No. Aviva's debt is secured on the stadium, but SLH still owns it.

 

In the same way that you owe the bank the £2m (maybe) that you needed to buy your house doesn't mean that the bank own your house.

 

The difference is that in the case of a person the Bank can foreclose and seek to reposess, when you are dealing with a corporate entity they can appoint administrators instead.

 

The ace that Aviva do have is that Mr Fry requires their consent before he can complete a sale, however they are not allowed to withold consent "unreasonably".

 

(Must have written the above on about 20 threads, I really should learn to cut and paste):roll:

Thanks for the clarification Clapham!